Planning a New Program Launch at LDCClosing Ca

Planning a New Program Launch at LDCClosing Case

“P am” (a disguised name but a real person) was director of training at a large, Midwestern training com- pany—Leadership Development Center (LDC). One of Pam’s responsibilities

was to plan the launch of LDC’s new training pro- grams. The company had a reputation for excellent programs targeted at mid-level managers. However, LDC’s top executives felt that the company should offer more training programs for senior executives, arguing that if senior executives personally experi- enced the quality of the firm’s training, they would be more likely to recommend and approve training requests for their mid-level managers.

Pam discussed the program objectives for the new Senior Executive Leadership Program with her boss and her peers. Some thought the program should be a “loss leader” or in other words, that it should lose money but pay for itself by generating more participants for LDC’s mid-level managerial programs. Others thought that the new program should break even financially. Everyone agreed, however, that the program should be of suffi- cient quality that participants would have a very favor- able impression of LDC. As a result, they would be more likely to encourage their employees to attend LDC pro- grams and approve their requests to do so.

Pam determined that the program’s success would be measured in three ways. First, the number of participants taking the first program would be monitored. Pam calcu- lated it would take about 18 participants for the program to break even financially. Second, she would survey all par- ticipants regarding their satisfaction with the program, its content, materials, facilities, administration, and instruc- tors. Finally, LDC would track the number of mid-level managers from the companies of those attending the senior executive program to determine if there was an increased participation level over time.

In launching the program, Pam examined the past marketing costs of other new programs. Previous new launches had cost about $30,000 in brochure and mailing expenses. She expected that an extra $5,000 ought to be enough to launch the new senior executive program.

The current budget did not anticipate the launch of the senior executive program, but another program in marketing had been cancelled. Consequently, $20,000 remained in the budget for that program, which Pam thought she could spend on the new senior executive program. In addition, she thought she could access $15,000 from the general contingency budget of $30,000.

One of the first things she needed to do was to talk to LDC’s possible instructors and select a “faculty director.”

This person would design the specific content of the pro- gram and coordinate the other instructors along with the content of their training efforts. After the faculty director was chosen, the program would need to be designed and, based on the design, a brochure created. She esti- mated that the program design would require about three weeks and that the development of the brochures would take an additional two weeks. Printing the brochures would require four days, and assembling them for mailing would take another three days. Delivery of the mailed brochures would take about a week. Normally, LDC allowed about 12 weeks between the time people received brochures and the due date for their program applications. In general, program applications were due (along with the program fees) three weeks before the start of the program. Two weeks before the program starts, all materials (handouts, notebooks, etc.) would need to be assembled.

Pam had two people who reported directly to her and could assist in the implementation of the plan. Tammy would be responsible for contacting the brochure design firm and the printing company and ensuring that the brochure would be ready on time. In addition, she would secure the mailing list and arrange for an outside contractor to stuff the envelopes with brochures for mailing. Dan would be responsible for venue details. LDC had its own training facilities and had contracts with several nearby hotels for lodging arrangements. Dan would also be responsible for the assembly of all training materials, which required obtaining the handouts and other materials from the instructors on time.

As the plan was put into action, everything seemed to go fine. A faculty member was selected to be the fac- ulty director, and the program design and content were ready in two rather than the anticipated three weeks. The outside design firm quickly produced a brochure that with a few modifications was ready for mailing. Tammy obtained several mailing lists that had the names of senior executives in medium-to-large companies. The mailing was sent out about five days early.

Inquiries regarding the program were 100 percent higher than those for other new programs LDC had launched in the past. However, as the program’s start date drew nearer, the ratio of inquiries to registrations was not good. Traditionally, one in ten people who con- tacted LDC for further information regarding a particular program ended up registering for it. However, eight weeks before the program’s start, the inquiry to registra- tion ratio was 100 to 1 (not 10 to 1). Four weeks before the start of the program, only ten had signed up. Pam was stressed about what she should do.

129

Questions 1. What adjustments would you make at this point?

Would you cancel the program or run it at a loss? 2. Draw a Gantt chart of the sequence and timing of

key activities. What insights does this give you regarding the plan and its implementation?

3. What do you think went wrong? What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the planning process used in this case?

4. LDC seemed to follow a planning process that had worked well for its mid-level managerial programs. Are there differences between senior executives and mid-level managers that might explain why the plan did not seem as successful as anticipated? Could these differences have been anticipated? Should they have been?

130

References 1. R. Adner and P. Zemsky, “A Demand-based Perspective on

Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” Strategic Management Journal 27 (2006): 215–239; J. A. Pearce III, “How Companies Can Preserve Market Dominance after Patents Expire,” Long Range Planning 39 (2006): 71–87.

2. M. A. Hitt, L. Bierman, K. Uhlenbruck, and K. Shimizu, “The Importance of Resources in the Internationalization of Professional Service Firms: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Academy of Management Journal 49 (2006): 1137–1157; M. A. Hitt, L. Bierman, K. Shimizu, and R. Kochhar, “Direct and Moderating Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Human Service Firms: A Resource-based Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal 44 (2001): 13–28.

