This case introduces students to McLuhan’s tetrad model through a structured learning experience. Before class, students read a mini-case exploring the Zoom videoconferencing software as an example of how to apply the tetrad’s four dimensions—enhancement, obsolescence, retrieval, and reversal—and listen to the author’s podcast about the use of algorithmic control in digital labour platforms. In class, students engage in a team-based exercise using the tetrad to predict the future of algorithmic control in digital labour platforms and gain a deeper understanding of McLuhan’s model. This approach will equip students with systemic thinking skills and a structured framework for analyzing the hidden and unforeseen impacts of AI-based technologies.
In September 2024, Dr. Mark van Buchem, head of the radiology department at Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) in the Netherlands, was tasked with presenting at LUMC’s strategic meeting. The focus was on his department’s pioneering efforts in integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into the clinical workflow, a project that had begun in 2018. Over six years, various AI initiatives were launched, many of which had been successfully integrated into the radiology department’s daily operations. At this point, LUMC sought to leverage these successes to develop a comprehensive AI strategy that could scale across the entire hospital. This case explores the challenges and opportunities associated with scaling AI-driven health care transformation in a complex academic and medical setting.
This exercise provides a structured framework for introducing business students to supervised machine learning (SML), unsupervised machine learning (UML), and reinforcement machine learning (RML). The exercise revolves around applying these techniques to evaluate harassment policies, offering a hands-on and practical approach to understanding how machine learning (ML) works in real-world scenarios. The exercise is suitable for undergraduate classes and graduate business classes, particularly in core information technology (IT) management, innovation management, fundamentals of AI, and governance courses.
<p style="color: white; background-color: rgb(3, 70, 56); font-size: 16px; display: inline-block; border: 0px rgb(197, 183, 131); padding: 4px 4px;"><a href="https://www.iveypublishing.ca/s/product/vcayr-managing-sexual-harassment-digital-learning-experience/01t5c00000Cd0NUAAZ" style="color: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;">AVAILABLE AS A DIGITAL LEARNING EXPERIENCE</a></p><br> In January 2019, a project manager at VCayr, a social service organization, reported to a board director, Adam Johnson, that another board director at VCayr sexually harassed her. Johnson was aware of the severity of sexual harassment and the significant harm it could have on all VCayr members and the overall organization. He had to decide how to manage the situation.
In January 2019, a project manager at VCayr, a social service organization, reported to a board director, Adam Johnson, that another board director at VCayr sexually harassed her. Johnson was aware of the severity of sexual harassment and the significant harm it could have on all VCayr members and the overall organization. He had to decide how to manage the situation.
OnlyFans, a paywalled platform primarily known for hosting adult content, had drifted towards sexually explicit content since COVID-19-related lockdowns began in March 2020. However, given pressure from its investors, in August 2021 OnlyFans announced it would ban sexually explicit content from its site later that year. Following the announcement, the company came under fierce criticism from its adult content creators, who maintained that OnlyFans owed its growth to pornography, an industry that had been evolving as technological advancements arose. On August 25, 2021, upon renegotiating with its capital providers, OnlyFans suspended the ban, though irreversible damage had been done. Considering the related information technology (IT) management and ethical issues, what should the chief executive officer of OnlyFans have done when OnlyFans' different stakeholders pulled the platform in different directions and expressed opposing ethical views? How was an open platform like OnlyFans supposed to judge what was ethical and what was not? Was banning (or not banning) sexually explicit content ethical?
The chief executive officer of McLaren Racing (McLaren), is considering the next strategic investment for the upcoming Formula 1 (F1) 2020 racing season. With goals to win the World Constructors’ Championship and challenge the top three F1 teams, the McLaren team must consider the benefits and challenges of two options: changing engine suppliers for radical improvement, or staying with the current engine supplier for incremental innovation. Adopting a new engine (Mercedes) would offer comparatively more speed than staying with the old engine; however, millions of data points collected from the old engine would no longer be applicable for future iterations. Alternatively, staying with the old engine (Renault) would allow McLaren to incrementally improve upon its existing car, but the fast innovation cycles in F1 mean McLaren must carefully weigh the possibility of diminishing benefits associated with this option.<br><br>In a highly uncertain environment with fast-paced design cycles, F1 offers a unique setting to understand how organizations in an innovation-based industry balance the competition between radical and incremental innovation. The trade-offs offered by these two approaches are further compounded by competitive innovation cycles, high costs, tight timelines, and planning limitations due to a considerable degree of luck on the race tracks.
