個案總覽

Tests students' understanding of exchange rate analytics and how shifts in exchange rates affect firms' economics.

An individual is considering the development of a new restaurant. To make the decision, she uses NPV analysis to determine whether she should undertake the investment, and, if so, the optimal size of the investment.

Informal coaching opportunities occur in the course of daily life. In this workshop, students are provided with ways to improve their responsiveness to these opportunities. The format is a series of sessions in which students form teams and take turns playing the role of the director of operations for a software products business. Two staff members come to see the director, on their initiative, to ask for ideas, help, guidance, or a decision on an issue. The director knows key details about each staff member’s background and development needs, but does not know in advance what the specific issues or concerns are. It is necessary to explore these issues or concerns before any decision can be made. The students’ performances are videotaped and critiqued in terms of identifying each staff member’s problem(s); the effectiveness of responses to the immediate problems; and contribution to that staff member’s longer-term growth or awareness through coaching. The accompanying seven role-plays (products #9B00C007, #9B00C008, #9B00C009, #9B00C010, #9B00C011, #9B00C012, #9B00C013) provide background information on each of the staff members.

This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.

This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.

This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.

This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.

This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.

This series provides the instructions for a group decision-making simulation in which students experience four different methods for leading a group decision process. In the simulation, all students work in groups, with one person designated as the team leader. All groups experience two decision-making processes during the simulation. For the first decision process, all leaders follow the instructions in the (A) case, and all other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (E) case. The groups make a decision, and each individual completes a survey to assess the process. In the second decision process, some team leaders follow the instructions in the (B) case, while others employ the methods described in the (C) or (D) cases. All other group members adhere to the guidelines in the (F) case. Again, groups make a decision, and complete a survey to assess the process. The survey responses can be analyzed to compare the students' experiences with the four different methods for leading a decision making process.

Introduces students to the concepts of inventory valuation (LIFO and FIFO) using a simple example. They then get the chance to apply this knowledge to help understand the inventory footnote for California Steel Industries.

This case contains common-size balance sheets and financial ratios for 10 companies, each representative of a different industry. Students are asked to identify the industries from the structure of the financial statements.

Designed primarily to give students the opportunity to evaluate brands by breaking down individual attributes and analyzing performance in these areas. In doing so, students will be able to isolate a brand's distinct characteristics and decide which areas are the most important for improving brand performance.

The seller (Riggs Engineering) manufactures and services recycling equipment for the computer industry. The buyer (Vericomp) uses solvents in manufacturing chips. Though set in a high-tech industry, this exercise illustrates fundamental aspects of negotiation analysis that would apply in any situation--specifically, potential sources of joint gains and the tension between creating and claiming value. While it may be possible to reach a deal on price alone, doing so is difficult. Students can expand the zone of possible agreement if they creatively trade on other issues, including the scope of services Riggs will provide, payment schedules, timing of the contract, and possible guarantees. Even as they jointly expand the pie, of course, they must be mindful of what slice will be theirs. All agreements can be expressed in present value terms, so it is easy to identify which pairs generated the most gain, and which individuals got the best deals for their particular companies. This is a two-party, multi-issue negotiation exercise. Students should read either the (A) or the (B), but not both, and then be paired up to negotiate. Results are reported using the simple form that is the (C) case.

The seller (Riggs Engineering) manufactures and services recycling equipment for the computer industry. The buyer (Vericomp) uses solvents in manufacturing chips. Though set in a high-tech industry, this exercise illustrates fundamental aspects of negotiation analysis that would apply in any situation--specifically, potential sources of joint gains and the tension between creating and claiming value. While it may be possible to reach a deal on price alone, doing so is difficult. Students can expand the zone of possible agreement if they creatively trade on other issues, including the scope of services Riggs will provide, payment schedules, timing of the contract, and possible guarantees. Even as they jointly expand the pie, of course, they must be mindful of what slice will be theirs. All agreements can be expressed in present value terms, so it is easy to identify which pairs generated the most gain, and which individuals got the best deals for their particular companies. This is a two-party, multi-issue negotiation exercise. Students should read either the (A) or the (B), but not both, and then be paired up to negotiate. Results are reported using the simple form that is the (C) case.

Designed to accompany Amazon.com: Exploiting the Value of a Digital Business Infrastructure.

American Airlines is a widely cited leader in the development and implementation of yield management practices. This case is based on a training exercise used at American Airlines to introduce managers to their yield management system. Participants are given the responsibility for a single flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas to Miami, Florida and are required to make a series of sequential booking decisions in real time. The objective of the exercise is to maximize total revenue for the flight, after taking into account no-shows and penalties. De-briefing following the exercise provides an opportunity to discuss both the strategic and tactical issues that arise when applying yield management systems in service firms. The case is designed for use in a service management elective course or in a service operations course and is intended to expose students to yield management by giving them hands-on experience managing bookings for a flight. The game takes approximately 50 minutes to play, leaving approximately 30 minutes for class discussion. Ideally, a supplemental reading dealing with yield management should be assigned with the case in order to provide background theory on yield management and to describe the complexities of a yield management system.

American Airlines is a widely cited leader in the development and implementation of yield management practices. This case is based on a training exercise used at American Airlines to introduce managers to their yield management system. Participants are given the responsibility for a single flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas to Miami, Florida and are required to make a series of sequential booking decisions in real time. The objective of the exercise is to maximize total revenue for the flight, after taking into account no-shows and penalties. De-briefing following the exercise provides an opportunity to discuss both the strategic and tactical issues that arise when applying yield management systems in service firms. The case is designed for use in a service management elective course or in a service operations course and is intended to expose students to yield management by giving them hands-on experience managing bookings for a flight. The game takes approximately 50 minutes to play, leaving approximately 30 minutes for class discussion. Ideally, a supplemental reading dealing with yield management should be assigned with the case in order to provide background theory on yield management and to describe the complexities of a yield management system.

This team exercise allows students to experience some of the dynamics of developing products in the fast-paced Internet environment and was inspired by the browser war between Netscape and Microsoft. Designed to be taught in a single class session, the exercise introduces various sources of uncertainty (e.g., various press releases, different team sizes) that make the task of designing a development process particularly challenging. Student teams have to make decisions on organization, features, milestones, testing, and integration in a period of about 30 minutes and present their results to the rest of the class.

This series of 14 exercises is intended to provide practice in the typical arithmetic challenges faced by marketers. Each exercise focuses on different calculations, including margin calculations, contribution analysis, profit analysis, price calculations and break-even calculations.

Six-party negotiation of land use and development.