個案總覽

Built to Love: Creating Products That Captivate Customers is a 10-chapter book published in 2010 by Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. and written by Peter Boatwright, Associate Professor of Marketing at the Tepper School of Business, and Jonathan Cagan, the George Tallman and Florence Barrett Ladd Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. The authors explain how and why evoking an emotional connection with the customer enables certain products to enjoy market success. They explore key concepts around high-emotion products and present research that proves the value of emotion in product success. Drawing on numerous real-world examples, including an extended case study of Navistar, they outline a model for creating high-emotion products in three phases: identify emotional opportunity, develop a product strategy, and transfer strategy into product features. They provide practical guidance and insight for managers. Chapter 8, Meeting Societal Needs: Positive Roles for Emotion (14 pages), explores opportunities for developing high-emotion products that address issues of sustainability, health for the aging, social action, and globalization. The authors consider efforts by companies that target an environmental problem, address a specific population group, take social action, or localize a product. They explain the benefits for companies to consider the emotions of societal issues in product and brand strategy.

Built to Love: Creating Products That Captivate Customers is a 10-chapter book published in 2010 by Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. and written by Peter Boatwright, Associate Professor of Marketing at the Tepper School of Business, and Jonathan Cagan, the George Tallman and Florence Barrett Ladd Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. The authors explain how and why evoking an emotional connection with the customer enables certain products to enjoy market success. They explore key concepts around high-emotion products and present research that proves the value of emotion in product success. Drawing on numerous real-world examples, including an extended case study of Navistar, they outline a model for creating high-emotion products in three phases: identify emotional opportunity, develop a product strategy, and transfer strategy into product features. They provide practical guidance and insight for managers. In Chapter 9, Emotion's Role in Technology Products (10 pages), the authors consider how the value of emotion extends into markets typically regarded as non-emotional. They consider the potential for high-emotion products in the fields of nanotechnology, medical products and healthcare, space systems, and robotics. They explain why most technology and healthcare companies have not yet explored emotion in their product development and why it is increasingly important for this pattern to change. They also explore the power of aesthetically-pleasing designs and the emerging field of socially assistive robotics.

Built to Love: Creating Products That Captivate Customers is a 10-chapter book published in 2010 by Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. and written by Peter Boatwright, Associate Professor of Marketing at the Tepper School of Business, and Jonathan Cagan, the George Tallman and Florence Barrett Ladd Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. The authors explain how and why evoking an emotional connection with the customer enables certain products to enjoy market success. They explore key concepts around high-emotion products and present research that proves the value of emotion in product success. Drawing on numerous real-world examples, including an extended case study of Navistar, they outline a model for creating high-emotion products in three phases: identify emotional opportunity, develop a product strategy, and transfer strategy into product features. They provide practical guidance and insight for managers. Chapter 10, Taking Action: Transform Your Products and Brands to Captivate Customers (5 pages), provides a brief practical review of the authors model for creating high-emotion products. The authors outline two strategic approaches for product emotions and outline the risks and benefits of each approach. In the first, they advise managers to "take the plunge" and move quickly in assessing a product portfolio and provide guidance on crafting a product emotion strategy. The second approach-"slow and steady"-allows managers to focus on a single product with a more conservative product development effort. They also consider the tradeoffs between the two approaches.

In August 2009, Petrobras announced a new oil discovery in carbonate reservoirs in the Bacia de Campos (Campos Basin). The discovery well was located nearly 120 km off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, at a depth of 1,000 meters. The discovery would be the object of an Assessment Plan, before exploration could begin. Learning objectives: The task is to evaluate Petrobras proposed investment in the Bacia de Campos oil field. The model must project capital expenditures, operating costs, production volumes and subsequent decline rates, revenues, income taxes, working capital all on an annual basis for a period of more than 30 years.

The supermarket chain "Atlantida" is considering an investment in a new delivery service for telephonic orders. The project will have a lifetime of 5 years. Learning objectives: The objective of the case is the project analysis, construction of cash flow maps, NPV, and capital budgeting in general.

