The first mini-case assignment to be completed by all CMR 495 students is listed as Mini-Case #4: How the Strategy Process Killed Innovation at Microsoft.To complete this assignment:1. Read the gen
Uniform Instructions for All Mini-Case Responses
Due No Due Date
Points 0
NOTE: This assignment contains instructions that you will need to complete each of the mini-cases in this course. There is nothing to turn in here -- this is a set of instructions only.
Major Work Assignment: Mini-Case Responses
Case studies were first developed to study the law in the nineteenth century. However, by the mid-twentieth century, case studies started to be widely used in medicine, accounting, business and management, engineering, nursing, and agriculture. Educators in these subject areas recognized that learning the textbook principles and practices of a profession were important. Through the use of case studies, they were also able to provide students with realistic situations where theory can be balanced with practice.
Case studies can help the student develop the following skills:
Identify and recognize problems.
Understand and interpret data.
Pinpoint assumptions and inferences, as opposed to concrete facts.
Think analytically and critically.
Discern and assess interpersonal relationships.
Exercise and make solid judgments.
Communicate ideas and opinions.
Make and defend decisions.
A case study presents a realistic problem -- one that might happen within a normal work environment. Most case studies include the complexities that are typical in a work setting. Generally, they involve questions of policy or procedure, issues relating to reporting relationships, administrative hierarchies, or other financial and/or administrative problems.
Specifically, in CMR 495, the completion of five mini-case responses will assist each student in recognizing and understanding real-life situations where strategic management can be a comprehensive element of value creation and/or competitive advantage. As a mini-case unfolds, each student will learn about the decisions made by an organization’s top managers and/or mid-level managers. Mini-cases are designed to simulate many of the characteristics of decision making in the real world: there is too much information about certain areas, not enough about others, and there is little guidance as to what is important and what is unimportant. Each student will see that leadership and/or managerial decisions ultimately have strategic and/or tactical implications for the organization’s short-term and/or long-term performance. Collaboration with others is encouraged, but not required. However, each student is responsible to turn in his/her own work – not a copy of any part of someone else’s work.
Getting Started:
Each student is expected to complete five mini-case responses over the course of the semester. During the first week of class, each student should sign into the CMR 495 Canvas course site and briefly look at the topics of the five mini-cases. By examining each mini-case upfront, each student will be able to make informed choices of this portion of the major work assignments.
Mini-cases can vary in composition and analysis, so looking through a few of them during the first week of class may help each student start to budget his/her time appropriately. All of the mini-case responses are worth the same number of points each, although the difficulty of the mini-cases increases as one goes from the introductory chapters to the more complex topics in the later chapters. Each required mini-case listed in the syllabus and on the Canvas course site has a firm date listed for completion.
Note: The course textbook (Rothaermel, Frank T. Strategic Management, 3e, 2017) is available on reserve, for free, at the Hamilton Campus Library and the Middletown Campus Library and it is also available for purchase from the bookstore. Please be very careful when purchasing this textbook – each student MUST have the 2nd Edition in order for the page numbers for references to be correct and for the book to contain the correct set of mini cases. DO NOT purchase an electronic copy since page numbers will not be available and each student will have extreme difficulty in citing references on the mini-case responses.
Each of the five mini-cases will allow each student to develop the thinking skills of practicing managers who are constantly evaluating key strategic decisions in a larger global environment. As such, the mini cases should allow each student to apply the strategic concepts and practices in the textbook to sharpen his/her analytical and evaluative management skills. Each mini case will require the student to focus on three basic, yet critical questions:
1) Where is the individual(s) and/or the organization(s) at the time that the mini-case was written?
2) Where does the individual(s) and/or the organization(s) need to go?
3) How should the individual(s) and/or the organization(s) get there?
When considering the overall theme in constructing a mini-case response, each student should start by reading the questions associated with each mini-case in the textbook. All mini case responses MUST, at the minimum, address each of the questions posed. Each student must also be sure to relate the response to the weekly chapter’s topics and/or issues in a significant way. Although it may be interesting to know what happened to an individual and/or an organization after the fact, do NOT include additional research and/or information in the mini-case response about what may have transpired AFTER the mini-case was written.
