Technology and Operations Strategy

Block Week in Argentina & Uruguay

17 December – 21 December 2013

Instructors: Nelson M. Fraiman (nmf1@columbia.edu, 212 854 2076) and

Medini R. Singh (ms2149@columbia.edu. 646 823 5917

Summary

This course focuses on the roles technology & operations play in the

development and implementation of strategy. In the core Strategy Formulation

course, you learned about the foundations of corporate success and how

managers can devise a set of actions (the strategy) to achieve a competitive

edge. Strategy development, at a fundamental level, is to identify an effective

match between a firm’s distinctive capabilities and selected markets.

This course takes a new look at strategy formulation/implementation: we will

focus on a firm’s key operational and technological decisions (e.g., processes,

capacities, technologies, process improvement, project management, supply

chains) in order to understand how effective the firm’s resulting operational

capabilities (e.g., cost, quality, flexibility, delivery) match the markets it strives to

serve.

Conversely, we will also consider how to translate a business strategy into a set

of actions and how these actions can be measured and supported for continuous

improvements. However, given shifting market trends and evolving industry

dynamics, a short‐term match between capabilities and current markets does not

necessarily imply a sustainable competitive advantage. What operational and

technological capabilities a firm chooses to develop can have a profound impact

on its strategic options in the future. In other words, strategic operational

decisions made today will determine the firm’s operational capabilities tomorrow

which in turn influence its business strategy in the future. Consequently, we will

also try to emphasize the long‐term impact of strategic operational and

technological decisions. In addition to class time taught by Professors Fraiman

and Singh, there will be facility visits in both Argentina and Uruguay.

Faculty: Nelson M. Fraiman Professor Fraiman joined Columbia Business

School in 1995. He is a professor of practice in the Decision, Risk,

and Operations division and is director of the W. Edwards Deming

Center for Quality, Productivity and Competitiveness.

He teaches the core Operations Management and Strategy course

and the electives Retailing Strategy & Operations and Technology

& Operations Strategy. He is also the Faculty director of ECLA

(Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness in Latin America), a program for Latin

American entrepreneurs who aim to be successful across borders.

Prior to Columbia Business School he spent seventeen years in industry and

consulting. His last job was with International Paper where he was chief technology

officer for eight manufacturing divisions.

His current research centers on entrepreneurship and process improvement. He has

written cases on operational excellence on the Ritz Carlton Hotel and the supply chain

strategies of Lolita, Mango and Zara. He has also conducted executive education

programs in Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. Professor Fraiman

holds a B.S. in Industrial Engineering, an M.S., M.B.A., and a Ph.D., all from Columbia

University.

Medini R. Singh comes to Columbia from the Tuck School of

Business at Dartmouth. At Tuck, Singh taught the MBA core course

in operations management for the last six years. He has also taught

MBA electives on time-based competition and simulation modeling.

Singh has also taught in the Department of Industrial and

Operations Engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

where he won the 1991 Teacher of the Year Award. His research

interests are in the areas of modeling, analysis and optimization of manufacturing and

service systems. His current research focuses on the impact of demand and supply

uncertainties on the performance of supply chains. Singh has published numerous

articles on the impact of yield, demand and supply uncertainties on the performance of

manufacturing systems. He has also consulted for several Fortune 500 companies. His

PhD is from Carnegie Mellon University.

Group Project

Part of this course will be a hands-on laboratory in which firm sponsor projects that will

be attacked by student teams under the guidance of experienced professors. The

course is part of the Business School’s strategic thrust to better “bridge the gap

between theory and practice.” The course will emphasize the process of creating

actionable recommendations on issues faced by the sponsoring firms.

As part of the course you will be assigned to work in a group project with a specific

entrepreneurial organization. The idea is that you conduct a technological and

operational assessment of your firm and suggest what type of strategies your company

could use to improve on. You will need to contact your project firm towards the end of

October or early November.

