In January 2012, H-E-B Grocery Co., a private retail chain with stores located in Texas and Mexico, was introducing its Healthy at H-E-B program to its customers. The program, which started with the company's employees a few years earlier, was an effort to educate and inform customers on how to lead a healthier lifestyle. What CEO Craig Boyan had in mind was creating a state-wide healthy living movement in Texas, where obesity was high relative to other states in the U.S. But how far to go with its employees and customers was a question that President and COO Craig Boyan and his team struggled with. On one hand Boyan believed that H-E-B, long recognized for its community involvement, had a role to play in Texans' health and well-being. On the other hand, he recognized that H-E-B was first and foremost a retailer that had to compete against the likes of Walmart. He needed to make sure that H-E-B was serving its customers what they wanted while also trying to influence their buying behavior toward healthier foods. Some would say that H-E-B had no role in changing the lifestyle and food choices of its employees or customers. But Boyan and his team thought differently.

This case has been designed to explore strategic interactions among organizations with different business models. The case considers how a competitor successfully challenged the incumbent in a platform market defined by strong network effects and high switching costs. The case allows students to assess the advantages and disadvantages of eBay's platform business model in comparison to Amazon's retail business model; to evaluate business model performance when value loops of two industry players interact; to analyze how Amazon expanded its business model and overcame barriers to entry in a platform market that generates winner-take-all effects for first movers; discuss how eBay can respond to the new competitive dynamic, exploring both tactical and strategic interactions; and assess the strategic implications of eBay's 2011 acquisition of GSI Commerce.

A decade after BusinessWeek declared the competitive battle between eBay, Inc., and Amazon.com "a defining moment for e-commerce," Amazon established itself as the leader. eBay must decide what strategy to use in order to regain the upper hand: maintain its current platform business model or make a radical change by transforming itself into a services provider.

Prabjot Nanua was proud of the growing capabilities of the General Motors Technical Center India Powertrain Engineering group that he oversaw. Since 2003 engineers there had expanded the center's capabilities, developing a reputation within GM for completing high-quality design and analysis projects for other Technical Centers at a substantially lower cost. In areas such as tolerance stacking analysis, GMTCI-Powertrain was now the only location in GM worldwide that performed this type of work. Nanua thought about the next stage of development for the center. Should they "go deep" and focus on more areas of technical competency where the center had developed a competitive advantage? GMTCI could become the center of expertise for a narrower set of methods and capabilities like they had done in tolerance stacking. Or should they "go broad" and continue to lobby headquarters for more complex assignments that might ultimately lead to program ownership for an entire vehicle? Each scenario had different implications for how GMTCI fit within the network of Technical Centers and corporate GM. If they did the former, they might be faced with the perception that GMTCI was limited to back-office analysis for GM's products. But when Nanua put on his headquarters "hat," he wondered if that shouldn't also be the corporation's priority for them.

The case focuses on an agricultural institute, ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics), a part of international agricultural research consortium, CGIAR. Since its inception in 1972, ICRISAT has been a premier agricultural research institute with enormous international and national funding. Mismanagement and indifferent attitude of senior leadership at the top had resulted in multiple crises in organizational functioning and reduced funding by the donors. In addition to this, ICRISAT had to cope with an unfortunate chain of changes in leadership. ICRISAT had to undergo a difficult period of management changes and decline in the morale of the staff. The institute was facing daunting challenges when Dr. William Dar joined the institute as the director general. The case describes the various issues faced by Dar when he took over the reins of ICRISAT. The case also discusses his previous stints in various designations and the style of leadership displayed by him during those tenures. The case concludes by presenting the problem of revival of ICRISAT.

Integrative thinkers will not accept 'either/or' solutions. In general terms, Integrative Thinking means 'constructively using the tension between opposing models to generate a creative resolution in the form of a new model which contains elements of the existing models, but is superior to each'. However, it is not a one-size-fits-all operation. In this article, which includes examples from Walmart and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the pioneers of Integrative Thinking describe three types of 'integrations' that can lead to creative resolutions to problems.

Designing objects is pretty straight forward; but as the world's problems become more complex, the traditional design process is being challenged. Many of the products and services created today are more like complex systems than simple objects; and as systems evolve, so must systems design knowledge. The author, CEO of IDEO, one of the world's most renowned design firms, describes the shift away from creating 'blueprints' to solve problems, towards an acceptance of the evolutionary nature of today's problems. He describes six characteristics of this emerging environment, which include 'accepting the fact that design is never done.'

The Occupy movement that targeted Wall Street, Bay Street and other financial centers in the fall of 2011 was indicative of how a growing percentage of the population feels about business. And there's no end in sight, says the author, who has taught at leading business schools for her entire career: it seems like every time you turn on the news, there's a new investing or management scandal. Many people lay the blame for these kinds of failures at the feet of MBAs and the business schools that train them - and for good reason, she says. She presents three critical steps that business schools must take in order to transform their culture, and in doing so, transform the culture of business.

While the global issues of our time each present unique challenges, they have one thing in common: they require mass participation. Finding solutions to climate change, demographic shifts, the prevention and management of chronic disease, the provision of safe water supplies and food security -- to name but a few -- requires the pooling of diverse types of knowledge and resources and harnessing the motivation of billions of individuals and their communities. The author describes the emergence of 'participatory systems', which combine different types of knowledge and resources to provide a service or social solution. With their ability to attract mass enthusiasm and harness mass collaboration at low cost, she says, their time is now.

