個案總覽

Supplement to case IMD976 The "LEGO IN THE AGE OF DIGITIZATION" case is in two parts. Part A provides an opportunity to follow the developments of the LEGO Group in the digital gaming arena. It focuses on the "failure" of LEGO Universe, the LEGO Group's first Massive Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG), versus the success of Minecraft, launched by the start-up Mojang. The LEGO Group followed the traditional waterfall process of sequential phases: design, development, testing and commercialization. The company experienced the issues of partnering with a development studio located in Colorado, far away from the Lego Group's HQ. That caused problems in aligning on the image, branding and safety of the game versus the LEGO Group's values and selling proposition. After years of development, LEGO Universe was finally launched in 2010, but failed to meet the Group's ambition for it to become a second core business. By the end of 2011, a decision had to be made on whether to continue LEGO Universe or to close it. In contrast, Minecraft followed a very different development pattern that could be described as agile, where early users did testing and provided ideas for further development. In addition, the start-up followed a more usual digital pricing scheme of initial low price and add-on purchases. The success of Minecraft is even more in contrast to LEGO Universe because both development projects started around the same time, building on a very similar gaming concept and user experience, but with very different means and development approaches. Part B is an epilogue to Part A. It describes the LEGO Group's decision to close the LEGO Universe game, its learnings on how to embark on digital together with partners, the need to internally develop a unit to manage these partnerships and the conclusion to adopt a "hybrid" approach between waterfall and agile development.

In summer of 2010, Murat Çavuşoğlu (HBS MBA 1994) led private equity firm Actera Group's investment in Mars Cinema Group (Mars), the leading movie exhibitor in Turkey. Immediately after acquiring Mars and merging it with the second larger player in the market, AFM, Çavuşoğlu focused on institutionalizing and implementing value creation work streams in Mars. While transforming an entrepreneurial company into an institutionalized firm, Çavuşoğlu established adjacent businesses such as movie advertising and ticket sales. The most recent step in transforming Mars was to establish a movie distribution arm, which would help the company to monitor and manage the seasonal cycles, enhance the appeal for investors in the exit, and improve the valuation. However, while Çavuşoğlu was laying out the plans for his next move with movie distribution in 2014, Turkey's Council of State, the highest administrative court in the country, had decided to cancel the approval for the merger of Mars and AFM, putting all of Actera's efforts on Mars at risk. Should Çavuşoğlu push the stop button for distribution? If Çavuşoğlu decided to move forward with distribution, should he do it now or wait until the process with Turkey's judiciary and regulatory authorities cleared out?

Supplement to case SMU312. This is a three-part case. Case A introduces Rahzi Putera, a product manager at Samudera Pharma Corporation (SPC), one of Indonesia's largest manufacturer and distributor of generic pharmaceuticals. SPC had earlier that year entered into an agreement with Braxton Biotech Corporation (Braxton) in India, to distribute Epogex, a drug used for the treatment of anaemia. The regulators at the Ministry of Health gave a conditional registration that Epogex could be sold in the country, but only to the private sector, until SPC conducted a clinical study to monitor the safety and adequacy of the drug. Rahzi was tasked to manage the clinical study. When the Epogex shipment arrived, temperature readings showed that it had been frozen. Epogex's product leaflet very clearly stated that the product should be discarded if frozen. However, when Rahzi recommended throwing away the supply, he faced great resistance from both his colleagues and superiors at SPC, and Braxton. Braxton provided data from a quality assurance study it had conducted in 2012, which concluded that the product remained stable despite the temperature excursions. Rahzi now had to make a decision whether to commercially sell the once-frozen shipment of Epogex, which would not be used in the clinical study. Case B sees Rahzi sending an email to all the key decision makers at SPC, stating his concerns about selling the frozen shipment stock to the public, and strongly recommending that it be destroyed. However, he is once again pressured to approve the frozen batch of Epogex for commercial sale. In Case C, Rahzi speaks to his boss, Alia Iman, again to support him in destroying the stock. Alia agrees and convinces her boss, Bobby Suharto, to do so. Unhappy about how the incident was managed, Rahzi quits SPC shortly thereafter.

Supplement to case SMU312. This is a three-part case. Case A introduces Rahzi Putera, a product manager at Samudera Pharma Corporation (SPC), one of Indonesia's largest manufacturer and distributor of generic pharmaceuticals. SPC had earlier that year entered into an agreement with Braxton Biotech Corporation (Braxton) in India, to distribute Epogex, a drug used for the treatment of anaemia. The regulators at the Ministry of Health gave a conditional registration that Epogex could be sold in the country, but only to the private sector, until SPC conducted a clinical study to monitor the safety and adequacy of the drug. Rahzi was tasked to manage the clinical study. When the Epogex shipment arrived, temperature readings showed that it had been frozen. Epogex's product leaflet very clearly stated that the product should be discarded if frozen. However, when Rahzi recommended throwing away the supply, he faced great resistance from both his colleagues and superiors at SPC, and Braxton. Braxton provided data from a quality assurance study it had conducted in 2012, which concluded that the product remained stable despite the temperature excursions. Rahzi now had to make a decision whether to commercially sell the once-frozen shipment of Epogex, which would not be used in the clinical study. Case B sees Rahzi sending an email to all the key decision makers at SPC, stating his concerns about selling the frozen shipment stock to the public, and strongly recommending that it be destroyed. However, he is once again pressured to approve the frozen batch of Epogex for commercial sale. In Case C, Rahzi speaks to his boss, Alia Iman, again to support him in destroying the stock. Alia agrees and convinces her boss, Bobby Suharto, to do so. Unhappy about how the incident was managed, Rahzi quits SPC shortly thereafter.

