個案總覽

School of One was a start-up with a new approach to learning. Instead of one teacher delivering the entire math curriculum to a class of 20-25 students, School of One utilized a technology platform that allowed several teachers to collectively oversee the learning of a larger group of students. Each student followed a personalized pathway to mastery of a set of math concepts through a mix of teacher-led instruction, live and virtual tutoring, and online lessons and games. Teachers could specialize in the concepts and instructional approaches they were best at and work with students who were ready to learn new material. The case explores the model and questions about growth and scalability.     

After Hurricane Katrina devastated the city in August 2005, the state had taken over 102 of the 118 public schools in New Orleans and shifted the management structure from a "single school system to a system of schools." Entrepreneurs from the region and around the country had flocked to New Orleans to run schools and provide the talent those schools needed to help their students succeed. State superintendent Paul Pastorek knew the system had a long way to go to achieve excellence, but he also knew the state never intended to govern local schools permanently. As he considered his options for the recommendation to the state board about future governance, his overarching goal was to position the "system of schools" for long-term success.  

Tennant, a leading producer of floor cleaning equipment, must determine how to create, finance, structure, staff, govern, measure and manage a new venture for developing a fundamentally new product line. In 2005, Tennant Company had developed an innovative, environmentally friendly, cleaning technology that could potentially revolutionize cleaning. Historically, Tennant was a producer of floor and carpet washing machines for industrial and commercial markets. Over time, it became clear that the technology had applications far beyond Tennant's core markets. In mid-2009, the company set up a new venture to develop the technology's promise. In 2010 this venture was wholly owned by Tennant and run by a Tennant manager. The case examines the decisions the CEO and new venture head must make to best structure and position the venture to succeed.     

This case presents the leadership challenges that Cheryl Dorsey, the president of Echoing Green, faces in early 2009. Echoing Green is a fellowship program that seeks to improve society by identifying and supporting social entrepreneurs who launch organizations to attack some of the world's most difficult problems. After turning Echoing Green around and re-building an organization almost from scratch over the last 7 years, Dorsey feels that Echoing Green is at a crossroads as it is facing much more competition. Adding to Dorsey's challenges, in late 2008 the economy is in crisis and many Echoing Green supporters are reducing or delaying their donations. In this situation, Dorsey has to decide whether, and if so, how to change Echoing Green's strategy as well as whether she is the right person to continue to lead the organization.

After 15 years of great performance, Target's faltering performance during an economic downturn led an activist shareholder to initiate a proxy fight. Target Corporation, the second-largest discount store retailer in the U.S., had competed successfully against industry leader Walmart for years by promoting an upscale discount shopping experience in comparison to Walmart's focus on low prices. This strategy worked well for Target in good economic times. The economic crisis of 2008-2009, however, caused shoppers to abandon Target in favor of Walmart. In the spring of 2009, one of Target's largest shareholders initiated a proxy fight to place his five director nominees on the board. Target won the proxy fight, but still faced questions about whether it had a strategy that could work in both good times and bad.

Spreadsheet Supplement for case 109010

An executive from pharmaceutical company GSK must choose how much to integrate a recently acquired biotechnology firm, Sirtris. Moncef Slaoui, GSK's Global head of R&D, championed the acquisition of Sirtris to gain access to its potentially revolutionary science. Slaoui must balance the need to recoup shareholder value after paying a two-times premium for Sirtris with his desire to retain Christoph Westphal, Sirtris's co-founder and CEO, and other key individuals at the company. His desire to protect Sirtris from GSK's size and bureaucracy occurs in a period when GSK has launched major changes in its R&D organization, which focus on decentralizing and externalizing R&D, as well as revamping the resource allocation process to parallel more of a venture capital-based model. The case also explores the views of Christoph Westphal on the early challenges of the integration and the impact GSK was having on Sirtris. Can be used in conjunction with a separate case that focuses on Sirtris's business model.

Richard Ferlauto, director of pensions and benefits policy at the AFSCME, the largest public sector workers union in the U.S., was responsible for protecting the pensions of its members. Because pensions were invested for decades, Ferlauto wanted the companies in which the union invested to be managed for the long-term interests of shareholders. He believed this required good corporate governance and effective oversight by the board of directors. The case explores the history of AFSCME's shareholder activism on this front and particularly its use of shareholder proposals voted on by shareholders at annual meetings. The case then looks at the issue of executive compensation and the idea that excessive compensation is a sign of poor governance. It also discusses the union's Say on Pay proposals that sought to allow shareholders an advisory vote on executive compensation. Finally, the case provides details on the rise of Countrywide Financial, its collapse, the role it played in the mortgage financial crisis, and the excessive compensation of its CEO.

