Search results

The year 2013-14 was very significant for Raychem RPG Ltd (RRL) - a joint venture between RPG group, India and TE Connectivity, USA. The sales were looking up and order book was promising. Newly restructured units were working well and business in new segments was picking up. There were several initiatives undertaken by the CEO in last five years of his tenure. His team had achieved the desired stability and turnaround was successful. A high-growth future in a slowing global economic scenario had to be converted into a more profitable opportunity. However, he faced several questions. Was the strategic transformation journey that he embarked on four years ago complete? Could he have done something different? Which were the areas where the next focus should be? Did RRL have the required competences to succeed in those areas? How would RRL manage the changing expectations of the two JV partners?

Entrepreneurship, Corporate sustainability, CSR, Supply chain.

Master's courses: Entrepreneurship, Strategic management.

In 2002, potential risks deriving from emerging normative demands in the CSR debate prompted Axel Springer (AS) to rethink their supply chain strategy for Russian wood. Being one of the first movers in CSR in the publishing business, AS realized that current practices could spark future public discussion that might put pressure on AS, a key player in these supply chains. In early 2002, AS and one of their main suppliers, Stora Enso, started a joint initiative to redesign the supply chain processes in two of the major Russian logging regions to improve their social and ecological performance. Sometime later, other major players in the publishing sector as well as critical reviewers from several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were invited to participate in the design of the new voluntary sustainability initiative called “Tikhvin Chalna project”, the second phase of which was accomplished by the end of 2006.

Learn that organizations (specifically high-brand owners) are responsible for practices within their entire supply chains (social as well as environmental performance).

Explore proactive corporate sustainability, CSR strategies are market but also institutional driven; Strategizing involves forming and transforming the rules, norms and standard models of customers as well as institutions such as NGOs or governmental bodies. Whether the initiator of such strategy is successful in increasing or manipulating demands is dependent on its resources and capabilities as well as on its network position. The case supports students in understanding resources being used to successfully transform or create institutional arrangements.

Discover that the value of a business' relationships and its network position.

Teaching note, Video files

The following theoretical concepts are applicable to the case and its learning objectives: Stakeholder Power-Interest Matrix and Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Information was obtained in three separate interviews with PSEG. In February 2018, an introductory phone conference was conducted with a number of senior managers within PSEG, including the Director of Development and Strategic Issues, Kate Gerlach. In April 2018, an onsite interview was conducted with Gerlach, who connected the author with Scott Jennings. A phone interview was conducted with Scott Jennings in May 2018 and follow-up communication with him was handled via e-mail. The information obtained from these interviews was supplemented by material obtained from secondary sources. None of the information in the case has been disguised.

Scott Jennings, a Vice President at PSEG, the diversified New Jersey-based energy company, was the project leader for a large commercial wind farm that was to be built off the coast. The project, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between PSEG and Deepwater Wind, an experienced developer of offshore wind projects, had been announced over six years earlier, in late 2008. In the time that had passed, the Garden State Offshore Energy project team had waited for the New Jersey Bureau of Public Utilities, which had been tasked by Governor Chris Christie to evaluate the project costs before it could authorize the actual construction of the wind turbines. Justifying the project on a cost basis proved to be difficult; despite the growing public sentiment in favor of projects that utilized renewable energy sources such as wind power, the Garden State Offshore Energy team was unable to move the project forward. Scott needed to decide whether it made sense to continue to hold regular meetings with the Garden State Offshore Energy team. Scott’s colleagues suggested that Scott speak with senior management at PSEG to find out if the resources that had been dedicated to the Garden State Offshore Energy project could be shifted to other projects that might be more feasible.

This case is suitable for courses in Sustainability. It is appropriate to use the case in undergraduate courses to illustrate decision making in a regulated industry. Sufficient information is presented in the case to debate both sides of the offshore wind authorization issue.

General management/strategy.

