個案總覽

In early 2016, Chuck Davis, chairman and CEO of Prodege LLC, parent company of the brand promotion business Swagbucks, and Josef Gorowitz, Prodege's founder and president, must decide whether to acquire MyPoints, a competitor to Swagbucks, after a significant cultural transformation that the company has just gone through. Over the preceding two years, Davis and Gorowitz had grown Swagbucks from a relatively small venture staffed by people from Gorowitz's personal and professional networks into a professionally managed and rapidly scaling business. This had been no easy task, because Davis had to be careful not to destabilize Prodege's strong culture, which was built around the deeply held religious beliefs of the company's founding employees, many of whom were devout ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews, as he introduced change. The culture had resulted in some unique challenges for a growing technology company, such as a requirement that the company shutter its office on Jewish holidays and every week for observance of Shabbat. By 2016, the company was thriving both financially and operationally. Considering the opportunity to acquire MyPoints, which was an established competitor with millions of members, Davis and Gorowitz must determine whether the company's culture is sufficiently robust to integrate another business and its employees.

For roughly six weeks between late December 1936 and February 1937, a major strike at several critical General Motors (GM) plants in Flint, Michigan essentially halted the corporation's U.S. production and resulted in significant gains for the nascent United Automobile Workers of America union and the Committee for Industrial Organization, both of which had supported the strike. The Flint, Michigan Sit-Down Strike represented a stunning victory for organized labor in a context where New Deal era legislation - most notably the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 - created a labor-friendly environment in the short run, with possibly adverse consequences for the performance of the U.S. automobile industry in the long run.

In mid-2016, the Broad Institute and the University of California, Berkeley were in the middle of a contentious patent dispute over which entity controlled a breakthrough gene editing technology called CRISPR-Cas9. With CRISPR-Cas9, scientists might soon be able to cure previously incurable genetic diseases such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, among many others. The dispute had escalated to the point where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) declared a patent interference and began a process to determine the intellectual property's (IP) rightful owner. The USPTO's decision would not only have serious commercial implications-the technology would be immensely important to biotechnology firms looking to develop gene therapy products, and was therefore sure to generate strong revenues for whichever entity owned the IP-but would also essentially award scientific credit for this technology and thus impact the reputations of the scientists on both sides who had worked so hard to discover the tool. This case touches upon a number of other key issues too: the ethical implications of gene editing; the state of IP and licensing in the biotechnology industry; the impact of lawsuits on developing new technologies and companies; and who should own platform technologies built, at least in part, by the research of multiple parties and government funding.

In late 2015, Dr. Shehan Dissanayake, a managing director and board member of the Bahamian-based investment firm The Tavistock Group (Tavistock), the largest single shareholder in the Australian Agricultural Company (AACo), one of the country's largest agribusinesses, faces a potentially challenging future operating environment in Australia. The country's national government has recently instituted changes to its agricultural foreign direct investment (FDI) policies that could affect Tavistock's future goals for its long-term investment in AACo. These regulatory changes were made in response to popular and political concern over increased foreign interest in and ownership of Australian land and real estate. Due to the newness of the regulatory changes, it was unclear at the moment precisely how they would affect AACo, but as a foreign-owned company, it was likely to face more rigorous screenings and oversight as it grew. How could Dissanayake best manage Tavistock's investment in this uncertain political climate?

This case discusses the evolution of Big Spaceship, an advertising and marketing agency, from a product-focused business to a relationship-oriented one as clients seek deeper and more meaningful long-term partnerships. The 15-year-old company had already evolved multiple times over its history as new technological platforms and services emerged to change the way people communicated and received information, and as the broader advertising industry changed. New and more aggressive competitors were emerging, and the industry was quickly consolidating. Big Spaceship had adjusted its strategy, organizational structure, and human capital accordingly. The company's founder and CEO, Michael Lebowitz, now wondered what he needed to do to keep his company competitive in the years to come. Had he found the right way to organize his people and structure the organization following the transition from project-based to relationship-based work, or were further changes necessary? How could he keep people engaged as the nature of the work evolved in some instances to become more predictable? What new systems and processes were needed to ensure a steady output of high quality work? Lebowitz was proud that the organization had retained a distinctly different feel from, and approach to work than, traditional advertising agencies, and Lebowitz and his colleagues wanted to maintain these intangible elements as the company evolved. But was this incompatible with his business goals?

Michael Milken, an investment banker who dominated the junk bond market in the 1980s, was sentenced to jail in 1990 after pleading guilty to a number of securities and tax related felonies. In the preceding decade, Milken had helped usher in a new wave of leveraged buy outs (LBOs) and greatly changed the structure of corporate America. By the late 1980s though, Milken and junk bonds became more heavily scrutinized, and Milken was eventually implicated in a number of felonious acts. Even after his admission of guilt, however, observers remained divided on what Milken's true impact had been. Was he simply a misunderstood financial innovator who democratized access to capital? Or was he driven purely by greed and by nefarious personal financial motives?

