THE FACILITATION AND USE OF STUDENT TEAMS

THE FACILITATION AND USE OF STUDENT TEAMS IN THE CASE ANALYSIS PROCESS Victoria L. Crittenden, William F. Crittenden and Jon M. Hawes Cognitive psychology views learning as a problem-solving process, and the case method has evolved as an excellent mechanism for developing the critical thinking skills essential to effective decision making. Focusing upon the student-led approach to case teaching, we present a framework for helping students develop skills for improving the group case process. The intent of the approach is to increase interest in student-led presentations, from the perspectives of the presenting team and the audience. The focus is on providing an educational environment that allows students to develop the interpersonal, analytical, oral communication, and written communication skills demanded by contemporary organizations.

The case method has evolved as an important means of teaching and learning about marketing and other business topics. Many academics would argue that even though the lecture method is effective for learning about facts and principles, the case method should also be used "because wisdom can't be told" (Gragg 1951). In other words, just knowing about marketing is not adequate preparation for a career in the field. The recipient of a sound collegiate business education does not learn exclusively to know. This person learns in order to act. The student must have opporturuties to practice solving marketing management and strategy problems and making decisions. Educating students in the practice of solving marketing problems and making business decisions follows the cognitive leanung school of thought. Specifically, the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, developed by Benjamin Bloom (1956) and his associates, provides a point of reference when helping students through the problem solving/dedsion-making process. Bloom's taxonomy has six levels (arranged in hierarchical order): • • •

Knowledge Comprehension AppUcation Analysis • Synthesis • Evaluation The cumulative nature of the hierarchy is exhibited in our business school curriculums. For example, a VICTORIA L. CRITTENDEN p.B.A., Harvard Business School) is Associate Professor and Chairperson of Marketing, Carroll School of Management, Boston College. WILLIAM F. CRITTENDEN (Ph.D., University of Arkansas) is Associate Professor of Management, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University. JON M. HAWES (Ph.D., University of Arkansas) is Professor of Marketing, Fisher Institute for Professional Selling, University of Akron. The authors thank the MER reviewers for their helpful comments.

principles of marketing course is the first marketing class students take in the marketing curriculum (i.e., knowledge). Students then build on their marketing knowledge by taking higher level marketing courses (i.e., knowledge to comprehension). After comprehending the technical content of marketing, students begin to apply this knowledge in marketing situations. According to Bloom's hierarchy, students would then pass through higher order cognition levels until reaching analysis, synthesis, or evaluation levels. At these levels, students are able to use critical thinking in their decision making. The case method is an excellent mechanism for developing the critical thinking skills essential for effective decision-making (McEwen 1994), and is a form of action learning (i.e., learning through experience) (Smith & Peters 1997). Having evolved during the 1920s at the Harvard Business School, several approaches have been tried during the refinement of the case analysis process in the marketing and business education curriculums. Our purpose here is to present a comprehensive method of case teaching that reinforces the cognitive learning process. Irutially, we describe two approaches to case teaching. Because student groups are a common method of case analysis, we then present a framework for facilitating team interactions in the case analysis process. Finally, we suggest a method of group communication that both strengthens communication skills and enhances the interaction process in case presentations.

Approaches to Case Teaching Two pedagogical approaches have evolved with the use of case teaching: (1) professor-led and (2) studentled (Droge and Spreng 1996; Lamb and Baker 1993). Marketing Education Review, Volume 9, Number 3 (Fall 1999).

Marketing Education Review

•

Lamb and Baker (1993) suggest the professor-led approach as most appropriate when the course objective is to use cases to disseminate/illustrate marketing concepts, and that the student-led approach is appropriate when the course objective is to develop analytical and communication skills. A perusal of marketing management/marketing strategy syllabi provided in instructor manuals, however, suggests that many marketing classes utilize both approaches to case discussions rather than an either/or approach to case teaching. This might suggest that professors have mulfiple learning objectives in classes that utilize the case method. For example, some cases could be used to illustrate marketing concepts, while others are used to facilitate analytical and communication skill development.

