個案總覽

The president and chief executive officer of Romet Limited, was preparing for a project team meeting that would start at 1:00 p.m. that afternoon. It was Friday April 27, 2018, and he had just finalized the architectural design and layout for the company’s new plant. The lease for the current plant would expire at the end of that year, and he was reviewing the activities required to complete the facility relocation project. The plant relocation was named “Project Destiny.” Recognizing that extending the completion beyond the end of the lease was impossible, he was concerned about being able to complete the project on schedule without increasing costs.

Two entrepreneur brothers purchased Trafalgar Ales, Meads and Distillery, a brewery with 19 active individual beer brands, each generating a small amount of sales. The brothers' purchase came at a time when they were transitioning from a contract brewer—a brand that outsources the actual production to another firm—to a production brewer. The challenge for the entrepreneurs was to determine how to manage their stable of brands for the future. Trafalgar Ales, Meads and Distillery seemed to be pursuing a strategy of releasing small batches of unique beers, and managing its portfolio as if it were a constellation of brands. However, the two brothers were wondering if it made more sense to focus on a handful of brands and create a distinctive identity for each brand.

Rite Aid Corporation (Rite Aid) shareholders had turned down a US$3 million bonus proposed for the chief executive officer (CEO) and elected a new board chair. Under the CEO’s leadership, Rite Aid had paid off some debt and returned to modest profitability. However, two failed plans to sell the business had shaken the shareholders’ confidence. Having dealt with falling sales, shrinking profits, the sale of over half of its stores, and the news that Amazon.com Inc. had acquired an online pharmacy, Rite Aid was facing challenges from all sides. The drugstore industry was in turmoil, and without a buyer, the board chair needed to revisit the company’s strategy and its management’s capabilities. In the face of consolidation, vertical integration, and disruption from new entrants, survival was uncertain. Could Rite Aid survive on its own? Would it be feasible to attempt a third merger agreement, or were more radical options needed?

Rite Aid Corporation (Rite Aid) shareholders had turned down a US$3 million bonus proposed for the chief executive officer (CEO) and elected a new board chair. Under the CEO's leadership, Rite Aid had paid off some debt and returned to modest profitability. However, two failed plans to sell the business had shaken the shareholders' confidence. Having dealt with falling sales, shrinking profits, the sale of over half of its stores, and the news that Amazon.com Inc. had acquired an online pharmacy, Rite Aid was facing challenges from all sides. The drugstore industry was in turmoil, and without a buyer, the board chair needed to revisit the company's strategy and its management's capabilities. In the face of consolidation, vertical integration, and disruption from new entrants, survival was uncertain. Could Rite Aid survive on its own? Would it be feasible to attempt a third merger agreement, or were more radical options needed?

After the former chief executive officer (CEO) of U.S.-based Starbucks started to voice his political opinions in September 2016, both Starbucks and the CEO faced backlash. As the CEO and former chairman of a large company, he may have felt entitled to voice his opinion as an individual voter. However, public backlash-from both sides of the U.S. political spectrum-suggested that commentators, looking to respond to him, were actually targeting Starbucks. In 2019, the challenge for Starbucks' new CEO was to find a way to tactfully extricate Starbucks from political conversations.

After the former chief executive officer (CEO) of U.S.-based Starbucks started to voice his political opinions in September 2016, both Starbucks and the CEO faced backlash. As the CEO and former chairman of a large company, he may have felt entitled to voice his opinion as an individual voter. However, public backlash—from both sides of the U.S. political spectrum—suggested that commentators, looking to respond to him, were actually targeting Starbucks. In 2019, the challenge for Starbucks’ new CEO was to find a way to tactfully extricate Starbucks from political conversations.

This case focuses on the supply chain strategy of Walmart. Set in 2019, it provides a detailed description of the company’s supply chain network and capabilities. Data in the case allows students to compare Walmart’s source of competitiveness with those of other retailers—both online including Amazon.com and traditional brick–and-mortar retailers, such as Target—to develop insights into the management of a large, complex, global supply chain network. As competition between Walmart and its online and offline competitors heated up, a key challenge for the company’s president and chief executive officer was deciding what changes made to Walmart’s expanding supply chain would best support its strategic objectives. What supply chain capabilities would Walmart need as its business model continued to evolve?

On March 29, 2012, the chief executive officer of London Mining, an iron ore mining firm based in the United Kingdom, was considering an innovative financing offer from BlackRock World Mining Trust, an investment firm owned by asset manager BlackRock. The offer was a royalty agreement that would see BlackRock pay US$110 million to London Mining in exchange for 2 per cent of iron ore revenues from the Marampa mine in Sierra Leone. The company was looking at raising $250 million in debt and funding the remainder through a combination of free cash flow, convertible debt, or an equity issue. The opportunity to sell a portion of the revenues as part of a royalty agreement seemed appealing. The chief executive officer’s challenge was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of agreeing to the royalty arrangement.

