Solution HBS Case Study Kent Chemical
HBS Case Study Solution
Kent Chemical:
Organizing for International Growth
Table of Contents
1 Initial Problems 3
1.1 Introduction & Problem Identification 3
1.2 Link of KCP’s Strategy to Porter’s Generic Strategies 4
1.3 A Suitable Vision for KCP and KCI 5
1.4 Kent’s Fundamental Organizational Challenge 5
1.5 Task Analysis and Role Assignment 6
1.6 Why These Problems Emerged Now and not Earlier in the 1990s 6
2 Unsuccessful Responses 7
2.1 Changes Morales Made 7
2.1.1 The GBD Concept 7
2.1.2 World Boards 8
2.2 General Options for Organizational Design of Kent Chemical 8
2.3 Could the GBD Concept Have Worked? 9
3 Sterling Partner’s Recommendations 10
3.1 New Management Challenges 10
3.2 What Kent got for $1.8 Million 11
3.3 Sterling’s Decision Matrix 11
4 Decision 12
4.1 Management of Processes within Kent Chemical 12
4.2 Financial Situation at Kent 12
4.3 Final Decision 13
1 Initial Problems
1.1 Introduction & Problem Identification
This paper provides a sample analysis and solution to the fictive Harvard Business School case study on Kent Chemical Products (KCP), an 1917 founded Ohio-based global leading chemical company. KCP produces plastic additives and further specialty chemicals and atis America’s largest supplier in this sector with revenues of $2.2 billion in the year 2007 (Bartlett & Wining, 2012, p.1). The case is set in July 2008, about the time when the recent global recession had been looming. The company’s situation is considered from the perspective of Kent Chemical International’s (KCI, a KCP subsidiary comprising the international divisions) President Luis Morales, who is the major decision maker in the case. Other key decision makers are Kent Chemical Products CEO and Chairman Ben Fisher, his son and Vice Chairman Peter Fisher and the President of Kent Chemical U.S. Angela Perri.
Throughout great parts of the 20th century, KCP’s operations and sales remained mainly focused on the United States. By the end of the century, in
Kent Chemical:
Organizing for International Growth
Table of Contents
1 Initial Problems 3
1.1 Introduction & Problem Identification 3
1.2 Link of KCP’s Strategy to Porter’s Generic Strategies 4
1.3 A Suitable Vision for KCP and KCI 5
1.4 Kent’s Fundamental Organizational Challenge 5
1.5 Task Analysis and Role Assignment 6
1.6 Why These Problems Emerged Now and not Earlier in the 1990s 6
2 Unsuccessful Responses 7
2.1 Changes Morales Made 7
2.1.1 The GBD Concept 7
2.1.2 World Boards 8
2.2 General Options for Organizational Design of Kent Chemical 8
2.3 Could the GBD Concept Have Worked? 9
3 Sterling Partner’s Recommendations 10
3.1 New Management Challenges 10
3.2 What Kent got for $1.8 Million 11
3.3 Sterling’s Decision Matrix 11
4 Decision 12
4.1 Management of Processes within Kent Chemical 12
4.2 Financial Situation at Kent 12
4.3 Final Decision 13
1 Initial Problems
1.1 Introduction & Problem Identification
This paper provides a sample analysis and solution to the fictive Harvard Business School case study on Kent Chemical Products (KCP), an 1917 founded Ohio-based global leading chemical company. KCP produces plastic additives and further specialty chemicals and atis America’s largest supplier in this sector with revenues of $2.2 billion in the year 2007 (Bartlett & Wining, 2012, p.1). The case is set in July 2008, about the time when the recent global recession had been looming. The company’s situation is considered from the perspective of Kent Chemical International’s (KCI, a KCP subsidiary comprising the international divisions) President Luis Morales, who is the major decision maker in the case. Other key decision makers are Kent Chemical Products CEO and Chairman Ben Fisher, his son and Vice Chairman Peter Fisher and the President of Kent Chemical U.S. Angela Perri.
Throughout great parts of the 20th century, KCP’s operations and sales remained mainly focused on the United States. By the end of the century, in
References: Bartlett, C.A. / Winig, L. (2012). Kent Chemical: organizing for international growth. Harvard Business School Brief Case, 4409 (February 23, 2012). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Daft, R.L. (2007). Organization theory and design. 9th ed. Masen, OH, South-Western Cengage Learning. Gibbs, T. / Heywood, S. / Weiss, L. / Jost, G. (2012). Organizing for an emerging world. McKinsey Quarterly, (3), pp.81-91. Porter, M.E. (1986). Changing patterns of international competition, California Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 9-40. Porter, M.E. (1986). Competition in Global Industries. Boston, Massachusetts, Harvard Business School Press. Pearce J.A. / Robinson R.B. (2009). Formulation, Implementation and Control of Competitive Strategy. 11th edition, Irwin, McGraw-Hill. Ross, S.A. (1973). The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal’s Problem, American Economic Review, Vol. 63, issue 2, pp. 134-139. Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), pp. 59-67.