COMPETITIVE STRATEGY BA 501 COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OUTLINE

7,122 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
7,122
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
84
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

COMPETITIVE STRATEGY BA 501 COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OUTLINE

  1. 1. COMPETITIVE STRATEGY BA 501 COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OUTLINE Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor 604-983-6946 boulos@u.washington.edu 1 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  2. 2. I. COURSE OBJECTIVES In broad terms, the objective of this course is to train you to think strategically, how to look at a multitude of seemingly unrelated factors and forces swirling around a company and make sense out of them, how to recognize certain patterns and how to identify emerging new ones, and how to make good decisions with far reaching impact on the long term performance of companies where you may work or be engaged to advise in some capacity. In short, Competitive Strategy is about honing your judgment. To get there, we will tackle a number of important issues that a business unit and a corporation typically face by probing into a number of questions, such as: 1. Why are some industries consistently more attractive than others? 2. Why are some companies able to beat other companies operating in the same industry, attractive or not, day in and day out? 3. What are the sources of sustainable competitive advantage? 4. How do companies go about formulating and putting strategies in place? 5. As firms step beyond their narrow product/market boundaries, how can they identify and find new sources of value creation and how can they go about exploiting these new avenues? 6. And, finally, if/when companies get into trouble, how can they manage corporate renewal to get back on track? By the end of the course, you should have acquired a complete set of tools and have spent enough time experimenting with these tools to help you along your quest to be a top notch strategic thinker. II. PHILOSOPHY AND EXPECTATIONS Strategy is all around us; it’s a cocktail with many different ingredients. An important capability that this course aims to develop is to allow you to put all your existing skills, and new ones you’re yet to acquire, to work in order to solve complex strategic problems. Competitive Strategy encourages you to bring into class not only knowledge you’re acquiring in other MBA core courses but also knowledge and insights you may already possess in such diverse fields as philosophy, psychology, sociology, math, history, science, anthropology, arts, literature, sports, and to marry that knowledge with new strategy-specific learning to become a better strategic thinker. Competitive Strategy will run in a business-like fashion, much like a well run company does, and will adopt a certain code of behaviour that in turn will drive my expectations of you. These expectations include: 2 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  3. 3. Coming to class fully prepared to engage in discussion. As a rule of thumb, you’ll need to spend at least eight hours of study and preparation for each 4-hr. lecture. Being on time for all meetings and assignments and respecting deadlines. All assignments should be emailed to me by 17.00 of the due date. If you can’t meet a deadline for extenuating reasons, please let me know ahead of time so that we can discuss alternative arrangements. If you can’t attend a class, please inform me ahead of time. Participating in vigorous debate in class by taking a firm position, and by debating and disagreeing with others, all the while doing so in a professional and respectful manner. Seeking continuous improvement throughout the term. Producing work of the highest quality in every respect and always to the best of your abilities. Being accountable to your team member colleagues and classmates. Having fun. III. ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING The course grade will be made up of four components weighted as follows: 1. Team case write-up………………………………………..…………20% 2. Team Project.………………………………………………………...35% 3. Final Exam…………………………………………………………...30% 4. Class participation.…………………………………………………...15% 1. Team Case Write-Up (20%) Each Team is responsible for preparing and writing an analysis of an integrative case study addressing issues covered in Lectures 1-4. The case will be handed in class on Monday 22 January and the write-up is due on Thursday 15 February at 17.00. The write-up MUST NOT exceed 1500 words and should be typed in Times New Roman, 12pt, double-spaced text. You can include up to 3 exhibits in addition to the text. 2. Team Project (35%) The Team Project will parallel the whole course and will allow students, working in their Teams, to apply the concepts learned in the classroom ‘live’ to a company of interest to the team members. Company and Topic Selection - Subject to my approval, Teams are free to choose any company to be the focus of their projects, except for companies covered during the course. It’s advisable to select a publicly-traded company as this will ensure 3 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  4. 