An entrepreneurial company, Zero-Knowledge Systems, provided privacy solutions for Internet-based applications. Their product permitted users to create multiple digital pseudonyms. The entrepreneur and his two sons were looking to U.S. venture capitalists to fund the company's growth and to acquire some expertise. They must put together a list of criteria to use to choose among potential funders and must assign a value to their company, so they will have an idea what percentage of the company they are willing to give up.
In 2016, the new CEO of Vyaderm Pharmaceuticals introduces an Economic Value Added (EVA) program to focus the company on long-term shareholder value. The EVA program consists of three elements: EVA centers (business units), EVA drivers (operational practices that improve EVA results), and an EVA-based incentive program for bonus-eligible managers. Over the next two years, the implementation of the program runs into several stumbling blocks, including resistance from regional managers, who push for "line of sight" EVA drivers; the difficulty of managing a large number of EVA centers; and unexpected bonus adjustments due to poor EVA performance. The decision point focuses on the competitive situation in a business unit where the sudden exit of a competitor produces an unexpected one-time windfall in earnings. Vyaderm's top managers struggle with the question of whether to adjust the EVA results to prevent demoralizing managers in future years when EVA results are likely to decline.
Creating value involves understanding consumers/customers and bringing this knowledge into the organization. Market-driven and market-driving strategies are contrasted in the context of new product development.
Amid mounting concern by credit agencies about off-balance sheet liabilities, an analyst for one of the leading credit-rating agencies has been asked to make a presentation about off-balance sheet liabilities, the strategic analysis behind leasing versus purchasing property, and accounting for leases.
This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.
This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.
This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.
This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.
This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.
This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.
Tom Clay, president of Z Corp., and founder/CEO Marina Hatsopolous must decide between using a direct sales force or using a value-added reseller to begin selling the company's new 3-D printing prototype manufacturing system.
Many general managers face this predicament at one time or another: if I don't deliver the numbers, senior management won't invest in our growth. But what it takes to deliver the desired numbers may include layoffs and other undesirable solutions. Is it better to back off the short-term solutions and weather the revenue losses, or will cutting back in the short term actually help to deliver the long-term results? Looks at one general manager's struggle with these issues.