HBS -‐Case Study

McKinsey & Company: Managing

Knowledge and Learning
Bartlett, C. A

Dr. Rivadávia C. Drummond de Alvarenga Neto

2013
 The Case Method -‐HBS
• The case method is not only the most relevant
and practical way to learn managerial skills, it’s
exciting and fun!
• Simply stated, the case method calls for
discussion of real-‐ life situations that business
executives have faced.
• As you review their cases, you will put yourself in
the shoes of the managers, analyze the situation,
decide what you would do, and come to class
prepared to present and support your
conclusions.

Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS

 How Cases Help You Learn
• Cases will help you sharpen your analytical skills, since
you must produce quantitative and qualitative
evidence to support your recommendations.
• In class discussions, each participant brings to bear his
or her own expertise, experience, observation, and
analysis. This diversity of opinion from differing
perspectives offers real opportunities for shared
learning.
• Perhaps the most important benefit of using cases is
that they help managers to learn how to determine
what the real problem is and to ask the right questions.

Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS

 How to prepare a case?
• PART I -‐INDIVIDUAL PREPARATION

• the case method calls first for you, working

individually, to carefully read and to think
about each case.

• (Typically about two hours of preparation time

for each case are provided in the schedule.)

Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS

 I. Read the professor’s assignment/discussion
questions.
II. Read the first few paragraphs, then skim the
case.
III. Next, read the case more carefully, underlining
text and writing margin notes as you go.
IV. Note the key problems or issues on a pad of
paper. Go through the case again.
V. Sort out relevant considerations for each
problem area.
VI. Do appropriate qualitative and quantitative
analysis.
VII. Develop a set of recommendations, supported
by your analysis of the case data.

Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS

 How to prepare a case?
• PART II – DISCUSSION GROUP
• Discussion groups are characterized by intense
interaction that deepens the participants’
understanding beyond that gained through
individual analysis.
• This interaction includes dialogue, shared
expertise, and constructive argument.
• Many participants find that they not only deepen
their understanding of the material, but that they
also experience an increase in their comfort level
by sharing their ideas and insights later in the
large in-‐class discussion.

Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS

 Benefits of a Discussion Group
• Better understanding of the material
• Practice in teaching and learning from others
• Opportunities to “test-‐market” ideas and
opinions prior to the larger in-‐class discussion
• Ability to get to know a handful of people
more deeply

Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS

 Discussion Group Best Practices
• One participant is designated as the discussion
leader (Facilitator, NOT the CEO!)
• AZendance is 100 percent.
• All members participate in the discussion and
share responsibility for content.
• Groups accept differing perspectives as normal,
desirable, and inevitable. Don’t try to reach
consensus.
• Groups are disciplined, focused, and use time
wisely.
• Members accept the responsibility to learn and
teach.
Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
 PART III – The Classroom Experience
• Now… it’s a GO TO MARKET!
(I mean, CLASSROOM!)
• PASTURES X TAKEAWAYS
• COLD CALLS x WARM CALLS
• Please, Raise Your Hand!
• GRADING at HBS
• And now relax. Take a deep breath. Prepare to
laugh, learn, and enjoy the wonderfully
stimulating classroom environment

Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS

 HBS Learning Best Practices
①Prepare!
②Discuss the case with others before class!
③Participate!
④Share your related experience!
⑤Constantly relate the topic and case at hand to
your business.
⑥Actively apply what you are learning to your
own specific management situations, past and
future.
⑦Note what clicks.
⑧Mix it up!
⑨Work hard, play hard!
Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
 Create your own way!
• Description of the Company
• Problems
• Solution
• Results
• Link to Theory!
CASE-‐STUDY WRITING
Research Methodology
 BUILDING A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
METHODOLOGICAL STRATEGY TO UNDERSTAND
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT: MULTIPLE CASE
STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSITION OF AN
INTEGRATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Rivadávia C. Drummond de Alvarenga Neto – FDC, Brazil

