IMS 5200 – GLOBAL ECONOMY

Spring 2005

Professor: Seung-Hyun Lee

Office: SOM 4.409
Tel: 972-883-6267 E-mail: lee.1085@utdallas.edu
TA: Mine Ozer, mxy010100@utdallas.edu
Office Hours: Tuesday 4:45 - 5:30 P.M.
Class: Tuesday 10:30A.M. – 12:30P.M.
Classroom: SOM MBA classroom (2.117)

Text: Charles Hill (5th edition)—International Business – Competing in the global marketplace,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Case book: Harvard Case book available at the UTD and off-campus bookstores

Course Webpage: http://www.utdallas.edu/~sxl029100/ or alternatively go to

http://som.utdallas.edu/faculty/faculty_lee_sh.htm and click the link to the homepage.

Course Objective: The emphasis of this course is on developing a general understanding of

international management. The course emphasizes application of academic knowledge to real
world situations through the use of lecture and case studies. The course emphasizes application of
theory-based knowledge to real world situations through the use of lecture and case studies.

By the end of the course, you should have an understanding of complex international business
environment and how it affects firm strategies and structures.

Class Format: This class is structured differently from other classes you have taken. There is an
emphasis on using case analysis as a way of practicing your business thinking skills, your oral
presentation skills, as well as your writing skills. The goals of this class are 1) to learn about
global economy and 2) help you make the transition from education to work. Because of this,
professionalism and integrative thinking are emphasized. Our use of cases provides a mechanism
to help students learn skills and techniques associated with oral presentations and written briefs.
These skills can often make the difference between getting and keeping a job and losing one.

Most management issues are non-routine and unstructured. This is your opportunity to use what
you have learned in lecture and other classes to solve problems presented in the case. The quality
of the case analysis usually determines the quality of the solutions. The primary responsibility for
the quality of the case analysis comes from the student participants.

Grades: Your grade in the course will be based on objective and subjective criteria. Grades will
be curved. Each class will be curved separately. Grades will be based on the following:

WSJ article analyses:

1 written group case 20%
1 group oral presentation – 5 teams (20%)
1
Group case analyses (5 cases): 20%
Group case presentation – 6 teams (1 case) (20%)
Final Exam (in class): 20%
Peer Evaluation: multiplied with the group case evaluations
Participation: 20%
Total 100%

WSJ article analyses Assignments: Your group will be responsible for both oral presentation
and written analysis. WSJ article analysis should be a comprehensive analysis of the facts of
the case and application of concepts learned in the lecture and textbook. Your group case analysis
grade will be based on the quality of the group's work. Part of your learning experience is
managing the coordination of tasks required to create a good product. Part of your grade will be
based on each individual's assessment of the relative contribution of each group member (peer
evaluation). Late cases are not accepted.

Each analysis will be graded according to the case evaluation criteria shown in the case
evaluation sheet. It is important that you make use of library search engines. Only using company
homepage and google or its equivalents (e.g. yahoo) is not enough (they are not considered as
outside sources).

To address the above issues, students should use a minimum of seven (7) outside sources of
information. In addition to using the library search engines, suggested references include Annual
Reports, 10-K Forms, Business Week, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, Moody’s Industrial
Manual, Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, etc. When you use outside
sources, make sure that you make the references bold, so the instructor can easily find out how
many outside sources (other than company homepage and google) are used. One of the librarians
or the instructor will spend some time to explain how to meaningfully use library search engines
for analyses. Do not rely too much on the same references—select a variety.

Case analyses: There are written and oral portion of the case analyses. Your group case analysis
grade will be based on the quality of the group's work. As mentioned above, part of your grade
will be based on each individual's assessment of the relative contribution of each group member
(peer evaluation). Late cases are not accepted.

Written portion: There are six (6) cases we will cover in the class altogether. Each team is
responsible to turn in any five (5) (out of 6) case analyses during the term. Each case analysis is
due at the beginning of the class that the case is assigned. Each case analyses cannot exceed 5
pages - double spaced (font 11) excluding figures, tables, and references. No cover sheet is needed.
Each written case analysis is worth 4 points (4x5=20). Ensure that the paper has an executive
summary and that it is divided into sections and subsections in a logical manner. Written part
will be graded as 4/4: excellent, 3/4: good, 2/4: fair, and 1/4: poor.

Oral portion: Each team is responsible to present a case (either HBS case or WSJ case) in the
classroom. Oral presentations should be approximately 20 minutes in length with approximately a
10 minutes discussion period. The oral presentation will count 20% of the assignment grade. The
cases will be chosen when you form your groups on the second day of the class. Oral part will be
graded using the case evaluation sheet.

