ADM4311D DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR CASES

You may not make a group submission until at least 4 (and no more than 5) members have
been confirmed via sign-up on Virtual Campus for your group.

YOU MUST WAIT FOR FEEDBACK ON ANY MEMO YOU SUBMIT BEFORE YOU CAN
SUBMIT YOUR NEXT ONE.

Deadline for submission is 10pm (22.00) the day prior to the class for which the case has been
assigned. Upload to Virtual Campus. For any given case, you must address all of the assigned
questions.

Each group will submit on any two cases and which must come from different modules (the
cases are organized into three course modules). If your group wishes to attempt to improve its
mark, you may submit a 3rd memo and I will count the best two of your three memo grades;
memos #1 and #2 must be from different modules.

Be careful to support your points: statements you present as fact must be supported by case data
referenced by case page or exhibit #.

A STATEMENT OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY (available on the course web page) signed by

all group members must be submitted for each memo (upload as an attachment to the memo or
submit as hard copy on the day of class). Memos without a signed statement will not be returned
or count towards your grade. Graded memos may be returned even though the statement has not
been signed by all members. However, any member of the group who fails to sign the memo
thereby indicates a failure to contribute to the memo and risks not sharing in the marks for the
memo.
 Personal Ethics Statement Concerning Telfer School Group Assignment

I understand that a group assignment submitted with a copy of this Personal Ethics Statement
that is not signed by a given group member will be interpreted by the Telfer School as non-
contribution to the required work by that group member.

By signing this Statement, I am attesting to the fact that I have contributed fairly to the
composition of the work submitted.
I have knowledge of and have respected the Beware of Plagiarism brochure
https://www.uottawa.ca/about/sites/www.uottawa.ca.about/files/plagiarism.pdf) published by the
University. Having reviewed not only my own work but the work of my colleagues in its
entirety, I further attest to the fact that my own work in this assignment, and to the best of my
knowledge the work also of my group colleagues, adheres to the fraud policy outlined in the
Academic Regulations in the Universitys Undergraduate Studies Calendar
http://www.uottawa.ca/about/policies-and-regulations/academic-regulations).

ADM4311 Section: ____ Group #:________ Case company:__________________________

________________________________ _______________(GROUP LIAISON)

Last Name (print), First Name (print) Student Number

Signature ________________________________ Date_______________

________________________________ _______________
Last Name (print), First Name (print) Student Number

Signature ________________________________ Date_______________

________________________________ _______________
Last Name (print), First Name (print) Student Number

Signature ________________________________ Date_______________

________________________________ _______________
Last Name (print), First Name (print) Student Number

Signature ________________________________ Date_______________

________________________________ _______________
Last Name (print), First Name (print) Student Number

Signature ________________________________ Date_______________

 MODULE I

S2. Cola Wars (Bonus 10% of your mark for submission on this case)

1. Use 5-forces analysis to account for the profitability of concentrate producers.

Concentrate producers (CP) are the rivals, bottlers are the buyers. You must discuss all
five forces as they seem towards the end of the case. You must identify each force as
strong, moderate or weak, clearly identify which characteristics are evident under each
force (from the lists in the reading and slides), and draw on quantitative data from the
case to support your answer (such as costs, pricing, market share, and relative
profitability).

2. Use 5-forces analysis to assess the implications posed for the industry by non-CSD
beverages. Clearly identify the impact you believe non-CSD has had and will have on
each force (strengthen, weaken, leave unchanged), and why. Form a statement of Cokes
strategy (what, how, who/where) at the end of the case: how does non-CSD fit within
this?

Start by taking a clear position on what kind of threat (i.e. change in which force) non-
CSD beverages posed around the mid-1990s, then discuss how well the CPs dealt with
this threat, and finally the situation posed by non-CSDs at the end of the case.

S3. Ryanair A&C

1. Based on the A case only, compose a statement (what, how, who/where) of what you
believe Ryanairs strategy to be and explain what kind of competitive advantage
(differentiation? low cost?) Ryanair has. Evaluate the Dublin-London (Luton) route as a
market-entry opportunity for Ryanair. Based on your identification of strategy and
competitive advantage, is this opportunity a good one for Ryanair? Complete your
answer with a clear recommendation to Ryanair.
a. You should evaluate what a five-forces analysis indicates about the wisdom of
this opportunity.
Hint: pay particular attention to barriers to entry.

b. You should evaluate the financial wisdom of pursuing this opportunity, taking the
L98 fare as given but carefully analyzing cost and passenger-volume assumptions
(use (A) case data only).