4. that information about the company and the industry in which it operates are readily available. More discussion about the Team Project and company selection will take place in Lecture 1. Project Description - The objective of the project is to produce a high quality strategic analysis report of an organization. The project should focus on two important strategic issues: one faced by a Business Unit (BU) in the organization (Lectures 1-4) and another faced by the Corporate Center of the company (Lectures 5-7). The analysis should be broken down into six sections by: A. Describing the business landscape in which the company competes [Lecture 1]. B. Analyzing the attractiveness of the industry segment in which the BU competes, including trends in that segment and how these trends are altering the industry structure and dynamics [Lecture 1]. C. Assessing the BU’s relative competitive position and its sources of advantage/disadvantage [Lecture 2]. D. Developing a number of alternative strategies to defend/enhance the BU’s relative competitive positioning [Lectures 3 & 4]. E. Identifying and analyzing the top 1-2 pressing issues that the Corporate Center should focus on in order to add value to the whole organization and enhance its overall competitiveness [Lectures 5-7]. F. Recapping the overall study and outlining the key conclusions and recommendations [All lectures]. While strategy process issues (discussed throughout the course) and a focus on leadership and corporate transformation are not explicitly included in the project’s scope described above, teams are nevertheless encouraged to bring a discussion of process and leadership into their projects if and when appropriate. Project Deliverables. All deliverables should be prepared in stand-alone PowerPoint presentations. In order to keep each PowerPoint slide clear and simple enough to be appropriate for a presentation, you may use the Notes function to add one paragraph of explanatory information to supplement the material on the slide. All slides should be emailed to me according to the following schedule: Two slides describing the company that the Team proposes to study, including the Business Unit issue and the Corporate Strategy question(s) that the study will address – Due date: Thursday 11 January. Six slides covering sections A. & B. of the project – Due date: Thursday 18 January. 4 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  5. 5. Six slides covering sections C & D. of the project – Due date: Thursday 8 February. Six slides covering sections E. & F. of the project – Due date: Thursday 8 March. Project Presentations in Class - Each Team will make one presentation in class about their project during the course. Presentations will be scheduled during Lectures 3, 4 & 6. The presentations schedule will be handed out in Lecture 1. Project Feedback and Grade - I will provide feedback on the projects throughout the course, in class as well as by appointment during my office hours and by phone/email. Teams will also benefit from class feedback when they present their slides. The Team presentations will count for 5% of the overall course mark with the final report counting for the other 30%. The final report due on March 8 will be the only deliverable that I will grade for that portion of the project, which will allow the teams to incorporate all the course learning and the feedback they receive into their final product. Please note that each deliverable stage should include the slides from the previous stage with the new slides due that week added. Teams should feel free to go back, review, edit and change the slides from previous weeks as they see fit based on the feedback they receive. The final deliverable on Thursday 8 March should be 20 slides (+1 Title slide) in total and will constitute the final project for grading purposes. 3. Final Exam (30%) The final exam will be a recap of the whole course. The exam’s purpose is to test each individual student’s knowledge and ability to assimilate the ideas and concepts discussed throughout the course. It is NOT a group or team effort. 4. Class Participation (15%) Students are expected to participate in class by discussing the assigned case studies and readings and by critiquing Team presentations. While participation is expected, what will count most is quality not quantity. Quality of discussion will be measured by: Making insightful and relevant comments Showing intellectual curiosity by going beyond the obvious Being clear, logical and to the point Listening to others respectfully and with full attention Seeing various sides of arguments and challenging views presented in the case or by other students Adding value, e.g., avoiding repeating case facts or re-packaging someone else’s comments 5 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  6. 