Team-Based Learning and the Business Strategy Game used simultaneously in a Business Strategy Course; are the two

compatible?

Robert A. Herring IIISchool of Business and Economics, Winston-Salem State University

USA

Contact Information

Robert A. Herring III, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Management

School of Business and Economics

RJR Building Room 114

Winston-Salem State University

Winston-Salem NC 27110, USA

Phone: 336-750-2338

Fax: 336-750-2335

E-mail: herringr@wssu.edu

Purpose of Session

This session describes the use of Team-Based Learning (TBL) in conjunction with use of the Business Strategy Game (BSG) (http://www.bsg-online.com/) in an undergraduate business policy class.

Overarching Research Question

Do the adaptations made to TBL practices for selection methods and size of teams impact the effectiveness of the teams?

What Is The Business Strategy Game?

• The following several slides briefly explain the Business Strategy Game.

• The Business Policy course is a senior-level “capstone” course, required of all business majors.

• The course pulls together topics from discipline-specific courses, and views them from a top-management, strategic view point.

What Is The Business Strategy Game All About?

• It’s an online, PC-based exercise where student teams run an athletic footwear company in head-to-head competition against “companies” run by other class members.

• The marketplace is worldwide—production and sales activities can be pursued in North America, Latin America, Europe-Africa, and Asia Pacific

How Does The Business Strategy Game Work?

• All companies start out on the same footing—with equal sales volume, global market share, revenues, profits, costs, footwear quality, and so on.

• Each decision period in The Business Strategy Game represents a year.

• The company you will be running began operations 10 years ago, and the first set of decisions you and your co-managers will make is for Year 11.

• The company had Year 10 revenues of $238 million, net profits of $25 million (equal to $2.50 per share), had an ROE of ~17%, and a solid B+ credit rating.

The Types and Numbers of Decisions

You and your co-managers will make decisions each period relating to

• Production of branded and private-label athletic footwear (up to 10 decisions each plant, with a maximum of 4 plants)

• Plant capacity additions/sales/upgrades (up to 6 decisions per plant)

• Worker compensation and training (3 decisions per plant)• Shipping (up to 8 decisions each plant)• Pricing and marketing (up to 10 decisions in 4 geographic

regions)• Bids to sign celebrities to endorse your company’s footwear (2

decision entries per bid)• Financing of company operations (up to 8 decisions)• Plus there is a screen for making annual sales forecasts and

deciding whether to have inventory clearance sales

The Two Scoring Standards

Two scoring standards are used in calculating “performance scores” for each company:

– The investors expectations standard (Did you meet or beat the annual performance targets for each of the 5 performance measures?)

– The best-in-industry standard (How well does your company’s performance stack up against the company with the best EPS, ROE, stock price, and image rating and against an industry-best A+ credit rating?)

Competitive Variables That Determine Company Sales and

Market Shares• Price • Number of models/styles• Styling/quality (S/Q) rating• Advertising• Size of retailer network• Celebrity endorsements• Delivery time• Retailer support• Mail-in rebates

• Shipping charges (Internet sales only)

Creative Strategizing

• Company managers have the widest possible strategic latitude in staking out a market position and striving for good performance. – Any of the various generic competitive

strategies can be used• Most any well-conceived, well-executed

competitive approach is capable of succeeding, provided it is not overpowered by the strategies of competitors or defeated by the presence of too many copycat strategies that dilute its effectiveness.

What Students Learn from playing the Business Strategy Game

Running the athletic footwear company in head-on competition with rivals gives students a chance to put into play the very kinds of things they are reading in the text about crafting and executing strategy in a globally competitive marketplace.

The student teams (“companies”) have to:

--chart a long-term direction for their companies --set and achieve strategic and financial objectives,

--craft a strategy

--adapt it to changing industry and competitive conditions.

Students wrestle with a full array of industry statistics, company operating reports and financial statements, and an assortment of benchmarking data and competitive intelligence on what rivals are doing.

They match strategic wits with the managers of rival companies, "think strategically" about their company's competitive market position, and figure out the kinds of actions it will take to outcompete rivals.

$900

Best Foot 4Ward Net Revenues

$1000

$100

$400

$200

$500

$300

$700

$800

$600

15 16 17Year

10 11 12 13 18 20

(millions of dollars)

14 19

250228

260

316 320 326351 365 374

441

544

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1910

(thousands of pairs)Best Foot 4Ward Global Unit Sales

2011

= wholesale

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

= internet

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

= private-labelYear

42763551

4299

5515 5301 5341 5509 5359 54576407

7800226

238

371

662 727 8991040 942 1045

1093

1707

740

743

855

374 762 381763 978 599

684

300

11 12 13 14 15

Best Foot 4Ward Global Market Share

10

20%

25%

30%

35%

17 18 19 20

(% share of pairs sold world-wide)

16Year

5%

10%

15%

40%

45%

50%

14.3%

11.8%

13.8%

15.6% 15.2%14.0% 14.5% 14.8% 14.3%

15.7%

17.7%

Back to the Research Question

• Do the adaptations made to TBL practices for selection method and size of teams impact their effectiveness?

• Adaptations had to be made to recommended practice in both TBL and the BSG.

Adaptations to TBL and BSG Practice

TBL• Teams were of 4 or 5

students; on the low end of or below of TBL recommended 5-7.

• TBL method of selecting heterogen-eous teams not used.

• Roles partially assigned

BSG• BSG recommends

teams of 2-3.• Company CEOs were

selected by instructor and then recruited their teams.

• BSG decisions made outside of class

Classes and Sizes

• Business Policy:– Section 01: 34 (8 teams)– Section 02: 30 (8 teams)– Section 03: 20 (4 teams)

• Quality Management and Control (comparison group): 25 (4 teams of 6-7 each)

Data Analysis

1. ANOVA comparing the summed total of Likert Scale items for the 4 groups.

2. ANOVA comparing the summed total of Likert Scale items for the group size.

Results from comparing the summed total of Likert Scale

items for the 4 groups

ANOVA

TotalScore

320.358 3 106.786 .634 .595

14831.294 88 168.537

15151.652 91

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.

Results from comparing the summed total of Likert Scale items for the group size

ANOVA

TotalScore

223.547 3 74.516 .443 .723

14130.771 84 168.223

14354.318 87

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

Sum ofSquares df Mean Square F Sig.

Results

No significant differences found.

The bulk of the answers were 4s and 5s, both for the 3 Business Policy sections as well as the comparison class

Future Plans

A different experimental design will be tried in the future.