個案總覽

India’s Economic Survey 2016–17 proposed a gradual implementation of the concept of universal basic income (UBI) as the fastest way of providing a long-term solution to poverty. Large-scale inequality and poverty, along with huge misallocation and wastages in the existing welfare schemes, made India a perfect ground for experimenting with UBI. Though the rapid expansion of Jan Dhan–Aadhaar–Mobile infrastructure was expected to smoothen the execution of UBI in India, there were looming concerns about implementation of the program, fiscal feasibility, and the questionable effectiveness of UBI’s impact on poverty alleviation.

In 2015, the Department of Health for the province of Gauteng, South Africa, deinstitutionalized patients in need of long term health care in an effort to reduce costs. The residents were moved from an established health care facility experienced with providing the care these patients needed to non-governmental facilities. Many of these facilities were unlicensed and lacking the skills and resources needed to provide the necessary care. The project was poorly planned with inadequate notice and patients were transferred without identification, medication, or medical records. From March to June 2016, 1,712 patients were transferred; many of them were lost in the system and 144 died—most from malnutrition, abuse, or neglect. The health ombudsman investigated and released a report in February 2017, placing the blame for the tragedy on three senior leaders in the health care system. A new member of the executive council was appointed upon the release of the report. In 2018, her challenge was to determine what happened and plan changes to ensure such a tragedy would never be repeated.

In 2017, Billy McFarland set out to create an immersive music festival in the Bahamas. He spent eight weeks with rapper Ja Rule planning the Fyre Festival, which, in the end, never brought a single act to the stage. The Fyre Festival became one of the most widely documented festivals of the century, and the subject matter of thousands of news articles, parodies, and memes that poked fun at what was an event planning nightmare. What had gone wrong from an organizational standpoint, and what proactive measures could have been taken to avoid the problems?

China-based Xiaomi entered India’s smartphone industry in 2014. In 2015, it had a meagre market share of 3 per cent, which by the first quarter of 2018 had grown to a 31 per cent market share, making it India’s number one smartphone player. Xiaomi was set to expand its offerings to additional product categories in an effort to disrupt the electronics market in India. How had Xiaomi achieved its phenomenal growth in India in just a few years? Would it be able to maintain its brand image of product reliability as it extended its offerings to additional product categories and continued selling at low price points? Could the strategies that had made Xiaomi the number one smartphone player in India also help it to disrupt other product categories?

In January 2019, eBay Inc. (eBay), a California-based e-commerce company, faced an activist campaign centred on its portfolio of businesses. Elliott Management Corporation, the hedge fund leading the campaign, believed that StubHub and Classifieds, two of eBay’s companies, did not belong in eBay’s portfolio and that their real value was hidden by eBay’s ownership. The hedge fund also argued that the lack of focus in eBay’s portfolio was distracting the company’s senior management from Marketplace, eBay’s core business, which was facing stiff competition from other major online retailers. What should the chief executive officer and board chairman do to address these charges about eBay’s corporate strategy?

On November 14, 2017, Aurora Cannabis Inc. (Aurora) made a proposal to CanniMed Therapeutics Inc. (CanniMed) to acquire all of CanniMed’s issued and outstanding common shares in a share exchange that valued CanniMed’s common shares at a premium of almost 30 per cent over the previous day’s share price. In its proposal, Aurora requested a response from CanniMed’s board of directors by November 17, 2018, in the absence of which it intended to launch a formal, hostile takeover bid. Instead of responding to Aurora’s offer, CanniMed’s board of directors issued a news release advising shareholders to take no action regarding Aurora’s bid and announcing that CanniMed had entered into an agreement to wholly acquire Newstrike Resources Inc. (Newstrike). As a result, Aurora took its bid directly to CanniMed shareholders, with a condition that CanniMed terminate the proposed Newstrike acquisition. Now CanniMed investors had to carefully consider their alternatives: should they tender their shares to Aurora’s bid, or should they hold on to their shares according to the CanniMed board’s recommendation and then decide whether to vote in favour of the Newstrike transaction?

In 2019, a small investor was reviewing her portfolio mix, which included quick-service restaurants. During her research, she learned of new-product launches by two companies: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat. Both companies produced plant-based products that simulated meat, and both were distributing their products not only in grocery stores but also in quick-service restaurants. Both also used innovative marketing, such as insisting that their products be placed in the meat aisle and not in a separate aisle for plant-based food. The companies suggested their products were better for animals, human health, and the environment than animal-based meat, but faced pushback and regulation. Would plant-based meat be a good investment?

