Case studies

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows:

1) illustrate the project management failures that contributed to the fire accident at Grenfell using a fishbone diagram;

2) identify and classify the power and influence of various stakeholders involved in a brownfield project using a relevant framework; and

3) elaborate the need for following effective stakeholder management processes and project leadership, especially in the context of a refurbishment/renovation project.

On 14th June 2017, the Grenfell Tower in North Kensington, West London, UK, caught fire. The fire raged for 60 h and around 72 people lost their lives. Many criticized the response of the London Fire Brigade (LFB) and their lack of preparedness to respond to such an emergency. There were calls for Dany Cotton, the Chief of LFB, to resign. However, there had been a major cladding-related refurbishment at Grenfell, and subsequent investigations revealed that the use of combustible materials, a lack of compliance with the fire-safety norms and a blatant disregard for resident safety had contributed to the fire. The tragedy was a cumulative outcome of failure on two counts: effective project management and stakeholder management during the process of refurbishment, especially in the context of a low-cost housing project. Given this situation, this case considers whether Dany Cotton should own up to her responsibility and resign from her position. In the process, the case considers Grenfell refurbishment from the theoretical lens of project management in the construction management scenario to understand the factors that could have led to an “avoidable” tragedy.

Postgraduate students of construction management; final year undergraduate engineering students who have a foundational course on project management; and architects.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 2: Built environment.

This case may be taught singly or used as a merger-negotiation exercise with “Daimler-Benz A. G.: Negotiations between Daimler and Chrysler” (UVA-F-1241). Set in February 1998, the case places students in the position of negotiators for the company; their task is to value both firms, assess the potential earnings dilution of a combination, and negotiate a detailed agreement with their counterpart. The case can be used to explore such interesting negotiation issues as determination of a share-exchange ratio, treatment of major stockholders, and structuring a deal. Also, the case and exercise can be used to spark a discussion of acquisition in comparison with strategic alliance, or other less formal models of combination.

On March 1, 2001, Jessica Gallinelli, managing director of Bancroft Capital Management, heard surprising and somewhat disturbing news about the proposed bid by General Electric Company (GE) for Honeywell International Inc. Despite recent public assurances about the deal from GE's chairman and chief executive officer (CEO), John F. “Jack” Welch Jr., the antitrust regulatory authority of the European Commission (EC) announced it had initiated a review of the proposed merger. Gallinelli, whose fund owned a large stake in Honeywell, considered this major development and wondered whether Bancroft should alter its investment. Immediately, Gallinelli instructed her associate to provide background material on the merger, an assessment of the probability the merger would be approved by antitrust regulators in the U.S. and Europe, and valuation analyses to assist Gallinelli in assessing Bancroft's investment in Honeywell. She would need to decide quickly whether to hold or sell her fund's 10 million shares in Honeywell and short position of 10 million shares in GE. As a risk arbitrageur, she thought prices would respond rapidly to the EC's announcement. She remembered Jack Welch's confidence of five months earlier that this was the “cleanest deal you'll ever see,” and she wondered whether that was still the case.

This case provides an opportunity for students to (1) understand the calculation of a number of basic financial ratios, (2) analyze a set of common-size balance sheets and several financial ratio metrics, (3) hypothesize how some basic understanding of an industry should be reflected in certain financial indicators, and (4) present to their classmates a rationale for their pairings and to respond to questions from their classmates. If instructors are so inclined, use of this case also provides an opportunity to (1) discuss an organizing framework for the focal ratios, (2) present the concepts of financial leverage and the DuPont ratio model, and (3) introduce students to some of the published sources for industry metrics.

This case provides financial ratios and common-size balance sheets for 13 “mystery” companies. Students are asked to match each mystery company's data to one of the 13 industries provided.

This case provides financial ratios and common-size balance sheets for 13 “mystery” companies. Students are asked to match each mystery company's data to one of the 13 industries provided.

This short case challenges students to review a series of corporate financial metrics and to match them to one of the thirteen industries listed for them.

This short case challenges students to review a series of corporate financial metrics and to match them to 1 of the 13 industries labeled and listed for them. It is suitable for MBA and undergraduate students ready to expand their basic understanding of financial metrics.

Financial results and conditions vary among companies for a number of reasons. The differences in industry characteristics, company policies, management performance, and responsiveness to the macroeconomic environment are reflected in the financial statements published by publicly held companies and can be highlighted through the use of financial ratios.

This case challenges students to review a series of corporate financial metrics and to match them to one of the 13 labeled and listed industries. It is suitable for MBA and undergraduate students ready to expand their basic understanding of financial metrics.