•

• • •

Developing the ability to identify and comprehend the main and subordinate ideas in written material; Developing the ability to separate personal opinions and assumptions from material in the case and to distinguish between fact and opinion in the case; Developing reasoning and logic skills; Enhancing communication skills when sharing one's analysis and recommendafion in the ckssroom setting; and Dealing with construcfive crifidsm and learning from it.

While this method of case discussion provides tremendous learning opportunities for students, it is not without problems. A major complaint about the method revolves around what many refer to as "air-time." That The Professor-Led Approach is, it is difficult to allow all students to contribute during The initial use of business cases followed the profesone case discussion. Students complain that they are sor-led approach. In this approach, the instructor diprepared for class, but do not get the opportunity to rects the case discussion and tends to lead the discusparfidpate due to dass size, class length, and / or professor sion down paths that allow the applicafion of business selection of students. Another common complaint is concepts and away from areas that are irrelevant. that students may get air-time when they have very little Rangan (1995) suggests that case teachers use one of to contribute. A major by-product of these concerns is four styles in the professor-led approach: (1) lecturing that students sometimes attend class under prepared, a case, (2) theorizing a case, (3) illustrating a case, and thus taking the risk that they will not get called on. Also, (4) choreographing a case. Lecturing a case occurs when some introverted students may not reach their potenfial the professor follows his/her predetermined sequence in the dass, in that their verbal skills are not improved through the case discussion. The professor uses the case upon since they generally opt not to parfidpate. as a means of conveying conceptual and/or theoretical Further,foreffecfiveleamingandtomaintainmofivafion, knowledge when theorizing a case. Illustrating a case students should receive timely feedback on the defidendes take places when the case is used to depict important and posifive aspeds of their dassroom contribufions. management issues. Finally, when choreographing a case, Effecfive parfidpafion grading in the professor-led case students draw conclusions and make recommendations discussion often requires a prodigious memory as based on their own inductive processes, with the proinstrudors later recall and grade ideas presented during fessor serving to nudge the student in directions that dass. The evaluafion requirement is further complicated address important topics. by the attenfion the instrudor must pay to the discussion Regardless of the style utilized by the professor, two fiow and the teaching of sequential classes. necessary components of this approach are student prepaJust as important, it has long been expressed that ration and class parfidpation. Student benefits include: methods emphasizing individual contribufions yield excellent individual performers, but poor managers (cf. • Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of Livingston 1971). models and theories when pracfically applied; To enhance the case learning process, as well as com• Getting out of the habit of being a receiver of pensate for some of the aforementioned professor-led facts, concepts, and techniques and into the habit problems, academics have begun to intertwine the stuof using a comprehensive framework of analysis dent-led approach to case learning with the professorthat involves problem diagnosis, alternative led approach. evaluation, and recommendafion development; • Solving problems, as opposed to relying on the professor or a textbook for the "right" answer; The Student-Led Approach • Leanung about a wide range of firms and the The student-led approach to case analysis is a method inherent complexity of business dedsions—^proby which students lead the case discussion, such as an viding a basis for comparison that might take a individual student or a group of students leading the lifetime of personal experience to develop; 16

Fall 1999

dass through the case analysis. This approach offers similar benefits to those found in the professor-led approach. Droge and Spreng (1996), however, idenfify additional benefits to the student-led approach. They categorize these additional advantages into two groups: (1) behavioral skills (e.g., oral communication, persuasion, leadership) and (2) attitudinal dimensions (accepting responsibility, taking risks, exercising initiative). These two categories of advantages fall into the framework offered by the action learning environment. That is, action learning emphasizes personal responsibility for learning and resolving lousiness, organizational, and sodal problems (Smith and Peters 1997; Torbert 1972). Although Droge and Spreng (1996) argue that having one group of students present a case to the class is a version ofthe professor-led approach to the case method because the professor sfill controls the process, group case analysis/presentafion is generally categorized as one form of the student-led approach to case analysis (cf. Lamb and Baker 1993). Team presentafions of cases and group written case analyses have evolved as a generally accepted format for teaching by the case method. In a study of business policy/ strategic management teaching styles, team presentations were used by 64 percent of professor respondents and group written analyses were used by 54 percent of the respondents (Alexander et al. 1986). Shaw (1971, pp. 80-82) suggested a number of benefits to using the group method: • Presence of group members increases motivation levels of individuals, • Group judgments are generally superior, • Groups produce more and better solutions, and • Groups learn faster. In addition, it is generally recognized that committees, groups, and teams are common in the corporate environment. The practice of working with others is something that academidans can provide students in the classroom environment (cf. Smith and Peters 1997). Sharp (1995) suggested that allowing students to work in groups sensitizes students to both cultural and ethnic differences in situations where the case is multi-cultural and/or the group is diverse. In classrooms with a considerable amount of cultural and / or ethnic diversity, it is important that the groups are diverse in their composition, which may place parameters upon the group formation process. In classrooms without such diversity, the professor has to build the diversity into the class environment through careful case selection. Unfortunately, the team experience can be very frustrating for students. Too often professors receive complaints about students who are not contributing to

