The Case of Two Schools

Both IIM-A and Harvard Business School use case studies as a key learning aid, but they do it differently.

Both IIM-A and Harvard Business School use case studies as a key learning aid, but they do it differently.

I came back into academics 17 years ago, after a 22-year-long stint in industry. My first exposure to the case method of learning in B-schools occurred with visiting professors of IIM-A (Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad). The school used to orient students as soon as they joined the programme towards the ‘case method of learning’ by inviting an IIM-A professor. His focus was on how this method leads to the formation-deformation and reformation of learning. It was left to the students to judge how this method of learning was different from what they had undergone in their previous phases of education.

The significance of small-group discussions and large-group discussions was emphasised. Later, during the running of different courses, these professors used cases written by IIM-A, either published or still at draft stage. These cases were not necessarily the work of the teaching professor. Most of these appeared to be the result of some field study, or arising out of some consultancy done by the faculty. Most of the cases happened to be only for classroom use at IIM-A, and were still at draft stage. This may have been because the business organisation may not have given permission to use them elsewhere.

There was usually no standard ‘teaching note’ available with the concerned professor. I understand the purpose of not having a teaching note was to encourage free thinking on the case situation, without any guidance from the protagonist. However, the teaching faculty did carry some notes to class, such as numerical calculations from the data given in the case, and at times even handwritten overhead transparencies.

For each class/session, the students have a topic for discussion, some reading material and a case with some leading questions. Before the class, it was expected that the students should have read the material suggested and should have prepared the case at a small-group discussion. The class was supposed to be the large-group and final stage of formation-deformation and reformation of learning. Later, I learnt as part of faculty in another IIM where the majority were IIM-A-oriented, that they were expected to load the students with an average of 50 pages for each class.

During the class, each professor has his own way of handling the case. Generally, based on the understanding of the teacher, the involvement of the learner varies.

Some of the professors talk about the case themselves, and narrate the case facts to bring the situation into focus. Some keep on questioning the students, and in the absence of satisfactory responses, struggle to create alternatives with the help of the learners. Generally, they refrain from narrating what happens thereafter. Other support methods like role-plays and videos are rarely used. It remains chalk and talk only.

There are a few significant differences between the approaches of the two schools. I recently went to a ‘participant-centred learning’ colloquium at Harvard Business School (HBS). The participant-centred approach makes for better learning. IIM-A also uses the case study method, but the commitment of HBS to this method is absolute.

HBS is happy if a professor, not wedded to the method, decides to leave after a few years spent there in trying out the case study method. Each professor is encouraged to write his or her own cases. It is part of one’s job. HBS is able to continuously generate new cases, and this provides a wide choice of cases to choose from. However, no case, even if it is an arm-chair case, is included if it is not approved by the business organisation. A professor can use only Harvard cases. This implies that before launching a new course, the faculty is required to develop sufficient expertise in the area by writing real life cases. Certainly, the faculty is required to be familiar with the concepts and research in that field.

A professor generally uses cases which he has written and he enjoys priority in using those in his classes. If another professor wants to use that case, he seeks permission from the case writer. All cases generally have a registered ‘teaching note’, which describe how the case can be used in class. Involvement of the author in writing the teaching note is emphasised. This serves as a guide to other teachers. Still, the faculty is free to innovate and put the case to new uses.

Each faculty member elaborately prepares for an 80-minute class, in terms of what the class aims to do in the different time intervals. Since HBS has ten sections, there is a multi-disciplinary faculty group for teaching every course.

Every Friday, this group of professors reviews the sessions held and planned for next week. They also discuss the alternative teaching plans. Only then does each professor decide the introductory remark, opening question and concluding remarks.

This elaborate planning enables the faculty to involve the learners more intensely, by having at least two alternates for the discussions every time. Learners are encouraged to participate, and participation may even involve grading—to the extent of 50 per cent of the total grade. Extensive support of videos, role-plays and involvement of the protagonist of the case is taken. At the end of each module of the course, some instructors also provide capstone learning of the module, linking it with the learning drawn from the cases covered. Extensive research is, therefore, done by the instructor to pick suitable cases.

Infrastructure in the class allows the instructor to manage time and content efficiently. The infrastructure includes: multiple boards with a provision for at least six boards in one view and their simultaneous use as screens for a projector, overhead projector for straight viewing from hard copy, apart from possible viewing from a laptop computer and chalks of many different colours. While conducting the class, depending upon the quality of discussion, the professor modulates the time plan but never ignores the final objective to be attained, as planned.

Still, my experience with a few of the instructors left me with an impression that the method is possibly more instructor-led than student-led. Maybe this happened because the members of my participant group were less prepared, compared to regular HBS students. In an executive programme, perhaps the Kellogg method of preparing participants for executive education could be adopted.

To prepare for the class, students have access to several well-equipped syndicate rooms where they can conduct small-group discussions and other pre-class activities. There is free access to these rooms, and they even have underground access so that the students can reach them even if it is snowing heavily outside.

This physical infrastructure is on top of the overall culture created by the student community, which essentially means that students go to small-group discussion before they come to the class of 90 students. This ensures that the quality of participation is of high order in the class. There is no concept of adopting a textbook to conduct the course. Students are encouraged by the system to read up on the topic. The library and information system helps them make choices. This leads to more research and quality reading by individual students.

The author is a professor of marketing at the International Management Institute, Delhi, and has been a Fellow at Kellogg School of Management, North Western University.

About The Author

SR Singhvi