The effectiveness of co-opetition in a live case study approach

The effectiveness of co-opetition in a live case study approach Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the introduction of the concept of co-opetition in an MBA classroom through the use of a live case study competition. As part of a capstone course at the University of Guelph, teams of three to four MBA students were required to work with a corporate partner in the food industry during a five-day intensive workshop. After spending one week analyzing and working on a plan, students were asked to compete in the MBA Boardroom Challenge, which is held on the last day of the course at the corporate partner’s headquarters. During the course of the week, while developing their plans, teams could choose to interact and met on two occasions with the corporate partner as a class to ask questions. This meant that teams operated in both a cooperative and competitive context during the course. While presentations were academically evaluated by the instructor, scholarships were offered to the winning team by the company using another set of criteria. This paper analyzes the effectiveness of blending cooperation and competition in a graduate business classroom and finds that the introduction of co-opetition enhanced outcomes for both students and partners. The limitations of this process are considered, and future research directions are suggested. Design/methodology/approach – This project, the focus of this paper, was in partial fulfillment of a capstone strategic management course for the University of Glebe’s MBA program in Spring 2013. For this iteration, Longo’s Brothers, a well-established food distribution company, was brought in as the case study. The mandate of the course was to set a strategic view of Longo’s and Grocery Gateway (a division of Longo’s), a Canadian-based food e-distributor owned and operated by Longo’s Brothers. The concept of co-opetition and its application was introduced as part of the course. Findings – Longo’s Brothers provided an ideal environment for a live case study. It was open, available end engaged at all levels. Its status as a family-owned business offered a unique perspective on the food industry as well. Students benefited from the company’s openness to share sensitive information with the group, and were able to ask information on finances, marketing, human resources and the organizational structure of the company. The level of cooperation was more than adequate for a MBA-level course. But students faced a few challenges. Research limitations/implications – The unpredictable nature of the entire process did not allow for measurement of knowledge acquirement and skill development. This is something such a course should address in future iterations. Future research could usefully explore a number of research questions around this area; namely, how live case studies might enable MBA students to better understand the element of co-opetition in their industry, while going through the interplay between theory and the practical application of theory over time. Also to be assessed is the choice of an incentive for the winning team and the overall effectiveness of doing so. The impact of this crucial elements on the course needs to be measured over a greater length of time. Practical implications – Live case studies may be integrated into multiple courses, however, they require a lot of work on the part of the instructor, particularly when dealing with a company to negotiate an incentive and leverage the competitive environment. Setting up and maintaining relationships with collaborative corporate partners for the program takes significant time and effort, and the schedule of inputs into the students’ learning may not synchronize with the normal pattern of teaching. Whether this type of course can be sustained within a normal university environment is a moot point. Social implications – While presentations were evaluated academically by the instructor, scholarships were offered to the winning team by the company using another set of criteria. Criteria for grading are readily available to students at the start of the course, as per the University Senate bylaws. However, criteria used by the corporate partner are not disclosed, not even to the instructor. In fact, for the Longo’s Brothers project, the winning team failed to receive the highest grade. The winning team received the third highest grade of all seven teams competing. Originality/value – The element of co-opetition in a MBA classroom seems to elevate the quality of projects, but more evidence need to be gathered to reinforce this hypothesis. It is believed that university courses cannot fully negotiate the emotional turmoil or complexity that live case studies encompass with conventional models of evaluation. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education Emerald Publishing

The effectiveness of co-opetition in a live case study approach

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/the-effectiveness-of-co-opetition-in-a-live-case-study-approach-mKusPlc0ji
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
2050-7003
D.O.I.
10.1108/JARHE-07-2013-0034
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the introduction of the concept of co-opetition in an MBA classroom through the use of a live case study competition. As part of a capstone course at the University of Guelph, teams of three to four MBA students were required to work with a corporate partner in the food industry during a five-day intensive workshop. After spending one week analyzing and working on a plan, students were asked to compete in the MBA Boardroom Challenge, which is held on the last day of the course at the corporate partner’s headquarters. During the course of the week, while developing their plans, teams could choose to interact and met on two occasions with the corporate partner as a class to ask questions. This meant that teams operated in both a cooperative and competitive context during the course. While presentations were academically evaluated by the instructor, scholarships were offered to the winning team by the company using another set of criteria. This paper analyzes the effectiveness of blending cooperation and competition in a graduate business classroom and finds that the introduction of co-opetition enhanced outcomes for both students and partners. The limitations of this process are considered, and future research directions are suggested. Design/methodology/approach – This project, the focus of this paper, was in partial fulfillment of a capstone strategic management course for the University of Glebe’s MBA program in Spring 2013. For this iteration, Longo’s Brothers, a well-established food distribution company, was brought in as the case study. The mandate of the course was to set a strategic view of Longo’s and Grocery Gateway (a division of Longo’s), a Canadian-based food e-distributor owned and operated by Longo’s Brothers. The concept of co-opetition and its application was introduced as part of the course. Findings – Longo’s Brothers provided an ideal environment for a live case study. It was open, available end engaged at all levels. Its status as a family-owned business offered a unique perspective on the food industry as well. Students benefited from the company’s openness to share sensitive information with the group, and were able to ask information on finances, marketing, human resources and the organizational structure of the company. The level of cooperation was more than adequate for a MBA-level course. But students faced a few challenges. Research limitations/implications – The unpredictable nature of the entire process did not allow for measurement of knowledge acquirement and skill development. This is something such a course should address in future iterations. Future research could usefully explore a number of research questions around this area; namely, how live case studies might enable MBA students to better understand the element of co-opetition in their industry, while going through the interplay between theory and the practical application of theory over time. Also to be assessed is the choice of an incentive for the winning team and the overall effectiveness of doing so. The impact of this crucial elements on the course needs to be measured over a greater length of time. Practical implications – Live case studies may be integrated into multiple courses, however, they require a lot of work on the part of the instructor, particularly when dealing with a company to negotiate an incentive and leverage the competitive environment. Setting up and maintaining relationships with collaborative corporate partners for the program takes significant time and effort, and the schedule of inputs into the students’ learning may not synchronize with the normal pattern of teaching. Whether this type of course can be sustained within a normal university environment is a moot point. Social implications – While presentations were evaluated academically by the instructor, scholarships were offered to the winning team by the company using another set of criteria. Criteria for grading are readily available to students at the start of the course, as per the University Senate bylaws. However, criteria used by the corporate partner are not disclosed, not even to the instructor. In fact, for the Longo’s Brothers project, the winning team failed to receive the highest grade. The winning team received the third highest grade of all seven teams competing. Originality/value – The element of co-opetition in a MBA classroom seems to elevate the quality of projects, but more evidence need to be gathered to reinforce this hypothesis. It is believed that university courses cannot fully negotiate the emotional turmoil or complexity that live case studies encompass with conventional models of evaluation.

Journal

Journal of Applied Research in Higher EducationEmerald Publishing

Published: Sep 14, 2015

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off