個案總覽

On 8 June 2010, India's leading integrated telecom service provider, Bharti Airtel Ltd ("Airtel"), completed its acquisition of the mobile operations of Kuwaiti company Zain in 15 countries throughout Africa. At US$10.7 billion, it was Airtel's most expensive and ambitious acquisition yet, and the largest ever cross-border deal from one emerging market to another. Airtel hoped that, with this deal, the company would be transformed into a truly global telecom company, fulfilling its vision of building a world-class multinational. Airtel was a pioneer in India's telecom sector and was the flagship company of the Bharti conglomerate of industries. Sunil Bharti Mittal had founded the Bharti group in 1976, and it had grown from being a small-scale manufacturer of bicycle parts into one of the largest business groups in India, with operations in the telecom, financial services, retail and food sectors. Airtel had started its telecom services business in 1995 by launching mobile services in Delhi, India. In a short span of about 15 years, the company had become India's largest cellular service provider and one of the top five wireless operators in the world, with revenue of US$8.8 billion and net income of about US$2 billion as of 31 March 2010. The acquisition of Zain would add 40 million subscribers, bringing its total user base to approximately 185 million. What strategy should Bharti pursue to ensure its success in Africa?

In July 2010, Microsoft, the global leader in software, services, and solutions, announced record revenue of US$62.48 billion for the year ending June 30, 2010, an increase of 7% from the previous year. This came as a relief to investors, given that the previous year had seen the company report its first-ever annual drop in sales. Founded in 1975, Microsoft's software pervaded computers worldwide. The company had traditionally been regarded as being on the cutting edge of software and services. However, for some time-particularly since the middle of the last decade-it had been increasingly criticised for having had the opportunity for massive disruptive potential in the market but repeatedly allowing it to slip away. Its huge employee base of bright and talented engineers had not kept up with the creativity and innovation displayed by its competitors, whether it was Apple's iPod or iPad, Google's search engine, Nintendo's Wii, Amazon's Kindle, or social networking services such as Facebook and Twitter. Despite its undisputed financial success, Microsoft was being described as having become a "clumsy, uncompetitive innovator". In a tangible reflection of this concern, on 26 May 2010, Microsoft's position as the technology industry's most valuable player was overtaken for the first time in many years, when Apple exceeded the company's US$219.2 billion market capitalisation by almost US$3 billion. Then on 4 October 2010, Goldman Sachs downgraded Microsoft's stock, which it had supported since the company's initial public offering in 1986. Why was Microsoft no longer creating the truly disruptive and breakthrough technological products and services that the company used to pride itself on? How could the company once again regain its position as the powerhouse of technology innovation?

On 28 July 2009, the board of directors of Geox approved the footwear and apparel company's half-year results, which showed consolidated sales of US$653 million. This was a remarkable achievement and recognition for a company that had only been in the business since 1995. In the early 1990s, inventor, entrepreneur and erstwhile winemaker Mario Moretti Polegato, suffering from hot and sweaty feet, used a pocketknife to cut holes in the soles of his sneakers, thereby creating the first pair of "shoes that breathe". Convinced that his creative solution could be transformed into a commercially successful product, Polegato spent several years developing a breathable membrane for shoes that allow the feet to breathe while remaining watertight. When he succeeded in producing the prototype of such a technology in the laboratory, he immediately patented it and began marketing it to existing shoe manufacturers. However, none showed any interest in his product. He thus decided to embark on his own, and commenced manufacturing these "breathing" shoes under the Geox brand name. Since then, Geox's innovative products have continued to carve out a niche for themselves in the global footwear market. By 2002, the company had extended its "breathability" technology to fabric and entered the apparel market. By 2009, after a mere 14 years, Geox had become a global name and was ranked the world's second-largest casual lifestyle footwear sector operator. The company conducted its business in 68 countries around the world through over 10,000 multi-brand points of sale and 997 single-brand Geox shops. By introducing yet another product to the established and intensely competitive shoe industry, Geox had successfully demonstrated the power of innovation. But like any other innovative company, Geox has to fret about sustainability of its competitive advantage.