When faced with a problem to solve, most people jump immediately to focusing on solutions, devoting little time to why the problem exists in the first place. This is just one of the 'traps' of traditional thinking that the author describes. Another is pattern recognition, which can lead us to jump to conclusions much too soon. Regardless of the work we do, we must constantly fight the urge to act immediately and 'fill in the blanks' and instead, take the time to observe first and design second. In today's world, this will become increasingly important, he says, for the simple reason that the challenges we face are becoming more complex by the day.

Anyone who keeps up with today's news knows that examples of governance failures abound and that Enron was just the tip of the iceberg. The fact is, the responsibilities of a modern Board Chair have evolved significantly in the past decade, and so too must the individuals who hold the post. The author, a long-time director and governance expert, advises Chairs to pay attention to the four 'Ts': mobilizing Talent, building Trust, managing Tensions and investing Time. He provides several tools for achieving each, and concludes that it is high time for our 'organizational conductors' to take control of unscripted virtuoso players and lead their orchestras to more harmonious outcomes.

No man is an island, and neither is an organization. GE is just one of the leading firms that has embraced the fact that the challenges it faces -- in areas from healthcare to energy to transportation -- are too 'wicked' to be solved by GE alone. In an interconnected world, the key to solving complex problems lies in figuring out when-and whom-to ask for help. The authors describe six skills of 'open innovation' that enable you to add fresh insights, sharp perspectives and different capabilities to your existing processes and infrastructure, and drive innovation.

While problems of all shapes and sizes can benefit from creativity, the most complex of problems require solutions that are not only creative but span boundaries and organizations. The author has witnessed first-hand in his work at frog, where traditional organizations such as the State Department have embarked on initiatives to integrate design thinking into their programming. However, he has identified four obstacles that often come between creative approaches and large-scale implementations. He describes each obstacle and provides recommendations for moving beyond them. In the end, he says, design but one ingredient - albeit an important one -- in an overall strategy.

In today's environment, examples of work that is both complex and risky abound: delivering a large engineering and construction project; managing the response to a high-impact disaster; and providing medical care in the battlefield are but a few examples. This type of work requires multiple areas of expertise and often involves multiple organizations. The various teams that engage in risky work face high stakes -in financial, legal and reputational terms - and as a result, the role of trust in such contexts is critical. The authors define 'risky trust' and the particular challenges it poses. They then describe their research and the three elements of risky trust they identified, as well as four factors that leaders can embrace to facilitate trust in a risky context.

In an interview, one of the epidemiologists who helped eradicate smallpox talks about taking on five current global threats on behalf of the Skoll Global Threats Fund: climate change, pandemics, water scarcity, nuclear proliferation and Middle East conflict. He describes his early career and what it taught him about hope and collaboration. While he argues that our system is inarguably "breaking at the seams," the good news is, he remains optimistic about finding solutions.

This case describes a newly promoted middle manager in a global, multi-cultural organization who is challenged by a number of factors in the workplace which are impacting her and her team's ability to perform to the expectations of her regional manager. While it would be easy to blame the new manager, deeper analysis in fact reveals that many forces are at work here in addition to her inexperience including communication of strategy and performance objectives, mismanaged team members, cultural inconsistencies, and a lack of leadership direction and/or skill from the very top to her supervising manager.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Companies that are able to radically change their entrenched ways of doing things and then reclaim leading positions in their industries are the exception rather than the rule. Even less common are companies able to anticipate a new set of requirements and mobilize the internal and external resources necessary to meet them. Few companies make the transformation from their old model to a new one willingly. Typically, they begin to search for a new way forward only when they are pushed. This raises two important questions for corporate managers: (1) Is decline inevitable? (2) Do companies really need a financial downturn to galvanize change, or can they adopt new ways of doing things when not under pressure? Management theorists have observed that decline, while perhaps not inevitable, is at least very likely after a period of time. For this reason, the authors argue, it's important for organizations to develop new dynamic capabilities deliberately rather than relying entirely on their historic capabilities. In their attempt to understand what makes for successful organizational transformations, the authors studied 215 of the United Kingdom's largest public companies. The article focuses on three companies that transformed themselves-Cadbury Schweppes in packaged goods, Tesco in grocery retail and Smith & Nephew in medical devices. It compares them with three other companies from similar industries that were also successful but hadn't been required to make a dramatic shift. The authors found that the companies that transformed themselves had three fundamental advantages over their peers. First, they were able to build alternative coalitions with management. Second, they were able to create a tradition of constructively challenging business as usual. And third, they were able to exploit "happy accidents"to make strategic changes. Together these advantages helped them establish a virtuous cycle of strategic transformation.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Companies, the authors argue, are increasingly turning toward business model innovation as an alternative or complement to product or process innovation. Drawing on extensive research they conducted over the course of the last decade, the authors define a company's business model as a system of interconnected and interdependent activities that determines the way the company "does business"with its customers, partners and vendors. In other words, a business model is a bundle of specific activities -an activity system -conducted to satisfy the perceived needs of the market, along with the specification of which parties (a company or its partners) conduct which activities, and how these activities are linked to each other. Business model innovation can occur in a number of ways: (1) by adding novel activities, for example, through forward or backward integration, (2) by linking activities in novel ways, or (3) by changing one or more parties that perform any of the activities. Changes to business model design can be subtle, the authors note; even when they might not have the potential to disrupt an industry, they can still yield important benefits to the innovator. The authors offer a number of examples of business model innovation and pose six questions for executives to consider when thinking about business model innovation: 1. What perceived needs can be satisfied through the new model design? 2. What novel activities are needed to satisfy these perceived needs? 3. How could the required activities be linked to each other in novel ways? 4. Who should perform each of the activities that are part of the business model? 5. How is value created through the novel business model for each of the participants? 6. What revenue model fits with the company's business model to appropriate part of the total value it helps create?

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article.