the group project. Unequal contribution by group members can lead to detrimental conflid within the group, further degrading group actions. Additionally, the dayto-day management of group meetings (e.g., compatible meeting times, productive discussions) can lead to tension within groups and a disUke of the group process. Given the proliferation of the team approach to case analysis, we propose a method of fadlitating successful interactions in the group case analysis process. The advantages found in an effective group environment can serve to improve students' abilities to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate marketing information.

Improving Interpersonal Dynamics in the Group Process Effective team interactions depend upon success at various stages of the team process. Initially, students must idenfify the group of students with whom they wish to work, or if not given the choice, the group to whom they are assigned to work. After group formation, class time should be devoted to discussing behavioral and interpersonal issues that arise in any form of teamwork. The professor can add structure to the group dynamic by requiring that each team member serve in at least one offidal role in the group. Appropriate roles and descriptions are determined and defined by the group. Finally, peer evaluation forms can serve as an important feedback mechanism for each member's contributions.

Group Formation Group formation is an important element of a successful team experience. Too frequently, team formation is not given the attenfion and time it deserves. Guidance in this effort must encourage students not to utilize friendship as the guiding force in idenfifying potential team members. The goal is to form a team with members having common objecfives and complementary skills. However, the professor may need to place diversity constraints upon the group formation process in order to simulate the cultural and/or ethnic environment in which businesses operate. We suggest that students consider the following in an attempt to improve the group's cooperative effort: 1. Do group members have similar grade objectives? 2. Do group members have similar topical interests? 3. Do group members have complementary talents, resources, and organizational skills? For example, do each of the potential members possess strengths in various funcfional areas of business (i.e., is someone strong in accounting? finance? marketing? organizational behavior? operations?) 17

Marketing Education Review see yourself in any of these descriptions? (2) Have you ever worked in groups with members portrayed by the profiles? This part of the exerdse takes around ten minutes to complete. The second part of the group dynamic exerdse is a group exerdse. After reading and thinking about the profiles individually, students are asked to get in the groups in which they will be working for the case assignment. In another variation of Lemer's format, groups are asked to address the following questions: (1) What problems do group members, such as those portrayed in the profiles, present? (2) Were some "problem" individuals with whom you are familiar missing in the profiles? If so, how would you profile such individuals? (3) What are strategies for dealing with "individual" problems? Completion of the group component of the exerdse takes around 20 minutes. The next part of the group exerdse is a general class discussion about the profiles. Utilizing the professor-led approach to class discussion, the professor writes each of the profiled names across the top of the board. Then, individual students are called upon to provide strategies their group thought of for dealing with individual problems. The pros and cons of each strategy are also discussed briefly. This is a 10-15 minute exerdse. A variation of this part of the exerdse is to frame the discussion as several mini-cases and to utilize class discussion time in much the same manner as a studentled approach to cases. Time for this approach might be considerably longer than the professor-led approach since the professor is less able to control the effort spent on discussing each mini-case. Completion of the group exercise involves the identification of individuals who should be included in the initial profiles. Generally this aspect of the group exerdse relies upon students drawing from previous group experience. One of the most popular additional profiles has centered on a group member's social interactions. Aptly named "Sodal Sonya," this person is so busy sodalizing that it is hard for her/ him to get any work done. Students tend to like Sodal Sonya, but are not always sure how to manage her/him. Time for this component of the exerdse depends upon the remaining time for class discussion. This class exercise has proven to be a productive way to openly discuss the dynamics of group interaction. While it does take class time, student learning from the in-class exercise will not only help students in the assigned case project, but will also add to their abilities as co-workers later in life and in other group assignments. Further, by preempting some group problems, the technique can help avoid the need for professional intervention.