Supplement to case HEC175. In the early 1990s, the company now known as Gildan Activewear was a small children's wear firm with revenues of $40 million. Its competition, legendary companies such as Russell, Fruit of the Loom, and Hanes, had sales in the billions of dollars. From its small beginnings and through unparalleled growth, Gildan went on to dominate most segments of the world's activewear market. This case presents the history of both the company and the industry, with an overview of major competitors. It systematically outlines Gildan's march toward domination, explaining not only how it built its position but also the in-house development of all its functions to strengthen that position. Finally, the case describes the strategic focus of the company as well as the values that motivate its managers. 2010 (Case A) The 2010 Gildan case (A) shows how a single company can influence industry leaders and dynamics and provides a classic example of the importance of the three pillars of strategic management: environment, internal management, and leadership. 2016 (Case B) The 2016 Gildan case (B) describes the situation in 2016. It can be used as a conclusion to the 2010 case for an interesting discussion of the social responsibility of a large company, or as a standalone case.

Supplement to case HEC178. This two-part case deals with the events surrounding the monitoring by Human Rights Watch (HRW) of human rights violations targeting Rohingya Muslims in Burma in October 2012. The case focuses on HRW's decision to publish a report of the situation and the impact of that report in Burma and abroad. While most human rights violation investigations are 'business as usual' for HRW, the situation presented in this case was different: the primary material for the investigation was satellite imagery, not the eyewitness reports typically used by HRW. The case is designed to stimulate discussion of value creation by NGOs, the effect of technological development on NGO operations, and the development of new capabilities by NGOs. It also introduces students to human rights issues, a topic rarely discussed in business schools. Part A provides background to address questions concerning (1) whether or not HRW should report the violations and (2) how satellite imagery can provide sufficient evidence to raise awareness of a situation. Part B covers the impact of the report on the situation by looking at the response from the media, the United Nations, the United States, and the Government of Burma. The case also sheds light on the challenges faced by HRW in the fulfillment of its mission.

Supplement to case HEC183. This case examines the challenges faced by a grassroots non-profit struggling to carry out its mission and stabilize its finances in an increasingly competitive and demanding funding environment over a twenty-year period. It examines the issues faced by non-profits as they chart a course for growth despite precarious funding and divergent stakeholder expectations, examining the often difficult and paradoxical decisions that non-profit managers must make to ensure the survival of their organizations. Santropol Roulant (SR) is a small, community-based non-profit offering a meals-on-wheels service to individuals living with a loss of autonomy. Founded in 1995, SR's mission is to provide an important service to the community while enabling young people to gain valuable work and leadership experience. Despite numerous setbacks, many typical of those encountered by grassroots non-profits, SR managed to grow and thrive without compromising its "ethos" and happily celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2015.

Supplement to case HEC183. This case examines the challenges faced by a grassroots non-profit struggling to carry out its mission and stabilize its finances in an increasingly competitive and demanding funding environment over a twenty-year period. It examines the issues faced by non-profits as they chart a course for growth despite precarious funding and divergent stakeholder expectations, examining the often difficult and paradoxical decisions that non-profit managers must make to ensure the survival of their organizations. Santropol Roulant (SR) is a small, community-based non-profit offering a meals-on-wheels service to individuals living with a loss of autonomy. Founded in 1995, SR's mission is to provide an important service to the community while enabling young people to gain valuable work and leadership experience. Despite numerous setbacks, many typical of those encountered by grassroots non-profits, SR managed to grow and thrive without compromising its "ethos" and happily celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2015.

Supplement to case W17559.

Supplement for product 9B17M139.

Handout supplement for case UV7313.

Handout supplement for case UV7313.

Supplement to case 118023. As a global energy generating company, AES frequently faces challenges from political changes and instability. This is exacerbated by the fact that in many instances AES' primary customer is the government, which is also in charge of law-making. For example, AES' management team has encountered expropriation risks in Venezuela, collection problems in the Dominican Republic, and regulatory changes in the United States that have led to asset impairments. More recently, the Bulgarian energy regulator announced its intentions to seek a 30% price reduction on a power purchase agreement signed over 10 years ago with AES. Accordingly, AES' management is evaluating whether the renegotiation will lead to any asset impairments and the overall effects on its financial statements.

The sudden departure to Hewlett- Packard of a top level EMC Corporation executive who had full knowledge of EMC's operations, business plans, and key personnel ignited a bi-coastal battle between two fierce rivals that was played out in courts competing for jurisdiction and states with diametrically opposed laws and public policies concerning non-competition agreements. The enforceability of the employment contract at the core of the case is explored in the context of motion pleading and preliminary relief and litigation strategy is presented as part of a company's overall business strategy.

Supplement to case 418001.

Supplement for product 9B17M121.

Supplement to case W17521.

Supplement for product 9B17M134.

Supplement for product 9B17M0134.

A fellow named J. T. Funk has reviewed the financial statements of two retail companies and now adds a third company's financial statements to review for strength or portended weakness, and if so, to find what are the indicators of either.