Project Deliverables:

Teams will provide an action oriented project report to their client in the form of a Word

document (not more than 7 pages in length) in addition to a PowerPoint deck with

supporting exhibits as needed. This is to be a self-contained, fully documented

description of the team’s analysis and recommendations

Project Presentation:

You should meet with your assigned company, during late October and early

November to understand the firm, its strategy and the technologies that the company

is using/developing to achieve its goals. During the first day of the block week you will

have 7-10 minutes to present your findings. There will be a brief Q&A afterwards.

Project Report:

As part of the final project you will have to suggest strategies that your firm could

implement to improve the company’s performance. Please note that your report should

include:

1. Brief description of the company

2. Strategy

3. Existing operating and technology strategies

4. Suggested operations and technology strategies

5. Expected impact

The deadline for submitting your project report is Friday, January 17, 2014

Grading: Your grade in the course will be based on your individual as well as group efforts and

performance. Your performance will be judged through a variety of mechanisms that

will enable us to assess your understanding of the tools and concepts covered your

ability to synthesize, integrate, and apply them, and your contributions to the class's

learning experience. Thus, in determining your course grade, we will use the following

grading scheme to help us judge your performance:

Class Participation and participation in polls 40%

Project Presentation during block week 10%

Project report 50%

Case Questions:

Case: Where Cows are Happy and Food is Healthy

Questions:

1. What type of technologies would you use, if any, if you were to improve the process?

Case: Strategic Outsourcing at Bharti Airtel Limited

Questions:

1. What must Bharti do well to succeed in the Indian mobile phone market? What are Bharti’s

core competencies?

2. Do you think Bharti should enter the outsourcing agreements outlined by Gupta? What do

you see as advantages and disadvantages of such agreements? How do the different

outsourcing agreements work towards building these core competencies?

3. If you were Bharti, what major concerns would you have about entering an outsourcing

agreement with IBM? With Ericsson, Nokia, or Siemens?

4. How would you structure the agreements to address your concerns and capture any

advantages you have identified? What governance mechanisms would you design for the

agreements?

5. Assume the role of IBM or Nokia. What major concerns would you have about entering an

agreement with Bharti? How would you structure the agreement and the governance

mechanisms?

Case: Arcor: Global Strategy and Local Turbulence (HBS 9-704-427)

Questions:

1. How would you characterize Arcor’s international strategy historically? What were its sources of competitive advantage and how, if at all, did they vary across its key geographies?

2. How did the financial crisis affect Arcor domestically?

3. Looking forward, how might Arcor’s strategy in a region such as the U.S./Canada resemble or differ from the strategy it is pursuing in Latin America in terms of:

a. Whether to engage in local manufacturing?

b. Which products to prioritize?

c. Whether to sell under its own brand or as a private label supplier?

4. Which regions should Arcor prioritize given its resource constraints?

5. What other recommendations would you make to Luis Pagani about the architecture of

Arcor’s international strategy?

Case: Benetton (A)

Questions:

1. What are the most important elements of Benetton's logistics, manufacturing, and financial

strategies? (Answer the Poll question in Angel.)

2. How does it gain advantage over its competition in Europe? How does is manage risks to

its operation?

3. Which of these important elements of strategy and sources of competitive advantage can

it maintain in the U.S. market?

Case: Lolita

Questions:

1. What was Lolita’s business model? How would you explain the success?

2. Evaluate Lolita’s sourcing policy, supply chain management, and its logistics strategy. What were the major shortcomings? What should Cohen do to remedy these shortcomings?

3. What advice would you give to Cohen for Lolita’s growth? Which countries/region should Lolita target for future stores? Should it adopt a franchising strategy or open its own stores? How fast should it grow? What are the risks?

Case: Wriston Manufacturing Corporation

Questions:

1. What motivated the Detroit Plant Study? What are the key findings?

2. How do you explain the performance differences between the Detroit Plant and the other

sister plants?

3. What are your recommendations to Richard Sullivan regarding the fate of the Detroit Plant?

Case: Tata Consulting Services: Selling Certainty

Questions:

1. Evaluate TCS’s competitive position in the global service delivery business.

2. Is the “Experience Certainty” strategy proposed at TCS low-cost or differentiated?

3. Evaluate the proposed strategy from the perspective of TCS.

4. What implications does this new strategy have for customer selection, contract pricing,

human resources, global delivery footprint, inorganic growth and R&D at TCS?

