Through the example of Lenovo Group Limited, this case provides students an opportunity to learn about emerging and advanced digital technologies for supply chain management and operations, and the critical issues that are targeted by these technologies. It can help students learn about technology aspects of 21st century strategies for small and large companies. This case also serves as part of a broader discussion on strategic management and digital transformation of business and supply chain models. Given Lenovo's remarkable rise in the PC business over a relatively short span of three decades, this case is an evolving example of how a company can grow and compete in a mature industry.

As the largest telecommunications equipment manufacturer in the world, Huawei has been building telecommunications networks and services since its inception in 1987. Leveraging its close relationship with other telecommunications service providers, Huawei entered the consumer mobile devices market, supplying mobile phones and other white-label products for telecom service providers in the mid-2000s. In 2010, Huawei also began designing, manufacturing, and selling the first smartphones under its own brand, targeting middle-to-high-end consumer segments. By 2015, Huawei ranked first in China and third in the world in the smartphone market. By the first quarter of 2020, Huawei also became the largest smartphone vendor of the world, overtaking the title from Samsung for the first time. This case study explores the strategies that have resulted in Huawei's fast to rise to the top in the consumer business even as many of its competitors scaled back their footprint. In parallel, however, this remarkable success has been tinged with the challenges and headwinds faced by its telecom equipment business. In recent years, the company has been subject to increasing sanctions led by the US government related to some of its 5G telecom equipment business practices. In May 2020, the Trump Administration announced a new direct product rule (DPR) that effectively blocks Huawei's access to advanced semiconductors for all its products. Sanctions of this magnitude have put the company into crisis mode and has caused a rethinking of its supply and value chain strategies. This case highlights some lessons for Chinese companies as they attempt to globalize their brands and operations in a world that still perceives them as a threat. The case also highlights the need to evaluate supply and value chain risks from the strategic standpoint and not just an operational view.

The Esquel, one of the world's largest cotton-based textile and apparel manufacturing companies, produces shirts for from scratch through a vertically integrated supply chain for many major brands, including Tommy Hilfiger, Hugo Boss, Ralph Lauren, Lacoste, and Nike, and department stores around the world. Its leadership, comprising Chairman Marjorie Yang, Vice Chairman Teresa Yang, and CEO John Cheh, had made significant strides over the past two decades, fostering and developing sustainability practices across their supply chain. Set in the early part of 2012, this case tracks their decision-making process as they saw an opportunity to develop a greenfield site in the city of Guilin in Guangxi Province, China. They named this new development project "Integral", following the Buddhist concept of harmony between the natural and surrounding environment, the workplace and the workforce culture, and the pursuit of innovation, community, and excellence. The main issues the Esquel leadership faced were to define the vision and mission for Integral around the short and long-term value proposition of the Integral site. What could be the contribution of the Integral site to the Esquel network, and in what ways could they make the Integral site a showcase for the sustainability focus of the organization?

The Esquel, one of the world's largest cotton-based textile and apparel manufacturing companies, produces shirts for from scratch through a vertically integrated supply chain for many major brands, including Tommy Hilfiger, Hugo Boss, Ralph Lauren, Lacoste, and Nike, and department stores around the world. Its leadership, comprising Chairman Marjorie Yang, Vice Chairman Teresa Yang, and CEO John Cheh, had made significant strides over the past two decades, fostering and developing sustainability practices throughout their manufacturing network. Set during the summer of 2017, this case tracks their decision-making process during the development of a greenfield site in the city of Guilin in Guangxi Province, China. They named this greenfield site "Integral", following the Buddhist concept of harmony between the natural and surrounding environment, the workplace and the workforce culture, and the pursuit of innovation, community, and excellence. The case explores the leadership and managerial crisis precipitated by technical problems discovered in the construction of the greenfield site. The company's high standards and commitment to its 5E-Culture had clearly not translated to the ground operations at the project site, and Vice Chairman, Teresa Yang was tasked with guiding the project development through the crisis, and examining why the problems occurred in the first place.

The protagonist Jamie Brown had been working in the textile industry for 32 years. He was passionate about the industry and enthusiastic about improving Coats's operations, particularly in the Shenzhen, China, factory. At an operational level, Jamie was challenged by the conflict of business priorities. One of the key directives set by the board of directors was to maximize cash flow. Inventory was the significant contributor to cash constraints in this industry, and Coats began to reduce batch sizes for production, and to reduce inventory stockpiles. To meet customer requirements for short lead times, thread was produced in small lots, and after the order was filled, the remaining thread was placed in inventory. With his strong operational background in the textile industry, Jamie was aware that by following this procedure, Coats was sacrificing economies of scale that could hurt profitability which could also impact cash flows through the year. This sacrifice also raised the question of whether Coats should pursue a make-to-stock or make-to-order strategy, since a make-to-order strategy implied that lot sizes would be set in accordance with customer orders.

Following case study UST 1215-050 Coats (A): Responsive Production and Order Fulfillment, Coats (B) examines make-to-stock (MTS) and make-to-order (MTO) strategies in more detail. First, it considers how strategic (especially cash flow) objectives affect MTS and MTO decisions and how decisions on lot sizing affect both fixed and variable production costs. In particular, it highlights the significance of the risk and costs of overstocking when facing a higher premium on cash flow tied up in the inventory of an unsold product. Secondly, on a tactical level, it suggests frameworks for determining aggregate production quantities prior to a sales season with the objective of minimizing the risks of overproduction and also conserving cash flow. Thirdly, it suggests a basic framework to determine minimum lot sizes based on some high level cost and demand data.