FIRSTCOMP (A)
Lee Gremillion, Capella University
Case Objectives and Use
The case illustrates political aspects of information systems development, in which a clash over a systems project mirrors a deeper divide between principals over the culture and control of the firm. One of two founding partners in a workers’ compensation insurance company is pushing forward to transform the company through the innovative use of information technology; the other partner appears neutral, but tacitly encourages surrogates to continuously attack the project. How does a non-technical executive protect his and his staff’s vision from the criticism of the systems group which refuses to accept the value of their project? How can he be sure that their criticism is not justified? The case was written for business school undergraduate, M.B.A., or M.S. courses in information technology management or systems development to serve as a basis for discussion of people and organizational aspects of the application delivery process.
Case Synopsis
Luke Yeransian, one of the two partners who had founded and now ran FirstComp knew that the browser-based system under development could transform the company and solidify their position in the niche they occupied. FirstComp already was one of the few insurers that actually made a consistent profit in the brutally competitive workers’ compensation insurance industry. By carefully limiting themselves to risks they could analyze and mitigate, and by focusing on smaller employers that the big insurers overlooked, FirstComp had developed a rapidly growing volume of business. Now their information systems had to be overhauled to keep up with the ever-increasing workload.
Unfortunately, FirstComp’s systems group was not supporting Luke in this effort, but was actively trying to sabotage the new browser-based front office system project. This system, which was being designed by members of Luke’s staff with a consulting firm’s help, seemed to be an obvious winner. The first, limited-function release had significantly improved front office operations. Functionality under development promised to drastically change both FirstComp’s front office and they way it interacted with agents in the field. Yet the systems group in general, and the head of systems in particular, complained and criticized continually about the design of the system, the way the project was being run, the expenditures, and the risk involved. Luke knew he had to do something, but since systems reported to his partner, not him, he had to plan his steps carefully.
The author developed the case for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of the situation. The case, instructor’s manual, and synopsis were anonymously peer reviewed and accepted by the North American Case Research Association (NACRA) for its annual meeting, October 7-9, 2004, Sedona, AZ. All rights are reserved to the author and NACRA. © 2004 by Lee Gremillion. Contact person: Lee Gremillion, School of Business, Capella University, 222 South 9th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, 612-659-5424,
HEWLETT PACKARD:
THE MERGER WITH THE COMPAQ CORPORATION
Isaac Cohen, San Jose State University
Case Objectives and Use
The case is written in such a way that helps students analyze the results of the merger. Because of its visibility, scope, and rapid growth, the computer/IT industry is well suited for teaching strategic mergers. Students should first realize that HP’s problems were rooted in the company’s inability to challenge IBM’s technological leadership, on the one side, and Dell’s cost leadership, on the other. Students should then identify the advantages and disadvantages of the merger from HP viewpoint. They should next examine the results of the merger, and compare these results with the initial projections made by both the critics and advocated of the merger. An Additional objective of the case is to have students evaluate the role played by HP CEO Fiorina before, during, and after the merger with Compaq.
This is a case that is suitable for teaching Strategy and Business Policy at the undergraduate or graduate levels. Because HP markets are truly global, and because HP facilities are located in many countries, the case could also be used for teaching International Business. Furthermore, the case could be used effectively for teaching Technology Management and/or High Technology Management.
Case Synopsis
Hewlett Packard (HP) and the Compaq Corporation had been arch rivals for nearly twenty years, dominating large segments of the computer industry. In 2002, the rivalry ended. HP bought Compaq in a $19 billion merger deal – the largest ever undertaken in the computer industry.
The case focuses on the merger. It begins with the history of Compaq and HP as told within the framework of the evolving computer industry. It explores Carly Fiorina’s tenure as HP CEO, her decision to purchase Compaq, and her fight with the Hewlett and Packard families over the merger.