A venture capitalist must decide whether to invest in a medical technology company that licenses intellectual property from a privately held IP holding company based on a platform technology. Entrepreneurs Amar Sawhney and Fred Khosravi founded Incept LLC to commercialize their multi-use hydrogel technology. The pair then spun off Confluent Surgical to develop some, but not all, of Incept's IP. The specifics of which IP Confluent would develop were described by a licensing agreement between Incept and Confluent. Venture capitalist Charles Warden of Schroder Ventures Life Sciences was deciding whether to invest in a Series A financing round in Confluent. Initially very excited about the deal, Warden becomes concerned about Confluent's valuation and its ability to succeed as a business when he learns about restrictions placed upon Confluent by the licensing agreement. The case describes Incept's business model and its approach to managing risk in early stage ventures. The case also addresses issues such as diversification and options preservation as well as the importance of trust and long-term relationships in decision-making in entrepreneurial arenas.

Addleshaw-Goddard (AG), the 15th largest law firm in the U.K., is seeking ways to serve larger clients on more important legal matters. Part of this strategy involves its "Client Development Centre (CDC)," an innovative idea and set of services launched by Dr. Jim Hever who holds a Ph.D. in Strategic Leadership Development. The mission of the CDC is to improve the capabilities of clients' in-house legal departments, such as by making them better partners with the business units and improving their leadership skills. The CDC has adopted an innovative pricing structure. Rather than charging direct fees for these consulting services, it proposed to the client that it contract with the firm for five times this amount in legal fees that might otherwise have gone to another law firm. It is in this way that AG hopes to increase its position in its larger clients. AG has also developed a very systematic program for identifying and serving its key clients, developed in collaboration with Cranfield School of Management. It is these clients that will be the focus of the efforts for the CDC. In addition, the firm has co-developed a training program with Cranfield to improve the skills of its own partners. The case explores whether these initiatives will lead to a long-term competitive advantage. The firm believes what really will produce competitive advantage is its "Me-To-You-Mindset" initiative that encourages partners to look at the world through their clients' eyes. At the end of the case Hever is reflecting on a proposal he submitted for providing CDC services to one of the largest U.K. companies. The general counsel wants to pay for these services in cash should he decide to accept the proposal, rather than hiring AG for more legal work. Hever is wondering if this is a good way to take advantage of recent reforms allowing law firms to provide other professional services, like consulting, or if this is "off-strategy" for the mission of the CDC.

The A1 and A2 versions of the "Shareholder Activists at Friendly Ice Cream (A)" split the original A case into two parts. The A1 case ends as activists Sardar Biglari and Phil Cooley prepare to meet with CEO Don Smith at Friendly's headquarters in September 2006. The A2 case resumes the story just after the meeting and details Biglari's and Friendly's actions from that point on. The A1 and A2 cases are provided for instructors who wish more flexibility in the teaching plan. These cases do not omit or abridge any information contained in the original A case. Two activist investors, one a founder and one a hedge fund manager, seek to improve board oversight at a chain restaurant company. Prestley Blake founded Friendly Ice Cream in 1935 with his brother and the two created a chain of full-service restaurants. In 1979 they sold the business and retired. In 2000, Blake became concerned that Friendly's CEO, who owned approximately 10% of Friendly and also owned a larger percentage of another restaurant company, was shifting expenses between the businesses in a way detrimental to Friendly shareholders, but personally advantageous to the CEO. Further, Blake believed that Friendly's board of directors was not meeting their fiduciary obligations to shareholders by properly overseeing the activities of the CEO and that the directors had conflicts of interest because they were involved with the CEO's non-Friendly business activities. In 2003, Blake filed a lawsuit against the CEO and the company. In 2006, Sardar Biglari, a hedge fund manager who had invested in Friendly, entered into negotiations with Friendly for him to join the board of directors to help improve the management of the business. When these negotiations failed, Biglari launched a proxy fight against Friendly in 2007. While these two activist investors shared similar objectives, they worked independently and chose different strategies.

The A1 and A2 versions of the "Shareholder Activists at Friendly Ice Cream (A)" split the original A case into two parts. The A1 case ends as activists Sardar Biglari and Phil Cooley prepare to meet with CEO Don Smith at Friendly's headquarters in September 2006. The A2 case resumes the story just after the meeting and details Biglari's and Friendly's actions from that point on. The A1 and A2 cases are provided for instructors who wish more flexibility in the teaching plan. These cases do not omit or abridge any information contained in the original A case. Two activist investors, one a founder and one a hedge fund manager, seek to improve board oversight at a chain restaurant company. Prestley Blake founded Friendly Ice Cream in 1935 with his brother and the two created a chain of full-service restaurants. In 1979 they sold the business and retired. In 2000, Blake became concerned that Friendly's CEO, who owned approximately 10% of Friendly and also owned a larger percentage of another restaurant company, was shifting expenses between the businesses in a way detrimental to Friendly shareholders, but personally advantageous to the CEO. Further, Blake believed that Friendly's board of directors was not meeting their fiduciary obligations to shareholders by properly overseeing the activities of the CEO and that the directors had conflicts of interest because they were involved with the CEO's non-Friendly business activities. In 2003, Blake filed a lawsuit against the CEO and the company. In 2006, Sardar Biglari, a hedge fund manager who had invested in Friendly, entered into negotiations with Friendly for him to join the board of directors to help improve the management of the business. When these negotiations failed, Biglari launched a proxy fight against Friendly in 2007. While these two activist investors shared similar objectives, they worked independently and chose different strategies.

