The pharmaceutical industry faces the threat of patent expirations, diminishing new drug breakthroughs, adverse regulatory laws, increasing competition, and a harsh economic climate. Merck & Company felt these mounting pressures and had become increasingly reliant on blockbuster drugs. With its new drug pipeline running dry, Merck accepted that the biotech industry is too complicated for it to navigate alone. As it stood, it was producing only 1% of the biomedical research in the world. Thousands of new ideas were emerging around the world, both inside and outside of the company. An open innovation strategy would allow the company to source new ideas externally and at a faster rate. This came with many risks including the reduced competitive advantage of protected intellectual property. While Merck had been moving toward an open innovation strategy, its history of internal research and development had created a culture resilient to working externally. Should Merck pursue an open innovation strategy? If so, how?

Jeffrey Immelt started his tenure as General Electric's CEO in what would be called the "Decade from Hell". It started in 2001 with an economic depression due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was followed by the global financial crisis in 2008. GE's stock price fell 13% in a single day after missing its quarterly earnings forecast in 2009. On the heels of that loss, Standard & Poor's downgraded GE's AAA credit rating. Despite Jeffrey Immelt's efforts, the share price reached its all-time low of $6.66 on March 5, 2009. By 2010, GE's market capitalization was cut in half to $200 billion. Immelt knew that something had to change with GE's Corporate Strategy. He focused efforts on innovation in energy and healthcare that became known as ecomagination and healthymagination initiatives. Ecomagination sought innovative solutions to ecological challenge while healthymagination focused on delivering solutions for the healthcare industry. By 2010, the efforts from these initiatives had restored some of GE's market capitalization, but were far from the original $400 billion that he had inherited as CEO. Was Immelt's strategic plan enough to carry the company back to its former glory? And, would investors have the patience to stick o this path?

Apple Inc.'s rise to success was punctuated by culture that Founder/CEO Steve Jobs had instilled in the company for over thirty years. This culture created the successful fusion of computing, industrial design, and brand power that led to popular innovations such as the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Apple experienced ups and downs along the way. Externally, it had to defend itself from competitors like IBM, Microsoft, and Dell. Internally, Apple suffered through power struggles that left it without Jobs for a season between 1985 and 1997. During that time, Apple's market share sunk to its lowest point - a mere three percent worldwide. Jobs returned as CEO after successfully founding Pixar Animations Studio and NeXT computer company. His return hailed one of the greatest corporate comebacks in modern history. However, what would happen to this company whose success seemed to be so closely tied to its founder when he was no longer able to lead?