6. Integrating and building on knowledge from previous lectures, other courses or personal experiences. Class discussion is a test of each individual student’s ability to assimilate and discuss the course’s concepts. As such, each student is expected to come to class fully prepared to tackle the case discussion as if he/she were leading the discussion that day. If you’re not able to discuss a particular case and would like to avoid being called on in class, please let me know ahead of time and the reasons why. Gambling on not being called on in class is not a good idea and called-on students who are unprepared and have not notified me will be marked down accordingly. Students are encouraged to discuss the cases in their Teams and also among teams in their sections (except for the case write up due on February 15, which should be restricted to the Teams). However, to protect the integrity of the class discussions, students must not discuss the cases with students from the other section or to obtain notes from or discuss the cases with students from prior years. Anyone aware of such activities should bring them to my attention or report them to the Honour Code Committee. The case studies that we’ll cover in class describe specific strategic issues at a specific point in time. Please note that all case analysis and discussion in writing and in class must be based on the information provided in the case only. Students must not ‘fast forward’ by consulting the Internet and searching for information about the current situation of the companies under investigation, and evidence of such forward-looking attempts will be marked negatively. Where appropriate, I’ll update the current situation of companies that we’ll be discussing in class. It’s possible, however, that you may have prior knowledge and experience about some of the companies and issues that we’ll be discussing in the case studies. If that’s the case, please let me know as soon as possible so that we can discuss how best to put your experience to the benefit of the learning in class. IV. READINGS AND TEXTBOOK All the readings and case studies are available in the course pack, which is divided into two parts for easier use. Part One of the pack covers all the requirements of Lectures 1-4 and Part Two includes the material for Lectures 5-8. The course packs are available from University Readers at: www.universityreaders.com There’s no strategy textbook assigned to this course, rather one book titled: ‘The Minto Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing, Thinking and Problem Solving’, by Barbara Minto. This book is available from University Bookstore. 6 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  7. 7. The Minto book is an excellent reference to help you organize your thoughts and present them in a clear, memorable and compelling manner either in writing or verbally in a presentation. While you’ll find this book a powerful guide to the way you approach problem solving in general, I do not expect you to cover all of it or to become an expert in its principles overnight. I do strongly recommend, however, that you read Parts I & II (pp. 1-118) as soon as possible and to start applying Minto’s framework to all your work, from class discussion to write ups and PowerPoint presentations. You should also pay close attention to Chapter 11 (‘Reflecting the Pyramid on Screen’, pp. 189-198) as this chapter will be of great help for your Team Project and will be very useful in helping you prepare great PowerPoint slides. I’ll expect all your written work and presentations to follow the Minto framework to the best of your abilities. If you’re looking for strategy textbooks for general reference, I can recommend the following: ‘Contemporary Strategy Analysis’, by Robert M. Grant, Blackwell Publishing, 5th Edition. ‘Strategy and the Business Landscape’, by Pankaj Ghemawat, Prentice Hall, 2000. ‘Blue Ocean Strategy’ by Chan Kim and Rénee Mauborgne, Harvard Business School Press, 2005. I’ll produce a complete set of PowerPoint slides for each lecture. The slides will be posted on Blackboard the day after the lecture. I normally discourage using laptops in class but am willing to consider allowing their use for note taking only. Use of any other electronic devices is not allowed in class. V. HOW TO REACH ME All assignments are to be emailed to me by 17.00 of the due date at: boulos@u.washington.edu In addition, I’ll be available to meet during my office hours, a schedule of which will be distributed in Lecture 1. I’m also available for consultation by phone at: 604-983-6946 and by email on a ‘reasonable’ basis. The detailed course outline follows. Good luck to all and I look forward to meeting you on Monday 8 January and to working with you over the next several weeks. Fares Boulos December 2006. 