Search results

The Beringer Wine Estates Company has been expanding its market share in the premium segment of the wine industry in the 1990's. After operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the giant Nestlé food company for almost a quarter of a century, the firm was sold in 1996 to new owners, in a leveraged buyout. For the next year and a half, management and the new owners restructured the firm and expanded through internal growth and strategic acquisitions. With a heavy debt load from the LBO, it seemed prudent for management to consider a significant rebalancing of its capital structure. By paying off a portion of its debt and enhancing the equity account, the firm would achieve greater financial flexibility which could enhance its growth rate and business options. Finally, a publicly held common stock would provide management with another “currency” to be used for enhancing its growth rate and overall corporate valuation. With the equity markets in turmoil, significant strategic decisions had to be made quickly. Should the IPO be completed, with the district possibility of a less than successful after market price performance and these implications for pursuing external growth initiatives? A variety of alternative courses of action and their implications for the financial health of the Beringer Company and the financial wealth of Beringer stockholders are integral components of this case.

Captain Joseph Brunetti was given the assignment to provide his superior officer an analysis of what to expect when the US Army implemented its new process to evaluate the performance of noncommissioned officers (NCOs), called sergeants. Brunetti had about 104 sergeants in his unit. The US Army created a new process in 2015 to evaluate sergeants to overcome the deficiencies in the Army’s old process, now 28 years old. Under the old process, almost every sergeant was rated at the highest levels, making it nearly impossible for the US Army to know whom to promote to higher ranks. Under the old process, very little counseling took place, so NCOs were not given guidance on how to develop themselves. Raters and senior raters (SRs) were not held accountable for their work in performance management, either. Under the new process, which included a forced distribution form of ranking, SRs had to offer counselings as well as options for future assignments. Brunetti, who had only limited experience in rating sergeants anyway, had to prepare for his boss what was called an “operations report” outlining what the organization could expect with the changeover to the new process and what may need attention as the process would continue in subsequent years.

This case has been developed from actual experiences and the assignment given to Brunetti also happened as described in the case. Since many of the individuals in the case are still employed by the US Army, the names of the individuals and the company units in this case have been disguised. Even so, the events of the protagonist’s tours of duty prior to the assignment described in this case did occur, but some of the locations within the USA have been changed. The other persons quoted from public documents or otherwise referenced in the articles are the actual persons so identified. The old NCOERs in Exhibit 3 are as these were written but the personally identifiable data about the individuals have been blackened out.

This case is suitable for both undergraduate and graduate courses in human resource management and especially on the topical material on performance management and performance appraisal. The case can also be used in both undergraduate and graduate courses in general management, for modules on human resource management. The Relevant Theory section below is centered on human resource management.

This relevant theory which undergirds this case centers on the broad concept of performance management and on performance appraisal instruments. The case underscores the important concept that performance management has to be more than “completing the appraisal form.”

Jim Reynolds Jr. founded Loop Capital in 1997 as an investment bank specializing in bond sales for municipalities. Ten years later, with thirteen offices and almost 100 employees, Loop Capital was a national company and had brokered more than $800 billion of underwritings in equity, tax-exempt, and taxable fixed income markets. In the process of building its municipal finance and equity trading businesses, Loop Capital had developed close relationships with a number of government officials, large institutional money managers, and corporate executives. These customers began asking Loop Capital for help with other financial services, leading the firm to build corporate finance, tax-exempt, and taxable fixed-income platforms so it could offer a wider array of investment services. Municipal and corporate finance as well as equity, taxable, and tax-exempt trading were generating positive cash flow. In a field where failures were frequent, Loop Capital was thriving, and Reynolds saw great but untapped potential in the company's future. Over the past several years, Loop Capital had served as financial advisor to several municipalities that wanted to lease or sell public assets such as airports, toll roads, and seaports. Now he confronted several intriguing questions: Should he launch a $700 million infrastructure fund to invest in the types of deals the firm had helped structure? Did it make sense to invest in order to staff, market, and support the start-up of this new fund? If the fund was launched, should Loop Capital commit to the 1% investment likely to be required as the fund's general partner?

Learn how to start a new financial services firm/investment bank venture Learn how an investment banking firm becomes successful at doing a few things well Assess risks of expanding into a new line of business with a different business model Examine differences between investment banking and fund management, and between high-growth entrepreneurship and lifestyle entrepreneurship Examine the significance, if any, of being a minority entrepreneur

Lilly ICOS is preparing to launch Cialis, a prescription drug that treats erectile dysfunction, and executives must decide how to position Cialis against market leader Viagra and recent entrant Levitra.

Why do some individuals become entrepreneurs while others do not? This fundamental question has vexed entrepreneurship scholars for some time, giving rise to various schools of thought. Traditional economic motivation theories, for example, suggest that entrepreneurial opportunities arise from changes in either supply (Shane, 2000) or demand (Dew et al., 2004) and emphasize personal economic gain as a motivator for pursuing entrepreneurship. Both neoclassical equilibrium and psychological theories take a person-centric perspective whereby stable, enduring differences among people’s characteristics, determines who becomes an entrepreneur. Opportunity recognition may be enhanced through perspective taking (i.e. putting oneself in the shoes of another person) (Prandelli et al., 2016).

The founders of the company provided us with access to the inner workings of the company, their mentors and advisors and themselves. This study used archival research and interviews when preparing this case. Interviews allow for the development of uncensored, real-life insights into the entrepreneur’s business experience. The authors first conducted a 90-min interview with Rajia and Ray at DifferenceMaker^® Central on the UMass Lowell campus. DifferenceMaker^® provided us with pictures and timelines from when Rajia and Ray participated in the various DifferenceMaker^® activities and competitions. A follow-on 90-min interview was conducted with the founders four months later at the UMass Lowell Innovation Hub to delve deeper into their transition from engineers to entrepreneurs.

In the summer of 2016, the future of invisaWear suddenly became uncertain. Rajia Abdelaziz and Ray Hamilton had conceived an idea for smart jewelry that they felt solved a real problem. But it was one thing to have a great idea and quite another to turn that idea into a real business. As engineering students, they were accustomed to solving problems, but if they truly wanted to make an impact, they had to learn to solve problems as entrepreneurs. With the help of DifferenceMaker^® and their mentors, they developed an entrepreneurial mind-set and decided to build invisaWear into a company.

This case is suitable for an undergraduate course in business or entrepreneurship. This case is intended to illustrate to both business and non-business students how individuals with different backgrounds can become entrepreneurs. Presented as a real-life example of how engineering students can make the transition to an entrepreneurial mind-set, the case can also be used to hone in on select topics including opportunity recognition, problem-solving, ideation and the business model canvas.