個案總覽

This case explores how neuroscientist Mariam Chammat helped set up the first behavioral insights team at the center of the French government, and encouraged French administrations to innovate and create policy initiatives based on psychological theories of influence and persuasion. Students are asked to assess 35 projects ripe for behavioral intervention and pick the winning proposals.

This case follows Amira Rashad as she founds BulkWhiz, a Dubai-based buy-in-bulk grocery delivery platform. Following its launch in September 2017, BulkWhiz experiences rapid growth of 30 percent per month in the United Arab Emirates. Despite this initial success, Rashad finds herself at a critical juncture just nine months later, with a number of internal and external negotiations awaiting her. First, she is eager to convince her Chief Technology Officer to come on-board full-time, and needs to finalize details on his transition and compensation. Second, she is wrestling with how to expand her business beyond the UAE market. Finally, she is seeking series A fundraising, to fuel the company's growth. How should she approach and sequence these negotiations, and what obstacles might loom?

In January 2018, Xerox, a well-known American digital document firm, convened its board of directors to decide whether to approve a merger with Japanese imaging company Fujifilm. Activist Xerox shareholders were suing to halt the transaction, and documents unearthed during the subsequent discovery process revealed that the deal was negotiated by a conflicted CEO. This case study draws from contemporaneous deal documents and unsealed court records to provide a behind-the-scenes look at the deal dynamics. The case raises important issues of deal process design, negotiations, corporate law, and corporate governance.

Supplement to case 919002.

Supplement to case 919002.

In the summer of 2014, a large energy company was poised to begin expanding its unconventional natural gas operations in northeastern British Columbia in the hopes of capitalizing on the Canadian province's determination to build a liquid natural gas industry. The company had secured mineral rights from the province but had not simultaneously pursued surface rights from a First Nation community that historically had used the land. When a seismic exploration team appeared on the tribe's traditional territory without consulting it, as was customary (and in some cases legally required), the company unwittingly ignited a firestorm of protest from both First Nation and non First Nation local citizens. Recognizing the importance of social acceptance both to operations and profitability, the company sent senior vice president Maria Paquet to participate in fireside discussions with tribal, regional government, and environmental leaders in the hopes of finding some common ground. Could these leaders arrive at sufficient trust and agreement to allow the company to move forward with its plans? Or would the company face gridlock, community blocking, or even financial peril? In a small-group role-playing exercise, students will step into the shoes of each of these stakeholders as they try to forge a path forward that is acceptable to all.

Spreadsheet supplement for 911044, 911045, and 911046.

In this simulation exercise, four family members must negotiate over the future of the family business. Should the business be sold to a strategic buyer, or should the family retain control? If the business is sold, how should the proceeds of the sale be distributed among family members? If the business is not sold, how should ongoing ownership and control be shared among family members? The exercise, which is inspired by a collection of real-world scenarios, provides an opportunity to practice techniques for learning about the motivations of others and for forging agreements that balance the interests of multiple parties. Special thanks to Boris Tsimerinov (PLDA16, 2017) of Semper8 Capital for his contributions to this exercise.

In this simulation exercise, four family members must negotiate over the future of the family business. Should the business be sold to a strategic buyer, or should the family retain control? If the business is sold, how should the proceeds of the sale be distributed among family members? If the business is not sold, how should ongoing ownership and control be shared among family members? The exercise, which is inspired by a collection of real-world scenarios, provides an opportunity to practice techniques for learning about the motivations of others and for forging agreements that balance the interests of multiple parties. Special thanks to Boris Tsimerinov (PLDA16, 2017) of Semper8 Capital for his contributions to this exercise.

In this simulation exercise, four family members must negotiate over the future of the family business. Should the business be sold to a strategic buyer, or should the family retain control? If the business is sold, how should the proceeds of the sale be distributed among family members? If the business is not sold, how should ongoing ownership and control be shared among family members? The exercise, which is inspired by a collection of real-world scenarios, provides an opportunity to practice techniques for learning about the motivations of others and for forging agreements that balance the interests of multiple parties. Special thanks to Boris Tsimerinov (PLDA16, 2017) of Semper8 Capital for his contributions to this exercise.

In this simulation exercise, four family members must negotiate over the future of the family business. Should the business be sold to a strategic buyer, or should the family retain control? If the business is sold, how should the proceeds of the sale be distributed among family members? If the business is not sold, how should ongoing ownership and control be shared among family members? The exercise, which is inspired by a collection of real-world scenarios, provides an opportunity to practice techniques for learning about the motivations of others and for forging agreements that balance the interests of multiple parties. Special thanks to Boris Tsimerinov (PLDA16, 2017) of Semper8 Capital for his contributions to this exercise.

In the lead-up to the United Nations' 2015 climate summit in Paris, excitement ran high and so did anxiety. Negotiators hoped for a new international agreement, the first such effort since the disappointing collapse of negotiations six years earlier in Copenhagen. But the text of the agreement was still subject to debate. This case focuses on the efforts of one mid-level participant in the process, Josefina Braña-Varela, policy director for Forests & Climate at WWF. Her focus: to try to ensure that forest protection received a specific mention in the Paris Agreement. Two years earlier, national delegates had added a set of rules and standards called the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) to the international climate regime. Under this framework, developing countries could qualify for payment in exchange for reducing deforestation or forest damage, or for introducing practices such as sustainable forest management. But participation in the program was entirely voluntary. It remained to be seen whether developed countries would provide enough funding to make it work, and whether developing countries would be willing to adopt policies to measure and reduce deforestation and forest degradation. In this context, Braña-Varela thought it crucial that the Paris Agreement send a signal that delegates viewed forest preservation not a side concern, but as an objective as critical as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Some negotiators were leery of doing so, however, for an array of reasons. The case provides enough background for the reader to understand the tensions over this issue, then follows Braña-Varela, a one-time forest negotiator for Mexico, in her new role at WWF. The case shows the strategic choices of a respected, but not especially powerful, figure, as she tries to influence a complex international process. Case number 2118.0

When Hewlett-Packard Enterprise notified Rhode Island's Governor's Office that it won't be able to deliver a "fully-functioning" technology upgrade for the Department of Motor Vehicles, both parties had reached a breaking point. HPE argued that it would need more money to complete the system, while the Governor's cabinet countered by stating that HPE was violating its contractual obligations. The case covers Rhode Island's perspective of the various moves each side made in preparation for anticipated adjudication.

Campbell siblings Thomas and Sally are faced with selling their childhood home. They need to make several difficult consequential decisions, all the while navigating their contentious relationship. Did it make sense to hire a broker, or should they go it alone? How much was the home worth? What should the listing price be? Most importantly, what combination of answers would get them the best outcome? And along the way, as they gather information to answer these questions, several unforeseen events occur.