Display on p5 of your memo a breakdown of estimated costs, revenue, and

profitability/loss for RYA. Each cost (staff, fuel etc.) should be estimated per passenger
(see case), and then re-estimated on the basis of how each might vary depending on
different assumptions (based as best you can on case data) about productivity and
aircraft loads. Analyse costs in terms of cash cost per passenger only: do not analyse
costs in terms of % of revenue.
(continues overleaf)
 S3. Ryanair A&C (contd.)

2. Based on the C case only, compose a statement (what, how, who/where) of what you
believe Ryanairs strategy to be and explain Ryanairs competitive advantage
(differentiation? low cost?). Drawing on your answer for Q1 and C case data (Hint:
examine Exs. 1 & 2), calculate some simple financial measures that support your
assessment. Draw on the Coughlan reading (leaders (dis)advantages) to interpret
further Ryanairs relative success. Finally, discuss whether changes in the industry forces
help explain your assessment of Ryanairs performance.

S4. LEGO

1. Compose a statement (what, how, who/where) of what you believe LEGOs strategy to
have been around 2004. Next, apply the 5-forces framework to LEGOs external
environment around 2004. Identify the most important factors (max 3) under each force.
How well positioned was LEGO at that time? Draw on your analysis to comment on how
sensible were LEGOs actions in the (a) 1993-98, and (b) 1999-2004 periods.

2. Compose a statement (what, how, who/where) of what you believe LEGOs strategy to
have been around 2011 and explain LEGOs competitive advantage (differentiation? low
cost?). Build on your analysis in Q.1 to explain LEGOs positioning in 2011 in terms of
specific responses (max 3) to each industry force. You must make at least one
observation with respect to every force, and relate each one to your strategy statement.
Round out your answer by drawing on the Christensen Future reading (S.3), in
particular to address the extent to which LEGOs improved performance may be
attributed to how well it dealt with shifts in the basis of competitive advantage.
 MODULE II

S5. Lincoln

1. Compose a statement (what, how, who/where) of what you believe Lincolns strategy to
be and explain Lincolns competitive advantage (differentiation? low cost?). Justify your
answer. Construct an image of the elements in Lincolns incentive system (use p5 of your
memo), identifying each element as a Resource, a Process, or a Value, and showing the
linkages between elements.
a. Explain how the system relates to Lincolns strategy and competitive advantage,
and helps account for Lincolns performance (Hint: examine Ex. 3).
b. Lincolns impressive performance continued into the 1980s. However, beginning
in the mid-1980s new management engaged in a rapid international expansion
(notably in Europe) that almost bankrupted the company. Draw on the concepts of
RPV and your analysis of Lincolns incentive system to suggest why this attempt
at international expansion by Lincoln failed.

S6. Netflix

1. Form a statement of Netflixs strategy - what, how, who/where for very early in the
case and again for the end of the case. Construct two images of Netflixs RPV (use p5 of
your memo): one for very early in the case and one for the end of the case. Identify each
element as a Resource, a Process, or a Value, and show and explain the linkages between
elements. Explain how each RPV image in Q1 relates to its respective strategy statement.

2. What is Netflixs competitive advantage by the end of the case? Justify your answer.
Identify three significant changes in RPV demonstrated in your analysis for Q1. Explain
each change as intended or emergent and how each change helped build (or not) the
competitive advantage you identify for Netflix.
 MODULE III

S7. BIG, and LEGO (again)

Compare and contrast the job of CEO at BIG and at LEGO.

1. Identify how the roles of thinker, energizer, and doer have been handled in both
companies.

2. For each of the three roles identify a significant similarity and/or difference in how each
CEO has performed it. What accounts for these similarities and/or differences? In trying
to explain these similarities and/or differences, pay attention to industry context (e.g.
aspects of 5 forces), organization factors (e.g. RPV), and personal factors (e.g. personal
characteristics and background). For example,
i. Industry context: e.g. if a firm deals with narrow ranges of both buyers
and suppliers, and competes in well-understood ways, this likely narrows
the external informational tasks the CEO performs and how (s)he performs
them.