7 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  8. 8. COMPETITIVE STRATEGY – BA 501 COURSE OUTLINE LECTURE 1 – Monday 8 January INTRODUCTION & MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE Session 1: WHAT IS STRATEGY? Case Study: • Starbucks in the News. Questions: 1. Why is Starbucks so successful? What’s their strategy? 2. What are the limitations to Starbucks’s strategy? Can they continue to be successful? For how long? Reference Reading: • Course Outline and Description. • ‘The key to clear writing is in the Introduction’, by Barbara Minto, Financial Times, 8 January 2001. Session 2: MAPPING THE BUSINESS LANDSCAPE Case Study: • Boeing and Airbus in the News. Questions: 1. Why is it that only two companies (Boeing and Airbus) dominate the 100+ passenger airplane manufacturing industry? 2. How attractive is the passenger airplane manufacturing industry? Why? Reference Reading: • ‘Industry Analysis: The Fundamentals’, from Contemporary Strategy Analysis by Robert Grant, Chapter 3, pp. 68-91, 5th Edition, Blackwell Publishing, 2005. ************************************************************************ 8 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  9. 9. LECTURE 2 – Friday 12 January SOURCES OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE (1) Session 1: GENERIC STRATEGIES Case Study: • Sunrise Medical, Inc.’s Wheelchair Products Questions: 1. How attractive (by what measure?) was the wheelchair industry in 1993? 2. What are the most important structural factors affecting the industry that explain your conclusions about attractiveness (or lack thereof) above? Is the industry likely to become more/less attractive over time? 3. Does Sunrise’s Quickie division have a competitive advantage in wheelchairs? What accounts for differences in profitability among Quickie, Guardian, Invacare and Everest & Jennings (see Exhibit 4)? 4. Should Chandler allow Guardian to introduce a lightweight standard wheelchair? How will Invacare react? 5. How will industry structure be affected if Sunrise introduces the lightweight standard wheelchair? Reference Reading: • ‘Creating Competitive Advantage’, by Pankaj Ghemawat and Jan Rivkin, Harvard Business School Note. • ‘Industry Transformation’, by Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin, Harvard Business School note. Session 2: COMPETING ON RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES Case Study: • Wal*Mart Stores, Inc. Questions: 1. What are the sources of Wal-Mart’s competitive advantage in discount retailing? 2. How sustainable is this position? How easy is it for a competitor to imitate Wal-Mart and erode its sources of competitive advantage? Reference Reading: • ‘Competing on Resources’, by Collis and Montgomery, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1995. ************************************************************************ 9 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  10. 10. LECTURE 3: Friday 19 January SOURCES OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE (2) SUSTAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE Case Study: • Matching Dell • ‘The Power of Virtual Integration: An Interview with Michael Dell’, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1998. • ‘Execution Without Excuses: An Interview with Michael Dell and Kevin Rollins’, Harvard Business review, March 2005. Questions: 1. How and why did the PC industry come to have such low profitability? 2. Why has Dell been so successful despite the low profitability of the PC industry? 3. Prior to the recent efforts to match Dell (1997-1998), how big was Dell’s competitive advantage? Specifically, calculate Dell’s cost advantage over the team of Compaq and a reseller in serving a corporate customer. 1 4. How effective have competitors been in responding to the challenge posed by Dell’s advantage? How big is Dell’s remaining advantage? 5. How sustainable is Dell’s advantage? 6. What should Dell’s major rivals (IBM, Compaq, HP, Gateway) do now? Reference Readings: • ‘What is Strategy?’ by Michael Porter, Harvard Business Review, November-December 1996. • ‘Threats to Added Value’ pp. 84-95, from Strategy and the Business Landscape, by Pankaj Ghemawat, Prentice Hall 2001. TEAM PRESENTATIONS ON PROJECTS ************************************************************************ 1 The case allows you to calculate the relative costs of Dell and the combination of Compaq/Reseller. To do that, consider a typical PC equipped for the business market. From Exhibit 10b, you can calculate the price that Dell charged for such a machine in 1996. Next, you can use Exhibit 6 to calculate Dell’s Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) for such a machine. Using information in the case, identify the major categories of cost differences between Dell and Compaq/Reseller. How do the costs they incur differ? Finally, try to quantify the savings or extra costs associated with each difference. 