Beatriz Vladares Cendón – UFMG, Brazil
Ricardo Rodrigues Barbosa -‐UFMG, Brazil

ECRM, Malta, 2009

 1)THE RESEARCH’S RATIONALE
AND MAIN RESULTS

• This paper describes the qualitative research methodology

utilized in an investigation on how Brazilian firms understood,
defined, implemented, evaluated and measured their
Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives, what were their
motives and what they expected to achieve with such initiatives;
• Previous quantitative works in the Brazilian organizational
context;
• Two presuppositions:
i. KM x IM/IT (information reductionism)
ii. KM Conceptual Integrative Mapping Proposition (FIGURE 1) ->
• The Results:
i. Presuppositions confirmed;
ii. A Major Shift:
• Knowledge as such cannot be managed, it is just promoted or stimulated through the
creation of ba or enabling contexts.
• From KM to the management of the enabling contexts in Knowledge Organizations
 2)RESEARCH PROCEDURES
AND METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES

• An investigation method should include theoretical

foundations, and a set of techniques which allow the
understanding of reality and the creative potential of
the researcher. In qualitative research, as well as in
quantitative ones, the set of techniques, although
secondary to theory, is important to guarantee the
soundness of the conclusions.

• This section presents the procedures and techniques

prescribed by the literature on case studies as well as
the methodological options chosen in this research
which are summarized in TABLE 1.
 TABLE 1
Qualitative research strategy
(Source: developed by the authors, 2009)

COMPONENTS METHODOLOGICALCHOICES

1) Problem approach qualitative research

2) Research strategy case studies applied to organizational and managerial studies

3) Components of the research project research questions, assumptions, units of analysis,

logic connecting data to propositions, criteria for interpreting the
findings

4) Criteria for assessing the quality of the research project construct validity (MSE) external validity (replication logic –
literal/theoretical) and reliability

5) Typology of the case study multiple case studies with incorporated units of analysis

6) Case studies in three large organizations (allowed control of Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira - CTC (primary sector),
environmental variation) - operating in Brazil – one of each sector
of the economy – that have implemented Knowledge Management SIEMENS Brazil (secondary sector) and
PricewaterhouseCoopers - PwC Brazil (tertiary sector)

7) Units of analysis, sub-units of analysis and units of observation project or process of KM; organization and their members.

8) Data collection sources documentary sources (printed and electronic files), semi-
structured interviews and direct observation

9) Analysis of field data collected data reduction, display and verification/conclusions based on
inferences from evidences or premises.

10) Final considerations validation or refutation of the research propositions,

proposal of new knowledge and recommendations for future
studies
 Data
Collection

Data
Display

Data
Reduction

Conclusions:
Drawing/Verifying

Figure 3
Components of data analysis: interactive model
(Source: MILES & HUBERMAN, 1984).
 3) FIELD RESEARCH AND DATAANALYSIS
• The case study protocol included preliminary information, semi-structured
interview programs and notes pertaining to documental research and direct
observation.
• A pilot study was carried out at Siemens do Brazil to test the research instruments
used in the semi-structured interviews, documental research and direct
observation. Proved valuable: alowwed for the refinement of data collection tools.
• All 17 scheduled interviews were conducted and resulted in approximately 530
pages of transcriptions and 35 hours of recording time. The interviews lasted
around one hour and 45 minutes and there were about five interviews in each
organization.
• In addition to semi-structured interviews and direct observation, paper and
electronic documents of various kinds were analyzed (.doc., .xls, .ppt, .pdf, intranet
screens, e-mails, internet sites & links, pictures, videos, etc.)
• Approximately 1600 pages of documents were gathered and analyzed, of which
approximately 12% were discarded as they did not suit the research purposes.
• On the whole, the field research produced about 2150 pages which later went
through analysis and reduction processes. Four reduction cycles (Miles &
Huberman, 1984) were needed to incorporate the data collected into the body of
the dissertation, as shown in TABLE 6.
• Eight matrices or reduction tables were produced based on the categories of
analysis.
 TABLE 6
Reduction Processes – Data analysis and fieldwork

Reduction
processes From (pages) To (pages)
1st
2150 180
2nd
180 100
3rd
100 52
4th
52 final text
Source: Alvarenga Neto, 2005.
TABLE 7
Data reduction matrix of field data collected by category of analysis
Source: Alvarenga Neto, 2005, 2008.