Case B: On April 4, 2013, the meeting of GMR’s Group Executive Council (GEC) was scheduled to take place. Srinivas Bommidala, G.M. Rao’s son-in-law and Chairman of GMR’s airports business, was gearing up for the meeting. The meeting was called to discuss a proposal for bidding for an upcoming airport project in the Philippines. It had been more than a decade since GMR entered the airport infrastructure sector. The organization had built substantial airport operating expertise during that period. It adopted a joint venture (JV) model for expanding into the airport infrastructure business. Until now the organization had always formed JVs for all its airport projects. JVs, with existing airport operators, were necessitated by the bid conditions that required a certain minimum airport operating experience for qualifying as a bidder for various projects. In some cases, JV with a local player helped GMR with market knowledge for functioning in a foreign market. GMR also used JVs to access the capabilities it lacked for operating in this sector and gradually learnt from its partners for building capabilities in-house. The group now had the required operating expertise in the sector to qualify as a bidder. One of the key issues the GEC was contemplating was: Whether GMR should continue to form JV for bidding for the upcoming project or should it go solo? Further, if it had to form a JV then, in which areas should it seek a partner?

Case B: To help students understand how companies use alliances as growth strategies; to understand the rationale for formation of various alliances; to explore various factors managers consider when deciding on alliance strategy of an organization; to understand the challenges associated with using alliances as a strategic option; and to understand the pros and cons of internal development (i.e. going solo) vis-à-vis strategic alliances.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 11: Strategy.

The learning outcomes of this paper is as follows: to explain the importance of rationalizing business operations to achieve efficiencies. To explain the importance of constantly re-inventing the product portfolio and the business for the survival and growth of the business. To discuss the use of product-market expansion strategies as used by businesses for growth and sustainability. To evaluate the internal challenges faced by a company as they adopt business strategies for business growth. To discuss a firm’s strategy to exploit significant opportunities in an evolving business environment.

Panasonic Life Solutions India Limited (PLSIND) an electrical products company with operations in India – an emerging market has set a Vision 2022 to achieve INR 69.21bn revenue target by the year 2022. PLSIND is marketed through the distributor business to consumer sales channel. To achieve the new growth targets, it was imperative for them to expand the product portfolio and explore marketing through the new business to business (B2B) and business to government (B2G) sales channels. Dinesh Aggarwal the Joint Managing Director of PLSIND was tasked with this responsibility. Both propositions depicted attractive business potential but at the same time came with additional risks of a longer sales/revenue cycle. PLSIND to a certain extent had ventured into new business projects with the launch of home automation, solar solutions for industries and smart street lighting business projects. In 2019, they also made a modest beginning by achieving revenues of INR 3.4bnn (constituting 10% of their aggregate revenues of INR 34bn) from B2B/B2G sales channels. Aggarwal believed that this was a good beginning. However, to achieve 2022 growth targets, they had to aggressively move forward with the new business strategy. Aggarwal had to work with the management team to gain acceptance and then to manage these additional risks for growth that came with this new business strategy. How could he win the confidence of the management team? How could he best reorganize the business teams and processes internally to enhance the required operational efficiencies for business growth?

This case is designed for business students at the MBA or executive MBA level courses.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 11: Strategy.

The case’s learning objectives to work on can vary according to the topic selected by the teacher. This case has been put forward with a particular interest in corporate strategy issues, specifically, on the joint management of businesses (in this case, academic programs). Therefore, students are expected to be able to understand the managerial dilemma on centralization and decentralization; recognize the peculiarities of a shared services center (SSC); and decide on which services to centralize in an SSC.

Centralizing or not centralizing is a frequent managerial dilemma. This is a challenge faced not only by business managers but also by corporate level areas responsible for jointly managing various businesses. Resources and capabilities allocation is an essential process for strategy execution, specifically in corporate strategy that must answer the question: How to jointly manage businesses? Sharing services is a collaborative strategy which aims to increase efficiency by centralizing some processes related to this joint business management. Mario, Dean of the Escuela de Administración in Medellín, Colombia, intends to optimize the school resource allocation processes so that there is more equitable support between the different academic programs. For this, he has thought of creating an SSC as it is a practice that he has seen in prominent companies in the city. His idea is to start operating the SSC in early 2018; however, the particular character of a management school leads him to ask himself: What to centralize and what not to centralize?

This case of decision (Ellet, 2007; Sánchez et al., 2013) can be used to promote student learning of strategy courses both at advanced undergraduate levels and in graduate programs. Likewise, it can be used in workshops with executives and administrative personnel of companies that face the centralize–decentralize dilemma. These types of topics are the subject of study by both corporate strategy theorists who address the question of how to jointly manage business (Menz et al., 2015; Michael Porter, 1987) and consultants (Deloitte, 2012). It is desirable, although not mandatory, that students have some knowledge or experience in strategic issues and challenges associated with the administration of companies made up of various businesses (multi-business firms).