10 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  11. 11. LECTURE 4: Friday 22 January BREAKING THE RULES & STRATEGY PROCESS BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY Case Study: • The Evolution of the Circus Industry – A case. Questions: 1. How attractive was the circus industry in the early 1980s? Why? 2. What were the factors (key elements of product, service and delivery) that traditional circus companies competed on? 3. What do you like or dislike about the traditional circus? 4. What would be your advice to an outsider considering entering the circus industry in the early 1980s: Go or No Go? Why? Reference Reading: • ‘Value Innovation: The Strategic Logic of High Growth’, by Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2004. • ‘How to Recognize a Value Innovation for your Blue Ocean’, by Andrew Shipilov, INSEAD note, 2006. TEAM PRESENTATIONS ON PROJECTS ************************************************************************ 11 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  12. 12. LECTURE 5: Friday 16 February PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER & DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES Session 1: INTEGRATING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE CONCEPTS Case Study: • Discussion of the case study handed out on January 22. Session 2: CREATING VALUE THROUGH DIVERSIFICATION Case Study: • Extending the “easy” Business Model Team Assignments for Class Discussion 2 : • Teams 1 & 10: Why was easyJet successful? • Teams 2 & 11: How successful is the internet café business? Why? What are its prospects? • Teams 3 & 12: How successful is the easyCar business? Why? What are its prospects? • Teams 4 & 13: How big is the UK cinema exhibition industry segment? What have been the drivers of market size over the past few years? How do you see the industry evolving over the next five years? • Teams 5 & 14: How attractive is the cinema exhibition industry segment? Are the trends pointing toward a more or less attractive industry? Why? • Teams 6 & 15: Discuss why easyGroup should enter the cinema business. What are your assumptions and how likely are they to hold? • Teams 7 & 16: Discuss why easyGroup should NOT enter the cinema business. What are your assumptions? • Teams 8 & 17: As an established movie distributor, how do you feel about easyGroup’s proposed entry into the cinema exhibition business? How would you react to their entry? Why? (Please turn the page over for more on Lecture 5) 2 Teams should consider all assignment questions in their pre-class case discussion. Each Team, however, should concentrate and focus on their assigned question as they’ll be called in class to lead the discussion around that question. 12 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  13. 13. LECTURE 5: Friday 16 February PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER & DIVERSIFICATION STRATEGIES (CONTN’D) • Teams 9 & 18: what is the strategic logic behind easyGroup’s corporate strategy of diversification? What conditions are necessary for it to succeed? Are these conditions present? Reference Readings: • ‘The Dominant Logic: A New Linkage between Diversity and Performance’, C.K. Prahalad and Richard Bettis, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec. 1986). • ‘The Dominant Logic: Retrospective and Extension’, Richard Bettis and C.K. Prahalad, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan. 1995). ************************************************************************ 13 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  14. 14. LECTURE 6: Friday 2 March GLOBAL STRATEGY Session 1: CREATING VALUE BEYOND YOUR BORDERS Case Study: • AmorePacific: From Local to Global Beauty Team Assignments for Class Discussion 3 : • Teams 1 & 10: What should AmorePacific’s strategy be in France? How should it implement this strategy, e.g., JVs, acquisitions, going-it- alone? • Teams 2 & 11: What should AmorePacific’s strategy be in China? How should it implement its strategy? • Teams 3 & 12: What should AmorePacific’s strategy be in the U.S.? How should it implement this strategy? • Teams 4, 5, 13 & 14: Which of the 3 countries offered the best value creating opportunities for AmorePacific? Why? Any other countries the company should consider? • Teams 6, 7, 15 & 16: Instead of going global, should AmorePacific focus on product diversification in its home market of South Korea? • Teams 8, 9, 17 & 18: Estée Lauder seems to be performing better than L’Oréal in South Korea. What factors account for this out-performance? What are the implications of your conclusions for all the players involved? Reference Readings: • ‘Seven Myths to Ponder Before Going Global’, by S. Rangan, Financial Times, Mastering Strategy Survey, 29 November 1999. • ‘The End of Corporate Imperialism’, C.K. Prahalad and Kenneth Lieberthal, Harvard Business Review, August 2003. (Please turn page over for more on Lecture 6) 3 Teams should consider all assignment questions in their pre-class case discussion. Each Team, however, should concentrate and focus on their assigned question as they’ll be called in class to lead the discussion around that question. 