4. Do group members have schedules that will permit frequent meetings to plan case strategy and to conduct the necessary casework activities? 5. Can group members be trusted to fulfill obligations? 6. Can group members be expected to work together in an effective, harmonious, and cordial manner? 7. Will group members motivate and encourage each other to achieve to their potential? 8. Will the group composition allow the team to learn from various cultural and ethic perspectives? In executive and graduate programs it may be benefidal to have a knowledgeable program manager establish initial groups. This parallels the corporate experience, where employees seldom get to choose their cocommittee or group members. It also enables the program manager to ensure group diversity. However, when left to the individual selection process, students can learn from the formation dedsions that are made. Once the group is formed, however, it is not without potential problems. While team member selection is important, interactions within the group are equally important. Without prior experience with all individuals in the group, it is hard to gauge how team members will react to each other and to the workload of the case project. This can be likened to the interviewing and hiring process. Someone may have been excellent in the interview process and have a high GPA. However, the dynamics in the workplace may make it virtually impossible for this same person to be successful on the job. Therefore, it is important to address group dynamics as soon as the group formation is complete.

Group Dynamics Many students are unaware of potential problems that can arise when a group is working closely on a project. Even those students who have experience in group case analysis generally have not analyzed what did and did not work in a previous group and why problems may have occurred. Therefore, it is important to provide students with an opportunity to explore and examine interpersonal problems that can arise in the context of group dynamics. Lemer (1995) developed a method that we have used successfully. She recommends using examples of student behaviors that have been frustrating to students and describes five of these students (Appendbc A). Using a variation of Lemer's method, we suggest distributing these descriptions to each individual student in the class. During class time, students are asked to read each of the profiles and think about two questions: (1) Do you 18

Fall 1999

most, if not all, of its employees. Some faculty, preferring to emphasize the mutual accountability of teamwork, may only allow peer evaluations when explidtly requested by a member of the ^oup and only when convinced that extraordinary effort has been made to establish a cohesive team. Conversely, some instructors use the peer evaluation exclusively as a learning tool to aid members' understanding of the experienced group dynamic. Most instructor manuals to accompany casebooks provide samples of peer evaluation forms. Standardized peer evaluation forms Can be modified to meet class requirements, including the role assignment. For example, the following Likert-scaled statement can be added to a standard form:

Managing the Group Project While the onus of the group case analysis is upon the student team, it is imp'ortant to provide students with a framework for managing the process. One method of doing this is requiring that students take on particular roles within the group- Role suggestions include (but are not limited to and students should be encouraged to identify their own context-spedfic roles): • Reports Manager—responsible for ensuring the overall quality of the final report • Presentation Manager—responsible for overseeing and monitoring the preparation of the presentation material • Meeting Mana^er^-responsible for scheduling group meetings, including location • Process Manager^^iesponsible for monitoring the overall "process" of the project including group dynamics, deadlines, meetings, etc. • Devil's Advocate^responsihle for ensuring that all sides of an issue are considered before a course of action is selected • Research Manager—responsible for compiling secondary research, if a part of the project Approximately one week after the group dynamic exerdse, each student group is required to submit a team organization form.TVus form ^sts tV»e rok titles that \he group has dedded upon, a brief description of each role, and an explanation for why a particular person is the right person for his/her role(s). Each team member has to have at least one assigned role. However, it is important to stress that the role does not supplant active involvement in the entire case analysis process. That is, all members are equally responsible for the analysis of case information and for recommendations. However, this does allow for students to play on individual strengths that should improve the group process as a whole. From a learning perspective, specialization in such processrelated areas allows students to collectively evaluate whether or not a person's strengths are real or perceived.