2
Class Participation: Class participation is highly encouraged in both the lecture portion as well
as the case discussion portion of the class. Quality of class contributions will be weighted more
heavily than quantity. Frequent and valuable participants are who attend most of the classes,
participate regularly in every class attended, and at least make one significant contribution in each
class attended. “Participation and contribution” is a meaningful portion of the total course grade –
20%. To help the instructor learn each student’s name and grade “participation and contribution”
as fairly as possible, you will prepare and bring a “nameplate” to each class.

Here are some guidelines in participation grades. The instructor has the sole authority in assigning
participation grades.

20/20 (excellent participation): attend most of the classes, participate regularly in every class
attended, and at least make one significant contribution in each class attended

15/20 (good participation): attend most of the classes, participate regularly in most classes
attended, and make significant contribution in many classes attended

10/20 (fair participation): participates in some of classes attended, and make significant
contribution in a couple classes

5/20 (poor participation): participates in some of classes attended

0/20 (extremely poor participation): I hope nobody falls in this category

Peer Evaluation: Each team member will evaluate the rest of the team members for their
contribution to group work. Details on how to calculate peer evaluation and how to incorporate
into the group projects are shown in the peer evaluation sheet. Peer evaluation sheet will be
provided at the final exam day with the exam.

Exam: One final exam will be given at designated point in the semester.

Honor Code Information: No case write-ups, exams, or student's notes from current or previous
business school students should be consulted in doing your case analysis. You can, however,
consult your notes and reading materials as well as information in the library. Any material
quoted directly or paraphrased should be referenced in your written and oral cases. Plagiarism is
a serious infraction and will be dealt with accordingly.

3
Wall Street Journal Assignment
The purpose of this assignment is to analyze critically and provide future strategic directions for
the firms chosen in a recent article that deals with future plans such as FDI plans (dated within
four months from the assignment due date) from the Wall Street Journal or its equivalent (e.g.
Financial Times) selected by the students. For example, if a group wants to do an international
M&A case, the news can be on the announcement on the M&A, but the M&A is not realized, yet.
So the strategic directions can be provided in terms of how to manage the M&A process
considering cultural differences at the country and organizational levels and etc. The assignment
is to be done in groups. This assignment is due as shown in the class schedule.

An illustrative list of issues that the WSJ article may focus on any topic that is related to the
materials we learn in class.

The written assignments should be approximately ten double-spaced (font of 11 or 12) pages
including executive summary, (excluding references and Exhibits). Ensure that the paper has an
executive summary and that it is divided into sections and subsections in a logical manner. The
WSJ article should be attached to the written case analysis when you turn.

Note: Oral presentations should be approximately 25-30 minutes in length with approximately a
10-15 minutes discussion period. The oral presentation will count 20% of the assignment grade.

4
SESSION DATE ACTIVITY/ASSIGNMENT
1 Jan 11 Course Overview/Objectives
Chapter 1 GLOBALIZATION

2 Jan 18 Chapter 1 GLOBALIZATION continued

Special topic: CASE ANALYSIS
Using library search engine (Loreen Phillips from the library)

3 Jan 25 Chapter 2 NATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

Case 1: Mary Key cosmetics: Asian market entry

4 Feb 1 Chapter 2 NATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY

Chapter 3 DIFFERENCES IN CULTURE
Case 2: Euro Disney: The first 100 days

5 Feb 8 Chapter 3 DIFFERENCES IN CULTURE continued

6 Feb 15 Chapter 4 INTERNATIONAL TRADE THEORY

Case 3: Collision course in commercial aircraft: Boeing-Airbus-
McDonnell Douglas

7 Feb 22 Chapter 4 INTERNATIONAL TRADE THEORY continued

Chapter 5 POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Case 4: Toys “R” Us Japan

8 Mar 1 Chapter 5 POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CONTINUED

9 Mar 8 Spring break

10 Mar 15 Chapter 6: FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
Case 5: Komatsu Ltd.: Project G’s globalization

11 Mar 22 Chapter 6: FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT continued

Chapter 7: POLITICAL ECONOMY OF FOREIGN DIRECT

INVESTMENT
Case 6: Daewoo’s globalization: Uz-Daewoo auto project

12 Mar 29 Chapter 7: POLITICAL ECONOMY OF FOREIGN DIRECT

INVESTMENT continued (some part of chapter 8 is covered)

13 April 5 Group presentation* (Wall Street Journal article analyses)

Written portion of Wall Street Journal article analysis due as well

5
14 April 12 Group presentation* (Wall Street Journal article analyses)
Written portion of Wall Street Journal article analysis due as well

15 April 19 Group presentation* (Wall Street Journal article analyses)

Written portion of Wall Street Journal article analysis due as well

16 April 26 Final exam (bring Scantron sheet- 882 E)

*The number of presentations is dependent on class size.

