WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA Case Study Memo

Case Study Recommendation Memo Assignment

At Fern Fort University, we write WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA case study recommendation memo as per the Harvard Business Review Leadership & Managing People case memo framework. If you are looking for MBA, Executive MBA or Corporate / Professional level recommendation memo then feel free to connect with us.

Other topics that can be covered in the above case memo are Strategy . The recommendations in the case memo are - aligned with strategy of the company, based on robust data, and provide a clear roadmap for execution.

Order Now - WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA Case Memo

Order Now - WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA Porter 5 Forces Analysis & Industry Analysis

WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA Description

Leadership & Managing People Case Study | Authors :: Enders Albrecht, Andreas Konig, Harald Hungenberg, Johannes Muck

This case study shows the struggle of Brockhaus, publisher of Germany's best-known encyclopedia, to survive two major challenges: (1) the advent of digital encyclopedias marketed on CD-ROM and (2) the rise of online encyclopedias which are accessible free of charge. While Brockhaus was able to successfully deal with the emergence digital encyclopedias in its war against Microsoft, the company stumbled over the rise of digital encyclopedias and ultimately had to abandon the market for encyclopedias which it had dominated for over a century.The case is structured in three sections. Section one describes Brockhaus' response to the emergence of digital encyclopedias and identifies the main reasons for why the company was able to successfully deal with this innovation. At the end of section one, participants are asked to analyze (1) the strategic situation Brockhaus faced when dealing with digital encyclopedias; (2) the actions of Brockhaus in response to the advent of digital encyclopedias; and (3) the reasons for why Brockhaus successfully dealt with this strategic challenge. Section two contains a review of two theoretical concepts: disruptive innovation theory and the value curve. This theory section should provide the participants with the tools necessary to understand radical innovations and to successfully respond to them. Section three describes Brockhaus' war against Wikipedia and the actions Brockhaus took to deal with online ecyclopedias. At the end of the section, participants are asked (1) to analyze how the strategic challenge brought about by online encyclopedias differs from the challenge resulting from the rise of digital encyclopedias; and (2) to use the value curve concept to design possible strategies in response to the emergence of online encyclopedias. In a wrap-up following section three, the case describes that Brockhaus ultimately failed at successfully dealing with the emergence of online encyclopedias and had to leave the market. Learning objectives: The aim of the case is to enable participants to understand that the emergence of Microsoft's Encarta and Wikipedia both represented major challenges for Brockhaus, but that they differed in a very important aspect: While the emergence of digital encyclopedias was a continuous change, the emergence of online encyclopedias was a discontinuous one. This fundamental difference lies at the heart of Brockhaus's failure since the company tried to tackle both situations with the same strategic approach. In addition, participants will learn to assess whether a strategic challenge is discontinuous or not, to recognize typical behavioral patterns in response to discontinuous change and how these can be overcome.

Strategy

Purpose of Leadership & Managing People Case Study Recommendation Memo

A Case Study Memo or Case Study Recommendation Memo is a routinely used document in leading organizations, and you may be writing number of such memos to executive leadership to “sell” or elevate an initiative that either you are undertaking or you wanted to kick start. Therefore, it is essential that you have a professional case study recommendation memo.

The purpose of a recommendation memo is to concisely recommend a course of action and provide rationale supporting the recommendation. The case study recommendation memo is a one-two page document (not including exhibits) that recommends your course of action and rationale. This format promotes a concise and clear strategic thought process.

Elements of a Case Study Recommendation Memo for – MBA & Executive MBA

1. First Paragraph of WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA recommendation memo

• This paragraph expresses your intent or action that you required after reading the WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA case study (This recommends……).
• Topic overview of the case study (the “what”, not “when” or “how”): costs, funding, etc.
  
• Ends with the hook: selling idea, the “why” or payoff: this part reveals the author’s point of view. What you intend to do after reading the case and it clearly mention your decision.

Order Now - WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA Case Memo

Order Now - WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA SWOT & PESTEL Analysis

2. Background of WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA case study

This paragraph explains why we are talking about this today. It lays out the story. It provides us details from the case story such as -

• Historical perspective on the problem is provided. Details are elaborated that underline the given problem.
• Highlights - what brought us to this moment, why we are in this position, what brought about the need to make this decision.
• Dimensionalize the importance of the problem to the organization and how it is impacting the organization.
• Constraints – Provide a situational analysis based on case study analysis.
• Keep the background section both factual and concise. It is part of the memo where we provide a brief insight into the problem and define the problem.