The team member fulfilled the project role as defined by the team at the beginning of the semester (or as re-defined later in the project). An interesting twist to the standard peer evaluation form is to ask the following open-ended questions: Did any of your team members remind you of Nola No-Can-Meet, Seldom-Seen Steve, Do-It-All Dottie, Always-Right Artie, or Quiet Quentin? If so, who and why? Would you like to profile any of your team members by describing individual behavioral issues that were encountered during the group process? If so, please pseudonym (similar to those in the previous question and used in the classroom exercise), and a brief description of this person. It is important to tell students, at the beginning of the semester, if a peer evaluation will be used to evaluate individual contributions to the case project. Additionally, students should be aware of what they will be evaluated upon (including fulfillment of role assignment).

Increasing the Interest Level in Student-Led Presentations Student-led presentations, and in this context group case analyses/presentations, allow students to combine real-world issues with the appropriate business theory in order to present ideas to a larger community. From a communications perspective, Rogers and Rymer (1998, p. 10) suggest that cases do the following: Provide the context for communicating. Enable active learning. Present communication as a sodal action. Show the collaborative nature of communication. Integrate spedal topics like intercultural communication and ethics. Indicate communication effectiveness as contingent, and

Peer Evaluation A major problem with group projects is the imbalance of individual student contributions. While an early focus on group formation, group dynamics, and role assignments goes far in motivating all students to contribute equally, free-riders are often a fact of life in both education and the workplace (Bonnici and Luthar 1996). As such, there may be a need for a formal peer evaluation. While peer evaluations may appear similar to a reward / punishment structure, such an evaluation is not unlike what corporations require on an annual basis for 19

Unfortunately, studentways gamer the level of en like to see in the deemed as one-way team disseminating may be boring to observe presentations may result i the pi

characteristics are: inierpersonal skills, analytical skills, and written communication skills. The student-led method suggested here incorporates both oral and written communication skills along with analytical skills, while the classroom exercises and assignments described in the previous sections address interpersonal skill development. Below are suggestions for enhancing written and oral communication skills using the student teams.

leam aoing a

cursory skim-through Focusing upon communication skills.

Written Communication Skills Student teams can be required to submit a two-page memo (with up to one page of exhibits) that has been prepared for the decision-maker in the case. The focus of the memo is the course of action recommended by the students. The space constraints of a two-page memo force students to move away from rehashing/ summarizing text from the case. Aside from learning how to make good marketing decisions, one goal of the written component of the case analysis is to instil! in students the notion that managers do not have time to read long, drawn out reports. Rather, students must learn exactly what needs to be said. Restricting exhibits to one page again limited amount of tiiue a manager has reading material. Appesidix B shows a checklist that can be provided to sludenl decision makers in written employ learning approach to a group case presentation follows leeesl: the presentation approach presented by Lamb and Baker (1993), without the videotaping component The student group assigned the case has to make a 20-30 minute presentation. Depending upon instructor preference, groups may be required or encouraged to use state-ofthe-art visuals (e.g,, PowerPoint). Additionally, audience members cannot interrupt the presenting team in order /ers to ask questions. these ten riuneiHlation, { *(~' turn m to case sohition.

A goal of the which are important in (Torbert 1972). Lamb and evaluate their own action (1996) and Droge and Spre from external constituent student-led presentations the range of cognitive le^ Bloom e t a l (1956).

A Variation oj Student-Led Approac Amari (1999) reportson seek in graduating colleg