On March 29, 2012, the chief executive officer of London Mining, an iron ore mining firm based in the United Kingdom, was considering an innovative financing offer from BlackRock World Mining Trust, an investment firm owned by asset manager BlackRock. The offer was a royalty agreement that would see BlackRock pay US$110 million to London Mining in exchange for 2 per cent of iron ore revenues from the Marampa mine in Sierra Leone. The company was looking at raising $250 million in debt and funding the remainder through a combination of free cash flow, convertible debt, or an equity issue. The opportunity to sell a portion of the revenues as part of a royalty agreement seemed appealing. The chief executive officer's challenge was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of agreeing to the royalty arrangement.

This case focuses on the supply chain strategy of Walmart. Set in 2019, it provides a detailed description of the company's supply chain network and capabilities. Data in the case allows students to compare Walmart's source of competitiveness with those of other retailers-both online including Amazon.com and traditional brick-and-mortar retailers, such as Target-to develop insights into the management of a large, complex, global supply chain network. As competition between Walmart and its online and offline competitors heated up, a key challenge for the company's president and chief executive officer was deciding what changes made to Walmart's expanding supply chain would best support its strategic objectives. What supply chain capabilities would Walmart need as its business model continued to evolve?

Spreadsheet for product 8B17N024.

In March 2018, Snap Inc. (Snap), based in Venice, California, and commonly known as Snapchat for its application that allowed users to send photos that disappeared, was looking for ways to grow its user base in the competitive social media platform industry and to differentiate itself from the other major platforms. To do this, it was trying to position itself as a "camera" company and to become relevant to a larger target market: adults aged 25 and older, a demographic that seemed already well-served by current social media platform options.

In 2018, California-based Tesla Inc. (Tesla) seemed to be gaining momentum after a series of setbacks in the production of its mass-market Model 3 car. Tesla's partnership strategy, guided by founder and chief executive officer Elon Musk, had been key to its success, yet Tesla did not appear to be succeeding as a stand-alone firm. It continued to command a small portion of overall vehicle sales, it had not mastered mass-production techniques, and it had not solved its sales dilemma by receiving permission to bypass the car dealership network in the United States. Tesla would continue to need partners for growth even as the nature of its partnerships changed. The challenge was to determine Tesla's partnership strategy in the short to medium term.

Student spreadsheet for case W18228.

PowerPoint presentation for instructors.

Excel spreadsheet for students.

The president and chief executive officer of Romet Limited, was preparing for a project team meeting that would start at 1:00 p.m. that afternoon. It was Friday April 27, 2018, and he had just finalized the architectural design and layout for the company's new plant. The lease for the current plant would expire at the end of that year, and he was reviewing the activities required to complete the facility relocation project. The plant relocation was named "Project Destiny." Recognizing that extending the completion beyond the end of the lease was impossible, he was concerned about being able to complete the project on schedule without increasing costs.

Two entrepreneur brothers purchased Trafalgar Ales, Meads and Distillery, a brewery with 19 active individual beer brands, each generating a small amount of sales. The brothers' purchase came at a time when they were transitioning from a contract brewer-a brand that outsources the actual production to another firm-to a production brewer. The challenge for the entrepreneurs was to determine how to manage their stable of brands for the future. Trafalgar Ales, Meads and Distillery seemed to be pursuing a strategy of releasing small batches of unique beers, and managing its portfolio as if it were a constellation of brands. However, the two brothers were wondering if it made more sense to focus on a handful of brands and create a distinctive identity for each brand.

In 2012, Mountain Equipment Co-op, a members-only Canadian consumers' co-operative that sold outdoor recreational gear and clothing, underwent a major revamp of its strategic focus, which involved a change of its logo. The shift was away from the co-operative's core, outdoors-focused customer base to a wider target group that included urban and rural customers who were new to outdoor sports. The change was significant and the co-operative realized that many of its core customers-all of whom were shareholders-were upset by the shift in strategy and logo change. Mountain Equipment Co-op needed a communications plan to ease the transition.

Yulife is a digital-first life insurance and rewards company that is seeking to disrupt the centuries-old life insurance market. Its founders are a combination of insurance industry veterans and executives in finance, wealth management and gaming. The challenge the company faces is that it cannot go to market alone: it has to work in some capacity with industry incumbents to achieve the growth it seeks. The case provides detail on yulife's goal of transforming the industry by focusing on the consumer; on improving their health. It also provides an overview of the life insurance industry which, in many ways, has been unchanged since its founding over four centuries ago. The challenge for yulife is how it can navigate the relationships and requirements in the industry so as to allow its consumer- and technology-focused offering to thrive.