A Three-Step Process:
The first part of the process in analyzing a mini case involves sifting through a mass of information to pick out the important patterns and issues in order to investigate a business problem. In doing this, each student will be guided partially by his/her overall judgment about the individual(s) and/or the organization(s) mentioned in the mini case. Each student will need to start by making an initial judgment(s) that is formed through critical thinking and problem-solving in approaching the mini-case response as a whole.
The second part of the process is to evaluate an individual’s or an organization’s external and/or internal position using the data and/or the tools discussed in the textbook. Depending on the content of the mini case, an examination of the data and/or the tools may include: (a) external environment analyses; (b) internal analyses; (c) past/present strategies; (d) possible strategic directions; and (e) a process to implement how the organization(s) might go about carrying out a given strategy to maximize performance. It is important to examine the alternative solutions, and then, assert and defend the most effective and efficient solution using the supporting evidence that has been uncovered.
The third part of the process is to use the seven following sections in a mini-case response – an introduction (2A), the background (2B), the alternatives (2C) (the findings and the results), the proposed solution (2D) (an evaluation and analysis of the results), recommendations (2E), the conclusion (3A), and a list of references (3B). Note: These seven section titles should be used as subheadings in the mini-case response. One by one -- make an assertion and defend it. Write an argument from a position of strength by doing the required homework.
Ashford University Outlines The Steps In Writing A Mini-Case Response:
Ashford University suggests the following steps in outlining a mini-case response.
Pre-Work -- Preparing the Case. Before you begin writing, follow these guidelines to help you prepare and understand the case study:
Read and examine the case thoroughly.
Take notes, highlight relevant facts, underline key problems.
Focus your analysis.
Identify two to five key problems.
Why do they exist?
How do they impact the organization?
Who is responsible for them?
Uncover possible solutions.
Review course readings, discussions, outside research, your experience.
Select the best solution.
Consider strong supporting evidence, pros, and cons: is this solution realistic?
Drafting the Case. Once you have gathered the necessary information, a draft of your analysis should include these sections:
Introduction.
Identify the key problems and/or issues in the case study.
Formulate and include a thesis statement, summarizing the outcome of your analysis in 1–2 sentences.
Background.
Set the scene: background information, relevant facts, and the most important issues.
Demonstrate that you have researched the problems in this case study.
Alternatives.
Outline two to three possible alternatives (not necessarily all of them).
Explain why alternatives were rejected.
Constraints/reasons.
Why are alternatives not possible at this time?
Proposed Solution.
Provide one specific and realistic solution.
Explain why this solution was chosen.
Support this solution with solid evidence:
Concepts from class (text readings, discussions, lectures).
Outside research.
Personal experience (anecdotes).
Recommendations.
Determine and discuss specific strategies for accomplishing the proposed solution.
If applicable, recommend further action to resolve some of the issues.
What should be done and who should do it?
Finalizing the Case (Conclusion). After the first draft of the case study analysis is composed, read through it to check for any gaps or inconsistencies in content or structure: Is the thesis statement clear and direct? Is the evidence solid? Is any component from the analysis missing When making the necessary revisions, proofread and edit the analysis before submitting the final draft. (Refer to Proofreading and Editing Strategies (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. at the Ashford University site as a guide at this stage.)
Conclusion.
Draft a conclusion to wrap up the project.
References.
Add a list of references, including the Rothaermel text and any other sources used in the mini-case response. Be sure to use correct APA style in citing references – see the “Tips on Writing Assignments” later in the syllabus
https://awc.ashford.edu/tocw-guidelines-for-writing-a-case-study.html (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Some Additional Questions To Consider:
Some additional questions that could help each student pull together some ideas on mini-case topics/issues are provided. Not all of the questions will fit all of the mini-cases. Students are not expected to answer all of these additional questions in a mini-case response. However, keep in mind that many of the questions below could require outside research that must be documented and can then be used as a reference source(s).
