Over the past decade, 360-degree feedback has revolutionized performance management. But one of its components--peer appraisal--consistently stymies executives and can exacerbate bureaucracy, heighten political tensions, and consume lots of time. For ten years, Maury Peiperl has studied 360-degree feedback and has asked: under what circumstances does peer appraisal improve performance? Why does peer appraisal sometimes work well and sometimes fail? And how can executives make these programs less anxiety provoking for participants and more productive for organizations? Peiperl discusses four paradoxes inherent to peer appraisal: 1) In the Paradox of Roles, colleagues juggle being both peer and judge. 2) The Paradox of Group Performance navigates between assessing individual feedback and the reality that much of today's work is done by groups. 3) The Measurement Paradox arises because simple, straightforward rating systems would seem to generate the most useful appraisals--but they don't. 4) During evaluations, most people focus almost exclusively on reward outcomes and ignore the constructive feedback generated by peer appraisal. Ironically, it is precisely this overlooked feedback that helps improve performance--thus, the Paradox of Rewards. These paradoxes do not have neat solutions, but managers who understand them can better use peer appraisal to improve their organizations.

Conventional project-management tools--PERT charts and Gantt charts, for example--were created to help manage sequences of discrete tasks that make up large construction projects. Yet these tools don't capture clearly the back-and-forth of information that takes place in innovative processes, such as product development. Conventional tools are designed to answer the question, "What other tasks must be completed before I begin this one?" But product development planners, especially in high-tech businesses, need tools that answer a very different question: "What information do I need from other tasks before I can complete this one?" The author describes the Design Structure Matrix (DSM), a project management tool that focuses on representing the information flows of a project rather than its work flows. He explains how the DSM works and how to use it to make development processes more efficient. A project DSM can show which information exchanges involve design iteration and how well a process anticipates the need for rework. In addition, the author suggests four ways to improve a company's information flows: rearranging the sequence of tasks, reconsidering the organization of tasks, reducing the number of information exchanges, and managing unplannable work. By stripping away the mystery around information exchange during innovation, the DSM can give managers far more control over their most risky and expensive projects.

The merger announcement between DeWaal Pharmaceuticals and BioHealth Labs was front-page news. Two months later, the press had moved on to a new story, and the hard labor of integration loomed. CEO Steve Lindell had worked tirelessly to clear regulatory hurdles, and all signs pointed toward approval in the near future. Now Steve was feeling pressure to attack the real challenge of the merger: bringing together two very different cultures as quickly and efficiently as possible. DeWaal was an established drugmaker based in the Netherlands, and BioHealth, headquartered just north of New York City, had in recent years become competitive at the highest tier of the market. The first step in integrating the two companies was to select the top layers of management for the new company. At the moment, there were some 120 people on two continents for about 65 senior-level jobs. Steve's urgency was not without cause: talented people from both sides were jumping ship, and BioHealth's stock price had dipped 20% after the initial euphoria over the deal had worn off. As the two men attempt to work through the important personnel issues during a lunch meeting, they quickly hit a roadblock. How can they come to agreement about who goes and who stays? In R0101A and R0101Z, commentators David Kidd, Lawrence J. DeMonaco, Grant Freeland, and Patrick O'Sullivan offer advice on this fictional case.

The merger announcement between DeWaal Pharmaceuticals and BioHealth Labs was front-page news. Two months later, the press had moved on to a new story, and the hard labor of integration loomed. CEO Steve Lindell had worked tirelessly to clear regulatory hurdles, and all signs pointed toward approval in the near future. Now Steve was feeling pressure to attack the real challenge of the merger: bringing together two very different cultures as quickly and efficiently as possible. DeWaal was an established drugmaker based in the Netherlands, and BioHealth, headquartered just north of New York City, had in recent years become competitive at the highest tier of the market. The first step in integrating the two companies was to select the top layers of management for the new company. At the moment, there were some 120 people on two continents for about 65 senior-level jobs. Steve's urgency was not without cause: talented people from both sides were jumping ship, and BioHealth's stock price had dipped 20% after the initial euphoria over the deal had worn off. As the two men attempt to work through the important personnel issues during a lunch meeting, they quickly hit a roadblock. How can they come to agreement about who goes and who stays? In R0101A and R0101Z, commentators David Kidd, Lawrence J. DeMonaco, Grant Freeland, and Patrick O'Sullivan offer advice on this fictional case.

