In Part A, Valley Systems, a computer hardware company which manufactures high performance internetworking systems, was six months post-IPO and struggling to make their quarterly earnings. Matt Tucker, the company's CEO, was very concerned about the negative impacts of missing their numbers (especially so closely following their IPO) and evaluated the option of swapping some larger deliveries in the next quarter with smaller deliveries in the current quarter to achieve their target revenues. The students are asked to determine what they would do in Tucker's situation and discuss the implications of their decision on the business, investors and employees. Part B reveals that Tucker and his team did decide to adjust their delivery schedule to meet their numbers. Now, two quarters later, the company is in the same predicament-they were almost certain to miss their numbers resulting in low employee morale and high investor anxiety. Once again, Tucker is faced with the question of how to best manage the situation. He considers the option of optimizing the product delivery schedule based on product mix and profit margin. Students are asked to decide whether this "schedule optimization" strategy is good business or revenue manipulation as well as to consider the implications on sales reps and the overall health of the business.
In Part A, Valley Systems, a computer hardware company which manufactures high performance internetworking systems, was six months post-IPO and struggling to make their quarterly earnings. Matt Tucker, the company's CEO, was very concerned about the negative impacts of missing their numbers (especially so closely following their IPO) and evaluated the option of swapping some larger deliveries in the next quarter with smaller deliveries in the current quarter to achieve their target revenues. The students are asked to determine what they would do in Tucker's situation and discuss the implications of their decision on the business, investors and employees. Part B reveals that Tucker and his team did decide to adjust their delivery schedule to meet their numbers. Now, two quarters later, the company is in the same predicament-they were almost certain to miss their numbers resulting in low employee morale and high investor anxiety. Once again, Tucker is faced with the question of how to best manage the situation. He considers the option of optimizing the product delivery schedule based on product mix and profit margin. Students are asked to decide whether this "schedule optimization" strategy is good business or revenue manipulation as well as to consider the implications on sales reps and the overall health of the business.
The case opens in July of 2009 with Becky Splitt, CEO of StudyBlue, facing a series of difficult decisions. These include: determining the appropriate business model to monetize the StudyBlue site, which customer segment to target, and how much new capital to raise (and from whom). The case tells the story of how StudyBlue was begun as a side project of Chris Klündt and Steve Wallman in 2006 and how it evolved into a full-fledge start-up with seven employees. Over the course of three years, StudyBlue develops a healthy following of college users and adds significant new features and functionality. However, by the close of the case, there is still uncertainly around how quickly it can grow revenue in the future. Given new competitors on the horizon and the window for Series A funding round closing, Splitt must make her decisions quickly.
Part A of the case opens in July of 2009 with Becky Splitt, CEO of StudyBlue, facing a series of difficult decisions. These include: determining the appropriate business model to monetize the StudyBlue site, which customer segment to target, and how much new capital to raise (and from whom). The case tells the story of how StudyBlue was begun as a side project of Chris Klündt and Steve Wallman in 2006 and how it evolved into a full-fledge start-up with seven employees. Over the course of three years, StudyBlue develops a healthy following of college users and adds significant new features and functionality. However, by the close of the case, there is still uncertainly around how quickly it can grow revenue in the future. Given new competitors on the horizon and the window for Series A funding round closing, Splitt must make her decisions quickly. Part B of the case describes Splitt's decision of choosing a financing partner for StudyBlue's Series A funding round. She must weigh the benefits and disadvantages of partnering with a mature angel investor group where she would face less restrictive terms than partnering with a venture capital firm but also less money and consequently a shorter operating runway. Her other option is to partner with a venture capital partner which will guarantee savvy advisors, recruiting help and more dollars but also more restrictive terms and a potential requirement to relocate the company from Wisconsin to the west coast. Finally, Part B of the case highlights the many changes in the competitive landscape between 2009 and 2010, including the introduction of two new players and the acquisition of several others by large corporate entities.