Search results

Two recently graduated MBA students are tasked with developing an ad-serving learning algorithm for a mobile ad-serving company. The case illustrates the way in which hypotheses can be tested in an A/B format or “horse race” in order to establish customer preferences and superior profitability. The case was written for a course elective covering hypothesis testing.

This case explores the larger context of competition among Internet companies for market share globally, especially in the emerging Chinese economy, as well as concerns about advancing the core values of the company including user privacy. Specifically, it concerns the decision facing Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang when he is confronted with a request by the Chinese government to release the name of one of its users for alleged violations of Chinese law.

Jennifer McDougall is considering investing in mutual funds for the first time, and has narrowed her options down to three: one that is domiciled in Germany, and two that are domiciled in Luxembourg. As a cautious and risk-averse investor, Jennifer has done extensive research on the three funds, and has come across a curious fact: the beta of the German fund is surprisingly low. After speaking to her financial planner, she learns there is no legal requirement in Germany for mutual funds to compute net asset values at a particular time of the day. If the German fund is closing its books in the middle of the day and its net asset values reflect its midday holdings, rather than end-of-day holdings, this could explain the low beta. Thus, the German fund might appear less risky, without actually being so. Jennifer needed to get a clearer picture of what was going on before making her decision.

Using the data provided with the case, students will determine the closing time of the three funds and how that affects the beta of each. Then they must make a recommendation about which fund would be the best investment for Jennifer.

Bright Lights is a small non-profit organization in Lincoln, NE offering a summer enrichment program to school aged children. Post 9/11, the organization faces challenges in its efforts to sustain financial resources. With enrollment and course offerings on the rise, funding is more important than ever. At the second to the last meeting of the year at which budgets are established, the Bright Lights' Board of Directors asked the Executive Director, Kathy Hanrath, and the Co-Owner/Director of Education Services, Barb Hoppe, to come up with some alternatives for fundraising top present at the final yearly meeting. Kathy has recently attended some sessions on franchising at a local entrepreneurship conference and would like to explore franchising as an option for Bright Lights growth. Kathy feels that franchising might have the potential to both increase performance and funding. This case focuses on issues associated with the exploration of franchising as a method of distribution and capital acquisition for a social organization. It calls attention to the appropriate situations for franchising, the importance of organizational assessment for franchise readiness, and other legal, economical, and organizational considerations.

In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms.

This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.

Doris, the Executive Director of the JCC, had a Board of Directors that lacked the requisite skills, perspective, behaviors, and willingness to change policies and practices in order to meet external environmental opportunities and threats or to address internal competencies and competitive capabilities. Changes in the external environment were exacerbating the JCC's internal deficiencies. In addition, the Board created impediments to the professional staff's efforts to implement good managerial practices and policies. The current management team was acutely aware of the changes in the external environment, how these changes impacted the JCC's operations and what the JCC needed to do in order to meet these challenges. The management team was frustrated by a Board that did not provide leadership, fulfill their responsibilities, hold each other accountable and undermined management by intervening in day-to-day operations. The staff was passively hostile to the Board and to the management team. As consumers, the members' expectations were higher and more demanding. Doris and her management team had to resolve a myriad of strategic and operational issues that confronted the organization.

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, Boeing and Airbus, the leading manufacturers of large aircraft, were locked in a battle for market share that drove down prices for their new planes. At about the same time, the two industry heavyweights began developing new aircraft families to address the future market needs they each projected.

Aircraft take many years to develop, so by the time the new planes made their inaugural flights, significant changes had occurred in the global environment. First, emerging economies in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere were growing rapidly, spawning immediate and long-term demand for more aircraft. At the same time, changes to the market for air travel had created opportunities for new products. These opportunities had not gone unnoticed by potential new entrants, which were positioning themselves to compete against the market leaders.

In October 2007, the Airbus superjumbo A380 made its first flight. The A380 carried more passengers than any other plane in history and had been touted as a solution to increased congestion at global mega-hub airports. Four years later the Boeing 787, a smaller long-range aircraft, was launched to service secondary cities in a point-to-point network.

The case provides students with an opportunity to analyze the profit potential of the global aircraft manufacturing industry in 2002 and in 2011. Students can also identify the actions of participants that weakened or intensified the pressure on profits within the industry.

Audio format (.mp3 file) available with purchase of PDF. Contact cases@kellogg.northwestern.edu for access.

With the establishment of Competition Commission of India (CCI), Competition law-class actions, especially with regards to abuse of dominance by monopolists, are slowly becoming unhappy realities with both government-owned as well as private companies. This case used Coal India Limited (CIL), a public monolith which was penalized recently by CCI, as a subject of analysis to delve deeper into various conceptual understandings related to public sector functioning, such as public versus private provisioning, natural versus designed monopoly, dominance versus abuse of dominance, corporate governance versus government mandated governance, and finally natural resource allocation.