Search results

1. Analyze the concept of disruptive change and its impact on organizational learning and development; 2. Develop the ability to identify and implement effective behavioral training interventions; 3. Understand the learning and development process; 4. Evaluate the challenges associated with online learning and explore strategies to overcome them; and 5. Recognize the significance of online learning in the current era and acquire knowledge and skills using online tools and applications for different job roles.

This case focuses on the new challenges that Shazia Zaheer, who is Head of the Learning and Development Department, is experiencing as a consequences of COVID-19 in her department. As her learning and development department has been focused primarily on traditional learning modes since the inception of Pakistan Telecommunication Limited (PTCL), she is facing additional challenges in adopting online learning because PTCL has undergone significant structural change. Since 1947, PTCL has been a state-owned enterprise. In 2005, the Pakistan Government privatized PTCL. This privatization resulted in numerous structural changes in management, hierarchy, chain of command, pay structure, product lines, technology and other factors. Employees were reduced from 90,000 to 23,000 as part of a volunteer separation plan, and a new scheme was introduced to streamline the process and improve efficiency. However, the employees at PTCL reacted to this transformation with union strikes and behavioral changes. Hence, this became a daunting challenge for Shazia Zaheer to change employees’ mindsets and instill corporate culture values. Nonetheless, she successfully won the half battle by changing the mindset of employees, and then she faced another challenge, COVID-19. This new normal brought new challenges for Shazia to implement online learning as her department relies solely on traditional modes of learning (classroom-based learning).

This case will be a good teaching aid if included in any courses on “Training and Development,” “Human Resource Management,” “Change Management” and “Online Learning” It would be better at the undergraduate (specialization courses) or graduate level.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 6: Human Resource Management.

The essence of discounted cash flow valuation is simple; the asset is worth the expected cash flows it will generate, discounted to the reference date for the valuation exercise (normally, the day of the calculation). A survey article was written in Parker (1968), where it was stated that the earliest interest rate tables (use to discount value to the present) dated back to 1340. Works from Boulding (1935) and Keynes (1936) derived the IRR (Internal Rate of Return) for an investment. Samuelson (1937) compared the IRR and NPV (Net Present Value) approaches, arguing that rational investors should maximize NPV and not IRR. The previously mentioned works and the publication of Joel Dean’s reference book (Dean, 1951) on capital budgeting set the basis for the widespread use of the discounted cash flow approach into all business areas, aided by developments in portfolio theory. Nowadays, probably the model with more widespread use is the FCFE/FCFF (Free Cash Flow to Equity and Free Cash Flow to Firm) model. For simplification purposes, we will focus on the FCFE model, which basically is the FCF model’s version for the potential dividends. The focus is to value the business based on its dividends (potential or real), and thus care must be taken in order not to double count cash flows (this matter was treated in this case) and to assess what use is given to that excess cash flow – if it is invested wisely, what returns will come of them, how it is accounted for, etc. (Damodaran, 2006). The bridge to the FCFF model is straightforward; the FCFF includes FCFE and added cash that is owed to debtholders. References: Parker, R.H. (1968). “Discounted Cash Flow in Historical Perspective”, Journal of Accounting Research, v6, pp58-71. Boulding, K.E. (1935). “The Theory of a Single Investment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, v49, pp479-494. Keynes, J. M. (1936). “The General Theory of Employment”, Macmillan, London. Samuelson, P. (1937). “Some Aspects of the Pure Theory of Capital”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, v51, pp. 469–496. Dean, Joel. (1951). “Capital Budgeting”, Columbia University Press, New York. Damodaran, A. (2006). “Damodaran on Valuation”, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

All information is taken from public sources and with consented company interviews.

Opportunities for value creation may be found in awkward and difficult circumstances. Good strategic thinking and ability to act swiftly are usually crucial to be able to take advantage of such tough environments. Amidst a country-wide economic crisis and general disbelief, José de Mello Group (JMG) saw one of its main assets’ (Brisa Highways) market value tumble down to unforeseen figures and was forced to act on it. Brisa’s main partners were eager in overpowering JMG’s control of the company, and outside pressure from Deutsche Bank was rising, due to the use of Brisa’s shares as collateral. JMG would have to revise its strategy and see if Brisa was worth fighting for; the market implicit assessment about the company’s prospects was very penalizing, but JMG’s predictions on Brisa’s future performance indicated that this could be an investment opportunity. Would it be wise to bet against the market?

This study is excellent for finance and strategy courses, at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Company valuation and corporate strategy are required.

For 28 years Alaska, like the vast majority of the nation, has struggled with growing prison populations and shrinking budgets. In 1995, the Alaska Department of Corrections, faced with sanctions unless they ameliorated their crowded prison conditions, looked to the popular practice of contracting out its correctional operations by sending 650 prisoners to a private out-of-state prison. But, as the costs of prisoner litigation and transportation mounted, the state began to consider building its own private prison, a decision which many state lawmakers and business entrepreneurs argued would allow the state to stretch scarce dollars by providing cheaper and better quality prisons, return millions of dollars to the state economy, and create permanent jobs. In this decision case, students are required to put themselves in the role of the Alaska Legislature to determine whether they should permit the building and operation of a private prison in one of Alaska's remote communities. The students must analyze and juggle the complex and often competing set of objectives, values, and political tensions intrinsic to all privatization decisions.