Moving on to the outcome of the merger, the case, first, pays careful attention to the integration of the two companies together. It then reviews the results of the merger during its first two years (2002-2003), emphasizing the merger’s achievements and opportunities. Finally, the case discusses disappointments, challenges, and concerns HP faced as a consequence of the merger.
The author developed the case for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of the situation. The case, instructor’s manual, and synopsis were anonymously peer reviewed and accepted by the North America Case Research Association (NACRA) for its annual meeting, October 7-9, 2004, Sedona, AZ. All rights are reserved to the author and NACRA. © 2004 by Isaac Cohen. Contract Person: Isaac Cohen, Department of Organization and Management, COB, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192
408-924-3567,
MORPHING FROM DIAL TONE TO INTEGRATED DIGITAL SERVICES
Jiten V. Ruparel, Otterbein College
Case Objectives and Use
The case shows how a small central Ohio phone company was able to select a relatively obscure technology and use it to overcome its limitations of size and resources to retain and please its customers in the face of an onslaught of a telecommunications giant in an industry that was coping with the transformational change brought about by deregulation. The case highlights decision making and technology evaluation and new service roll-out under conditions of rapid change. The case underscores the benefits of strategic resilience, flexibility and agility. It also shows that repeated strategic renewal is going to be the need of our times. Commercially available technology only confers an arbitrage opportunity- a short lived competitive advantage that can be emulated. The case was written for a senior undergraduate business policy/strategy class and for an MBA information management class.
Case Synopsis
John Wilson of Horizon Telecom ( www.horizontel.com) was faced with a price war from Philadelphia based Adelphia Communications- a national cable service operator that had targeted small Midwest telecom companies for their customers by a price war or by acquisition. It seemed like a no-contest. However Horizon Chillicothe Telephone(HCT) reacted in a totally unexpected manner. In a space of five years (1996 to 2001), this small rural telephone company was able to transform itself from a conservative analog phone company into a provider of modern integrated digital phone, cable TV and high speed internet access. It gave its customers a simple to buy, simple to use and simple to understand service at $74 per month. This value proposition could not be matched by anyone in the industry. It is a success story that needed to be told.
The cold reality of course is that HCT now has to renew itself again to cope with the next round of technology enabled services such as high definition TV, video games and wireless access. Fierce competition that is shaping up for digital services to the individual customer. This is its current challenge.
The author developed the case for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of the situation. The case, instructor’s manual, and synopsis were anonymously peer reviewed and accepted by the North American Case Research Association (NACRA) for its annual meeting, October 7-9, 2004 at Sedona, AZ. All rights are reserved to the author and NACRA. © 2004 by Jiten V. Ruparel. Contact person: Jiten Ruparel, Department of Business Accounting and Economics, Otterbein College, Westerville, Ohio 43081-1006,
NANOSCALE: A SMALL GLIMPSE AT THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY
Jeffrey Katz, Bret Covert, Leslee Murphy, Bonnie Wetta & Ken Williams
Kansas State University
Case Objectives and Use
This case study seeks to teach students how to identify issues and challenges faced by a technology company during innovation and commercialization, conduct an analysis of industry and company strategic issues, and to more carefully understand how firms in high velocity industries are able to develop sustainable long-term strategies. The case and Instructor’s Manual are designed to facilitate a thorough analysis of SWOT, Porter’s Five Forces, the value chain, and levels of strategic decision-making for evaluating this case and forming conclusions about long-term strategies focused on the success of NanoScale Materials, Inc. The case includes a seven minute video that may be used to give students a richer sense of nanoscale products and generate interest in analyzing the challenges facing NanoScale. Additional readings suggested in the Instructor’s Manual may be used to assign an in-depth analysis and/or presentation comparing NanoScale’s implemented strategies to those discussed in the suggested readings.