6) SCENARIOS – PERSPECTIVES – KM BEST ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES

1.Difficulties, problems and obstacles confronted in the implementation of KM; what is the current situation?
2.Focus of change.
3.KM is shared in any closed circle of actors in the external organizational environment (customers, suppliers)?
4.Best organizational practices of KM.

ORG. SUMMARY OF THE COLLECTED DATA – FIELDWORK

1. (i) Cultural and behavioral; (ii) “[...] there are people that do not know how to share. They
believe that knowledge is power. “ (Applications engineer)
Siemens
2. (i) Culture and behavior; (ii) “[...] organization in business units (mini-companies concept), the
challenge is to create synergy among businesses.” (Regional director)
3. Yes. (i) Via technology portal of some communities of practice; (ii) “[...] partially;
PARTNERSCOM, virtual discussion forum with customers and competitors.” (Human
resources manager) (iii) “[...] PARTNERSCOM – partnership development program of
Siemens Mobile to develop applications for mobile phones such as games, vending- machines,
telemetry, among others.” (regional director)
4. (i) Chats, SHARENET that brings concrete results, communities of practice, competitive
intelligence; (ii) creation of sites and spaces (real and virtual) for the sharing, exchange, and
search for information and learning; (iii) “HAPPY-HOUR OF KNOWLEDGE for motivation,
information dissemination, learning, exchange and sharing.

CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS
1) Motivation for KM
2) Organizational understanding and
definition of KM
3) Aspects and approaches considered by
KM
4) S c e n a r i o s , perspectives,
organizational practices of KM
5) Sensemaking issues
6) Issues concerning knowledge creation:
7) Issues concerning decision making
8) Issues concerning the enabling context
TABLE 8
Model of Analysis
Source: Alvarenga Neto, 2005, 2008
OBSERVATIONS
best
Environmental scanning, competitive intelligence, competitor intelligence,
environmental typologies among others
(a) Strategic management of information: information on internal records, information
systems and information architectures, issues concerning the organization and treatment
of information: collection, indexing, storage, recovering, selective dissemination and
taxonomies, among others; (b) organizational learning and communities of practice (real
and virtual); (c) organizational knowledge (generation codification/coordination and
transference of knowledge); (d) management of intellectual capital (human capital,
structural capital and customer capital)
Information sharing (policies, practices, barriers, behavior and organizational culture,
strategies, layout and meeting places for knowledge promotion and information sharing,
managerial styles and policies of alignment between knowledge management and
business strategy: (management models and architectures, essential competences,
environment and enabling conditions, knowledge vision); uses and users of information
within organizations.
 4) CONCLUSIONS

• This article described the qualitative methodology used in a

research study that proposes an integrative conceptual model of
KM.
• For such purpose the construction of a sound theoretic-conceptual
structure and consistent research methodology were paramount for
the discovery of reliable answers for the questions which guided the
study.
• Research assumptions were confirmed.
• The proposition of the integrative conceptual model of KM, based on
the three case studies, is supported by the recommendations of
Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2001), who assert that case studies are
valid for building theories and models as long as they abide by the
rigorous methodological procedures they recommend.
• The main contribution of the research – a proposal of an integrated
conceptual modeling of KM is described in Alvarenga Neto (2005,
2008).
Source: Alvarenga Neto and Choo, 2009
Source: Alvarenga Neto and Choo, 2009
 McKINSEY & COMPANY

• What is McKinsey?
• When was it founded and by whom?
• Any use of external data?
• What does Exhibit 1 tell us?
 McKINSEY & COMPANY

• Founded
– (1926)
• By
– University Chicago Professor – James McKinsey
• External data
– Site, Wikipedia, Press Notes, Newspapers
– Mission, Guiding Principles
– Exhibit 2
– What does Exhibit 1 tell us?
 Assignment Questions
• 1) Why is Knowledge at the core of MCkinsey's
Business?

• 2) The case provide a broad view of problems

faced by three managing directors -‐Ron Daniel,
Fred Gluck and Rajat Gupta. What kind of
problems did each of them face?