Two-party, four-issue negotiation between representatives of two companies with different national and corporate cultures regarding a possible joint venture. MedDevice, a U.S.-based Fortune 500 company that manufactures high technology medical equipment, and Lee Medical Supply, a small Thailand-based company that distributes medical equipment in Southeast Asia, seek to conclude a joint venture. The venture, to be named MedLee, Ltd., will take the form of a Bangkok sales office that distributes MedDevice brand medical equipment. The CEOs have met and signed a Memorandum of Understanding. They have now instructed their subordinates (Pat Armstrong, the Director of International Strategic Market Research at MedDevice, and T.S. Lee, the Vice President and son of the owner of Lee Medical Supply) to conduct preliminary negotiations on four issues they consider central to the joint venture: decision making, staffing, profit distribution, and a conflict resolution mechanism. MedDevice and Lee Medical Supply differ greatly in their corporate cultures. The respective negotiators must develop a way for companies with such divergent cultures to work together.

Two-party, four-issue negotiation between representatives of two companies with different national and corporate cultures regarding a possible joint venture. MedDevice, a U.S.-based Fortune 500 company that manufactures high technology medical equipment, and Lee Medical Supply, a small Thailand-based company that distributes medical equipment in Southeast Asia, seek to conclude a joint venture. The venture, to be named MedLee, Ltd., will take the form of a Bangkok sales office that distributes MedDevice brand medical equipment. The CEOs have met and signed a Memorandum of Understanding. They have now instructed their subordinates (Pat Armstrong, the Director of International Strategic Market Research at MedDevice, and T.S. Lee, the Vice President and son of the owner of Lee Medical Supply) to conduct preliminary negotiations on four issues they consider central to the joint venture: decision making, staffing, profit distribution, and a conflict resolution mechanism. MedDevice and Lee Medical Supply differ greatly in their corporate cultures. The respective negotiators must develop a way for companies with such divergent cultures to work together.

Two-party, four-issue negotiation between representatives of two companies with different national and corporate cultures regarding a possible joint venture. MedDevice, a U.S.-based Fortune 500 company that manufactures high technology medical equipment, and Lee Medical Supply, a small Thailand-based company that distributes medical equipment in Southeast Asia, seek to conclude a joint venture. The venture, to be named MedLee, Ltd., will take the form of a Bangkok sales office that distributes MedDevice brand medical equipment. The CEOs have met and signed a Memorandum of Understanding. They have now instructed their subordinates (Pat Armstrong, the Director of International Strategic Market Research at MedDevice, and T.S. Lee, the Vice President and son of the owner of Lee Medical Supply) to conduct preliminary negotiations on four issues they consider central to the joint venture: decision making, staffing, profit distribution, and a conflict resolution mechanism. MedDevice and Lee Medical Supply differ greatly in their corporate cultures. The respective negotiators must develop a way for companies with such divergent cultures to work together.

Two-party negotiation between agents for a basketball player and a shoe manufacturer over a possible sneaker endorsement deal. Theotis Wiley is a promising young basketball player with a checkered past. Erive is a small shoe manufacturing company about to launch a new line of basketball shoes. Erive's Vice-President of Business Development has asked to meet with Theotis' agent regarding the possibility of an endorsement deal. Neither party knows much about the other party's interests or alternatives.

Two-party negotiation between agents for a basketball player and a shoe manufacturer over a possible sneaker endorsement deal. Theotis Wiley is a promising young basketball player with a checkered past. Erive is a small shoe manufacturing company about to launch a new line of basketball shoes. Erive's Vice-President of Business Development has asked to meet with Theotis' agent regarding the possibility of an endorsement deal. Neither party knows much about the other party's interests or alternatives.

Two-party negotiation between agents for a basketball player and a shoe manufacturer over a possible sneaker endorsement deal. Theotis Wiley is a promising young basketball player with a checkered past. Erive is a small shoe manufacturing company about to launch a new line of basketball shoes. Erive's Vice-President of Business Development has asked to meet with Theotis' agent regarding the possibility of an endorsement deal. Neither party knows much about the other party's interests or alternatives.

In December 2000, New Schools Venture Fund was debating the role it should play in helping one of its for-profit investees, LearnNow, attract new capital. A $20 million venture philanthropy fund, New Schools invested in for-profit and nonprofit education ventures that targeted a vulnerability in the K-12 education system. LearnNow, a charter school management company, was wrestling with the need to balance the aggressive growth demanded by most for-profit investors with its commitment to providing quality education for students in low-income communities. This tension and LearnNow's struggles to raise money highlighted a question that was always on New Schools President Kim Smith's mind: Should New Schools, a public charity seeking to improve K-12 education, be investing in for-profit ventures?

The case describes the introduction of New Coke in response to the Pepsi Challenge, an advertising campaign that used taste tests to support the claim that Pepsi Cola was a superior product. Instead of strengthening Coca-Cola's market share position, the product change resulted in a consumer rebellion and a publicity disaster for Coca-Cola.