What is the management structure of the organization(s)? Who are the important players? What are their respective roles? How are specific individuals tied to the organization's success? What is unique about the management structure? What are the problems in the management structure?
What are the core strengths of this organization(s)? How does the organization(s) retain its competitiveness?
What are the organization's sales figures? How much market-share does the organization(s) have? What is the organization's marketing strategy? How does the organization(s) plan to retain customers and/or market-share? What is the plan to gain new customers and/or market share? Who is/are the direct competitor(s)? How much market-share is/are it/they capable of taking?
Can this organization's products/services be easily replaced? What new products/services does this organization(s) have or need?
What are the short-term and/or the long-term outlooks for the organization’s industry? What barriers to entry exist in the organization's industry? How weak or strong are the barriers?
What can you say in terms of the organization's financial performance? What are the organization’s financial strengths? What are the organization’s financial weaknesses? Whenever it relates to a mini case, students may want to conduct an in-depth financial analysis with regards to profitability, liquidity, and growth, and then, they may want to provide an assessment of the overall health of the organization’s finances.
What significant Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, or Threats does this organization(s) face? Do a SWOT. What is the organization(s) doing to capitalize on its Strengths and/or its Opportunities? What is the organization(s) doing to mitigate its Weaknesses and/or its Threats?
Do suppliers to this organization(s) have strong bargaining power or not? How does this impact the organization's success? What strategic decisions are made as the result of its suppliers? Overall, is this an effective and efficient organization(s) in terms of operations?
What international markets is this organization(s) in? Where is the organization(s) succeeding? Why is the organization(s) successful? Where is the organization(s) struggling? Why is the organization(s) struggling?
What is the organization’s stock trading at in the mini-case? What was the high? What was the close? What was the volume? Would you buy stock in this organization(s)? Why or why not?
Is this a socially responsible individual(s) and/or organization(s)? What examples can a student provide that demonstrate the importance of ethics in his/her life and/or the organizational culture?
Mini-Case Final Check:
All mini-case work responses should run in the three-to-five page range in length with the use of at least six appropriate, academic-style references to back up the statements made. (Please see other sections within this syllabus regarding proper use of references.) Each student who elects not to supply references with each mini-case work assignment will face a substantially reduced grade, usually averaging a reduction of 25-50% of the points possible, depending on the specific mini-case response under consideration. No student should consider him/herself to be an expert and substitute professional/personal examples for any of the required references.
A minimum of six academic reference sources is needed for each mini-case work responses.
A minimum of three reference materials from the current chapter of the week in the textbook (different pages) AND/OR three references from the videos are required. Additionally, three OTHER references are required as noted below. This means each mini-case response will have a minimum of six reference citations.
Three references MUST come from the current chapter of the week in the textbook using different page numbers (citing the quote and/or page number where you found the information). (References from the relevant course videos may be substituted.)
The other three references (and any additional references beyond a total of six references) can come from any source in the following list of external research sources. Note: Use any combination of the references in the list given here for the second set of three references and beyond.
Mini-case video sources included with the current chapter of the week on Canvas.
Additional textbook references from other chapters.
Experts in the field (cite the name of the individual and the professional occupation or reason that this person is an expert).
Other ACADEMIC journal sources on the Internet (NOT Wikipedia or E-How or a like kind).
Newspaper studies or articles from ACADEMIC places like the Wall Street Journal.
Other types of library reference sources.
Notes on Copyright and Attribution:
When quoting other publications (online or offline), be sure to link to the original text (if possible) and use quotation marks or block quotes (for longer texts).
When using an image from Miami University’s image pool, contact the appropriate department and make sure that the image is licensed for online use.
When using a photograph found on the Web, you must do one of the following:
Get permission from the original copyright holder (which may not always be same as the site displaying the image).
Document receipt of permission.
Use an image with a creative commons license and include the appropriate attribution.
Make sure images are properly credited, citing the source and photographer's name.
To recap, in CMR 495, each student will have the opportunity to carefully examine five mini cases. In a three-to-five page mini-case response, he/she must demonstrate the use of appropriate analytical techniques, sound logic, and well-supported arguments in evaluating the individual’s and/or the organization’s present condition and/or future prospects. Mini-case responses will be completed across the entire duration of the course. Working ahead to complete the five mini-cases is permitted.