3. M. Forsythe, “How GE Helps China Build Business Leaders.” BusinessWeek, May 16. 2010, 24–25.

4. “Largest U.S. Corporations.” Fortune, May 3, 2010, F-1–F-27. 5. M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, and R. E. Hoskisson, Strategic

Management: Competitiveness and Globalization (Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co., 2011).

6. G. S. Yip, A. M. Rugman, and A. Kudina, “International Success of British Companies,” Long Range Planning 39 (2006): 241–264.

7. H. E. Hodges and T. W. Kent, “Impact of Planning and Control Sophistication in Small Business,” Journal of Small Business Strategy 17 (2006/2007): 75–87.

8. G. Colvin, “On the Hot Seat,” Fortune, December 11, 2006, 75–82. 9. A. Burke, S. Fraser, and F. J. Greene, “The Multiple Effects of

Business Planning on New Venture Performance.” Journal of Management Studies 47 (2010): 391–415.

10. V. F. Misangyi, H. Elms, T. Greckhamer, and J. A. LePine, “A New Perspective on a Fundamental Debate: A Multilevel Approach to Industry, Corporate, and Business Unit Effects,” Strategic Management Journal 27 (2006): 571–590.

11. R. Van Wingerden, “Managing Change,” International Journal of Technology Management 21, nos. 5, 6 (2001): 487–95.

12. O. Sorenson, S. McEvily, C. R. Ren, and R. Roy, “Niche Width Revisited: Organizational Scope, Behavior, and Performance,” Strategic Management Journal 27 (2006): 915–936.

13. P. Jarzabkowski and J. Balogun, “The Practice and Process of Delivering Integration through Strategic Planning,” Journal of Management Studies 46 (2009):1255–1288; D. Rheault, “Freshening Up Strategic Planning: More than Fill-in-the-Blanks,” Journal of Business Strategy 24, no. 6 (2003): 33–38.

14. G. Dowell, “Product Line Strategies of New Entrants in an Established Industry: Evidence from the U.S. Bicycle Industry,” Strategic Management Journal 27 (2006): 959–979.

15. J. E. Mathieu and W. Schulze, “The Influence of Team Knowledge and Formal Plans on Episodic Team Process-Performance Relationships,” Academy of Management Journal 49 (2006): 605–619.

16. J. Carnillus, “Reinventing Strategic Planning,” Strategy and Leadership (May–June 1996): 6–12.

17. J. Block, “Family Management, Family Ownership and Downsizing: Evidence from S&P 500 Firms,” Family Business Review 23 (2010): 109–130.

18. Company Web site, “Ethisphere Names Best Buy to 2010 List of World’s Most Ethical Companies,” http://www.bestbuy.com, accessed March 24, 2010.

19. “Best Buy,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Buy, May 19, 2010.

20. M. A. Peteraf and M. E. Bergen, “Scanning Dynamic Competitive Landscapes: A Market-based and Resource-based Framework,” Strategic Management Journal 24 (2003): 1027–1041; M. D. Watkins and M. H. Bazerman, “Predictable Surprises: The Disasters You Should Have Seen Coming,” Harvard Business Review 81, no. 3 (2003): 72–80.

21. E. A. Boyd and I. O. Bilegan, “Revenue Management and E-commerce,” Management Science 49 (2003): 1363–1386; M. Spann and B. Skiera, “Internet-based Virtual Stock Markets for Business Forecasting,” Management Science 49 (2003): 1310–1326.

22. P. Navarro and P. Bromiley, “Business Cycle Management and Firm Performance,” Journal of Strategy and Management 3 (2010): 50–71.

23. U. Lichtenthaler, “Absorptive Capacity, Environmental Turbulence, and the Complementarity of Organizational Learning Processes,” Academy of Management Journal 52(2009): 822–846.

24. V. H. Hoffman, T. Trautmannand, and J. Hamprecht, “Regulatory Uncertainty: A Reason to Postpone Investments? Not Necessarily,” Journal of Management Studies 46 (2009): 1224–1253; E. M. Reid and M. W. Toffel, “Responding to Public and Private Politics: Corporate Disclosure of Climate Change Strategies,” Strategic Management Journal 30 (2009): 1157–1178.

25. J. A. Zuniga-Vicente and J. D. Vicente-Lorente, “Strategic Moves and Organizational Survival in Turbulent Environments: The Case of Spanish Banks (1983–1997),” Journal of Management Studies 43 (2006): 485–519.

26. A. S. Cui, D. A. Griffith, S. T. Cavusgil, and M. Dabic, “The Influence of Market and Cultural Environmental Factors on Technology Transfer between Foreign MNCs and Local Subsidiaries: A Croatian Illustration,” Journal of World Business 41 (2006): 100–111.