Case Synopsis
Based on research that began in the 1970’s, NanoScale Materials, Inc. was able to take a university developed technology from inception to commercialization in an emerging industry. Nanotechnology has been around since WWII. However, one particular scientist-entrepreneur, Dr. Kenneth Klabunde, developed processes that advanced the technology far beyond its previous applications. Originally based out of a university research lab, Klabunde was granted multiple patents on proprietary processes that eventually allowed him to obtain financing in order to advance the developed technology through various phases of commercialization. In 1995 Klabunde partnered with a regional business development center to form Nantek, which eventually became NanoScale Materials, Inc. Working out of a local business incubator NanoScale’s R&D and marketing efforts enabled the firm’s product offerings and staff to grow to a point where a new facility was necessary. NanoScale Materials, Inc., like the industry that developed at the same time, was at a crossroads. The firm’s products were currently differentiated from competitors, but the management team knew the rapid advancement of technology could eventually lead to selling a commodity product. With sales achieving a near break-even point, NanoScale’s management team was faced with the dilemma of where to go next. Should they deviate from their current strategy which focused heavily on research and development, or should they shift their strategy toward the development and sales of differentiated products?
The authors developed the case for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of the situation. The case, instructor’s manual, and synopsis were anonymously peer reviewed and accepted by the North American Case Research Association (NACRA) for its annual meeting, October 7-9, 2004, Sedona, AZ. All rights are reserved to the authors and NACRA. © 2004 by Jeffrey Katz, Brett Covert, Leslee Murphy, Bonnie Wetta, and Ken Williams. Contact person: Jeffrey Katz, College of Business Administration, 101 Calvin Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, 785-532-7451,
THE IMPACT OF E-COMMERCE INDUSTRY TURMOIL ON AMAZON.COM THE IMPACE OF E-COMMERCE INDUSTRY TURMOIL ON AMAZON.COM: A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE
: A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE
Russell Casey, Clayton State University/University of Phoenix
William Carroll, University of PhoenixCarroll Consulting Inc.
Case Objectives and Use
The case conveys how Amazon.com weathered the storm that left many dot.com retailers in the breakdown lane of the information superhighway because they did not have the experience necessary to run a successful e-commerce enterprise, or lacked a viable business model. What does it take to be a profitable large-scale online retailer? This case provides a history of Amazon.com’s evolving business model and an analysis of the online retailing environment to provide the backdrop for strategy analysis and development. The case is intended for use in either undergraduate or graduate courses in strategic management, strategic marketing, or e-business.
Case Synopsis
Internet retailers face intense competition due to the large number of competitors, ease of entry, low switching costs, and the strength of existing multi-i-channel retailers. In order to survive, it is critical that online retailers create a sustainable competitive advantage in their e-commerce strategy and plan for long-term strategic positioning. This case uses an analysis of Amazon.com’s strategy to develop an understanding of the e-commerce competitive environment and the importance of building a sustainable competitive environment to create value for the firm, its customers, and its shareholders.
Jeff Bezos launched Amazon.com in 1995 with much fanfare as the first mover in large scale internet retailing. His commitment to building long-term value for shareholders through offering the lowest prices on the largest selection of products and a quality shopping experience took the company from a modest start-up in 1995 to a multi-billion dollar e-commerce platform and department store with its first profitable year in 2003. During the years 2000 and 2001 many dot.com retailers met their demise when the stock marketed corrected while Amazon.com took advantage of its first mover position to gain market share, achieve revenue growth, and build brand awareness. However, many currently question Amazon.com’s ability to generate long-term profitability through continued price slashing, free shipping and massive product offering expansion.
______
The authors developed the case for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of the situation. The case, instructor’s manual, and synopsis were anonymously peer reviewed and accepted by the North American Case Research Association (NACRA) for its annual meeting, October 7-9, 2004, Sedona, AZ. All rights are reserved to the authors and NACRA. © 2004 by Russell Casey and William Carroll. Contact person: Russell Casey, Clayton State University, 5900 North Lee Street, Morrow, GA 30260, 770-961-3453,