Point Distribution:
The mini-case responses are worth a maximum of 450 points each for a total maximum number of 2,250 points.
Mini-case responses will lose points if:
The writing is top of mind, babbled, jumbled, and/or disorganized.
The writing is not on topic – meaning that the writing is not about the focus of the mini-case.
They are too short or too long (the ideal range is between approximately three pages to no more than five pages). However, going over five pages is fine if needed to complete the argument contained in the mini-case response.
There are weak or non-academic references, less than six total references, and/or no references.
There are problems in grammar and/or spelling.
What to Turn In:
Keep in mind that each student may need this material for a student work portfolio. He/She may want to take it in as a sample of his/her work to show a potential employer. At some point in time, each student may want to send the mini-case responses to a graduate school committee as part of the application when applying for advanced educational programs in law or for a MBA or other advanced graduate degree.
Think about what the content of the mini-case responses and the writing style say about the writer. Can he/she present his/her mini-case responses in an efficient and effective manner where the arguments are supported with theoretical academic evidence and/or examples? Is the writing neat or sloppy? Again, getting that next job or school or life opportunity means showing people one’s ability to “fit” in a variety of situations. Each student should leave no doubt to the reader that there is only one person – him or her -- who is the “Number One” choice.
If desired, each student may submit draft copies of any mini-case responses to the instructor for feedback at [email protected]. Feedback will be returned promptly so that each student may revise his/her work prior to submitting final copies. The early feedback by the instructor is not intended to be critical and it is only given to improve the quantity/quality of the student’s written materials. Please indicate “DRAFT” either on the document or in the e-mail sent to the instructor if seeking feedback. Responses submitted with no indication of purpose will be assumed to be submitted for final grading.
Responses for the mini-cases are to be completed and turned in according to the Course Calendar and the due dates listed for the mini case responses. All mini-case responses are to be uploaded to Canvas at the links provided for these assignments, no later than 11:59 P.M. (MIDNIGHT) on Saturdays according to the Course Calendar each week. Refer to the Course Calendar for time and date guidelines. Note that the fifth mini case assignment will be given during final exams week.
The “Turn It In” feature on the Canvas course site will be used to submit final mini-case responses. Any student attempting to submit mini-case responses any other way will find that the work will not be graded. If the work is submitted by any means other than as an attachment to a Canvas upload “slot,” a student will have his/her work returned to him/her, ungraded, for re-submittal if the work is turned in early enough for the instructor to catch the mistake and send him/her a note in return. However, since mini-case responses cannot be turned in late, he/she will get zero points for the work if there is no time to contact the student prior to the deadline.
Where Most Errors Occur
Most students do a very good job of summarizing what is already known about the situation described in the mini-case. The next section of the essay is concerned with alternative solutions to the issues raised and this is often more difficult for students to grasp. It is essential to list multiple alternative solutions and to briefly explain how each may play out if implemented. Listing only one alternative or skipping this portion of the essay entirely will result in a large loss of points. Other errors include not describing the chosen solution in enough detail (be sure to include not only the solution, but specific recommendations on how to make it work) and a lack of literature-based references to back up the comments made in the essay.
Mini-Case Response Example:
Mini-Case Response – Mini-Case #18 – Written by Dr. Baim to show preferred format and style.
Introduction:
This mini-case response is concerned with Mini-Case #18: “Standards Battle: Which Automotive Technology Will Win?” as described on page 478 in the Rothaermel 3e text. The relevant text chapter is Chapter 7. The material presented within the mini-case briefly describes efforts by several major automobile manufacturers and newer-entry manufacturers to address the issue of replacing the internal combustion engine as a primary source of power for personal automobiles. The mini-case explains that there is currently no consensus among the manufacturers regarding how to proceed and that the pathway forward is not necessarily clear-cut.
Key problems/issues identifiable within the mini-case include:
Is the impending demise of the internal combustion engine a foregone conclusion and, thus, the alternative power projects by the manufacturers a necessity or is this work more exploratory in nature?