6
 Case Evaluation Sheet: BPS 6310

1. Summary of the critical issues (10pts) Exceeds Expectations 10 pts

Most of the information in the case is not repeated. Meets Expectations 8-9 pts
Identificaton of internal and external issues. Marginally Meets Expectations 7 pts
Identification of the most important issues Does not Meet Expectations 5 pts

2. Strategic Analysis (20 pts) Exceeds Expectations 19- 20 pts

Evidence of deeper analysis beyond what is written or presented. Meets Expectations 16-18 pts
Suggests realistic options for the company (or industry). Marginally Meets Expectations 13-15 pts
Identifies pros and cons of options. Does not Meet Expectations 10-12 pts
Provides realistic, case-based support for the options.

3. Recommendation (10 pts) Exceeds Expectations 10 pts

Quality and support of the recommended option. Meets Expectations 8-9 pts
Implementation impact of the recommendation. Marginally Meets Expectations 7 pts
Does not Meet Expectations 5 pts

4. Other grading criteria (10 pts)

Clarity and logic of ideas Exceeds Expectations 10 pts
Use of exhibits Meets Expectations 8-9 pts
Use of outside materials Marginally Meets Expectations 7 pts
Grammar, spelling, structure Does not Meet Expectations 5 pts
Organization of presentation
Speaking style, use of visual aids and
handouts, balance of speakers
Dress and overall professionalism

7
 Peer Evaluation Sheet

Team # ______________

Name __________________________

Name Self
Score
(1-5)*
Reasons

• 1 (very unsatisfactory) – 2 (unsatisfactory) – 3 (neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory) 4

(satisfactory) – 5 (very satisfactory)
• if 1, then the person gets 0.2
• if 2, then the person gets 0.4
• if 3, then the person gets 0.6
• if 4, then the person gets 0.8
• if 5, then the person gets 1
• Then the participation score will be multiplied with the score one gets from 2 group
projects (WSJ article analysis and case analysis: written and oral). For example
(hypothetically), if a student gets 25/30 for WSJ assignment and 22/30 for case analysis
as a group for the two group projects and 3 from the peer evaluation average, then the
actual grade is 47/60*0.6 = 28.2/60, not 47/60.
• Be objective in evaluating other members in your group and specify reasons.
• The evaluation should be turned in on the final exam. Peer evaluation sheet will be
provided along with the exam booklet.
• If one fails to turn in the peer evaluation sheet, then everybody in the team gets 4
(0.8).

8
INFORMATION FOR CASE ANALYSIS:
1. Your position is that of a business consultant to the chief executive officer of the company.
You have been hired to do a strategic analysis of the company and the industry using case
materials, library research, electronic data sources, and tools suggested by the text. The goal
is to determine what direction the company should take and make specific recommendations
about what the company should do next and why. Sometimes the printed case will call
attention to certain problems that exist and other times you’ll be on your own to determine
problem areas.

2. Once you have evaluated the case, identified the strategic problem, and evaluated the impact
of the problem on current and/or future strategy, you must form some conclusions and
recommendations regarding the future position of a company. Support your evaluation with
appropriate research.
• What alternatives can the company consider? Alternatives should be mutually
exclusive. Mutually exclusive means the company can go down only one road. It
cannot pursue both strategies simultaneously.
• What are the tradeoffs associated with the alternatives? You should NOT think in
terms of “good” versus “bad”, but rather what does the company GAIN from an
alternative and what does it LOSE. That way you can compare gains and losses
across the alternatives. Gains and losses may be in terms of customers, revenue, cost
competitiveness, market share, profitability, core competence, time to market, future
growth, survival, etc.
• Select an alternative to recommend. Make a logical, clear, and integrated argument,
backed by research to support why the gain and loss tradeoff from this alternative is
better than the other alternatives.
• Recommendations should be made only if backed by analysis and logic. Trivial or
unrealistic recommendations or recommendations that are inconsistent with the firm’s
goals, resources, the industry environment, and the culture of the company must be
avoided.

3. FINALLY, go back to the strategic issue or problem you identified earlier. How does your
solution SOLVE or at least improve the strategic problem? Will your recommendation allow
your firm to improve its financial performance in the long run? What implementation issues
might come up? What is the realistic probability of success if the company follows your
plan?