On the evening of 20 October 2008, Citic Pacific, the Hong Kong arm of the CITIC Group, China's largest state-owned investment company, stunned the stock markets by announcing that it would lose as much as HK$15.5 billion (approximately US$2 billion). The company stated that these losses were due to foreign exchange exposures that it had been aware of for six weeks, but had failed to tell the investors about. In an apologetic statement to the public, Larry Yung Chi-kin, the chairman of Citic Pacific, acknowledged the losses and admitted that the contracts had not been properly authorized. Investors and analysts subsequently attacked Citic Pacific for its corporate governance and internal control practices. They expressed shock that the company would make such risky transactions and that it would delay the disclosure of these large potential losses for six weeks. What does this incident say about Citic Pacific's internal risk management and its board of directors, particularly the independent directors? Has the company demonstrated effective corporate governance standards and mechanisms through alignment of its top-level managers' decisions with the interests of the shareholders?

In April 2008, Nintendo was ranked seventh in the annual BusinessWeek-Boston Consulting Group ranking of the world's most innovative companies. The award recognized the company as an innovative design powerhouse that had challenged the prevailing business model of the video game industry with its new video game console, the Wii. The video game console industry traditionally went into a new cycle every five to six years. In 2006, when the newest generation of video game consoles was introduced, Microsoft and Sony had continued with their previous strategies of increasing the computing power of their latest products, the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. This time, however, Nintendo had planned something different. The company believed that the video game industry had been focusing far too much on existing gamers and completely neglecting non-gamers who could well be the source for future growth. Armed with this insight, Nintendo had developed a radically different strategy by producing the Wii, whose processing power was dwarfed by that of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Nevertheless, it soon became evident that Nintendo's Wii was a runaway success. How has Nintendo achieved this success? Has the company really disrupted the video game industry? What course of action is available to Nintendo's competitors?

The strategy of Citibank (China) Co. Ltd ("Citi") in China has evolved as the business environment has changed. Since the start of its operations in China in 1902, the global banking giant has preferred opening offices as branches (when allowed by the government) rather than subsidiaries. In 2001, China announced that it would join the World Trade Organization and would undertake a series of measures to open up its banking sector. By this time, Citi had realized that the pace of its growth in China had been very slow. Consequently, the bank reviewed its strategy and decided to enter the market as an embedded, or genuinely local, bank. Citi's July 2008 agreement with China Unionpay ("CUP"), China's only national bankcard association, allows Citi's debit cardholders to enjoy the convenience of access to CUP's vast network in China. The agreement is the latest milestone in the bank's strategy to establish its presence in the emerging and rapidly growing China market through a series of strategic alliances. Why has CitiUnionpay changed its strategy and started entering such co-operative alliances? What are the risks and advantages associated with using such co-operative strategies?

Cheung Yan, the chairperson and co-founder of the Nine Dragons Paper Holdings Company ("Nine Dragons") has been globally recognized as one of the foremost strategic business leaders of Asia. Cheung had started off modestly in 1990, by setting up a paper-recycling unit in the US, called America Chung Nam. This unit collected waste paper from the US and shipped it to China. By 1995, Cheung had recognized the huge opportunity for paper manufacturing in China, given its ever-rising demand for export packaging. With the support of her husband and brother, she returned to China and established Nine Dragons, which started off with two paper machines and made 600,000 tons of kraft linerboard per year. By June 2007, the company was a behemoth paper powerhouse, with 13 giant paper-making machines, about 8,600 full-time employees, US$1.4 billion in annual revenue and US$300 million in profits. With a huge expansion program in place, it was expected that by 2009, Nine Dragons would be Asia's top producer of packaging paper, and the first in the world in terms of production capacity. In a male-dominated industry of Asia, how has Cheung succeeded in being celebrated globally as a business leader? What are the qualities and abilities she possesses that have made her such an effective strategic leader?

This case discusses the concepts of broadband and its adoption in developing and developed countries around the world, specifically in Indonesia. The telecom sector in Indonesia had under-developed infrastructure, and been dominated by two monopolies, PT Telkom and PT Indosat ("Indosat"), for many decades until September 2000, when the government opened up the sector to competition. The market has subsequently become highly competitive. This case highlights the strategies proposed by Indosat to succeed in this market, with broadband penetration being identified as one of the primary revenue-generating and growth areas for 2008. As is the case with most developing countries where the fixed-line infrastructure is minimal, the plan is for broadband technology to evolve through wireless platforms. This case can be used to understand Indosat's proposed strategy to promote broadband, particularly wireless broadband, in Indonesia. It can also be used to discuss the general issues that emerge in providing telecom services in a developing country, particularly where a formerly government-owned monopoly player faces an increasingly competitive market. The case provides students an opportunity to discuss the best way to implement the company's proposed strategy, given its competitive advantages and the constraints imposed by the external political, regulatory and economic environments.