Methodological note to accompany Zandinger!

Role of the Author

The Zandinger! case originated from a single class section in a fourth year entrepreneurship course at the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand. In this case author's experience, one of the best components of an entrepreneurship course is to have local, practicing entrepreneurs come to the class to deliver guest lectures. The case author saw an article in the local paper that described Mr. Knox and his venture, and called him on the phone to inquire about making a presentation to the class. Several factors made that class turn out exceptionally well. Mr. Knox was a good public speaker, he was passionate about his venture, he was already the owner of another small business, and the students were prepared for class (they had been given the newspaper article during the previous class). The case author and Mr. Knox collaborated to determine how to focus the presentation and bow to craft the decision point with which to challenge the students. Based on that class session, the case author wrote Zandinger!

Virtually all of the information regarding the background and current status of the company was provided by the entrepreneur. At the time the case was written, the company had not gone into production, so aside from the one newspaper article, there was no secondary data available on Zandinger! As for industry information, very little information was provided by the entrepreneur. The case writer had several phone conversations with Mr. Knox pertaining to his knowledge of the game and toy industry in New Zealand, and the actions he had taken to advance the prospects of his venture (i.e., patent application, manufacturing options, expert evaluations of the prototype, etc.). The information contributed by Mr. Knox is contained in the first four sections and the last section. All of the information on the global and local toy industry was collected by the case author. To some readers, the inclusion of information about the U.S. and U.K. toy industries may seem odd. The information was included for two reasons. First, the population of New Zealand is so small that most companies headquartered there must export if they seek sustained growth. Mr. Knox explained to the case author that exporting to Australia would be the first step, then probably the U.K. sometime in the future. Second, Mr. Knox was considering how he might approach Mattel and/or Hasbro with an offer to sell the manufacturing rights. In order to make an educated sales pitch, Mr. Knox would need to understand the features of the U.S. market.

Other primary data were collected from telephone interviews with two toy retailers in New Zealand and the executive secretary of the Australian Toy Association. Secondary data were mostly collected from the World Wide Web, at sites designed by the Toy Manufacturers of America (industry trade association), the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the World Factbook 1997.

Case Focus

Zandinger! was designed to mimic the quandary that most prospective entrepreneurs eventually face. The case author regularly advises local residents who have "a great idea" and no idea what to do next. Although Mr. Knox was past that point (he had made a fully functional prototype and had done some informal test marketing), he had reached a plateau in his progress and was wondering what to do next. Since this is such a common struggle among prospective entrepreneurs, the case author recognized it as an ideal focus for the case.

Case Organization

In the original manuscript submitted to Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, the case was written in two parts. Case (A) was organized with the goal of showing the promise in the venture. The following characteristics of the venture were highlighted: Mr. Knox was an experienced and successful entrepreneur; he was enthusiastic about the product; the game of Zandinger! had been tested (and improved) by family and friends; and the game had received a strong review by an industry expert. During the initial class-testing of the case, students were intrigued by the product and seriously considered how to answer the questions posed at the end of Mr. Knox's presentation. So, part (A) was organized to highlight the promise of the product while posing more questions than answers.

In part (B) of the case, much of the optimism was removed. Students realized that launching a venture based on a simple board game is complex and even a bit intimidating, especially when the venture is located halfway around the world (New Zealand) from the major market (U.S.) for the product. Part (B) of the case was organized hierarchically. First was the information about the global toy industry, then the market in New Zealand and Australia, then a bit about the local market in Hamilton, New Zealand. The end of Part (B) returned the reader to Mr. Knox's situation.

The first round of reviews told the author that Zandinger! was not suitable for teaching as a part (A) and (B). All three of the reviewers and the editor indicated that part (A) was not feasible as a stand-alone case. They presented two possible solutions: add enough new material to part (A) to make it a compelling case in its own right, or combine the two parts together into one case. For two reasons, the author implemented the second solution as the main revision to the case.

First, given Mr. Knox's situation, there was little information that could have been added to part (A). Adding much more would have created a case that was different than the dilemma he was facing. For instance, the author could have researched the contract manufacturing rates in New Zealand and Malaysia. The reader then could have been challenged to select the location for manufacturing the components of Zandinger! But manufacturing site information was outside scope of Mr. Knox's current situation, and was also not yet pertinent to the decisions he was making. Another solution might have been to transfer some information from part (A) to (B), but then part (B) would have been weaker.

Second, one reviewer suggested that as a stand-alone case, part (A) might have been more effective in New Zealand than in the U.S. The case was originally written and class tested while the author was working in New Zealand. In that environment, part (A) seemed to work well. But when the author moved to the U.S., the part (A) did not elicit the same kind of response from the students. So it turns out that the reviewer was correct: using part (A) in the U.S. was less effective than it was in New Zealand. Since the case was submitted to a U.S.-based journal and would probably be used mainly in U.S. universities, combining the parts into one longer case made the most sense.

According to the reviewers' requests, a few other important revisions were also made. First, more information was added about the country of New Zealand. While teaching the case in New Zealand, much of that information would have been unnecessary, but will be helpful for readers who are unfamiliar with the location, size, and economy of New Zealand. Second, the reviewers suggested that more background information be added about the background of Geoff Knox. In the revision, the author included information about Geoff's experience in sales, his first venture called The Sweet House, and the work history of his parents. Third, the reviewers requested a more thorough explanation of how the game of Zandinger! was played. The revisions included adding two figures to the case and more details about the rules of Zandinger!