OnlyFans, a paywalled platform primarily known for hosting adult content, had drifted towards sexually explicit content since COVID-19-related lockdowns began in March 2020. However, given pressure from its investors, in August 2021 OnlyFans announced it would ban sexually explicit content from its site later that year. Following the announcement, the company came under fierce criticism from its adult content creators, who maintained that OnlyFans owed its growth to pornography, an industry that had been evolving as technological advancements arose. On August 25, 2021, upon renegotiating with its capital providers, OnlyFans suspended the ban, though irreversible damage had been done. Considering the related information technology (IT) management and ethical issues, what should the chief executive officer of OnlyFans have done when OnlyFans’ different stakeholders pulled the platform in different directions and expressed opposing ethical views? How was an open platform like OnlyFans supposed to judge what was ethical and what was not? Was banning (or not banning) sexually explicit content ethical?
<p style="color: white; background-color: rgb(3, 70, 56); font-size: 16px; display: inline-block; border: 0px rgb(197, 183, 131); padding: 4px 4px;"><a href="https://www.iveypublishing.ca/s/product/vcayr-managing-sexual-harassment-digital-learning-experience/01t5c00000Cd0NUAAZ" style="color: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;">AVAILABLE AS A DIGITAL LEARNING EXPERIENCE</a></p><br> VCayr was a not-for-profit social service organization that connected individuals through its social media platforms and community events. In January 2019, an organizational member and an active project manager at VCayr reported to a friend and board director that she was sexually harassed by another board director at VCayr. The friend and director had to decide how to manage the situation. He was aware of the severity of sexual harassment and the significant harm that it could have on all VCayr members and on the overall organization. Another sexual harassment incident was reported to him one year later by another member of VCayr. The board director had a second chance to rethink his strategies and to weigh in other options in light of the emerging information.
VCayr was a not-for-profit social service organization that connected individuals through its social media platforms and community events. In January 2019, an organizational member and an active project manager at VCayr reported to a friend and board director that she was sexually harassed by another board director at VCayr. The friend and director had to decide how to manage the situation. He was aware of the severity of sexual harassment and the significant harm that it could have on all VCayr members and on the overall organization. Another sexual harassment incident was reported to him one year later by another member of VCayr. The board director had a second chance to rethink his strategies and to weigh in other options in light of the emerging information.
Following problems during the 2016 Iowa caucus, the Democratic National Committee mandated the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) to publish raw vote totals for the upcoming 2020 Iowa caucus. This mandate coincided with the IDP's shift for the 2020 caucus from a partnership with Microsoft, Inc. to one with a political consultancy, Shadow Inc., for developing a vote-recording application (app)---a partnership choice believed by many to have been politically motivated. Shadow developers were given much less time and resources than Microsoft had been afforded for the previous caucus. When the time came for the app to be used on February 3, eligible users could not download the app, which led to several problems. The consequences of the problematic app led to embarrassment for the Democratic Party, political ridicule by the Republican Party, distrust among democrat voters, and ambiguity and a delay in election results.
Following problems during the 2016 Iowa caucus, the Democratic National Committee mandated the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) to publish raw vote totals for the upcoming 2020 Iowa caucus. This mandate coincided with the IDP’s shift for the 2020 caucus from a partnership with Microsoft, Inc. to one with a political consultancy, Shadow Inc., for developing a vote-recording application (app)---a partnership choice believed by many to have been politically motivated. Shadow developers were given much less time and resources than Microsoft had been afforded for the previous caucus. When the time came for the app to be used on February 3, eligible users could not download the app, which led to several problems. The consequences of the problematic app led to embarrassment for the Democratic Party, political ridicule by the Republican Party, distrust among democrat voters, and ambiguity and a delay in election results.
<iframe width="725" height="395" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/la4NQo-cse8" title="Challenges in radical innovation adoption: The beautiful Concorde!" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe><br> <p align="justify">The Concorde, a British–French supersonic jet, captured the hearts and minds of aviators, business professionals, and celebrities around the world through its iconic design, superior features, and unique inflight experience. Despite its transcendent appeal, the jet became surrounded by controversy, catastrophe, an environmental movement, and changing consumer trends, all of which led to its grounding in 2003. In almost two decades, no aerospace program had been successful in recreating commercial supersonic air travel. The Concorde’s story showed that these non-technical aspects of technology adoption and diffusion were strong enough to force the retirement of a superior, breakthrough technology and replace it with an inferior one. In 2021, did it make sense to aim to commercialize supersonic travel by imitating the good in the Concorde and tweaking the downsides, or was there a hidden reason why the Concorde had failed and supersonic transport had not been recreated?