An HBS student is asked to misrepresent himself during the course of his summer internship by his employer in order to obtain data from industry competitors.

An HBS student is asked to misrepresent himself during the course of his student internship by his employer in order to obtain data from a competitor. This case describes how the student handled the situation and what he learned about himself from it.

Scott and Ally Svenson, the founders of MOD Pizza, had to make a number of decisions in planning how to scale their small company. They wanted to grow MOD from 45 stores as of May 2015 to 200 stores by the end of 2016, and while the two believed that MOD could manage this growth from an operational standpoint, they wanted to make sure that MOD's culture was sufficiently strong to survive this rollout. The company had developed a strong culture, and the Svensons did not want MOD's core values and philosophies to be compromised as it rapidly expanded. To that end, they considered what the company needed to do in order to protect its core culture. Should it put rigid safeguards in place or trust that MOD could successfully scale its culture by hiring the right people and helping them develop as employees? The Svensons also discussed the possibility of an IPO at some point in the near future; what would this mean for its ability to stay true to its core values?

George Washington is perhaps the most well-known of the U.S.'s founding fathers because of his political and military achievements. However, Washington also operated a number of successful business ventures out of his Mount Vernon estate, and he became a landowner on the American frontier. Washington's life and career serve as a lens for understanding the development of the early American economy. Washington was entrepreneurial both economically and politically. He played a central role in helping to structure the new country's national government and developed a number of precedents as the country's first executive.

The region around Cambridge, England (known colloquially as Silicon Fen) is home to a cluster of high-tech startups and established businesses. It has a deep history stretching back to the foundation of the city's elite university in 1284. Silicon Fen shares many characteristics with Silicon Valley (a leading research university, a large pool of skilled workers, a robust startup environment, and the presence of leading high technology firms) but it also has a distinctly different entrepreneurial environment. What factors account for these differences? This case is most effective when paired with Tom Nicholas and James Lee, "The Origins and Development of Silicon Valley, "HBS No. 813-098 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2013).

In late 2014, Dr. John Moore (CEO), Frank Moss (chairman), and Scott Gilroy (CTO) of Twine Health (Twine) had to resolve several challenges that threatened to restrict the widespread dissemination of its sole product, Twine. Twine was a cloud-based platform that enabled patients to create and manage chronic disease treatment plans in conjunction with their primary care providers and specialized coaches. Twine had already enjoyed impressive successes in early clinical trials and among early adopters. The issues Twine's leadership team had to address included identifying clinical care providers willing to pay for Twine, ensuring adoption and effective use by both patients and health care providers, adding capabilities to support the management of additional chronic diseases, and seamlessly integrating Twine with a client organization's electronic medical record (EMR) system and information technology (IT) infrastructure. The need to solve these problems had become more pressing since Twine was named a finalist in the Health Acceleration Challenge (HAC) sponsored by Harvard Business School and Harvard Medical School.

The global consumer goods company Unilever was on pace to hit a number of aggressive targets by 2020 as part of the Unilever Sustainable Living Project, including a goal to halve the waste associated with the disposal of its products. Unilever's Chief Supply Chain Officer Pier Luigi Sigismondi and his team were working towards this goal and had chosen to first focus on three key areas-sugar, tomatoes, and tea-and had analyzed where in the 'farm to fork' value chain product was wasted. This analysis showed that very little was wasted within areas of the value chain directly controlled by Unilever, and most occurred either upstream with its suppliers or downstream with consumers. How could Unilever encourage these actors to change established practices and entrenched behaviors within a short timeframe to help Unilever meet its sustainability targets and also to improve the operations of its partners in the value chain? By encouraging consumers to better manage their food purchases, did Unilever risk harming its own sales or those of its retail customers? Could Unilever encourage industry-wide changes to have a real impact on global environmental sustainability?

This case examines an exciting new approach to health care that will help care providers identify when hospice services are the appropriate type of care for patients. The company, Medalogix, already has a product on the market that uses a proprietery algorithm to consider dozens of factors and determine when a patient qualifies for a hospice care eligability review. The product has started to gain traction, and the case explores how Medalogix can scale and disseminate its innovative product.

