個案總覽

Smart grid companies such as Viridity Energy are finding profitable opportunities to help their customers cut energy bills and simultaneously get credit for greater environmental responsibility. But will consuming fewer "dirty" watts from fuel sources such as coal and natural gas be a sufficient objective for customers in the future? What will rising societal expectations, tougher environment regulations, and new distributed clean energy technologies mean for the ability of smart grid companies to engage new customers and differentiate themselves in an increasingly crowded field?

The Siemens Kalwa factory in Mumbai, also referred to as Kalwa Works (KW), started in 1973 with the production of motors and later diversified to produce switchgears and switchboards. By 2009, 40 per cent of all Siemens India employees were working in Kalwa and contributing 45 per cent of the total Siemens India production. Kalwa had become the most important business centre for Siemens India. In October 2006, Siemens AG decided to implement lean manufacturing in the Kalwa factory as part of a worldwide rollout of the Siemens Production System in all its medium-voltage facilities. The implementations were expected to bring drastic improvements in labour productivity, lower inventory levels, and higher throughput to improve the factories' financial performance. The lean program promised that the factory's current realized capacity of 4,000 panels per year could be increased by approximately 50 per cent to 6,000 panels per year in the medium term within two years, and to about 12,000 panels within the next four to five years. While the benefits of successful implementation were attractive, the company faced several challenges, including restructuring the organization, getting staff on board to accept and facilitate the change, and handling resistance from internal and external stakeholders. This case provides an opportunity to analyze and discuss lean implementation issues for a global multinational firm in the Indian context.

This case presents a means by which students can explore how government policy is influenced by the actions of stakeholders in an economy: firms, taxpayers, voters, unions, and other organizations. It highlights how policy-making can be a process endogenous to the interests and influence of the private sector, and not an exogenous one, even in domains that are the power reserve of public policy makers. In 2010, the ruling party in Australia has devised a new tax, the Resource Super Profit Tax (RSPT). This tax has been devised to enable national and state governments to benefit from the boom in the mining industry by expropriating a greater portion of the industry's earnings. The RSPT has been prepared without any input from major mining companies in Australia, and if implemented would represent a substantial increase in their tax payable. The case is presented from the perspective of the CEO of BHP Billiton, one of the largest mining companies in Australia. The situation considers what, if any, action can be taken to combat a tax that has already been devised by the government and is about to be implemented. Successful analysis of the case involves an evaluation of all stakeholders in the Australian economy that will be influenced by the imposition of the RSPT. After this is done, a strategy needs to be devised that will influence the government to withdraw a tax to which it has already demonstrated a firm commitment.

This and the Warner Bros. Pictures: The Harry Potter Dilemma case are set in December 2010 and show industry consultants thinking about how to market the final installments of very successful movie franchises. Both Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures want to market their movies to gain the greatest gross revenue (i.e. box office ticket revenue). Each company must take into account the scheduling of the other players in the market. The cases also deal with changes in the movie industry. These include the expansion of the number of 3D movies and the importance of franchise movies.

This and the Paramount Pictures: The Transformers Dilemma case are set in December 2010 and show industry consultants thinking about how to market the final installments of very successful movie franchises. Both Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures want to market their movies to gain the greatest gross revenue (i.e. box office ticket revenue). Each company must take into account the scheduling of the other players in the market. The cases also deal with changes in the movie industry. These include the expansion of the number of 3D movies and the importance of franchise movies.

This case explores the problems that Tetra Pak India faced in its ambitious goal of recycling post-consumer cartons (PCC) in India, and the approach that it adopted in overcoming obstacles. It provides a deep understanding of PCC recycling and Tetra Pak’s broad program of incorporating social, environmental, health, and ethical issues in its day-to-day operations. Evident in the case are Tetra Pak India’s efforts to meet environmental objectives and the seemingly insurmountable challenges in India that appeared to prevent it from attaining its goals. <br><br>The case offers students an opportunity for an intellectually stimulating discussion on whether or not, and how, Tetra Pak India overcame problems to succeed in its PCC recycling initiative. Students will be able to understand the importance of the partnerships and alliances that Tetra Pak forged with non-governmental organizations, scrap dealers, rag-pickers, commercial establishments, and organizations that championed the cause of the environment. With ever-changing mindsets, increasing regulations, and growing customer expectations in India, Tetra Pak would have to be on its toes to ensure that its success from the PCC recycling initiative could be sustained and scaled up in the future. The case explores how Tetra Pak India could face the challenges of the future.

The Wang Group was created by Alfred Wang in Hong Kong after fleeing China during the turbulence at the beginning of the Communist regime. After successfully building up a diversified trading business and expanding to various other Asian countries, the business was taken over in 1995 by his second son, Charles Wang, a charismatic leader. Charles wished to create a more sustainable family business, attuned to global trends and run by non-family members. To this end, Charles hired an outside CEO to carry out his vision after implementing a far-reaching corporate change program. The global economic crisis that started in 2008, however, affected the company halfway through this reorganization, and brought losses and the departure of the newly hired CEO. Charles Wang had no other option than to again take up the top job himself, and he had to reconsider the path towards a sustainable future for the family firm.

This case examines two of the leading video rental services in the United States, Blockbuster and Netflix, and how each adapted to changing technology and market forces. At the end of the case, Blockbuster has declared bankruptcy and Netflix has seen its first decline in subscribers since its founding in 1997. Netflix also faces a number of new threats, including illegal file sharing, rental kiosks, and new low-cost video-on-demand (VOD) services. Netflix responds to these threats by announcing that it will split the company in two — Netflix will focus exclusively on streaming content, while a new subsidiary called Qwikster will be restricted to providing DVDs by mail. Customers overwhelmingly react negatively to the announcement, and Netflix’s stock price plunges by more than 50 per cent.

