個案總覽

The protagonist of the case is Robert Joseph (RJ) Scaringe, Rivian's founder and CEO. Rivian designs, develops, and manufactures electric adventure vehicles such as pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). From its peak, Rivian's market capitalization had fallen to $18 billion, down almost 90%. In 2022 alone, Rivian's stock had dropped 82% while the tech-heavy Nasdaq-100 index had fallen by 34%. To make matters worse, in the first nine months of 2022, Rivian lost over $5 billion, bringing the new venture's total losses to more than $11 billion. Given persistent post-pandemic supply chain challenges, combined with an adverse macro environment because of high inflation and recessionary pressures, he is fretting about how to produce 50,000 vehicles in 2023. Low employee morale and executive turnover complicate an already challenging situation.

The case is set in 2023. The protagonist of the case is Tim Cook, Apple's CEO since 2011. CEO Cook worries about how long Apple can sustain its superior performance. Many of Apple's challenges are tied to the iPhone, one of the most iconic product innovations of the 21st century. CEO Cook must address supply chain challenges, exposure to the Chinese market, lack of innovation, pivot towards services, and increased regulatory scrutiny. With sales in 2022 of $400 billion and $100 billion in profits, Apple was the first tech company to reach a market valuation of $3 trillion (01/2022). By designing category-defining products and embedding them in a service ecosystem, the Cupertino-based company has enjoyed sustained success while many other tech companies have floundered.

The case is set in 2023. The protagonists are Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, co-CEOs of Netflix, a subscription streaming service and content production company. In Q4 2022, Netflix gained 7.7 million new subscribers (223 million worldwide) after losing 1.2 million in the year's first half. The scale of subscriber defection (in Q1 and Q2) across all geographic regions other than Asia concerned investors. By mid-2022, Netflix's share price plummeted by over 72%. The streaming company's market capitalization fell from $306 billion in November 2021 to a low of $74 billion, a loss of $232 billion. Dubbed the streaming wars, Netflix must contend with a host of competitors, some of them with deep pockets: Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu, Paramount+, Peacock, and YouTube TV, among others.

This case describes the journey that led to the creation of Saaf Sehatmand Services (SSS), a business founded by leaders from five consumer goods companies and the largest non-profit grassroots mobilization organization in Pakistan. SSS is a service company focused on distributing health, hygiene, and food products to low-income rural consumers. Its distribution model relies on local entrepreneurs (called Aapas) going door-to-door selling a basket of goods to other women in rural communities. The case tracks the SSS founding story from the viewpoint of the Pakistani operations of Reckitt-Benckiser (Reckitt), one of the world's largest FMCG companies. It examines the challenges faced by two new leaders in mid-2019 as they consider next steps to reach scale throughout Pakistan. These two leaders, Fahad Ashraf (chief executive at Reckitt Pakistan and chairman of the board of SSS) and Ayesha Janjua (head of marketing for English Biscuit Manufacturer and CEO of SSS), are focusing on developing a scalable business as opposed to launching another pilot project. They recognize that a "successful" pilot does not necessarily translate into an enterprise that can scale.

The case on KNOLSKAPE traces the firm's evolution from a service provider of simulation games for academia to becoming a full-stack provider of customized products and learning journeys for corporations around the world. Through its growth journey, KNOLSKAPE had transformed from a typical pipeline business to a platform business model that integrates the value propositions provided by providers of technology, content, and service. The case is set in 2019-2020 when the business and learning worlds were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the resultant shift to online learning. This case allows students to analyze KNOLSKAPE's platform architecture, including open-closed and proprietary-shared architectures, and globalization opportunities.