Assuming that the internal combustion engine does have only a short remaining lifespan, is there a solid understanding of what criteria any new power source would need to meet?
Is it possible to determine which company and/or technology is likely to be successful, under this scenario – or is too little known at present?
Thesis statement: Based on an analysis of the available mini-case materials and the relevant literature, it is likely that routine alternatives to the internal combustion engine will be needed within a relatively short timeframe. It is equally likely that multiple alternatives will be under exploration and offer legitimate benefits for consumers in the future with a lengthy period of technology optimization involved before a clear “winner” emerges.
Background:
To help place this mini-case into perspective, it is useful to step back briefly from the materials presented to examine the factors that have caused the automobile industry to reach the crossroads described in the scenario in the text.
The internal combustion engine has been the “gold standard” for self-propelled vehicles for more than 100 years. Automobile manufacturers have consistently improved their offerings, resulting in higher levels of power, greater reliability, and length of service; and also, greater efficiency with less environmental pollution. These efforts have effectively extended the lifespan of the internal combustion engine beyond what might have been predictable 30-40 years ago, but they have not permanently addressed three issues that continue to signal an impending need for change.
First, using an internal combustion engine requires the simultaneous use of complementary products such as oil and gasoline or diesel. These fossil fuels are in diminishing supply, are subject to political and geographic constraints, and have a price structure that is both unpredictable and generally upward trending. The supply is not limitless, even if there is no widespread concern of running out within a few years.
Second, environmental factors are continuously increasing in importance with the pollution of even the cleanest burning internal combustion engine a subject of great concern worldwide. Global warming is perhaps the most visible symptom of this issue now that pollution controls have largely decreased visible smog in many heavily populated areas. This situation places extra pressure on the internal combustion engine as an out-of-date propulsion system.
Third, alternative propulsion systems are rapidly gaining ground in terms of the underlying technology, reliability, price of entry, and availability. There is a great deal of money to be made in reducing these new technologies to practice and even more money to be made if one specific technology becomes dominant.
Concurrently, personal vehicle consumers continue to become more sophisticated in their expectations regarding transportation. New propulsion technologies are popular topics of discussion even if not yet broadly in use. For example, the majority of consumers willing to explore alternative sources of propulsion today would be termed innovators or early adopters – a small fraction of the total number of individuals purchasing new cars (Rothaermel, 2017, p. 227, 231). For any new propulsion system to take hold; the technology, marketing and financial “bugs” would need to be largely worked out of the system.
With the long-standing successful history of the internal combustion engine, consumers will also be wary until the performance/reliability equation of any new system has been fully solved. This is largely the issue of value in the consumers’ eyes as they look for vehicles that represent daily transportation and not something “exotic” for weekend use only. None of the new technologies available today, with the possible exception of the gas/electric hybrid models have come close to securing the stamp of approval by consumers needed for large-scale success.
Again, with the possible exception of the gas/electric hybrids, new propulsion technologies have not yet established a reputation for convenience with consumers. Full electric models lack driving range and require frequent recharging. As counterpoint to this statement, however, a study on real versus perceived lack of range in electric vehicles showed that to many consumers, their apprehensiveness about not being able to quickly recharge their electric cars when needed overshadowed any real issues related to recharging due to the actual lengths of the trips customarily taken under most driving conditions (Franke, Neumann, Buhler, Cocron, & Krems, 2012). Hydrogen fuel cell models have no readily available way to replenish fuel at all, except under very carefully controlled conditions and locations. By contrast, the internal combustion engine enjoys the “get in, turn the key and go” freedom that consumers favor and have become accustomed to in personal transportation.
Looking at the new propulsion technologies described in the mini-case, they can be classified according to the degree of innovation present within their development and knowing this classification up front helps to understand how they may be perceived. For example, gas/electric hybrids are classified as an “incremental innovation” because they build on existing technologies and largely serve existing markets (Rothaermel, 2017, p. 232). All-electrics and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles represent “radical innovation” since they involve entirely new technologies and/or combine existing knowledge with entirely new ways of thinking (Rothaermel, 2017, p. 232-233).