AmBev, the merger of the two largest Brazilian beverage companies (Brahma and Antarctica) wants to become a strong South American multinational, able to compete with the main global players in this sector. AmBev creation process raised an important polemic. Competitors said AmBev would have a monopolistic power (controls about 70% of the Brazilian beer market). The Brazilian Government had to intervene and, finally, AmBev was authorized only with some minor restrictions.

Given the improved overall quality standards in effect nowadays, companies risk becoming complacent about quality issues. However, with supply chains becoming longer and customers becoming more demanding, quality management continues to be a challenge to companies. Describes Nestle's approach to quality management. Reviews three highly publicized incidents that occurred at Coca-Cola, Firestone, and Snow Brand Milk Products and their dramatic impact on the company and top management. These incidents highlight the fact that quality must be seen from the total supply chain perspective with the main focus on quality in use. Can also be used to study crisis management.

Marie-Jeanne Becaus-Pieters was founder and president of the Pan European network of Fish Auctions (PEFA). Created to link fish auctions across Europe, Pefa.com was the first Internet-based market exchange for the remote trading of fresh fish in real time. PEFA's strategy was primarily based on matching northern European supplies of fresh fish with the large demand for fish in southern Europe. In addition, with access to fish supplies, both large and small, in the most remote parts of northern, western, and southern Europe, buyers throughout the region would have a much broader pallet of fish products from which to choose. As of June 1998, Becaus-Pieters recognized that the major challenge lay not in the refinement of the PEFA business model but in making it work. The liquidity and viability of the exchange would depend not only on providing the opportunity of trading online but also on implementing those supply chain management processes essential to ensure the quality and the on-time, in-full delivery of the fish purchased. A 2002 POMS international case writing award winner.

Hajdu-Bet, the largest private poultry producer and distributor in Hungary, was seeking to expand and had approached the investment committee of a major venture capital company. The company had recently raised a fund to invest in opportunities in the former central and eastern European countries and was keen to find suitable candidates. Though Hajdu-Bet showed promise, the company was not prepared to compromise on the standards required of any new investment and decided to carry out a detailed assessment of Hajdu-Bet. As the members of the investment committee considered the results of the various investigations, they had to decide whether to proceed with the investment and, if so, on what terms and conditions. Alternatively, they could demand additional information, conscious that a further delay might lose them the opportunity.

Monsanto, an American company founded in 1901, originally specialized in chemicals. In 1995, the firm reoriented its strategy around more lucrative, but unproven, fields such as agricultural biotechnology. Describes how, in the space of a few years, Monsanto became market leader of bioengineered cereal crops--commonly known as genetically modified organisms--but is accused of applying an unsafe gene technology and trying to dominate world food supplies. The firm is caught up in a worldwide controversy. Documents how Monsanto was implicated in a trade dispute and reacted poorly to public criticism, particularly in its lack of dialogue with stakeholders. Illustrates how public pressure obliged Monsanto to stop following a promising strategy.

The managing director, the financial director, and the technical director of a large construction and property firm in Hong Kong are in disagreement. The firm is being squeezed and needs to free cash to pay maturing loans that the banks are calling in in response to the Asian financial crisis. The two senior officers, both from mainland China, agree on deferring payments to their major suppliers, whereas the technical officer, an expatriate from the United Kingdom, insists that the supplier contracts must be honored. Differing ideas regarding relationships and control are rooted in their different cultural traditions. The managing director and his financial director have to decide what to do.

Pramtex, an Australian company established in 1985, was one of the emerging star players in optical disk production equipment. Known for its high-quality products, the company had a solid presence in all key Asian markets. So far, Pramtex had stayed ahead of its competitors by concentrating on production line technology for emerging disk formats. However, the company was becoming increasingly vulnerable to competition as the industry matured. John Reef, product manager at Pramtex, had reason for concern when he learned that one of their major Japanese customers, Kimura K.K., had decided against purchasing three machines from Pramtex for a new factory in Taiwan. This was the second Japanese customer Pramtex had lost in a single week.

Describes the relationship between Freqon, a producer of frequency converters, and NordAlu, a supplier of extruded aluminum components, over a period of 13 years. Shows how early successes were not sufficiently followed up by improvement efforts later on. Having achieved a substantial level of interaction, joint projects, and sales during the 1990s, by 2000 the relationship was almost back to its original state of limited joint interest and tension between the two companies. Was this just a natural evolution or could the two firms have gone on to a better joint working relationship? The description of the relationship is unique, as case writers rarely have the opportunity to access information for a period of more than 10 years. A winner of the 2002 DSI Best Case Study Award.