In 2001, Apple, Inc. (Apple), known mainly as the maker of a niche personal computer and related operating system and software, became a disruptor in the music industry with the launch of the iPod music player; it followed up two years later with the launch of the iTunes Music Store (iTunes). Over the next several years, the company struck deals with major music recording labels to distribute downloadable music legally through iTunes, challenging an industry-wide decline in a climate of widespread digital file-sharing and piracy. In 2007, it brought about increased sales of digital music downloads after launching the iPhone. However, by 2019, consumers were mainly consuming music via streaming services such as Spotify, Google LLC’s YouTube, Amazon.com Inc., and Pandora. What would Apple need to do to continue as a leader in the music industry?

In 2019, Walmart Inc. (Walmart) was the largest retailer in the world, with over $500 billion in revenues and thousands of stores in the United States and international markets. It was in the midst of a transformation to compete in the online shopping and home delivery space, an industry that was dominated by relative newcomer Amazon.com Inc. (Amazon). While Walmart had continued to expand its physical stores and discount centres over several decades, its online presence had needed attention; its investment in online sales between 2013 and 2018 had brought about a significant reduction in the operating income margin in its largest and most profitable segment, Walmart US. However, by February 2019, the company had achieved growth in online sales of 43 per cent. Would the strategic changes that had brought about this growth enable the company to maintain its position in the United States?

In March 2019, Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft were grounded worldwide. This was a consequence of two deadly plane crashes within five months in late 2018 and early 2019. In both the crashes, the flawed design of the aircraft led to an erroneous reading of the onboard sensors. This, in turn, activated the stall prevention software of the aircraft, which kept pushing the nose of the aircraft down. Boeing was alleged to have hastily developed the 737 MAX aircraft in response to the Airbus A320neo.<br><br>In August 2019, Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of Boeing, was hopeful that services of 737 MAX could resume within a couple of months. How should Muilenburg deal with the crisis? To what extent should he worry about the increasing competitive rivalry with Airbus?

Bird Electric Vehicle Sharing (Bird)’s value proposition seems to be to offer inexpensive, on-demand transportation that can deliver riders directly to their destination in metropolitan areas. Electric scooters can be unlocked with a smartphone and left anywhere after use, minimizing the burden on consumersbut also causing tremendous traffic problems for city administrators. The disruption created by Bird not only drew the attention of urban commuters but also resulted in its product being banned in cities like San Francisco and Denver.<br><br>This case explores these issues in depth and sets up the challenge that Bird faces in extending its initial success. Bird must contemplate not only the individual components of its value chain but possibly also the business model itself, in evaluating the best course of action to ensure its future success.

In addition to Google, LLC (Google) facing multiple litigations around the globe, India’s antitrust watchdog, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), had recently launched its own investigation into the company. This was not the first occasion of an antitrust probe being initiated against Google in international markets. The company had already paid an astonishing US$ 9 billion in fines for abusing Android’s dominant position in the smartphone market to boost its dominance in other areas, such as web searching, browsing, and mobile apps. In 2019, Google was in trouble in India, again, for similar reasons. The CCI alleged that Google forced smartphone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and the Google Chrome browser on their devices, thus misusing its dominant position by stopping smartphone manufacturers from opting for alternative versions of its mobile operating system (OS). However, Google strongly denied these allegations, arguing that it had not indulged in anti-competitive practices; rather, it claimed it had promoted relevant market competition.<br><br> Which marketing practices of Google invited the antitrust probe and allegations of abuse of their dominant position in India? Why were competition watchdogs concerned about the growing dominance of Google in the Indian mobile operating software (OS) market? In an oligopolistic market comprising multiple players, why did the CCI consider Google to be a dominant player in the Indian mobile OS market? Could Google do something to avoid antitrust lawsuits and allegations of abuse of dominance in the future?

Beyond Meat Inc. (Beyond Meat), a manufacturer of plant-based protein products founded in 2009 and based in Los Angeles, California, had become a success, despite supply chain and manufacturing issues. However, as competition flooded the market, the firm’s founder and chief executive officer (CEO) faced a number of challenges: Beyond Meat was investing more and more in differentiation and innovation, and even refining the recipe of its bestselling Beyond Burger—something the CEO himself considered risky. Beyond Meat filed for an initial public offering in May 2019, and by the end of July 2019, the company’s share price had increased by over 800 per cent, but analysts considered Beyond Meat stocks to be overvalued given that the company’s increasing revenues and high-priced products had not prevented increasing losses. Still, Beyond Meat was expected to disrupt the animal-based protein industry. What should the CEO do to justify the valuation of Beyond Meat? How should he handle competitive forces? Did his venture hold any potential to disrupt the animal protein industry?