14 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  15. 15. LECTURE 6: Friday 2 March GLOBAL STRATEGY (CONTN’D) Session 2: CRAFTING STRATEGY Case Study: • Honda ‘A’. Questions: 1. Why was Honda so successful in the motorcycle industry, particularly in the U.S.? 2. How well was this strategy planned in advance? What are the indications pointing out that this strategy was well thought out and executed according to a well laid out plan? TEAM PRESENTATIONS ON PROJECTS ************************************************************************ 15 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  16. 16. LECTURE 7: Monday 5 March MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS AND COURSE REVIEW Session 1: CREATING VALUE THROUGH MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS Case Study: • DaimlerChrysler Merger: The Quest to Create “One Company” • ‘Gentlemen: Start your engines’, Fortune, June 8, 1998. Questions: 1. Explain the 3-4 key elements of the strategic logic underlying the DaimlerChrysler merger. Does this logic make sense? 2. Summarize the expected benefits that the Daimler/Chrysler merger was expected to yield. How significant were the benefits in the context of the merger’s size? Do these benefits make sense given the announced strategic logic? 3. In the context of the Waterman et al article, how different were the two companies merging? Did these differences facilitate or hinder the post-merger integration process? In what ways? 4. Compare and contrast the leadership styles of the three main actors in this case, Schrempp, Eaton and Stallkamp: Were their styles complementary and did they work to achieve the desired results? As each of the 3 main actors - Schrempp, Eaton and Stallkamp- what would you have done differently, if anything? Reference Readings: • ‘The Dubious Logic of Global Megamergers’, by Pankaj Ghemawat and Fariborz Gandar, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000. • ‘How to Ruin a Merger: Five People-Management Pitfalls to Avoid’, by Kristen Donahue, Harvard Business School Publishing. • ‘Structure is not Organization’, by Waterman et al, Business Horizons, June 1980. (Please turn the page over for more on Lecture 7) 16 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  17. 17. LECTURE 7: Monday 5 March MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS AND COURSE REVIEW (CONTN’D) Session 2: COURSE REVIEW I Team Assignments for Class Discussion: Teams should prepare a recap of the key learning points covered in Lectures 1-4 according to the following assignments: 1. Teams 1, 6, 10 & 15: Lecture 1 2. Teams 2, 7, 11 & 16: Lecture 2 3. Teams 3, 8, 12 & 17: Lecture 3 4. Teams 4, 9, 13 & 18: Lecture 4 5. Teams 5 & 14: Anything that needs more clarification. You may wish to consult with the other Teams for their views. Each team should email me 2 PowerPoint slides by Sunday 4 March covering the key learning points of the Lecture(s) assigned to them. I’ll put these slides together into one overall presentation and post it on Blackboard. ************************************************************************ 17 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor
  18. 18. LECTURE 8: Friday 9 March LEADERSHIP AND CORPORATE TRANSFORMATION Session 1: MANAGING CORPORATE RENEWAL Case Study: • Cadbury Schweppes ‘A’: The Strategic Dilemma of Trebor Bassett, Questions: 1. What were the sources of Cadbury’s poor financial performance before John Sunderland took over? 2. As John Taylor, what are your problems? What would you do, and how? 3. As John Sunderland, what are your problems? What would do, and how? Reference Reading: • ‘What is Value Based Management’, by Timothy Koller, The McKinsey Quarterly, Number 3, 1994, pp. 87-101. Session 2: COURSE REVIEW II Team Assignments for Class Discussion: Teams should prepare a recap of the key learning points covered in Lectures 5-7 according to the following assignments: 1. Teams 1, 6, 10 & 15: Lecture 1 2. Teams 2, 7, 11 & 16: Lecture 2 3. Teams 3, 8, 12 & 17: Lecture 3 4. Teams 4, 9, 13 & 18: Lecture 4 5. Teams 5 & 14: Anything that needs more clarification. You may wish to consult with the other Teams for their views. Each team should email me 2 PowerPoint slides by Thursday 8 March covering the key learning points of the Lecture(s) assigned to them. I’ll put these slides together into one overall presentation and post it on Blackboard. ************************************************************************ 18 Competitive Strategy BA 501 Fares Boulos Kermit O. Hanson Visiting Professor

×