15 PAGES, DOUBLE SPACED, FONT 12 Abstract (5% – 5% of paper length and also 5% of total grade) • Introduce the objective • Briefly discuss hypotheses and data you used • Include key findings • Detail the implications Example: The case of Kodak vs. Fuji This paper analyzes the performance difference between Kodak and Fuji and explores the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance. It is hypothesized that Fuji outperformed Kodak due largely to its poor sensing capability. Additionally, Kodak’s poor decisions compared with Fuji’s led to its demise. Cognitive biases at Kodak (e.g., overconfidence and confirmation bias) are largely attributable for the bad decisions. Our data sources include newspaper articles, annual reports, analyst reports, and company websites. We apply the dynamic capabilities framework to the cases to assess respective sensing, seizing, and transforming capabilities. Our findings support our hypothesis 2 suggesting the Kodak’s failure is attributable to its poor decisions led by confirmation bias and overconfidence. Hypothesis 1, however, was refuted based on our further investigation. A number of patents on key digital technologies owned by Kodak indicate that Kodak had the sensing capability to identify opportunities and threats, which suggests that Kodak had poor seizing capability. A number of managerial implications drawn from our research are discussed. Keywords: Dynamic capabilities, overconfidence, confirmation bias Introduction (15%) • Offer a general statement of your observation/puzzle (e.g., why Fuji outperformed Kodak); present data, graphs on performance comparisons • You should then lay out what you’re trying to achieve with the question you identified (e.g., we aim to investigate the factors that could explain the performance difference). • Introduce the overall structure of the paper Hypotheses (30%) • Develop your hypotheses • Your hypotheses are your proposed explanations, which you will test to determine whether they are true or false • Avoid over-generalizing • Reference reading materials to support why you think the hypothesized relationship will work • Example Sensing capability and firm performance EXPLAIN THE KEY CONCEPT One important cluster of dynamic capabilities is sensing market changes before rivals do (Teece et al., 1997). Especially in turbulent environments, which produces significant uncertainty, it is important to quickly detect shifts and understand their deeper implications for competition. ELABORATE EXPLAIN THE LINK BETWEEN THE CONCEPT AND PERFORMANCE The more complete the information decision makers have about the market, the greater the likelihood they will be able to cope with ambiguity (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988) and uncertainty (Milliken, 1990). ELABORATE Therefore, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1: Fuji outperformed Kodak due largely to its poor sensing capability. Data and analysis (30%) • Define your measures for performance (e.g., revenues, sales growth, market share) and the period of your investigation. • Describe your procedure and data as completely as possible (enough that someone could replicate your investigation). • List the variables used and describe how you measured them (e.g., Kodak’s sensing capability: we consider Kodak’s R&D capability as a proxy for its sensing capability. We collected data on Kodak’s R&D spending and the number of its patents). • Based on data collected, determine whether your hypothesis is true or false. • Discuss how your findings impact the literature you cited (e.g., the dynamic capabilities framework suggests that strong sensing capability is crucial to a firm’s performance. However, our findings imply that sensing capability is not a sufficient condition for superior performance). • Discuss where further research is needed. Conclusion (20%) • Restate and summarize your findings and discussion either to simplify complexity or to highlight the key points. References