• 3) Think about the three mini-‐cases presented in

the case study. Judging them all, do you think
McKinsey was effective in its long-‐term process?
 Marvin Bower
• Problems Faced?
 Marvin Bower
• Problems Faced
– Economic Turmoil
– Broad Generalists x In-‐Depth Knowledge
– Competition (BCG)
• Experience Curve
• Growth-‐Share Matrix
 Ron Daniel
• Problems faced?
• Solutions and Decision-‐Making?
 Ron Daniel
• Solutions
– A Full Time Director of Traning
– New Commitment and Mission Update
• “Serve Clients AND Train/Develop its Consultants”
Structural Changes – matrix organization
– T-‐Shaped Consultants
– More Functional Expertise
• K in 2 areas
– Strategy
– Organization
• RESULTS
– Confidence was restored!
– New Group to articulate the firm’s existing K in the organization
arena (Tom Peters)
 Fred Gluck (not MD yet)
• Came from Bell Labs
– “wanted to bring an equally stimulating
intellectual environment to McKinsey”
• Creation of Centers of Competence (Daniel
was still MD)
– K Development was CORE, NOT Peripheral!
– Institutionalized, NOT temporary!
– Responsibility of Everyone
– GOALS?
• “Develop Expertise + Renewal of the Firm Intellectual
Resources”
• SNOWBALL MAKING (practice development) X
SNOWBALL THROWING (client development)
• “Building a K Infrastructure – “capture and
leverage the learning”
– Resistance
– Launching of a KM Project (1987)
• Common Database of K
• Hire of a Full Time Coordinator for each Practice Area
• New Career Path
• Tools & Managerial Practices?
– FPIS (Firm Practice Information System)
– PDN (Practice Development Network)
– KRD (Knowledge Resource Directory)
 FRED GLUCK (MD – 1988)
• Problems Faced?
• Solutions and Decision-‐Making?
 FRED GLUCK (MD – 1988)
• Second Phase for KM
– A Constructionist Perspective
• “[….] K is only valuable when its between the ears of consultants
and applied to clients problems.”
• SHIFT IN FOCUS
– From developing K to BUILDING INDIVIDUAL & TEAM CAPABILITY
– NEW ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE (EXHIBIT 4)
– From “DISCOVER-‐CODIFY-‐DISSIMINATE” to “ENGAGE-‐
EXPLORE-‐APPLY-‐SHARE”
– ET (Engagement team) to CST (Client Service Team)
• “to broaden the classic model of a single partner owning a client
to a GROUP of PARTNERS WITH SHARED COMMITMENT TO EACH
CLIENT”
– DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIPLE CAREER PATHS (EXHIBIT 6)
 3 MINI-‐CASES
PETERS -‐ SYDNEY BRAY – TELECOM EUROPE DULL – B-‐TO-‐B

Access to talent, expertise Transfer Expertise Alternative Career Track

One firm culture Documented Learning Building Networks

Info-‐Transfer Only Building Networks Difficulties of specialist

career
 RAJA -‐GUPTA
• 4-‐Prongued Strategy?
 RAJA -‐GUPTA
• “since Martin Bower, every leadership group has had a
commitment to leave the firm stronger than it found it.
It’s a fundamental value of McKinsey to invest in the
future of th firm”
• 4-‐Prongued Strategy
– Creation of new channels, forums and mechanisms for K
development and organizational learning (Practice
Olympics)
– Emerging Issues important to CEOs
– McKinsey Global Institute (more af a research agenda)
• Put yourselves in the shoes of GUPTA, WHAT WOULD
YOU DO?
 RESULTS
Overall/Long-‐term Results?
BUILDING OF ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITIES!

• RECRUIT AND DEVELOP SUPERIOR PEOPLE

• PROFESSIONALISM, SELF-‐GOVERNANCE
• STRONG EMBEDDED “ONE FIRM” POLICIES
AND CULTURE
• GOING BEYOND IT….
• IC & OK
 GUPTA’s term was quite successfull!
• Global Firm
– Fast Growth Strategy
– Vast Expansion
– MAKE Award
• K oriented / KM still working
– “K is central to what we do”
• July, 2003 – Gupta was succeeded by Ian Davis
THANK YOU! Obrigado! 谢谢

riva.drummond@unibh.br