20

Fait 1999

A variation on this approach would have the presentation group being excused, immediately after presenting, from the class for ten minutes. During this 10-minute interval, the remaining students assemble into their term-long groups. Each group has to prepare a short critique of the presentation and come up with two questions to ask the presenting group. Two groups are then randomly selected to each present a three minute critique of the presentation (blank transparencies and markers are provided). This type of critique aids in the development of the students' listening skills and their ability to evaluate the content of oral presentations (cf. Bonnid and Lutharl996). After the 10-minute interval, the presenting group is invited back into the classroom and the critiquing groups provide feedback to the presenting group (cf. Torbert 1972). Typically the critiques begin with what the critiquing group liked about both presentation style and analysis content, followed by recommendations for improvement both in presentation style and analysis content. The remainder of the class time is devoted to allowing each of the remaining groups to ask at least one of their questions to the presenting group. Students leam to ask questions in a professional manner as well as practice defending their positions. Additionally, the presenting group practices the ability to think quickly and modify the team's position should audience comments persuade such modification. The two questions prepared by each group are also written down and submitted to the professor who incorporates the daily activity into each student's participation grade. (An absent group member does not receive credit even though the group turned in the daily assignment.) The group, then, is actually "graded" on the quality of questions asked, with all group members receiving the same grade as long as they are in attendance. For example, questions that students could have answered themselves by thoroughly analyzing the case before attending class might receive a zero, whereas questions that build on the material presented by the presenting team would receive a high grade. The grading scale can be simple (check plus, check, check minus, zero) with feedback on deficiencies requiring minimal time. This component in the presentation process addresses the issues of free-riding and the skimming of cases when not the presenting team. This type of presentation format is participative and attempts to overcome the one-way presentation component inherent in many student-led presentations. The student audience has to be continually evaluating what is being said, rather than being passive listeners. The presenting group cannot merely present the case analysis, answer any questions (which generally would

come from the professor), and then sit down. This is an active leanung experience for presenters, the audience, and the professor. Additionally, the method adheres to the hierarchical stages of cognitive learning by building on knowledge gained in the marketing core course and taking students full-cycle through the evaluation stage.

Conclusion Cognitive psychology views learning as a problemsolving process (Assael 1998, p. 119), withBloom's (1956) taxonomy of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation providing a framework for educational purposes. Marketing educators must help their students understand marketing concepts in order to act upon marketing problems. In the spirit of action learning, the classroom can be a challenging environment for students to practice both the art and science of marketing decision-making. The critical thinking that accompanies the grasp of a discipline requires activities such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation and the ability to perform these in groups or teams. We believe that team student-led case analysis facilitates these higher levels of learning (as described by Bloom and other learning theorists) better than more traditional approaches to case teaching. Contemporary organizations want to hire graduates who possess strong analytical ability and can express their recommendations and analysis clearly (orally and in writing). Additionally, new-hires have to relate well with both colleagues and customers. Through the use of group case analysis, marketing educators can simulate the practice of solving marketing management / strategy problems in a corporate environment. With the format presented here, students are counseled in techniques for managing the group process, from team selection to reducing potential conflict. Additionally, students practice their presentation skills, while also exercising their listening and evaluative skills. The methods presented here for improving the process of group case analysis facilitate the student's abiiity to workin a group and to communicate in a manner conducive to a constantly changing business environment.

References Alexander, Larry D., Hugh M. O'Neill, NeU H. Snyder and James B. Townsend (1986), "How Academy Members Teach the Business Policy/Strategic Management Case Course," Journal of Management Case Studies, (Winter), 334-344. Amari, Dan (1999), "Communication Skills Reign Over Computer Skills," The Northwest Phoenix, via University Wire, (January 19). Assael, Henry (1998), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, 6"" edition, Cincirmati, OH: South-Westem College Publishing. 21

Marketing Education Review McEwen, Beryl C. (1994), 'Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in Business Education,' Journal of Education for Business, (November/ December), 99-103. Rangan, V. Kasturi (1995), 'Choreographing a Case Class,' Harvard Business School Note #9-595-074. Rogers, Prisdlla S. and Jone Rymer (1998), 'Business and Management Communication Cases: Challenges and Opportunities,' Business Communication Quarterly, (March), 7-25. Sharp, Helen M. (1995), 'Challenging Students to Respond to Multicultural Issues: TheCase-Study Approach,' Business Communications Quarterly, (June), 28-31. Shaw, M. E. (1971), Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Croup Behavior, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Smith, Peter A.C. and V. John Peters (1997), 'Action Learning Worth a Closer Look,' Ivey Business Quarterly, (Autumn), 63-67. Torbert, William R. (1972), Learning From Experience: Toward Consciousness, New York: Columbia University Press. van der Pool, Lisa (1999), 'Outlook Stays Strong for Job Seekers,' Purchasing Magazine, (February 11), 147.