Checklist

Is the background clear, concise, and easy to follow?
Does it explain why action is needed now?
Does the appropriate sense of urgency come across in the case study?

3. Recommendations for WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA Case Memo

Recommendations section will provide details regarding what is needed to be done, how it can be done, when to do it and who will do it. It can be elaborated with scenario planning as businesses

• The details of what, when and how. NO 'why'.
• This section should be very specific (100% clear). It must be actionable (How much will it cost, when, how, who). The reader should be able to read this and know how to carry out this recommendation.
• Some cases will require more than one recommendation. It often happens that the firm will require more than one recommendations as there are numerous unknown in the market place.

Checklist

Is the recommendation clear and actionable? Does the firm has capability to implement the recommendations or does it needs to hire fresh talent?

4. Basis for the Recommendations

• Here the reader of the case memo will learn WHY each recommendation is the UNIQUE right thing to do.
• 2-3 solid reasons are typical. The reasons should be backed by clear logic, organization’s vision and mission statements, and robust data analysis.
• Orignal recommendation can be backed by few supporting roadmap to actions. In operations cases the Critical Path Method of PERT can be used to illustrate the point.
• Support includes impact on profit, share, and anything else that can affect long-term business goals of the firm.
• Analysis should address applicable quantitative issues such as NPV, break even analysis, pro forma statement of project budget, sensitivity analysis; as well as qualitative issues, such as, technology consistency, architectural conformance, innovation potential, etc.
• Appeals to precedent and anecdotal evidence in absence of data, but only in limited, carefully constrained manner.
• Shows how the recommendation will put the firm at a competitive advantage or is simply acompetitive necessity.
• The goal is to read the basis and conclude the recommendation.

Checklist

• Is the recommendation an inescapable conclusion of the basis?
• Does the basis for recommendation appropriately consider:
  1. Core competencies and consistency with mission?
  2. External customers and internal clients?
  3. Competitors?
  4. Attractiveness – quantitative measures if applicable (e.g., NPV, ROI, break-even, payback)?
• Are all assumptions explicitly stated (e.g., needs, technology trends)?

5. Discussions

• Outline other alternatives not selected and provide brief reasoning for doing so.
• Discuss risks and key assumptions for WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA case memo (use full disclosure, reference options grid) of your recommendation.
• When you give a precise number or range, you must support the basis as well.

Checklist

• Is the analysis thorough with key alternatives fairly considered using options grid?
• Risks associated with recommendation for WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA are properly addressed given the present capabilities and future expectations?

6. Next Steps for WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA case study memo

• Clearly specify the roadmap of the execution. Provide specific date and action that are required to carry on the next steps.
• Task assignment, objectives, roles and metrics should be mentioned in advance to reduce ambiguity and replication. (what will be done, by whom, and by when)

Checklist

• Clear follow-up/next steps?
• If appropriate, lay out timeline with key milestones to implement recommendation.

7. Exhibits for WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA case memo

• An Exhibit can be a data chart, map, graph, grid, or simple data table.
• While doing the calculations please mention all the assumptions. The reader won’t able to decipher each of the assumption so make them explicit.
• Exhibits should have Title, sources, footnotes to calculation. The point of the Exhibit should be instantly clear to the reader.
• Exhibits should be cited in the proper order (i.e., do not cite Exhibit 4 first in your Memo and then Exhibit 2).
  

Checklist for WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA case study memo exhibit

• Is the analysis presented in the case memo - precise, accurate, and data-based?
• Are the exhibits clearly laid out, titled, and referenced in the case study memo?
• Is every assumption mentioned in the case memo is explicitly listed?

NOTE: Every memo may not include every element described above. The specific case will dictate what must be included. For custom case memo please email us or process the order.

You can order WHEN DIGITAL DAVID MEETS PHYSICAL GOLIATH: THE CASE OF BROCKHAUS VS. WIKIPEDIA Case Study Recommendation Memo with us at Fern Fort University .