MBA education has come under heavy criticism in recent years. The author argues that much of the criticism is fair, though superficial, focusing on the extent of ethics training or the lack of real-world experience embedded in MBA programs. The real problem, he says, is that MBA programs fail to prepare graduates to make smart decisions in the face of complexity and ambiguity. At its root, the reason MBA programs fail to produce better thinkers is structural, and it runs across three dimensions: where the curriculum's content should be deep, it is shallow; where it should be broad, it is narrow; and where it should be dynamic, it is static. The author shows how each of the three elements of a '3D' MBA is being developed at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.

Research in Cognitive Psychology and the newer field of NeuroEconomics consistently demonstrates that people violate the strictures of rationality on a regular basis. This literature has generated a lengthy list of irrational behaviors to which many of us are subject on any given day, whether we like to admit it or not. These well-documented violations of rationality have, in turn, spawned a list of biases that can be used to define 'rational thinking'. That is, we can assess degrees of rational thinking in terms of the number and severity of cognitive biases that an individual displays. The authors describe some of the most common biases that challenge rational thinking, in the hopes that a better understanding of them will foster more bias-free decision making. Topics covered include 'serial associative cognition', 'my-side processing' and 'mindware gaps'.

Research by esteemed academics has uncovered a wide variety of biases that plague decision makers on a regular basis. Thanks to them, we know that predictable errors lead people to commit sub-optimal acts on a regular basis, ranging from undersaving for retirement to engaging in needless conflict and accepting the wrong jobs. Unfortunately, we have yet to uncover systematic strategies to help people overcome these biases and behave more optimally. The authors get started on this path, focusing on strategies that can lead to better decisions, which involve leveraging the human tendency to default to 'Type 1' -- or automatic -- mental processing.

In recent years, designers have been applying their skills to a host of problems that were once the territory of business strategists and approached through analysis. With this shift has come the realization that a design-based approach, or 'design thinking', is well suited to tackling some of the most complex challenges organizations face. The authors, both of whom work for renowned design firm IDEO, argue that the first step is for managers to understand the differences in the ways that they and designers go about solving problems. Managers, they say, tend to follow a very analytical process, making decisions by understanding all of the available options and rigorously determining the best path forward. In contrast, designers prototype and iterate ideas, learning as they go and often developing new ideas and understanding of the problem along the way. They detail the designer's approach - which includes embracing constraints and 'building to decide', showing how this leads to 'evolution through design'.

The author and design practitioner describes how to go about creating new businesses or reinventing existing ones. He argues that the best way to manage the inherent uncertainty of innovation is to look beyond the existing data to find out where value truly resides for your business. One of the most effective methods for doing that, he says, is to create an 'opportunity map' -- a visual representation of the business landscape that guides future strategy by synthesizing met and unmet consumer needs, emerging discontinuities such as cultural and technology trends, both direct and indirect competitive activity, and internal and external competitive competencies. This approach, he says, can help leaders navigate complexity and chart a path to future growth.

Some of the toughest decisions in life are so-called 'should vs. want' decisions: you know that you should be exercising at the gym, but you would rather go to the movies with friends. It is not that people don't know what they should be doing, they simply behave in a seemingly irrational manner when faced with tempting consumption opportunities. The authors introduce the Theory of Decision Points, which suggests that external interventions can help individuals curb excessive consumption by providing them with an opportunity to pause and think about consumption. They show that in the case of individuals who are seeking to control consumption, decision points can snap them out of an automatic mode to a more deliberative decision-making mode.

Whether your aim is to lose weight, save for retirement or quit smoking, most of us have a clear idea of the long-term goals that we would like to achieve for ourselves. Unfortunately, most of us also fail to implement the requisite course of action to produce these outcomes. Why don't we simply make the decisions necessary to make our goals a reality? The authors argue that Behavioral Economics can provide solutions to problems that predictably arise from individual behavior. Not only does it acknowledge that human behavior is often far from optimal, but it also identifies a variety of decision errors and biases that contribute to departures from optimality. The authors show that many of the same decision errors that produce self-destructive behavior in the first place can actually be used to people's individual and collective benefit.

A large body of research shows that people prefer 'smaller, sooner' payoffs to 'larger, later' payoffs when the smaller payoffs are imminent, i.e. when the 'sooner' of the 'smaller' is pretty close to 'right now'. However, when both payoffs are distant in the future, people tend to prefer the larger payoff, even though the time lag from the smaller to the larger payoff would be the same as before. In other words, something, somewhere makes people 'flip' their preferences. The author argues that this human tendency - called Hyperbolic Discounting -- is equally prevalent in senior management teams, and that it manifests itself in various types of behavior, including 'itches', addictions, delusions, sellouts and 'Utopian dystopias'.