Following the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, the US government set out to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement, threatening to revoke it if a new favourable deal was not reached with Canada and Mexico. Among other demands, the United States wanted to increase its access to Canada’s protected dairy markets and was calling for the Canadian dairy supply management system to be dismantled. But the health of the Canadian dairy industry depended on supply management. In negotiating the new agreement, Chrystia Freeland, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Canada, needed to consider the balance of domestic interests in supply management with Canada’s international trade priorities.

In June 2018, Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services, Ltd., one of the largest infrastructure and financial services companies in India, shocked the investment community by defaulting on several debt repayments. Its previously highly-rated debt instruments were downgraded, triggering fears of a market liquidity crisis. In an attempt to defuse the crisis, the Government of India appointed an interim board of directors comprised of industry professionals. The new board faced the difficult task of getting the company back on track, but it first needed to answer several questions: What governance and intermediation failures led to this crisis? What was the company’s current financial position? What options were available to remedy the situation?

In 2017, the successful Canadian innovation center TEC Edmonton initiated a joint venture with TusStar, an important Chinese accelerator, and found itself in the middle of a debate about the challenges and opportunities of Chinese investment in Canada’s technology sector. Both organizations were unique collaborations among industry, academia, and government. This joint initiative had added significance because of the implications for these stakeholders. The role of government was also significant, especially regarding the role of the Chinese government in innovation. The partnership was also nationally significant because of the important roles TEC Edmonton and TusStar played in the innovation ecosystems in Canada and China. How could TEC Edmonton define its role underpinning its relationship with TusStar and the Chinese government and make a compelling case for this new cooperation to stakeholders in industry, academia, and government?

In 2016, China witnessed a significant rise in the knowledge economy. Many users, who had been used to consuming information on the Internet for free, had become increasingly willing to pay for user-generated-content (UGC). Recognizing this emerging opportunity, Qiushibaike (QB), a well-established UGC platform with a focus on entertaining content, rolled out a new pay-for-knowledge product, namely Youliaodao (YLD), which focused on informational content. Instead of following the popular pay-for-knowledge product endorsed by eye-catching celebrities for hedonic needs, YLD differentiated itself by charging for high-quality UGC for practical problem-solving. QB needed to make a critical decision: Should the company support YLD with additional investments and promotion of its informational content, or should QB terminate YLD and return to the company’s core competence area of promoting more entertaining content? How could YLD cope with the increased competition and overcome these obstacles?

In-N-Out was an iconic burger chain that had changed little since it was founded in 1948. The company remained family-owned and had continually resisted going public. The company was only located in seven US states and grew slowly and deliberately in order to ensure that it could continue to offer a high quality product and experience to its customers at low prices. Current CEO Lynsi Snyder was interested in continued growth for In-N-Out, but not at the cost of sacrificing the quality of its products or the unique way in which the company operated. How could she grow the company without altering its identity?

In June 2019, Tata Consultancy Services Limited (TCS), a leading Indian global information technology (IT) services, consulting, and business solutions provider, announced that it would increase its shareholding in Tata Consultancy Services Japan Limited (TCS Japan) from 51 per cent to 66 per cent. Established in July 2014, TCS Japan was a joint venture between TCS and Mitsubishi Corporation (MC), one of Japan’s largest integrated business enterprises. This collaboration was not TCS’s first foray into Japan’s IT industry; the company had entered the Japanese market in 1987, but with a wholly owned subsidiary. Why did TCS give up a part of its full ownership and control to MC in 2014? Was such an alliance a merger of equals or more a sale of the Japanese branch to a stronger local suitor? Why did the company reclaim its ownership in 2019 through an increase in equity holding? To penetrate the Japanese IT services market and compete with local giants, should TCS have acquired another medium-sized Japanese company instead of joint venturing with MC? Or, should it have continued operating in the Japanese market alone through the wholly owned subsidiary?

In late July 2018, a buy-side analyst at Dimensional Wealth Group (DWG), a privately owned investment management firm, needed to decide whether DWG should increase, decrease, or not change its position in Harley-Davidson Inc. (Harley-Davidson) stock. DWG had been bullish on its Harley-Davidson stock, leading DWG to increase its position in Harley-Davidson substantially over time. However, Harley-Davidson was currently facing several challenges, which suggested that the timing was appropriate for DWG to reconsider its bullish position. How should the analyst determine a suitable recommendation regarding the Harley-Davidson stock?