個案總覽

Zimmerli of Switzerland is a small Swiss brand that offers the highest quality underwear for men and women in the luxury segment. It has a loyal customer base including celebrities from all over the world. The case describes the dilemmas Zimmerli's CEO Marcel Hossli faced in January 2018, when deciding on Zimmerli's future strategy and how the company should continue to innovate to sustain brand desirability in a disrupted environment. In 2012, Zimmerli had decided to rely less on B2B distribution through wholesalers and to follow a multichannel strategy with direct sales channels (B2C). Since then, it has opened 15 mono-brand boutiques in Europe and Asia, as well as an e-commerce platform. As a result, Zimmerli grew 8% between 2011 and 2017. However, physical stores were expensive and impacted Zimmerli's net margin (0%-5%). Zimmerli faced the challenge of rejuvenating its customer base, without losing its traditional, older customers. In the past, Zimmerli had not invested much in advertising. Although it had a presence in various social media channels, it had few followers and not much user-generated content. Could Zimmerli attract new customers and gather data about their preferences on underwear through digital channels? So far, it had focused on product innovation by offering the highest quality products "Made in Switzerland." This USP came at a high cost and restricted further growth, due to production capacity constraints and a decline in suitable suppliers. Another challenge was Zimmerli's strategy of making investments out of cash flow only. The case stimulates discussion on how luxury brands can innovate along the customer journey using digital technologies. Zimmerli's strengths, its gaps, and its strategic options going forward can be explored using frameworks such as STEEP, Unique Competing Space (UCS) and the New Customer Journey.

The case explores the journey taken by GE, at the instigation of Jeff Immelt in 2008, towards transforming itself from a global industrial giant to becoming an Industry 4.0 leader, by harnessing the nascent promise of the Industrial Internet of Things. The case illustrates the different initiatives launched including: 1. Fastworks - lean methodology including design thinking and agile-lite approach to creating new products. 2. Business analytics and sensors for products. 3. Creation of GE Digital in San Ramon, combining analytics with a platform - Predix - and working under full agile methodology. 4. 2015 - introduction of Chief Digital Officers in each industrial vertical reporting to Bill Ruh at GE Digital. 5. Digital Foundries - to help GE customers with their digital transformations. Immelt had invested more than $4 billion into GE's digital transformation. The case uses examples to illustrate the transformation and the challenges GE faced. Challenges included: the initial decision to create a separate division rather than embedding digital into the verticals upfront, culture change, different skill sets and time horizons, different recruitment and remuneration practices, and communication strategies. During the transformation, Immelt retired early due to falling stock value and what the market judged as previous bad decisions. He was replaced by John Flannery, a GE veteran, charged with overhauling GE by focusing on financials and spinning off parts of GE. Flannery announced he was supportive of GE Digital and the changes, but it was clear that the focus was on the industrial verticals. The markets were unhappy with the speed of progress under Flannery and a year later, he was also replaced. This time by Larry Culp, a GE-outsider. The case ends in 2019 with Culp's announcement that GE Digital, the digital 'home' of GE was to become a separate enterprise, although wholly-owned by GE.

To support a new digital strategy launched in 2014 in response to multiple sources of disruption, ING Netherlands restructured in 2015 into an agile organization. Agility is based on speed, flat, collaborative and customer-centric design principles. In October 2017, ING was considering rolling the agile organization to Belgium in view of a merger of the two countries operations. On the one hand, agility was proving very effective to respond to disruption. But on the other hand, there were signs of tensions in the organization, some resulting from agility, some from the change process itself. The case puts participants in the shoes of Herman Tange, a tribe leader, in October 2017 as he ponders his recommendations about the future of the agile organization model to his new CEO. Herman wants to discuss three options.

Companies must reorganize periodically to keep pace with changes in market conditions. But executives grapple with conflicting advice about whether, when, and how to do so. The term "reorganization" encompasses two distinct change processes: restructuring and reconfiguration. Each delivers value if pursued in the right way. "Restructuring" involves changing the structures around which resources and activities are grouped and coordinated--for example, function, business line, customer segment, technology platform, geography, or a matrixed combination of these. "Reconfiguration" involves adding, splitting, transferring, combining, or dissolving business units without modifying the company's underlying structure. The goals for both tend to be the same: to boost innovation and, ultimately, financial performance. But the authors' research shows that success is almost always situational. In this article, they offer four guidelines to help companies decide which type to pursue when, how to space their reorgs, what should be reorganized, and what else needs to change in the process.