Despite concerns about censorship and putting users in jeopardy, Google decided to launch Google.cn in 2006. Google stated that it would monitor conditions in China and even reconsider its approach to China if warranted. Three years later, in December 2009, Google detected an extensive and sophisticated cyber attack that targeted companies and specific employees within the companies. Google investigated the attack and announced that it would change its approach in China. Google would no longer censor results in China and acknowledged that this move might result in shutting down Google.cn. It then moved its search business to Hong Kong to outside the great firewall. This case explores the ethical dilemmas raised by Google's foray into the Chinese market while trying to adhere to its motto of "Don't Be Evil." The case also identifies the market consequences of its decision to withdraw from China and the reactions of its competitors and Chinese firms with which it had been working.

This case explores recent dynamics of the real estate industry from the point of view of Sussex and Reilly, a Chicago real estate company serving the city market. The case includes national trends related to the use of the Internet; the appearance and growth of new competitors, many of them national firms using the Internet; and changes in the market conditions of residential real estate. The particular period when the case takes place, June 2005 to July 2007, was a time of turmoil in terms of technologies, business models, legal issues, and market conditions. While originally the case concentrated on the effects of the Internet on residential real estate, it became more complicated because of the beginning of a very severe crisis compared by many to the Great Depression. Founded in 2000, Sussex and Reilly was a dynamic, young firm, providing services to developers and commercial and residential clients in Chicago. In 2006, Sussex and Reilly's residential division employed 250 agents and had four offices in some of Chicago's most affluent neighborhoods.

It was June 2008 at Midland Bull Test in south-central Montana. The (A) and (B) cases feature Leo McDonnell, Jr. and his wife "Sam," the owners of Midland Bull Test, a long-time leader in the performance testing of bulls. Leo was a charismatic entrepreneurial leader in the cattle industry. Sam was an astute manager of their business affairs. In 2007, the two invested $700,000 in a feeding and monitoring system to produce feed efficient cattle that consumed less feed and produced less methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Cattle produced 20% of the methane emissions in the US, and feed efficient cattle produced up to 40% less methane. Leo felt the potential for reducing methane production through increases in feed efficiency and other improvements in ranch practices was huge. He saw the feed efficiency program as environmentally unique. ... sustainable," and "part of a growing movement to reduce greenhouse gases in a socially responsible way." In June 2008, Sam was concerned about meeting their cash flow objectives. Leo said, "I agree, but global warming is important too." The conflicting interests emerge when Sam says, "Show me how 'social responsibility' adds value to Midland Bull Test. Why should we risk our money and reputation on going green?" The (A) case focuses on Leo and Sam's analysis of installing an anaerobic digester to convert the biogases in manure to electricity for use or sale. The (B) case focuses on their marketing strategy and the possibility of positioning Midland as a green business. In addition, Leo and Sam wanted to leverage the emerging relationship with Pfizer who was developing DNA-marker technologies to improve animal health, quality, and productivity.

HBR's annual ideas collection, compiled in cooperation with the World Economic Forum, offers 10 fresh solutions with the potential for a huge positive impact on business and the world. Teresa M. Amabile and Steven J. Kramer reveal what their research shows is the true key to employee motivation-and it's not what most managers focus on providing. Ronald Dixon proposes that the real performance breakthrough in health care will come when the medical community adopts the everyday communications technologies patients already use. Lawrence M. Candell asks why the U.S. has a Lincoln Laboratory to put public-spirited experts across the table from profit-motivated defense contractors, but no such entity to do the same in the financial sector. Eric Bonabeau, Alpheus Bingham, and Aaron Schacht urge players in the pharmaceutical industry to treat drugs as information assets; big pharma could orchestrate drug-development networks to promote innovation. Jack D. Hidary describes a market solution to achieve what no government handout can in the greening of existing buildings. Robert E. Litan and Lesa Mitchell advocate that universities' technology transfer offices loosen their monopolistic grip on their scientists' taxpayer-funded discoveries. Bill Jensen and Josh Klein urge frustrated professionals to "hack work" by adopting the mind-set and tool kit of the hacker to achieve the positive outcomes their employers want but make difficult to achieve. Sendhil Mullainathan notes that we have the tools to spot bubbles about to burst, but individual firms have little incentive to sound the alarm. Why not appoint a "bubbles committee"? Paul Romer proposes that "charter cities" be established to show the citizens of failed and languishing states the merits of market economies and to provide an option for change. Carne Ross questions why only nation-states are allowed to shape international affairs and reveals the need for independent diplomacy.