Bloom, Benjamin S., M.D. Englehart, E.J. Furst, W.H. Hill and D.R. Krathwohl (1956), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: Q>gnitive Domain, New York: David McKay Company. Bonnid, Joseph and Harsh K. Luthar (1996), 'Peer Evaluated Debates: Developing Oral Communication Skills Through Marketing Case Studies,' Marketing Education Review, (Summer), 73-81. Droge, Cornelia and Richard Spreng (1996), 'Enhancing Involvement and Skills with a Student-Led Method of Case Analysis," Journal of Marketing Education, (Fall), 25-34. Gragg, Charles L (1951), 'Because Wisdom Can't Be Told,' Harvard Business School Note #9-451-005. Lamb, Charles W. and JuUe Baker (1993), 'The Case Method of Instruction: Student-Led Presentations and Videotaping," Marketing Education Review, (Spring), 44-50. Lemer, Linda D. (1995), 'Making Student Groups Work,' Journal of Management Education, (February), 123-125. Livingston, J. S. (1971), 'Myth of the WeU Educated Manager,' Harvard Business Review, Qanuary-Febniary), 85-86.

Appendix A Student Profiles

Nola No-Can-Meet. No matter what time the group picks to meet, Noia has something else to do. She complains all the time about her busy schedule and how she really cannot find the time to meet with the group. "You go ahead and decide what you want me to do and then just let me know," she will say. She is ready to help, she assures you, but just has too much to do to actually go to a meeting. If someone complains about her lack of participation, she will probably tell you that she offered to help but that nobody asked. Seldom-Seen Steve. Steve has made no attempt to contact anyone in his group. He has not been in class lately, and no one has seen him. No one is sure how to get in touch with him. Everyone just assumed they would contact each other in class. Time is running out, and no one knows what to do about Steve. Do-lt-M Dottie. Dottie wants to make sure everything gets done a certain way, and so she does it herself. If someone else offers to help, she will tell him or her not to worry and that everything is under control. There is little input from others in the group, and that is just fine with Dottie. She would rather do things herself than turn them over to someone else. After all, she reasons, they might not do as good a job. Always-Right Artie. Artie has good ideas and is quick to express them in the group. He is less likely to listen to other ideas, particularly when they differ from his own. He tends to insist on doing things his way even when others in the group disagree. Because of his take-charge attitude, he is likely to get his way even when the group does not quite agree with him. Quiet Quentin. Quentin, on the other hand, has some good ideas, but he is so quiet that many of his ideas never get aired. He is always prepared and comes to meetings, but he never quite becomes a part of the discussion. That is unfortunate because the group would benefit from his knowledge and viewpoints if only he could bring himself to speak up. Source: Lerner, Unda D. (1995), "Making Student Groups Work," Journal of Management Education, (February), 123-125.

22

Fall 1999

Appendix B A Written Case Anaiysis Checklist Can you answer "yes" to each of the foilowing questions?

Problem 1. 2. 3.

Is the case problem (opportunity) correctly identified? Is the problem description accurate? Does the problem definition have a reasonable degree of breadth?

Situation Analysis 1. Were the relevant facts or data examined? 2. is the analysis of case facts and data appropriate to the case problem and alternatives? 3. Was your interpretation of case facts and data accurate? 4. Can the analysis fit succinctly into a bulleted, SWOT analysis? Alternatives 1. is there a complete identification of alternative solutions to the stated problem(s)? 2. Are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative clearly evaluated? 3. Did the identified alternatives demonstrate creative thinking? Recommendation 1. Was a clear decision made as to the most appropriate alternative? 2. Is the selected alternative a logical and reasonable choice, given the defined problem and the firm's situation? 3. Is the decision sufficiently supported and justified? Implementation 1. Are the plans necessary for implementing the recommendation specified clearly and succinctly? 2. iHave questions about who, what, how, when, and where of the implementation been answered? 3. Is the cost of the implementation justified in relation to the value of the recommendation?

23