MBM301 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT-CASE STUDIESQuiz 1,2 3 & 4. Quiz is proposed to be taken up as a Group activity.

Some introductory questions have been noted below, to introduce the case studies (not to limit Group efforts). Group members may please discuss the issues raised for each Case Study. Each Group Report is to be submitted and be followed by a Group Presentation. [Both Group Report submission and Group Presentation are required]. All Group members are expected to participate actively. [Minimum 2 Groups would be there at each Study Centre]. I THE FORD PINTO by Michael Hoffman 1. Identify and discuss the main issue raised in the case of the Ford Pinto. 2. 3. 4. Business. Discuss Product Liability in India. What are the Group views about Corporate Responsibility. Briefly state your Groups view about the place of Ethics in

II 1.

THE GREAT REPEATABLE BUSINESS MODEL by Chris Zook and James Allen Discuss effectiveness of Differentiation as a strategy for any business, giving examples from industry.

III

GROWTH COMPANIES by Rita Gunther McGrath 1. Discuss the roots of corporate growth and sustainability of growth of Growth companies, giving examples. 2. Using corporate data (from published annual reports) of leading Indian companies, explain which two or three companies your Group considers to be Growth Companies.

IV DONT INTEGRATE YOUR ACQUISITIONS, PARTNER WITH THEM by Prashant Kale, Harbir Singh and Anand P. Raman 1. Discuss the issues raised in the case study in the context of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) for a few leading Indian companies. Some Indian companies have M&A situations in India and some have acquired business(es) abroad. In your Group opinion, which approach should be adopted-Integration or Partnering? Explain fully giving examples. Would your Group suggest a rigid approach be taken?

[Explanation: Quiz (Maximum marks per Quiz) (Report submission plus Group Presentation): 15marks. Term Paper (SGD):-15 marks, plus H.A. 5 marks plus C.A. 5 marks.]

MBM301 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT-CASE STUDIESQuiz 1,2 3 & 4. THE FORD PINTO by Michael Hoffman 1. Identify and discuss the main issue raised in the case of the Ford Pinto. 2. Discuss Product Liability in India.

3. What are the Group views about Corporate Responsibility. 4. Briefly state your Groups view about the place of Ethics in Business. Hints for Mentors: 1. The main issue in the Ford Pinto case, which is widely discussed in business schools globally, is about business ethics. The competing views are: that business must be ethical, versus that business must earn a profit at any cost so long it is not outright criminal. 2. Product Liability is not well defined legally in India, although court judgments do clarify the meaning of product liability. But then, judgments are not very helpful in resolving the issue about Business Ethics. For example, courts have held a company liable when the packaging bag of a childs toy suffocated the child accidentally. Or a child suffered an accident inside a car owing to its poor design. This is about legal (not ethical) product liability. (There are other cases too). 3. Good Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) cannot be argued to justify lapses in (legal) product liability, or poor Business Ethics.

4. In DEI, we emphasise that business must be ethical. The business must also be profitable. {Profits should not be earned by compromising on ethics. This is about trade-offs). Ethics is considered to be Tata Groups forte. The ethical reputation is also good for sustainable business. So also with Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The Group which criticises Ford most bitterly should probably score the highest marks. (Unfortunately, many Groups have a habit of blindly praising the company featured in the case. Such Groups should be marked down. Some Groups, which favour a technical approach, think the case is mainly about better technical design. Some finance people are willing to spend a few dollars more, and hey-the problem is solved! Or is it? Marketing people are happy with good sales as proof of a good product for which there is great demand). A Group which otherwise answers well and has worked together, but has not criticised Ford in the case study, should not score highest (or very high) marks, owing to having missed the main point. Working together should be rewarded. (For the first Case Study perhaps Mentors should encourage students efforts?). Ford had some practices which can be soundly criticised: lobbying with the regulator to postpone improvements in standards, evaluating human life in dollar terms payable (for settling claims), and its concealment of its vulnerable design by pursuing out-of-court settlements, etc. It had a strategy, no doubt, for earning profits. But its business ethics are indeed questionable. This case is about business ethics.