Teaching Notes are available for educators only.

CSS 11: Strategy.

The learning outcomes of this paper is as follows: to structure the impact investing phenomenon and distinguish it from traditional investing or philanthropy, including the motivation of investors in impact investing projects; to analyse stakeholders in impact investing projects according to four main categories; to structure the implementation model of the theory of change in the context of impact investing; to build managerial decisions concerning the development of impact investing projects in crisis situations.

The case describes the development path of the Promprylad.Renovation project from its concept to the critical moment at the end of 2018. Yuriy Fyliuk – the case protagonist, acts as the main ideologist and leader of the project, the essence of which is the establishment of an innovation centre on the area of the old Promprylad plant in Ivano-Frankivsk. Impact investing was selected as the main project development tool, as it allows for attracting investors who share the aspiration for positive change of the city and potential financial benefit. The project is implemented in several stages as follows: partner involvement (Insha Osvita, MitOst, Pact Ukraine and LvBS), vision finalisation and research (together with Stanford Research Institute, Zotov & Co, FORMA Architects, Moris Group, etc.), the launch of the pilot floor (attracting more than $683,000 from allocated grants and more than $590,000 of private investments). Open equity crowdfunding and the purchase of the entire plant, with its subsequent renovation, should be the next stage. As of 2017, agreements have been reached to pay fully for the purchase of the plant by the end of 2019. After a successful pilot and lengthy negotiations, it was agreed that $1,000,000 should be paid by the end of 2018 and $2,000,000 by the end of 2019 to complete the buyout. However, as of the end of 2018, martial law was proclaimed in Ukraine. Hence, considering the risks, a major US investor refuses to contribute. The main dilemma is either to find a suitable solution to complete the buyout of the plant or to stop the project.

This case can be used in the master’s programmes of business schools (MBA, Executive MBA, Entrepreneurship, etc.), as well as in training programmes for public and state sector managers. The case study will be particularly useful for mixed groups with representatives from different sectors of the economy. This case study might be taught in the following disciplines: social entrepreneurship, social investing, leadership and crisis management. The subject of impact investing allows recognition of the benefits of combined cross-sectoral efforts over joint projects.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 7: Management science.

General Management/Strategy.

Post-graduate/MBA.

Case A: Mr Grandhi Mallikarjuna Rao, founding chairman of GMR, was considering a proposal to bid for an upcoming international airport in Hyderabad, India. The strategic move would have marked GMR’s foray into the Indian airport infrastructure sector. GMR had been involved in the development and operation of power plants and had thrived on public–private partnerships for all its projects. Mr Rao is thinking: Should GMR make another major investment in infrastructure development by bidding to build the airport in Hyderabad, India? Further, how should the organization prepare itself for this strategic move? Case B: On April 4, 2013, the meeting of GMR’s Group Executive Council (GEC) was scheduled to take place. Srinivivas Bommidala, G.M. Rao’s son-in-law and Chairman of GMR’s airports business, was gearing up for the meeting. The meeting was called to discuss a proposal for bidding for an upcoming airport project in the Philippines. It had been more than a decade since GMR entered the airport infrastructure sector. The organization had built substantial airport operating expertise during that period. It adopted a joint venture (JV) model for expanding in the airport infrastructure business. Until now, the organization had always formed JVs for all its airport projects. JVs with existing airport operators were necessitated by the bid conditions that required a certain minimum airport operating experience for qualifying as a bidder for various projects. In some cases, a JV with a local player helped GMR with market knowledge for functioning in a foreign market. GMR also used JVs to access the capabilities it lacked for operating in this sector and gradually learnt from its partners for building capabilities in-house. The group now had the required operating expertise in the sector to qualify as a bidder. One of the key issues the GEC was contemplating was: Whether GMR should continue to form JV for bidding for the upcoming project or should it go solo? Further, if it had to form a JV then, in which areas should it seek a partner?

Case A: To understand the relationship between key concepts in strategic management, including diversification, capabilities and core competence. To help students understand the various factors managers consider when deciding on the diversification strategy of an organization. To create an understanding of the organizational processes required to facilitate diversification into a new segment. To teach students how to evaluate a potential market opportunity that may require a firm to take on a diversification strategy. Case B: To help students understand how companies use alliances as growth strategies. To understand the rationale for formation of various alliances. To explore various factors managers consider when deciding on alliance strategy of an organization. To understand the challenges associated with using alliances as a strategic option. To understand the pros and cons of internal development (i.e. going solo) vis-à-vis strategic alliances.