Part One: Ipsen, a global pharmaceutical firm headquartered in France, was facing significant challenges, including regulatory setbacks and fierce competition, when David Loew assumed the role of CEO in 2020. The loss of exclusivity for Somatuline, Ipsen's flagship cancer drug, added to the complexities. Tasked by the board, Loew aimed to lead Ipsen into a new era of profitable growth amid escalating competition. After thorough review during the Covid-19 pandemic, Loew and the executive team recognized the critical importance of the upcoming strategy. Ipsen Investors' Day became the platform to unveil ""Focus. Together. For Patients and Society,"" the strategy shaping Ipsen's trajectory toward ambitious 2025 targets. Despite pandemic disruptions, Loew was confident that Ipsen possessed the essential elements to embark on a new path of profitable growth. Part Two: Three years after launching the new strategy, David Loew concluded a meeting with the head of legal affairs, reflecting on the strategy's journey. Structured around four pillars, the strategy prioritized patient-centricity, a sustainable pipeline, improved efficiency and operational excellence through collaboration and a diverse workforce. Ipsen's ambition was to be an adaptable force, creating lasting value. While Ipsen made significant strides in executing the strategy, recognizing market acknowledgment, critical questions persisted. These revolved around geographic footprint, digital integration, ongoing cultural transformation and the accelerated development of key products alongside acquisitions to fortify the pipeline. Loew prepared for a two-day session with the executive team to capitalize on successes and chart the way forward to future-proof the company.

One of the biggest obstacles to effective problem-solving is not defining the problem well. Invoking the power of a? narrative and a simple story structure can help ensure that you're solving the right problem. The authors suggest that any problem can be articulated as a quest in which the key elements are hero (protagonist), dragon (obstacle), and treasure (the desired outcome). Expressing a challenge in these simple terms can make it easier to see whether a problem has been framed incorrectly.

This case illustrates how a strong culture, founder-led SME designed and used a unique performance metric-the job security index-to manage through periods of economic uncertainty. The case centers specifically on how the job security index was used in an interactive control process to focus the organization on identifying strategic uncertainties and developing related action plans to survive the crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. The case explores how the design and use of this metric both influenced, and was influenced by, the firm's broad-based employee ownership incentives.

T.V. Narendran, CEO of Tata Steel, India's oldest steel manufacturing firm, had taken concrete business and cultural transformation steps to future-ready the firm since taking over in 2013. He had deleveraged and instilled financial discipline, acquired new businesses, entered new segments and adjacent businesses, and launched digital transformation, agility, safety, and sustainability programs. At the heart of his transformation program lay the digitalization drive. Now, he turned his attention to the firm's burgeoning B2C business. In 2018, the firm had launched an e-commerce platform to sell products directly to retail customers. Now he needed to decide whether to open up this platform to non-Tata group third-party suppliers of ancillary home construction products, like cement, paint, tiles, and other home fittings. Would this create a unique one-stop shop for construction-related goods, or take Tata Steel further away from its core mission? He and his team needed to decide fast.

In September 2019, Zaoui & Co.'s close-knit team of professionals convened for their annual off-site. In its nine years of operation, the boutique investment bank founded by the brothers Michael (HBS '83) and Yoel Zaoui (Stanford GSB '88), had garnered a track record for advising on several significant transactions across Europe. At the retreat, the firm's leaders were debating whether to (a) continue as a small boutique focused on mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory services, (b) grow aggressively in M&A advisory, or (c) diversify into principal investing. Each alternative presented strategic and organizational challenges and opportunities. Whichever path they elected to pursue would significantly influence what kind of firm Zaoui & Co. would become.

In September 2019, founding partners Michael and Yoel Zaoui decided to add principal investing to Zaoui & Co.'s offerings. The case outlines how, over the next two years, Zaoui & Co. pursued the formation of a SPAC, Odyssey Acquisitions, followed by the identification of a target company, BenevolentAI, and the subsequent de-SPACing process that led to the execution of the transaction in April 2022. Although their initial foray into principal investing was a success, the process proved more arduous and time-consuming than anticipated, diverting considerable attention and resources from Zaoui & Co.'s core M&A advisory business. The brothers were wondering whether Zaoui & Co should (a) continue to aggressively seek principal investing opportunities, or (b) scale back its principal investing efforts, or (c) focus solely on M&A advisory. The choice would have important strategic and organizational implications for the firm. Although their initial foray into principal investment was a success, the process proved more arduous and time-consuming than anticipated, diverting considerable attention and resources from Zaoui & Co.'s core M&A advisory business. The brothers were wondering whether Zaoui & Co should (a) continue to aggressively seek principal investing opportunities, or (b) scale back its principal investing efforts, or (c) focus solely on M&A advisory. The choice would have important strategic and organizational implications for the firm.

