Case studies

The case focuses on the career of Gil Mandelzis, a former Wall Street investment banker who recognized and seized an opportunity to build his company, Traiana, into a successful services provider for financial institutions in the foreign exchange prime brokerage market. The case describes Mandelzis's history, beginning with his earliest entrepreneurial effort as a Tel Aviv bar owner and continuing through his decision to start Traiana. Time and again, Traiana achieved success only to be undone by unexpected, uncontrollable events. Each time, Mandelzis rebuilt the company from scratch. In one memorable instance--the one that enabled Traiana's ultimate success--Mandelzis abandoned a business plan that had created a $10 million company, fired 40 percent of his employees, and embarked on a brand-new direction. At the time the case is set, Traiana appears poised to grow into a major force in the foreign exchange prime brokerage business. Then Mandelzis receives an offer to buy the company for $164 million. The management team must either accept the offer or assume the risk that Traiana's growth will continue and its value will escalate in the coming years. For a company that has repeatedly seen unexpected events derail management's plans, taking the risk is not easy. The case posits three choices: accept the offer, reject the offer, or seek out other buyers.

Students must determine Traiana's value and advise Mandelzis how to respond to the offer. In determining its value, students learn to consider factors outside the company. The key insight in analyzing this case is understanding that Traiana's value should be seen in terms of its worth to the potential buyer rather than only using typical valuation measures such as current or projected revenues.

The purpose of this case is to introduce the topic of socially responsible investing from both the investor and investee perspectives. The students will walk away with an understanding of 1) how to evaluate a portfolio company on a social/environmental mission and on traditional financial criteria, and 2) what considerations should be top of mind for a social venture considering accepting an equity investment. Wes Selke is a portfolio manager at Good Capital, an investment fund created to increase the flow of capital to innovative nonprofit and for-profit social ventures that are using market-based solutions to solve problems of poverty, illiteracy, and inequality. In 2007, Good Capital is ready to make its first growth equity investment in a for-profit social enterprise and Selke is considering Better World Books as the firm's primary target. Selke must evaluate whether or not the firm is a financially sound investment and if its social and environmental missions can be preserved upon a liquidation event. If Good Capital proceeds with the investment, Selke must also rework some of Better World Books' current procedures, including fine-tuning the philanthropic giving strategy that is the main component of its social mission.

To expose students to both the investor and investee perspectives in social venture capital (SVC) deal ensuring they understand the criteria that must be considered when evaluating a potential investment in a for-profit social enterprise (investor perspective) and know what questions to ask both the investor and your organization before accepting an equity investment (investee perspective). To emphasize the importance of structuring a deal so that the social/environmental mission of a portfolio company is preserved upon exit.

The purpose of this case is to introduce the topic of socially responsible investing from both the investor and investee perspective. The students will walk away with an understanding of: 1) how to evaluate a portfolio company on a social/environmental mission as well as on traditional financial criteria and 2) what considerations should be top of mind for a social venture considering accepting an equity investment. Wes Selke is a portfolio manager at Good Capital, an investment fund created to increase the flow of capital to innovative non- and for-profit social ventures that are using market-based solutions to solve problems of poverty, illiteracy, and inequality. In 2007, Good Capital is ready to make its first growth equity investment in a for-profit social enterprise and Selke is considering Better World Books as the firm's primary target. Selke must evaluate whether or not the firm is a financially sound investment, and if its social and environmental mission can be preserved upon a liquidation event. If Good Capital proceeds with the investment, Selke must also rework some of Better World Books' current procedures, which includes fine-tuning the philanthropic giving strategy that is the main component of its social mission.

To expose students to both the investor and investee perspectives in social venture capital (SVC) deal ensuring they understand the criteria that must be considered when evaluating a potential investment in a for-profit social enterprise (investor perspective) and know what questions to ask both the investor and your organization before accepting an equity investment (investee perspective). To emphasize the importance of structuring a deal so that the social/environmental mission of a portfolio company is preserved upon exit.

By early 2009 Starbucks had nearly 17,000 stores worldwide, with about a third of these outside the United States. Despite multibillion-dollar annual revenues, the giant coffee retailer's yearly growth had declined by half, quarterly earnings had dropped as much as 97 percent, same-store sales were negative, and its stock price was languishing. Factors such as a global economic downturn and increasing competition in the specialty coffee market from large players such as McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts had driven this decline, resulting in the closings of hundreds of domestic stores already, with many more planned. Founder Howard Schultz, who had recently returned as CEO, and his executive team were convinced that Starbucks's growth opportunities lay overseas, where the firm already had a strong foothold in markets like Japan and the United Kingdom and was preparing to open hundreds of new stores in a variety of locations. But recent international challenges, including the closing of most Australian stores due to sluggish sales, made clear that Starbucks had more to learn about bringing its value proposition—a combination of premium coffee, superior service, and a “coffeehouse experience”—to foreign soil. The key question was not whether Starbucks could transport its value proposition overseas, but how the value proposition's three elements would play in recently entered and new markets. And the stakes of making the right international moves rose with each U.S. store closure. Schultz and his team also faced a broader question, one that applied to both their U.S. and foreign stores: Could they “grow big and stay small,” remaining a huge retailer that delivered both high-quality products and a consistently intimate and enjoyable experience to consumers worldwide? This case presents this challenge in the context of Starbucks's history, well-established value proposition, and domestic and international growth and vision.

