Jay Barney describes a coin flip exercise to make the point that innovation might be modeled as an outcome of pure luck. If so, how can firms manage such processes? The exercise is simple:
- Distribute coins to the class and have them flip.
- Those who flip “heads” remain standing, “tails” sit down (unless everyone gets a tail – then they remain standing)
- Repeat until one person is standing & pass all coins to him/her
Discussion focuses on several key points (Russ Coff’s slides emphasize real options):
- What capabilities/skills did the winner have? Make a big show of trying to find out how the winner did it (it’s all in the wrist, etc.). Often the winner will have flipped 5 in a row or more (a 3% probability?). People will laugh since they know it’s luck.
- Is it possible that innovative companies are just lucky? We don’t see a lot of repeat innovators and, if it is luck, even these might be explained.
- Selection bias is a problem if we try and draw conclusions by only looking at winners. In a population (like the class), the probability that someone will flip 5 in a row is rather high. We can only identify causality if we study the whole population.
- If it is luck, how should one manage investment? This is a nice lead in for portfolios of strategic investments/real options or superior expectations/forecasting.
Contributed by Jay Barney
The 
The attached PowerPoint file contains a list of what to prepare before class (slide 1) and the slides for class, including discussion and wrap up slides. It is best to go over the directions in detail in class as, unfortunately, students often do not read the directions very carefully; the verbal overview also gets them thinking about setting up a divisional vs. a functional structure for the task. It really is worth stressing the fact that they need to set up a structure. Choose an external quality control group at the beginning of class — Purposefully pick students who are quick and pay attention to detail for this task, as it will have to be completed in a short period of time.Overall, what tends to happen is that both groups improve from trial 1 to trial 2, however the functional group improves by a much greater amount and generally has fewer QC errors (i.e. words used repeatedly).
Reprinted here with permission of author Jeffrey Barach along with my PointPoint slides I use to administer the case.
The mid course evaluation or any other feedback from students (such as the 
A number of excellent suggestions came out of the SMS Teaching Community session on using videos in class. Eventually, all of these will be integrated into this site. Here are a few additional video libraries you may wish to check out.
Here are some popular case repositories:
The article describes how William Johnson was designated as CEO of Duke Energy after its acquisition of Progress Energy and how he was fired after only two hours. The original M&A agreement included a condition that stated that the CEO of the target (Progress Energy) would be named CEO of the merged company. However, he was fired two hours after the designation and the CEO of the acquirer (Duke Energy) was named CEO of the merged company. I think this article could motivate to further study this acquisition. It seems to be a novel illustration of a hostile acquisition.