INFORMATION FOR THE ORAL PRESENTATION

1. Each team is scheduled for one oral presentation (either HBS case or WSJ case). Visual aids
must be employed, including the use of handouts, overhead projectors, PowerPoint, crash
carts, etc. Ask the instructor about equipment availability.

9
2. Oral Presentation Teams are required to dress professionally and exhibit the same level of
decorum and consideration that you would in a real business setting.

3. All team members must be involved in the oral presentation with each team member
presenting a segment. Segment definition is the responsibility of the team. A printout of
your slides as well as a bibliography should be given to your instructor and other class
members. The title page of your presentation should list the case name, the date, the names
of each team member, and the segment each member will cover. The instructor in each class
may ask for full sized black and white copies of the slides.

4. Library and online research beyond the case are REQUIRED. Analysis in hindsight is not
permitted in either oral or written reports. “What a company did” is not justification. There
are many possibilities that companies do not consider. Also, in the long run, the company’s
action may not be successful.

5. When presenting, indicate the outside sources used. If you present industry averages, for
example, or demographic data, indicate where you got them.

6. After you have presented; be prepared to receive questions regarding your assumptions, your
use of data, your conclusions, your logic, and your recommendations. Other class members
may not agree with your analysis. Your instructor may challenge your evaluation of
environmental or internal characteristics. DO NOT BECOME DEFENSIVE. This is a
natural part of the process. You are being asked to think on your feet and demonstrate that
you have a deep understanding of the case issues. ALL team members should participate in
the question and answer session. Rigorous probing by the instructor reflects the high
expectations that he/she has for the class. Everyone learns from this experience, even class
members who are not presenting.

INFORMATION FOR THE WRITTEN PRESENTATION

1. The individually written analyses of the assigned cases are due at the start of class. Exhibits
may use charts, tables, and professional strategic planning tools found in the text. DO NOT
add charts just to the sake of length. All exhibits should ADD VALUE to the written
analysis. Summarizing facts of the case through a SWOT analysis or using tables for
evaluation of alternatives can save space and improve clarity.

2. Hand in one copy of your written report. Keep an additional copy for yourself. Graded copy
will be returned. DO NOT USE REPORT BINDERS OR COVER SHEETS. Library
research AND online research (called “due diligence” in the business world) is REQUIRED.

3. Suggested format:

Course Number and Section

Class Time

10
Group Number
Your Name
Date

Name of Case (centered)

A. Introduction

B. Analysis of Environment, Company, Current Strategy, Competitors

C. Identification and Justification of Key Strategic Issue that comes from the Analysis

D. Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives

E. Selection of Recommendation and Justification

F. Exhibits and References. (Exhibits should be labeled sequentially and in the order they are
discussed in the text. If you do NOT talk about an exhibit in the text, it probably isn’t doing
anything except taking up space.)

STRONG POINTS IN REPORTS

1. Evidence of thorough case study.

2. Judgements supported by evidence from the case or outside sources.
3. Organization and clarity of the presentation (whether orally or in writing).
4. Identification of the key drivers and/or forces in the external environment and how that may
affect the future of the firm or the industry.
5. Identification and evaluation of pertinent company’s capabilities, weaknesses, resources, and
sources of competitive advantage in the context of the industry and competitive environment.
6. Clear articulation of the strategic issue you are addressing.
7. Use of professional tools and concepts from the text and lectures. (This includes tools used in
other courses such as ratio analysis or market share analysis.)
8. Alternatives that are realistic and fall from the analysis.
9. Examination of tradeoffs associated with alternatives.
10. Justification for the recommendation that is consistent with company strategy and resources.
11. Use of a “company-wide” view…not just a functional, short-term perspective.

WEAKNESSES IN REPORTS

1. Not well organized or presented clearly.

2. Failure to proofread ANY written material (in written or oral presentation) and correct
obvious misspellings, errors, and sloppy grammar.

11
3. Mere repetition of case facts without analysis. (I.e. Rehash of the facts of the case is not
value added.)
4. Failure to identify outside sources.
5. Exhibits that are extraneous to the analysis. The reader or viewer is left to draw his/her own
conclusions and wonder why the exhibit is there.
6. Failure to ANALYZE. Don’t just give facts, do ANALYSIS!
7. Lack of consideration of non-economic issues (i.e. culture, values, ethics, etc.) if it is
relevant.
8. Failure to support opinions by evidence or logical explanation.
9. Failure to perceive or present an “organizational” or “strategic” viewpoint.
10. Lack of adequate outside research.
11. For oral presentations: Lack of coordination, rehearsal, and preparation.
12. For oral presentations: Dominance by one individual.
13. For oral presentations: Speaking too quietly and/or too quickly.

12