Reflections on 3 Cases
Scott Swinton
AAEA Case Study Workshop,
Long Beach, CA, July 27, 2002
RAE Case Publishing
(A Brief Commercial Interlude)
• Guidelines for RAE Case Studies
– How to differentiate RAE from IFAMR?
• Types of cases we’d like to see more of:
– Public policy (esp. environmental)
– Quantitative
– Research cases of all stripes
• Creative submissions on teaching methods
also encouraged
What makes a decision case
current & provocative?
• Concise writing, brevity
– Exhibits in Zeneca vs. Apples
•
•
•
•
Real people
Engaging, journalistic writing style
Chronological sequence
Ends with decision to be made in the
present
– Ending of Zeneca vs. Apples
What creates learning
opportunities in a decision case?
• Incomplete analysis
– Leaves room for the enterprising student to
make a mark
– Contrast analysis process described for
Steve (Zeneca) vs. Becky (Apples)
• Unresolved outcome  fertile
discussion
– No “right” answer
Pioneer Argentina IPR
• Research case
– Presents complete objectives & analysis, rather
than withholding as teaching cases often do
– Deductive reasoning
• Sequence
–
–
–
–
–
–
Introduced problem & identifies research gap
Theory & empirical lit overview
Method: Natural paired comparison single case
Results & discussion (21 of 31 pages)
Conclusions
Bibliography
How does case persuade that its
inferences can be extrapolated?
• Natural paired comparison: Hybrid corn
guards IP; open-pollinated soy does not
• Paired IPR regimes: Argentina (weak
IPR) vs. USA (strong IPR)
• Single firm  Homogeneous
management
• Thorough lit review
• Structured interview method & text
analysis
Does IPR case succeed?
• At thoughtfully comparing firm-level soy
vs corn seed marketing management?
• At proving the effect of weak IPRs on
corn & soy seed market in Argentina?
• At measuring welfare effects of weak
IPRs on host country? (primary
objective of case)
Zeneca, PLC
• Teaching case
• Clear focus on brand strategy
• Versatile potential for teaching strategy
– “Soft” strategy analysis for class discussion
– “Hard” quantitative calculation of brand
value (e.g., for homework assignment)
• Concise & decision-focused
Zeneca (2): Exhibits
• Exhibits provide useful detail
• Use of exhibits for background detail
(Steve’s research into brand value)
keeps flow & decision-focus of case
undiluted
• All exhibits useful & cited
Zeneca (3): Teaching Note
• Well structured:
– Summary
– Teaching objectives
– Analysis (incl. numerical calculations)
– Supplementary info for teacher (gives
semblance of greater expertise)
– Concisely written
When Apples Come In
• Teaching case
• Clear focus; excellent content;
innovative integration of statistics into a
case
• Style didactic & not exciting
– Protagonist Becky Lee does all the work
Apples (2): Exhibits
• No exhibits (but tables & figures proxy)
• Exhibits that might have been:
– Quote a statistics text on sample size
formula (Did Becky really know it, or did
she look it up?)
– Apple size distribution data:
• Give data on Top Red strain numbers and let
students calculate Z-statistics
Apples (3): Teaching Note
• Teaching note was included in text
– This tips the hand of the teacher
– RAE policy now to exclude note from text
• Teaching note: What might have been
– Intro page opens note (summary, teaching
objectives, lit contribution on stat case)
– Let students calculate alternative confidence
intervals (with last 2 figures given in teaching note,
or only parts included in case)
Cases by the numbers
Zeneca
Length
w/ note
(pp)
35
17%
51%
32%
Apples
13
85%
0%
15%
Pioneer
IPR
56
60%
40%
0%
Text
Teach.
Exhibits Note