DaVita had launched Paladina in early 2011 and the startup was struggling to gain traction: Paladina had already used a significant amount of the $40 million in funding committed by DaVita; the company's primary care clinics had not yet reached the number of patients necessary to sustain a profitable business; and it was in the midst of trying to integrate with another primary care clinic operator that it had acquired years earlier, but was just now merging into Paladina. Although the startup was young and still finding its way in an emerging industry, Thiry believed that Paladina would benefit from Golomb's experiences at Rx, which had also struggled in its early years. The situation at Rx became so precarious at one point that many of DaVita's senior leaders wanted to shut it down entirely. Rx made it through those challenging early years though, and was expected to exceed $600 million in revenues for 2013. However, Golomb wondered how relevant his Rx experience was to Paladina. Rx was closely tied to its parent company-DaVita provided dialysis services to patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and Rx supplied medications to ESRD patients-while Paladina's connection to DaVita was less obvious. If Golomb took the job, what could he do to make Paladina's clinics as efficient as possible in terms of service and its economics, without compromising on its value proposition? Was Paladina just too different of a business to be part of the DaVita family? This case offers an example of "intrapreneurship"-i.e. entrepreneurial ventures launched within large companies-at a Fortune 500 company. DaVita has already had a successful experience launching Rx (after some difficult early years), and the company is now even serving patients from some of DaVita's leading competitors. However, Paladina is the company's first intrapreneurial venture outside of its core focus of serving end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients-DaVita's main function is to provide dialysis se

Growth Hacking at Bazaart (B)" provides a brief update of what has transpired at Bazaart since the timing of "Growth Hacking at Bazaart (A).

The four founding members of Bazaart-a young Israeli company whose sole product was its eponymous mobile application (app) which allowed users to create collages from photographs and other images-face an important strategic decision in June 2014. Since its founding roughly two years earlier, the company had raised very little money from outside investors. Gili Golander, one of the founders and Bazaart's chief marketing officer, utilized a number of "growth hacking" techniques to generate downloads and build awareness at minimal cost. These techniques had proven successful and helped the firm reach 1 million downloads by June 2014. However the four founders debated whether to stay focused on growing Bazaart's user base and worry about driving revenue later, or try and monetize the app (by introducing in-app purchases, native advertising, or moving to a subscription model) and bring in some much needed revenue. Would growth hacking alone be enough to grow the company or should it utilize (and pay for) more traditional marketing? What approach would make the company more attractive to investors?

Lawrence Coburn and Pankaj Prasad, co-founders of the event solution startup DoubleDutch, have to make a significant decision about their young company's sales function. DoubleDutch's key product was a mobile application (app) and event management platform that customers could use to better engage and connect with their event participants (e.g. attendees at a conference, employees at a quarterly sales meeting), and also to obtain detailed information from these participants to deliver a better future experience, understand how the event was received, and receive large amounts of valuable data. The company was growing quickly and rapidly adding new customers, but Coburn and Prasad wanted to make sure that in the drive to add new customers, existing clients whose contracts were expiring were not "slipping through the cracks" when it came time to renew. But who within the company should be responsible for renewals? Sales? The customer success team that helped customers develop and deploy the product? Or an entirely new team dedicated solely to renewals?

Dr. Mark Post and his team at Maastricht University were perfecting their tissue culture beef product-made entirely from muscle grown in his lab-to give it the same taste, texture and appearance of a traditional beef hamburger. A previous iteration of this product had been taste tested live, with good results, and Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, had provided Post with much of the funding to make the burgers. The next step was to form an independent company around this technology and take it to market. This innovative product could both radically disrupt the existing beef production and supply chain, and provide an animal welfare and environmentally-friendly food that had far less of an environmental impact than traditional beef products. Post faced several challenges in making this a commercially viable product though. He had to get price down, as it currently cost roughly $330,000 to make a single burger. He also had to find the right partner(s) to help him bring the product to market, but who should he work with: someone from the established beef production and supply system, a retailer, or someone entirely outside the traditional beef system? How could he expect established companies to react to this disruption of the status quo? Messaging around this product was critical: How should Post communicate with the public to convey that this was a natural product-the way muscle tissue grew in his lab was the same way it developed in cattle-and overcome public skepticism of overt scientific involvement in their food?

The National Football League (NFL) was both the most popular spectator sport in the U.S. and a major economic entity, taking in roughly $10 billion a year in revenue. However through the early twenty-first century, an increased understanding of the long-term effects of head injuries on NFL players indicated a serious threat to the long-term viability of the game. Particularly concerning was the indication that some deceased professional football players had developed chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)-a neurodegenerative disease which had a strong influence on a person's mental and physical health-most likely as a result of repetitive hits sustained during their football careers and which may have contributed to their deaths. Over 4,000 retired players had jointly sued the NFL over the head injuries they had sustained during their time in the NFL and the resulting health problems they attributed to these injuries. In part, the lawsuit alleged that the NFL had not been forthcoming with players about the health risks of head injuries. The two sides had reached a tentative $765 million settlement in 2013, the bulk of which would go to compensating retired players suffering from such diseases as Alzheimer's or dementia. While this settlement compensated retired players, it was not applicable to current or future players. Could the NFL preserve the sport by making it safer through new rules or equipment changes, or was football an inherently physical game that no amount of new rules or equipment could make completely safe? Were current and future players, now knowing full well the potential long-term health implications of football, tacitly accepting the risks involved? As a team owner, is now the time to sell while franchise value and fan support are at their peaks, or will the business of the NFL be viable for years to come?