Alternatives:
The material presented in the mini-case write-up does an excellent job of identifying the current new technologies competing to take the market share away from the internal combustion engine, but it is much less successful in providing details regarding which alternative technology is likely to succeed in the long run. Potential alternatives are discussed in terms of the name of the automobile manufacturer(s) best known for their development at the present time. Three possibilities exist, each of which may be developed into a detailed alternative to the internal combustion engine:
The all-electric alternative – this is the technology most frequently associated with Nissan and Tesla, although Chevrolet (GM) and others have viable entries in this market as well. With this alternative, drivers would not rely on fossil fuels at all. All electric cars are efficient, smooth, and can be very reliable. However, they are expensive to purchase and the operating range is severely limited. Work currently underway to create a network of rapid charging stations sounds promising, but consumers rightfully question if these stations will be confined to metropolitan areas (Franke, Neumann, Buhler, Cocron, & Krems, 2012). How long will it be before charging stations are available in less-populated regions of the country?
The gas/electric alternative – this is the technology most frequently associated with Toyota, but Ford and several other manufacturers have viable products in the marketplace as well. With this alternative, drivers are not forced to rely solely on electricity since small, efficient internal combustion engines are still present to a) charge the batteries in the vehicle and b) provide direct power to the wheels if/when the use of electric motors is not optimum. These vehicles are also expensive to purchase as compared to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles, but they do not suffer from some of the worries associated with the all electrics since it is very highly unlikely that drivers would ever be stranded with no way to operate their vehicles as long as standard gas stations still exist (Sadek, 2012).
The hydrogen fuel cell alternative – this is the technology most frequently associated with Honda and BMW and is not nearly as well-developed as the two alternatives above. Rooted in the rocket industry, hydrogen fuel cells are powerful, safe to operate, and very reliable; but they are also extremely exotic for everyday transportation and there is virtually no network set up for servicing vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells or even replenishing their fuel. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles also carry a potential safety stigma with consumers who may not understand the technology and this will require consumer education to overcome these fears along with all of the other hurdles of the new technology (Jiang & Xie, 2014).
It is not possible to reject any of the possible alternatives out of hand, since given enough time and capital for development any of the three alternatives is likely to present a viable alternative to vehicles powered solely by internal combustion engines. However, if one differentiates between long-term solutions and relatively short-term solutions, alternatives #1 and #3 begin to look less viable. The reason for this probably has more to do with the lack of infrastructure to support large numbers of vehicles using these technologies day-in and day-out than it does with the technologies themselves. This lack of infrastructure complicates these alternatives because automobile manufacturers are not positioned to create such infrastructure (their core competencies are far from what is needed) and diverting resources to bring about such infrastructure would slow development of the technologies themselves. Not to overstate the infrastructure difficulties, however, researchers have shown that all-electric servicing systems can be well-integrated with existing gasoline service facilities, at least, in theory (Jiang & Xie, 2014).
Stated in slightly different terms, it is important to be clear that large-scale conversion to all electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles may be feasible, just not at this time. This is a very different scenario than ruling out these alternatives on a permanent basis. Sadek, for example, observes that moving directly to all-electric technologies may be exactly the right thing to do for urban areas where distances traveled are shorter and infrastructure needs may be easier to meet (Sadek, 2012). Thus, while the development curve may be steeper or longer than for gas/electric hybrids, this is not to say that the other alternatives will not catch up or even surpass gas/electric hybrids at some point in the future.
Proposed Solution:
At the present time, the most specific and realistic solution to the issues plaguing the internal combustion engine is to encourage and support the development of gas/electric hybrid vehicles on a broader scale, largely following the already-successful work of Toyota, Ford, and others that have seen this technology as a viable technology. This proposed solution is specific because it focuses resources toward one technology so that maximum forward progress can be made in a relatively short period of time. This proposed solution is realistic because the technology is already proven with hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road today.