Two activist investors, one a founder and one a hedge fund manager, seek to improve board oversight at a chain restaurant company. Prestley Blake founded Friendly Ice Cream in 1935 with his brother, and the two created a chain of full-service restaurants. In 1979 they sold the business and retired. In 2000, Blake became concerned that Friendly's CEO, who owned approximately 10% of Friendly and also owned a larger percentage of another restaurant company, was shifting expenses between the businesses in a way detrimental to Friendly shareholders, but personally advantageous to the CEO. Further, Blake believed that Friendly's board of directors was not meeting their fiduciary obligations to shareholders by properly overseeing the activities of the CEO, and that the directors had conflicts of interest, because they were involved with the CEO's non-Friendly business activities. In 2003, Blake filed a lawsuit against the CEO and the company. In 2006, Sardar Biglari, a hedge fund manager who had invested in Friendly, entered into negotiations with Friendly for him to join the board of directors to help improve the management of the business. When these negotiations failed, Biglari launched a proxy fight against Friendly in 2007. While these two activist investors shared similar objectives, they worked independently and chose different strategies.

This case study briefly describes the outcome of the Shareholder Activists at Friendly Ice Cream (A) case.

The University of Chicago Graduate School of Business offered a discipline-based, flexible MBA program to full time, evening, weekend, and executive MBA students. At a time when other MBA programs were introducing significant changes to their curricula, Chicago felt its traditional approach worked well, and it was not contemplating significant change. This case describes Chicago's approach to MBA education and the challenges it faced.

In the fall of 2006, the Yale School of Management launched a new core curriculum in its MBA program. The new curriculum eliminated traditional discipline-based courses such as finance and marketing and replaced them with courses that sought to integrate teaching and learning across functions and from the perspective of the constituents with whom leaders typically interacted, such as customers, competitors, and investors. This case examines the implementation of the new curriculum and how it transformed business education at the Yale School of Management.

Describes the AFL-CIO: Office of Investments activities in their campaign to improve governance at Home Depot by calling attention to Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli's compensation package and the company's poor performance. The AFL-CIO Office of Investments advocates for improved corporate governance at public companies, focusing on the problems of excessive chief executive compensation, improperly backdated stock options, insufficiently independent corporate board members, poor responsiveness to shareholders concerns, and a lack of transparency in the activities and decisions of boards. The AFL-CIO believes that such problems were indicators of underlying problems in corporate governance that could impact the long-term value of a public company. To advance its cause, the Office targeted Home Depot. In an effort to bring about change at the company, the AFL-CIO and AFSCME corresponded with Home Depot executives, staged public protests, appeared on talk shows, and maintained several Web sites. The trillion-dollar size of the union pension funds gave the Office a platform from which to work. The departure of Home Depot's CEO had been a significant step by Home Depot and the company had made other concessions as well. The AFL-CIO Office of Investment now needed to decide whether to continue to use its limited resources focusing on Home Depot or find a new target to forward their cause.

Considers the issues associated with running multiple business models--a private practice and an academic faculty practice--within the confines of the orthopaedics department of a single medical center. Students assume the role of Neela Wilson, Executive Director of Rittenhouse Medical Center, in managing the operational requirements of, and organizational tensions created by, these competing models. In analyzing the case, students have the opportunity to: (1) gain a better understanding of operational focus and the concept of a "focused factory" in health care, (2) consider the concept of a "factory within a factory" in the context of an academic medical center, and (3) build an appreciation of the managerial challenges associated with operating related, and often competing, business units within the same organization.

PRG-Schultz will run out of cash within a couple of months unless the new CEO can reduce costs and restructure the company's debt. PRG was the dominant market leader in the audit recovery industry. The industry consisted of firms which employed accounting professionals to audit purchasing transactions to discover and collect funds owed to their clients. PRG had historically been profitable, and clients were satisfied with their service. In recent years, however, the industry overall and PRG's sales, had been in decline. This left PRG with a cost base that was no longer sustainable. The CEO must decide where to cut costs and how to convince creditors to give the company the time it needs to turn around. A bankruptcy reorganization is one option open to the company. Describes the audit recovery industry, the company's history, the CEO, the financial problems the company faced, and the first steps taken by the CEO to save the company.

Describes the successful turnaround of the restaurant company Yum! Brands after its spin off from PepsiCo and covers how the company's leadership planned and executed on virtually every dimension of the employee experience. The main dilemma centers on what the company should do in terms of multibranding--housing two brands in one physical location.