Case studies

In the 1980s and 1990s, Nintendo was dominating the video game industry with a market share of 90 per cent. Since that time, market share has dropped substantially with new competitors, new technology and changing consumer preferences. This case examines the history of Nintendo including its loss of market share in a rapidly changing industry.

This case is suitable for undergraduate courses in strategic management where an instructor’s focus is on strategic decision-making.

Micro organizational behavior – an individual level of analysis (i.e. motivation, personality, attitudes, learning, etc.). Meso organizational behavior – team/group level of analysis (i.e. communication, team dynamics, power, politics, etc.). Macro organizational behavior – an organizational level of analysis (i.e. strategy, structure, culture, control, etc.). Marketplace or external environment (PESTEL analysis).

The research was conducted by a consultant in the role of a participant-observer.

The focus of the case is a disguised nonprofit organization, the American-Netherlands Foundation (AmNet), based in Chicago. The organization faced leadership and organizational challenges related to conflicting strategic and operational priorities among the board of trustees, the president and staff. An unexpected contribution of $750,000 increased the salience of these differences. The case provides students an excellent opportunity to apply their analytical skills and knowledge gained in a management and business course.

Organizational behavior; organizational design; organizational development; and organizational theory. Levels – upper-level undergraduate through first-year MBA students.

The following theoretical concepts are applicable to the case and its learning objectives: Stakeholder Power-Interest Matrix and Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Information was obtained in three separate interviews with PSEG. In February 2018, an introductory phone conference was conducted with a number of senior managers within PSEG, including the Director of Development and Strategic Issues, Kate Gerlach. In April 2018, an onsite interview was conducted with Gerlach, who connected the author with Scott Jennings. A phone interview was conducted with Scott Jennings in May 2018 and follow-up communication with him was handled via e-mail. The information obtained from these interviews was supplemented by material obtained from secondary sources. None of the information in the case has been disguised.

Scott Jennings, a Vice President at PSEG, the diversified New Jersey-based energy company, was the project leader for a large commercial wind farm that was to be built off the coast. The project, Garden State Offshore Energy, a joint venture between PSEG and Deepwater Wind, an experienced developer of offshore wind projects, had been announced over six years earlier, in late 2008. In the time that had passed, the Garden State Offshore Energy project team had waited for the New Jersey Bureau of Public Utilities, which had been tasked by Governor Chris Christie to evaluate the project costs before it could authorize the actual construction of the wind turbines. Justifying the project on a cost basis proved to be difficult; despite the growing public sentiment in favor of projects that utilized renewable energy sources such as wind power, the Garden State Offshore Energy team was unable to move the project forward. Scott needed to decide whether it made sense to continue to hold regular meetings with the Garden State Offshore Energy team. Scott’s colleagues suggested that Scott speak with senior management at PSEG to find out if the resources that had been dedicated to the Garden State Offshore Energy project could be shifted to other projects that might be more feasible.

This case is suitable for courses in Sustainability. It is appropriate to use the case in undergraduate courses to illustrate decision making in a regulated industry. Sufficient information is presented in the case to debate both sides of the offshore wind authorization issue.

The purpose of this paper is to help readers better understand the psychological impact of employees feeling underutilized in the workplace.

The case is based on primary data collected from Jonathan and describes his actual experience in the workplace. Mark also provided input on the situation. Because Jonathan and Mark are still employed in the same institution, the names have been disguised to protect their identity.

Jonathan is a highly motivated and successful employee who was promoted into a position that had no real responsibility. His manager would not restructure the job to make it more challenging or rewarding, so after three years of frustration, Jonathan has to decide if he should keep trying to fix the job, coast until retirement or resign.

This case is applicable for undergraduate business courses in organizational behavior, principles of management, principles of human resource management or leadership.

This case has three primary objectives. First, it allows students to think through a conceptual cost and benefit analysis associated with the decision-making process in line with basic economic thinking. Students will revisit core concepts of marginal benefit vs marginal cost, the notion of opportunity costs and the role of sunk costs in this type of analysis, while also highlighting the nature of market structure, oligopolies and competition across firms in an industry. The second goal of this case is to consider the role of business ethics in the DC-10 case: specifically, to consider the potential influence of moral awareness and moral disengagement in unethical decisions made by McDonnell Douglas. Students will develop an understanding of these concepts and solidify their learning by applying them to the case and engaging in active discussion. Finally, the third goal of the case allows students to explore organizational culture and specifically offer recommendations for organizations thinking about the link between decision-making, the role of ethics and culture.

The technical reports released by the National Transportation Safety Board along with secondary data such as available public data such as news reports were used to round out the synopsis of the case study.

This case explores the accidents of two McDonnell Douglas DC-10s in the early 1970s at the onset of the jumbo jet race between Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. It explores the series of events during the “Windsor Incident” in 1972 and the subsequent accident over Paris in 1974. It explores the reasons why the cargo door on the DC-10 was faulty and subsequently why the door was not fixed. It examines the interplay of industry suppliers such as McDonnell Douglas and how they interact with oversight authorities such as the Federal Aviation Authority. The Teaching Note focuses on the economic thinking at McDonnell Douglas, behavioral ethics and organizational culture.

This case is best explored over a 90 min session but could be expanded to take up one 3 h session. The authors have used this case format in an undergraduate organizational behavior class, an MBA Leadership and Organizational Change class, and an MBA Economics of Managers class. It works particularly well in the MBA setting, as students with work experience can see the links between the mistakes made by McDonnell Douglas and their workplaces.

Students will need to know basic capital budgeting techniques to value UrsaNav and its divisions. Students must determine which cash flows are relevant and determine an appropriate return on investment. Some of the issues that need to be addressed include: how to handle taxes in a discounted cash flow analysis when valuing an S Corp. where incentives depend on current (known) tax provisions and future (unknown) tax provisions; how to use comparable multiples to develop a cost of capital for a DCF valuation; and how to value a firm using comparable transactions.

Case information was obtained through interviews with the owner, Charles Schue. In addition, the authors researched industry and comparable company data, along with current events relating to government consulting.

UrsaNav is a US-based, international provider of advanced engineering and information management consulting services in the naval navigation industry. After about a decade of operating and growing, the firm had become successfully diversified; however, it had also grown too large to manage effectively. Thus, the company was spun-off into three separate segments: Tagence, Geodesicx and UrsaNav. These segments went “back to the basics,” and focused more on serving customers, with each having a more defined company focus. Is this a move that creates or destroys value? How could it create value for the firms’ founders?

This case is intended for an advanced undergraduate or an MBA corporate finance class or an entrepreneurship elective. Students interested in analyzing whether or not decision makers within a company would want to spin-off divisions, or merge with another company, or divest a company would find this case appealing. Other students who just want to analyze whether the company has grown too much would be good candidates to do this case.

The learning outcomes are as follows: The importance of doing business ethically; how to build trust relationships; how to develop a market; and how to react to a change in business and trust conditions.

The case is about the importance of doing business in an ethical manner. In how you can build trust relationships between supplier companies and buyers, and how that strong relationship can be destroyed by short-term interest, affecting the viability of business.

The case could be taught to undergraduate students who are studying Business Administration. The case could also be applied in MBA programs.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 5: International Business