This solution was chosen because it has the shortest pathway to reach a demonstrable improvement in self-propulsion for personal vehicles. A number of factors support this decision, not the least of which is the aforementioned large number of vehicles already on the road using this technology. The infrastructure to support daily use of these vehicles is already in place and public acceptance is high. Thus, there is relatively little resistance to be encountered as this technology moves forward. The fact that several companies are already heavily invested in the technology increases the probability that it will continue to evolve with time.
Reviews of the gas/electric vehicle concept and available executions have been largely favorable and reliability issues have been largely addressed. For consumers, the comfort zone of still having the proven internal combustion engine “on board” adds an additional level of peace of mind. Moving ahead to capture the purchases of the early majority will also stimulate the success of this proposed solution.
Recommendations:
Any of the proposed solutions would rely on essentially the same strategy for implementation. These approaches could directly benefit the chosen solution in the shorter run, but also benefit the other alternative solutions over a longer time frame. Two specific strategic action steps are suggested.
Invest in R&D – none of the technologies discussed here are considered to be mature at present. The gas/electric hybrid is considerably further along the development track, but is still not fully optimized. Thus, investment in both upstream R&D on the basic technologies involved and in downstream R&D (otherwise known as product development) to engineer consumer-preferred final product versions is an important first step. Firms that fail to invest at this point will likely lag behind and could lose any hope of establishing a competitive position in the marketplace. Government assistance through R&D tax breaks could help with this step in the strategy (Sadek, 2012).
Form Strategic Partnerships or Alliances – not all firms will be able to “go it alone” with expensive new technologies, but this does not mean that they should drop out of the race. By forming partnerships or alliances, these firms should be able to leverage their own core competencies and rely on others to fill in important gaps. Examples might include partnering with raw material or component suppliers. Other alternatives might be to look for alliances or partnerships with firms who could help build the infrastructure for maintaining and servicing vehicles with the new technology over the expected consumer life of these products. Rothaermel terms this approach as “open innovation” since it tends to blur the boundaries of organizations and allows them to benefit from both internal and external ideas (Rothaermel, 2017, p. 238).
The automobile industry at large should be encouraged to address the issues posed here. Singling out one firm or even a small set of firms is not likely to be effective as the ultimate technology replacement(s) for the internal combustion engine will have a profound influence on the ability of all firms within the industry to do business.
Conclusion:
This mini-case has presented an intriguing situation for analysis since none of the available scenarios/solutions is likely to result in a “bad” outcome. The preferred alternative, moving ahead quickly with more gas/electric hybrid technology, offers a faster solution and is likely to bring substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels via internal combustion, plus help address the environmental concerns. The other alternatives, however, could result in even greater gains at the cost of extended development time and should not be shelved even if they are temporarily relegated to a lower priority status.
References:
Franke, T., Neumann, I., Buhler, F., Cocron, P. & Krems, J. F. (2012). Experiencing range in an electric vehicle: Understanding psychological barriers. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61(3), 368–391.
Jiang, N. & Xie, C. (2014). Computing and analyzing mixed equilibrium network flows with gasoline and electric vehicles. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering. 29, 626-641.
Rothaermel, F. T. (2017). Strategic Management, 3e. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.
Sadek, N. (2012). Urban electric vehicles: A contemporary business case. Transport Problems, 7(2), 117-129.
Grading Notes for Mini-Case Responses:
In order to receive full credit for mini-case responses, each student must keep up with the submissions required by the Course Calendar – there are no late penalty allowances for falling behind on mini-case responses.
In terms of grading mini-case responses, thoroughness in the scope of coverage and the depth of analysis are critical components. The recommendations made for the individual(s) and/or the organization(s) must relate to the identified key problems and/or issues specified in the chapter. Consistency from the environmental assessment to the strategic recommendations (with each mini-case’s elements building from and relating to previous sections in the textbook) is required as the course progresses over the semester. Thus, in each mini case response, each student must demonstrate his/her ability to formulate realistic and workable recommendations for action. Finally, evidence of good writing skills including good grammar, organization, spelling, and adhering to the paper limits and/or other requirements as stipulated above is expected.
The grading rubric for all mini-cases is provided here:
495 - Grading Rubric for the Mini-Cases.pdf