CSS 11: Strategy.

The key teaching objectives of the case are the following:▪ to develop an awareness of a megaproject’s external environment (through PESTLE) in terms of challenges from each source;▪ to introduce theory that allows students to identify, characterise and describe factors that can lead to inter-organisational conflict during construction projects;▪ to develop the ability to apply the typology of causal factors (identified in Objective 2) to a given context, answering why each factor may have contributed to the given contractual dispute;▪ to develop an understanding of the procurement and contract management process wherein contracts are not only the logical outcome of the procurement process but also the primary vehicles for clarifying responsibilities (for task completion) and risk transfer; and▪ to understand specific dynamics of construction projects that make disputes inevitable and ways to overcome these.

Priced at US$1.63bn (in 2015), the Orange Line Metro Train (OLMT) project in Lahore was one of Pakistan’s earliest (and costliest!) transport infrastructure megaprojects ever undertaken. Devised to ease congestion in Lahore, promote ecofriendly, efficient, modern and affordable transport systems and lead to improved mobility across Lahore, the OLMT was a socially, politically and economically important project.The case is seen through the eyes of the protagonist, Uzair Shah, a seasoned public servant and an experienced Transport Engineer. At the time of the decision, Shah was General Manager – Operations at the newly established Punjab Metrobus Authority (PMA – the project sponsor) and was also the project lead of OLMT’s Project Management Unit (PMU). Through Shah’s eyes, students approach the project at a juncture when the most serious contractual dispute in the project’s history has erupted. The parties at the interface were Lahore Development Authority (LDA), PMU’s technical interface with contractors and consultants and Maqbool-Colson Joint Venture (MCJV), one of the two civil work contractors hired for OLMT’s civil works.While quality issues had been emerging with MCJV for a few months, LDA had maintained unilateral communications and remained considerably adversarial in their dealings with MCJV. Eventually, in October 2016, this relationship had soured to such an extent that it appeared irreconcilable. It was only then that LDA had recommended Shah to take the contractor to court for non-performance.The decision that Uzair faced was whether to take LDA’s advice and take the contractor to court (terminate the contract, claim performance guarantee and appoint a new contractor) or negotiate and continue with the current contract. The decision had huge financial, legal, reputational, political and schedule-related implications. The decision needed to be taken by the protagonist in the context of all these factors.

The case was initially developed for use within a Procurement and Contracts Management course for a (business) executive audience. The case is intended for the business school audience or students enrolled in courses related to the construction management discipline.Courses where the case can be used include Construction Project Management, Public Sector Projects, Contracts and Procurement and Strategic Projects and Practice (or similar). The case can also be used within an MBA setting.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS: 9: Operations and Logistics.

Hewlett-Packard (HP) had a long history of engaging in corporate citizenship, dating back to its founding. By 2009, however, under the leadership of its latest CEO, Mark Hurd, the company had lost its focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR). Hurd instead focused on undertaking a financial turnaround and overcoming other reputational challenges; he viewed CSR and philanthropic efforts as costs rather than as strategic levers. He instituted widespread cost-cutting measures to get HP back on track, including reducing CSR expenditure. The HP board, however, did not want to let CSR go by the wayside; in fact, it wanted HP to reorganize and restrategize its approach to corporate citizenship.

The case focuses on this strategic transformation from traditional, cost-center CSR to business-aligned social innovation. It outlines the details of the board's approval of the new strategy, and then discusses how HP employees worked to reorganize their CSR activity. The new team, the Office of Global Social Innovation (OGSI), had to devise a pilot project to demonstrate the new approach. The project under consideration was an engagement that would improve the early infant diagnosis process for testing infants for HIV in Kenya—an area virtually unknown to HP. The case asks students to assess the work of the OGSI team thus far, and to put themselves in the shoes of one team member who had to justify the project to HP's leadership.

The case is especially important for demonstrating the most recent shifts across some leading companies regarding how they position CSR, as well as how for-profit leaders can structure partnerships for impact.

After reading and analyzing the case, students will be able to: understand current shifts from traditional corporate social responsibility work to social innovation; understand the challenges facing leading companies as they seek to do well (enhance the company's bottom-line performance) by doing good (making social impact); identify best practices for developing partnerships for impact; articulate a project's social impact and how it aligns with a desirable business impact.