5. Consider in greater depth the expansion of TCS’s delivery footprint, particularly in Latin

America. Does this expansion make sense for TCS?

Case: Tata Consulting Services Iberoamerica

Questions:

1. What was the prime motive behind expansion in to Latin America for Tata Consulting

Services (TCS)? What was Gabriel Rozman’s argument for TCS’s expansion into Latin

America?

2. Why Rozman decided to locate Tata Consulting Services Iberoamerica (TCSI) in

Uruguay? Do you agree with his rationale?

3. Who are the competitors for TCSI? What advantages do they posses compared to

TCSI?

4. In your opinion, being the first Indian software company to establish operations in Latin

America was an expression of Tata Consultancy Service’s strategic vision or just

corporate hubris?

Technology & Operations Strategy - Fall 2013 - December 17 - 21, 2013 - Block Week in Argentina and Uruguay

Group 1 Eric Hu EHu14@gsb.columbia.edu Danielle Kuchinskas DKuchinskas14@gsb.columbia.edu

Robtec Kazushi Udagawa KUdagawa14@gsb.columbia.edu Laura Wu YuWu14@gsb.columbia.edu Rohan Yelvigi RYelvigi14@gsb.columbia.edu Juhana Putkonen JPutkonen14@london.columbia.edu

Group 2 Ajay Vasudevan AVasudevan14@gsb.columbia.edu

Richard Barakat RBarakat14@gsb.columbia.edu

ECLA Kristen Ballinger KBallinger14@gsb.columbia.edu

Eric Wiegand EWiegand14@gsb.columbia.edu

Neil Uchitel NUchitel14@gsb.columbia.edu

Group 3 Natalie Centeno NCenteno14@gsb.columbia.edu Mo Jardaneh MJardaneh14@gsb.columbia.edu

UlaSoft Scott Morris SMorris14@gsb.columbia.edu Anya Soubbotina ASoubbotina14@gsb.columbia.edu Katerina Vorotova KVorotova14@gsb.columbia.edu Nishidhdha Shah NShah14@gsb.columbia.edu

Group 4 Justyna Kuczaj JKuczaj14@gsb.columbia.edu

Kimberly Rust KRust14@gsb.columbia.edu

Editoriales Stephan Hirschler SHirschler14@gsb.columbia.edu

Mapas Tiffany McQueen TMcQueen14@gsb.columbia.edu

Muge Sencalis MSencalis14@gsb.columbia.edu

Group 5 Melinda Roylett MRoylett14@london.columbia.edu Justin Meno GMeno14@london.columbia.edu

Lolita I Ali El Hamidi AElHamidi14@london.columbia.edu Matthew Ouwerkek MOuwerkerk14@london.columbia.edu Bernard Milan BMilan14@gsb.columbia.edu

Group 6 Tara Axler TAxler14@gsb.columbia.edu

Jamie Karper SKarper14@gsb.columbia.edu

Lolita II Annie McAninch AMcAninch14@gsb.columbia.edu

Jasdeep Sahota JSahota14@gsb.columbia.edu

Kiley Smith KSmith14@gsb.columbia.edu

Tal Sheynfeld tsheynfeld14@gsb.columbia.edu

Group 7 Naheema Mehta NMehta14@gsb.columbia.edu Elizabeth Schneider ESchneider14@gsb.columbia.edu

TVG I Robert Tawse RTawse14@gsb.columbia.edu Leon Ojalvo LOjalvo14@gsb.columbia.edu Tyson Peschke TPeschke14@london.columbia.edu

Group 8 Brent Bowker BBowker14@gsb.columbia.edu

Maximilian Crown MCrown14@london.columbia.edu

TVG II Jennifer Holm JHolm14@london.columbia.edu

Andrey Menemsh AMenemshev14@london.columbia.edu