The key objectives of the case focus on the successful growth of local city brand, to a country brand, to a global brand, leaving the questions: 1. How much more can it grow? 2. Can it? 3. What is the impact of new competitors in a given market and/or the impact of the global economy on discretionary spending by a loyal customer base? 4. How important is it to the sustain a brand's core value(s) proposition when innovating for new audiences and customer preferences?

This case describes a newly promoted middle manager in a global, multi-cultural organization who is challenged by a number of factors in the workplace which are impacting her and her team's ability to perform to the expectations of her regional manager. While it would be easy to blame the new manager, deeper analysis in fact reveals that many forces are at work here in addition to her inexperience including communication of strategy and performance objectives, mismanaged team members, cultural inconsistencies, and a lack of leadership direction and/or skill from the very top to her supervising manager.

After reading and analyzing the case, students should be able to 1) analyze and diagnose unmet expectations for performance at work, 2) apply motivation theories and constructs to common behavioral and attitudinal challenges in a team setting, and 3) learn to avoid the fundamental attribution error described in the social psychological literature on judgment in decision-making.

Founded in San Francisco in 2009, Square finished 2012 as the darling of Silicon Valley; flush with more than $340 million in funding, the firm had grown to several hundred employees in just three short years. It processed more than $10 billion annually in credit and debit card payments from small business owners that used Square’s smartphone-enabled card swipe device wherever cellular or wireless Internet service was available.

However, Square’s success had attracted new entrants into the mobile payments processing space, both in the United States and abroad, threatening to derail the company’s remarkable trajectory. With its latest financing round valuing the company in excess of $3.4 billion, management and investors were considering which strategies would continue—even accelerate—the company’s growth

Square presents an opportunity for classes in strategy and technology management to contemplate the following:

• How can a startup disrupt an established set of incumbents without provoking a harsh competitive response?

• How can a growth company in a rapidly changing industry expand beyond the core competency that fueled its initial growth?

• Which growth platforms make the most sense for a company in a complicated ecosystem with many players offering divergent solutions?

How can a startup disrupt an established set of incumbents without provoking a harsh competitive response?

How can a growth company in a rapidly changing industry expand beyond the core competency that fueled its initial growth?

Which growth platforms make the most sense for a company in a complicated ecosystem with many players offering divergent solutions?

HP sells configure-to-order products. With millions of part combinations going into an order, the challenge is deciding which parts to keep in the portfolio to balance costs with revenues. The case explains how one would approach this problem before product introduction, but focuses on managing the existing portfolio.

Students will develop a systematic, data-driven approach to decide on the best product portfolio to sell for a configure-to-order business. Which SKUs are candidates for a “global core” product offering? For an extended offering? For elimination?

Illinois Superconductor Corp. a technology start-up, came up with an innovative new superconducting filter for use in cellular base stations. It needed to estimate the demand for its filters. The manager came up with a simple chain-ratio-based forecasting model that, while simple and intuitive, was too simplistic. The company had also commissioned a research firm to develop a model-based forecast. The model-based forecast used diffusion modeling, analogy-based forecasting, and conjoint analysis to create a forecast that incorporated customer preferences, diffusion effects, and competitive dynamics.

To use the data to generate a model-based forecast and to reconcile the model-based forecast with the manager's forecast. Requires sophisticated spreadsheet modeling and the application of advanced forecasting techniques.

The case compares two U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) programs from the 1970s and 1980s: (1) “stealth” combat aircraft, capable of evading detection or engagement by anti-aircraft systems, and (2) precision attack of hardened ground vehicles from “standoff” distances, i.e., far behind the battle lines. Conceived at roughly the same time, motivated by the same strategic challenge, and initially driven by the same DoD organization, stealth combat aircraft progressed from idea to deployment in less than eight years---an astounding pace for a complex military system---while a demonstrated system for standoff precision strike against mobile ground targets was not fully implemented. The case highlights the critical role of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), part of the DoD, regarded as one of the most innovative entities in the U.S. federal government.

The case highlights factors that facilitate rapid, successful implementation of radically innovative or disruptive concepts. Students are introduced to the organizational realities facing such projects, including issues of strategic clarity, interdepartmental competition and cooperation, executive leadership, and timing. Comparing the differences in implementation of the two programs in the case reveals issues relevant to any large organization seeking to bring innovative concepts to fruition.

Jonathan Miller appeared in September 2009 on “Shark Tank,” the ABC television reality show featuring entrepreneurs versus angel investors in a discussion of the business value proposition and to win a negotiation for an investment from one of the 4 Sharks. The company he founded, Element Bars, a maker of custom energy bars, needed investment capital. Prior to appearing on the show, Miller had considered several financing options available to entrepreneurs: loans and other debt capital and equity capital, each of which are evaluated in the case. Miller had a good feel for the different types of capital to use for this new venture, having started several ventures in the past and winning the Kellogg School of Management business plan competition, the Kellogg Cup, in 2008. The case includes Miller's decision to forego the investment offer he won on television, instead he pursued lower cost of capital equity.

Students several aspects of raising capital, including raising equity and debt capital. Students need to learn to know as much or more about fundraising as the professionals who provide the capital-in fact, entrepreneurs have to understand the interaction among combinations of capital within their enterprise-whether debt and/or equity in different combinations. Often, teaching about equity relates to teaching how venture capital investment professionals look at deploying funds. Receiving equity into the entrepreneurial firm has much different attributes and issues. Teaching about debt often occurs at much higher volumes in typical MBA courses; this entrepreneurial debt must occur at a much smaller dollar value. This protagonist, Jonathan Miller, has exceptional preparation habits, which teaches students the value of the skills to prepare themselves and their businesses for investment.