When Jack Sim turned 40, it was the height of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, which had decimated half his wealth. The Singaporean entrepreneur found himself wanting to live a more meaningful life, and decided to devote his remaining years to promoting the need for clean sanitation. He first set up the Restroom Association of Singapore (RAS), and buoyed by its success, he went on to found the World Toilet Organization (WTO). Given that the topic of sanitation is awkward and not one to generate interest among the public at large, Sim opted to use humour, specifically toilet humour, to attract attention and gather support for his cause. In the process, he often drew upon his expertise as a consummate salesman to persuade people to agree with him that clean toilets could be a status symbol - not unlike branded handbags. Sim also found that in trying to enlist governments to aid his movement, he had to understand how bureaucrats work and tailor his strategies accordingly, such that the probability of getting their support would be raised. But while he had perfected the art of using humour to make the unsanitary topic as commonplace and ordinary as the weather, with the world still buffeted by COVID-19, the Ukraine war, and sky-rocketing inflation, how could he continue to sustain people's interest in this cause?

Nathalie grappled with the divergent views in her head and from her team, evaluating a range of options: Persisting doggedly, halting completely, pausing temporarily, decelerating prudently or reconsidering and crafting a new strategy. The case discusses the cost of perseverance and provides an opportunity to explore the qualities of a CEO facing difficult choices in the face of public and private criticism during a global crisis.

In May 2020, Rio Tinto, the world's second-largest mining company, destroyed a cave system in Juukan Gorge, in the remote Pilbara region of Western Australia. The caves were of exceptional archaeological distinction - thought to be the oldest site of continuous human habitation on Earth - and were of deep spiritual and cultural significance to the local Aboriginal community, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people. Rio Tinto was reputed to be an industry leader on Aboriginal partnerships, environmental protection, and other 'social licence' issues. The cave blast was entirely legal. It had received government approval and was supported by a signed agreement with the PKKP people. Nonetheless, the destruction sparked global outrage. Rio Tinto was panned in the local and international media for disregarding cultural heritage. Furious investors and shareholders demanded executive accountability. The Australian government launched a parliamentary inquiry. Trust between Rio Tinto and Aboriginal communities was shattered. The destruction of Juukan Gorge was the culmination of a decision-making process that lasted over a decade. What happened during that period was not unusual for a company of Rio Tinto's size - lucrative contracts were negotiated, new details trickled in on the Gorge's significance, a new executive team was installed, and changes were made to the organisational structure. Combined, these events cast uncertainty over who knew (or should have known) crucial information, the extent to which stakeholder consent was obtained, and how the company's values had evolved. Students step into the shoes of Simon Thompson, chairman of Rio Tinto, as he considers how to respond to the crisis. First, he must decide who to fire as a demonstration of accountability. Three top executives are implicated in the blast, but none is clearly individually responsible. Second, and perhaps more importantly, he must determine what went wrong at Rio Tinto that allowed it to

Case Supplement for Case IN1886

This case can be utilized to highlight the importance of the various aspects and stages of the change management process. The case follows the farmer's protest against the three farm laws introduced by the Government of India in 2020. It retraces the events that led the government to repeal the three farm laws on November 19, 2021. The case does not have a protagonist; however, role plays can be used in the class to draw attention to the points of conflict in the case. The case highlights the missteps of the Government of India at various levels in the change management process related to the three farm laws. The government's oversight in assessing the risk of resistance to the farm laws is also emphasized in the case. The case also identifies how the farm unions were able to initiate and sustain the protest for almost a year (which too, is an example of change management). The case at no point attempts to comment on or analyze the merits of the three farm laws framed by the Government of India. The case indicates that a change was imperative, but a judgment on the appropriateness of the three farm laws is beyond the scope of this case.

Supplement for Case ISB350

In business and strategy contexts, network effects are often accompanied by bandwagon (or herding) effects, positive feedback loops (or accumulated advantage effects), and market tipping (or winner-take-all dynamics). Though these phenomena are often grouped together under the general use of the term "network effects," this note aims to distinguish the core notion of network effects from the related phenomena that interact and often co-occur.

Spreadsheet supplement to case 123014.