Supplement for case W12976

Keith Palmerston, managing director at PKG Capital, is thinking about what to do with his firm's holdings in Kraft Foods. In early 2010, Kraft, primarily a grocery products firm, is trying to acquire Cadbury, a well-known U.K.-based chocolate manufacturer. Palmerston is trying to determine if Cadbury is a good fit for Kraft's operations and if the transaction will generate value for shareholders. This case can be used in a strategy course as part of a negotiations module for strategic analysis, and to discuss the topic of valuation..

Shelby Givens, a new MBA, is the general manager of Westlake Lanes, a near-bankrupt bowling alley that her grandfather founded decades earlier. Givens has been given one year to turn a profit; if the goal is not met Westlake will close. During the first few days on the job, Givens learns that the business is in worse shape financially than she - or the board - thought. She also finds that Westlake's employees exhibit minimal productivity. Givens tackles these two issues, creatively uncovering ways to reduce costs while building morale. After nine months, the business has its first profitable month in over two years. Yet Givens is worried it is too little, too late and begins to sketch a bolder long-term strategy based on pursuing one of two alternative new markets. Students are invited to consider whether the board should accept her potentially transformative proposal, maintain existing operations, or liquidate to pay off pressing loan responsibilities. The case includes a quantitative assignment for students.

Spreadsheet supplement for case 4431.

The Apple A and B cases provide two different perspectives on the evolution of the computer and electronics firm Apple and are designed to evoke debate about models of strategy, organization, and leadership. The A case presents the story of Apple from a hindsight rational analytic perspective in which students are able to apply a variety of models about strategy, organization, leadership, and innovation. The B case presents a more nuanced, critical account of Apple’s development, attributing some of its success to happenstance and good fortune, and also raises questions about Jobs’s leadership.

This case is a supplement to Apple A.

Although a participative management style usually works best, new research finds an important exception: Low-status managers, who get better ratings and results when they take charge, set the course, and tell subordinates what to do.

For many companies, innovation is a sprawling collection of initiatives, energetic but uncoordinated, and managed with vacillating strategies. For steady, above-average returns, firms need a balanced innovation portfolio and the ability to approach it as an integrated whole. Having studied companies in the industrial, technology, and consumer goods sectors, the authors found a striking pattern: Outperforming firms typically allocate about 70% of their innovation resources to core offerings, 20% to adjacent efforts, and 10% to transformational initiatives. As it happens, returns from innovation investments tend to follow an inverse ratio, with 70% coming from the transformational realm. The ideal balance will differ from industry to industry and company to company, but one thing is constant: Companies must execute at all three levels of ambition and manage total innovation deliberately and closely. In particular, they must develop the unique capacities needed for transformational innovation. This means finding the talent required for breakthrough efforts and ensuring enough separation from the core business; creating an appropriate (and often very different) funding structure; departing from a pipeline management approach; and using noneconomic and internal metrics to assess early efforts. Companies that learn how to manage for total innovation can fully harness innovation's energy and make it a reliable driver of growth.

Many companies approach product development as if it were manufacturing, trying to control costs and improve quality by applying zero-defect, efficiency-focused techniques. While this tactic can boost the performance of factories, it generally backfires with product development. The process of designing products is profoundly different from the process of making them, and the failure of executives to appreciate the differences leads to several fallacies that actually hurt product-development efforts. In this article, the authors, an HBS professor and a consultant, expose these misperceptions and others. They look at six dangerous myths: 1) High utilization of resources will make the department more efficient; 2) Processing work in large batches will be more economical; 3) Teams need to faithfully follow their development plan, minimizing any deviations from it; 4) The sooner a project is started, the sooner it will be finished; 5) The more features a product has, the better customers will like it; and 6) Projects will be more successful if teams "get them right the first time." The authors explain the negative effects these "principles" have when applied to product development, offer practical guidelines on overcoming them, and walk readers through a visual tool that will help them keep projects on track.

Rivalries in the workplace can be destructive to both personal career growth and group success. Many attempts to reverse rivalries fail because of the complex way emotion and reason operate in the building of trust. Using a method called the 3Rs, an effective leader can turn a rival into a collaborator, setting the stage for a healthy work life while driving fresh thinking within an organization. Step 1 of the method is redirection, shifting a rival's negative emotions away from the adversarial relationship. This creates an opening for Step 2, reciprocity, through which a relationship can be established. Here, the essential principle is to give before you ask--offering a rival something of clear benefit and "priming the pump" for a future return that requires little effort on the rival's part. Step 3, rationality, sets expectations of the new relationship so that efforts made using the previous steps don't come off as disingenuous. A rival is encouraged to see collaborative opportunities from a reasoned standpoint. A key advantage of the 3Rs is that the method can work to reverse all kinds of rivalries, including those with subordinates, peers, and superiors.

Award-winning foreign correspondent Christiane Amanpour shares her insights on leadership, ambition, and the female advantage.

In March 2010, the management of A.B. Corp. announced its plan to select a definite location for its central warehouse. The company, a major producer of agriculture and farm equipment, had gone through three consecutive years of financial loss as a result of increasing production costs. Management had to select a central warehouse between four candidates, based on the location of five distribution centres, the loads to be transferred, and other factors such as land costs and tax.