S.8 Tesla

1. Form a statement of Teslas strategy what, how, who/where - at the end of the case.
Construct an image of its RPV (use p5 of your memo) at this time. Identify each element
as a Resource, a Process, or a Value, and show the linkages between elements. Explain
how your RPV image indicates the implementation of Teslas strategy as identified by
you.

2. What do you think of Teslas entry strategy? What barriers did it have to overcome? Are
other firms likely to follow Tesla and undermine its position through imitation?

3. Draw on your answers to Qq. 1 and 2 to explain Musks influence on Tesla in terms of
the three managerial roles.
Hint: pay attention to distinctions within roles (i.e. favouring of certain aspects of a role)
as well as distinctions between the different kinds of roles.
 Case-memo guidelines
Identification:
Footer with case company name, course code, group #, group liaison name, and page #
on every page (print this file to see); only one group member (typically, group liaison)
submits to Virtual Campus
No need for a cover page when you use this format
Please do not submit as pdf - Word is preferred

Format:
Time, page limit, and format constraints are strict (see course outline)
Avoid not using all of the space available to you, as well as very wide disproportions in
the space assigned to different answers. If you find youve run out of things to write with
space still available, chances are you havent thought enough about the case
Number each answer 1 or 2 as appropriate and do not waste space by repeating the
question(s) in your memos
Label all graphs and axes that you include on page 5 of your memo
e.g. Figure 1 and refer to this label in your discussion
e.g. not % but % market share

Content:
Case content is the only data you are to rely on for your answers
Each answer should have both opening and closing paragraphs to clearly communicate its
substance
Summaries of case data add little value to your answer: your interpretation is where the
marks are
Be careful to support statements you present as fact. The best answers have good
discussion backed by good quantitative analysis (where possible) and careful referencing
of the case (i.e. you identify significant case-data points by case page # or exhibit #): see
attached specimen answer.
Be careful that your answers are clearly distinct in their substance flow-through (where
one answer builds on another) is good but repetition will lose you marks
Draw on relevant readings/concepts, especially when directed to do so
There is very little value in composing a graph or table on page 5 that you do not discuss
or explain in your answer(s) somewhere on pages 1 to 4 of your memo. ALWAYS walk
your reader through any graph or table you compose
There is no value in including on page 5 of your memo a copy of a figure or table
from the case study (you may simply reference this)

These guidelines are also presented in summary form in the PPT rubric posted on Virtual
Campus.
 Sample case-memo question and answer
(print this to see what yours should look like)

[The question: Identify and explain Coors performance relative to that of its major rivals
between 1977 and 1985. Do not repeat the question in your answer]

[The answer; this is an A+ specimen answer]

A deterioration in Coors relative performance since the mid-1970s is revealed by examining the

operating statements of major brewers in 1977 and again in 1985: see Figure 1, based on [case

reference omitted] of the case [Figure 1 omitted].

First, Coors is second only to A-B in [measure omitted]. Second, to achieve these [measure

omitted], Coors has taken to spending more per barrel on advertising than any of its major rivals.

Third, its [measure omitted] has deteriorated relative to both [comparators omitted] (the only two

rivals for whom these [measure omitted] figures are available). The cumulative effect on relative

profitability was that from being by far the [measure omitted] in the industry in 1977, Coors

declined to a much more moderate level of [measure omitted] by 1985. The comparison with A-

B is especially striking: Coors [measure omitted] was almost twice that of A-B in 1977, but by

1985, A-Bs was almost twice that of Coors!

These comparisons focus on [measure omitted]; comparisons on the basis of [measure omitted]

would look even worse because Coors had 20-30% higher [measure omitted] than either A_B or

Miller [page # omitted] and return on equity would also look worse because of Coors use of all-

equity finance (i.e. no debt: p12). Finally, Coors stock sold for $25.50 in late 1975 and only

$21.25 in 1985, the latter about 20% less than book value per share (p7); while comparative

share prices are not available for rivals, general inflation over the 1977-1985 period was about

100% (Ex 10) further emphasizing the poor relative value of Coors investment returns.

Coors ADM 4311 M Group 1 Jim Student Page 1

There are a number of reasons why Coors suffered this poor relative performance over the period

1977-1985. The key overall reason is that [statement of general conclusion omitted].

Specifically:

[specific points omitted]

Coors ADM 4311 M Group 1 Jim Student Page 2