Modern capitalism can be broken down into two major eras. The first, managerial capitalism, began in 1932 and was defined by the then radical notion that firms ought to have professional management. The second, shareholder value capitalism, began in 1976. Its governing premise is that the purpose of every corporation should be to maximize shareholders' wealth. If firms pursue this goal, the thinking goes, both shareholders and society will benefit. Though that is the theory, in reality shareholders have not been better off since they became the center of the business universe. From 1933 to the end of 1976, when they were allegedly playing second fiddle to professional managers, shareholders of the S&P 500 earned compound annual real returns of 7.6%. From 1977 to the end of 2008, S&P 500 shareholders did considerably worse - earning real returns of 5.9% a year. Putting shareholders first forces managers into playing a game in which they focus on managing shareholder expectations rather than on managing the business. The main principle behind shareholder value capitalism is inherently flawed, and it's time we abandoned it and made a shift to a new era: customer-driven capitalism. Companies that make customers their top priority, as P&G and J&J do, generate returns that are just as high as, if not higher than, those of shareholder-focused companies, and can sustain them for longer. If companies put the customer first, they will make better decisions, because they can focus on improving operations and products and services, rather than on spinning lines to shareholders.

Ask any CEO who has overseen a corporate transformation what should have been handled differently, and you are likely to get this answer: "We should have - and could have - moved faster." Such executives have a long list of regrets: They wish they had unified the leadership team right away. They wish they had quickly drummed up support for the new vision. They wish they hadn't waited so long to test their assumptions and refine their key initiatives. And they wish they had generated visible returns early on. Transformation launches must be bold and rapid to succeed. Yet embedded in most organizations are six kinds of "speed brakes" that can slow things down to a grinding pace. During business-as-usual periods, these brakes may be irritating, but their effects on performance are reasonably benign. When a bold transformation is required, however, any one of them can derail the larger effort. To accelerate transformations, managers need to release each of the following brakes, in this order. Speed Brake #1: Cautious management culture-To address this problem, compel all executives to confront reality and agree on ground rules for working together. Speed Brake #2: Business-as-usual management process-Run a no-slack launch on a parallel track with other systems; secure early, visible victories. Speed Brake #3: Initiative gridlock-Limit the company to three or four initiatives. Speed Brake #4: Recalcitrant executives-Compress launch to quickly engage key executives and to identify and confront those not on board. Speed Brake #5: Disengaged employees-Rapidly cascade the changes to all employees to boost engagement. Speed Brake #6: Loss of focus during execution-Anticipate and defuse postlaunch blues, midcourse overconfidence, and the presumption of perpetual motion.

It's time to reinvent the way companies develop strategy. Traditional strategy frameworks operate under the assumption that industries have distinct boundaries and that companies know who their rivals, customers, and suppliers are. Moreover, those frameworks create categories and visual representations that are static, using, for instance, maps and comparative value curves. Today, as the competitive landscape is continually redrawn and most industries are in a constant state of flux, the existing strategy tools do not offer much help. Instead of using maps, graphs, and numbers, executives should use words to write a playscript: a narrative that sets out the cast of characters in a sector, the way in which they are connected, the rules they observe, the plots in which they play a part, and how they create and capture value as the sector changes. Playscripts force companies to focus on the causes of change, and they allow companies continually to assess the relevance of their strategies. They also acknowledge that strategy could involve changing a company's links to other players. Companies can follow a three-step process to reinvent their strategies using playscripts. Step 1: Write the current playscripts for your company and your sector. Step 2: Rewrite your company's playscript and perhaps the playscript for the entire sector, focusing on how you could change the way value is created and which elements of the plot you could influence. Step 3: Future-proof your playscript by considering how customers' needs are evolving and building relationships that can reinforce your position.