Writing cases and case teaching notes

Introduction
A case is a story, so it has to be interesting, like a story, with a narrative, told and holding to whatever genre is chosen (confessional, detective, fiction, non-fiction).
Cases are also stories, backed up with evidence.
Like any story it needs strong characters, characters written with personalities.
Although unlike stories cases depend on data, on evidence offered in different ways.
Evidence may be peppered or buried within the case narrative, or it may be provided in appendices.
Furthermore, cases are driven by or offer challenges.
Cases generally problematise something or construct a nexus, a point in time, in tension, a point at which key decisions.
However a case may also present an on-going situation rather than a crisis.

Structure
The opening paragraph is the hook.
All writers succeed or fail at the opening.
The first sentence, the first paragraph will either offer your reader an inducement to continue, or put them off.

Exhibits and appendix:
When starting to write a case it may be helpful to prepare the case notes in advance.
For example, corporate results, policy documents or summary, an advertisement, a job description, a cost spreadsheet, a definition, an anecdote, a timeline, samples of before or after artifacts for contrast etc.
A group template

Teaching notes:
Typically teaching notes are x2 pages longer than the case.
How would you use the case for a one class period.
Can the case be used for multiple classes?
Consider one particular overarching question per lesson period.
Teaching notes would tend to include variant lesson plans, structured exercises.
Offer worksheets for use by students perhaps including one or more of the following...
A case may be used to apply two or three different theoretical frameworks e.g. knowledge management, governance, dimensions of distance, supplier perspective, client perspective, lifecycle perspective, technology, power etc. PEST (Political, Economic, Social and Technological) factors, Porter five forces, SWOT, stakeholder analysis, resource analysis,

What kind of case is it?
A capstone case dealing with strategic management?
A mini case dealing with outsourcing governance?

EndNote Web at UCD

Following the tips at UCD's Introduction to EndNote page (link).

1. You'll need to sign in or register to Web of Science.
2. Once the account is registered you can access EndNote web from any browser via http://www.myendnoteweb.com/

The evolution of the Postcode issue in Ireland (2006-2010)

PA Consulting Group produced the "The Monetary Cost and Benefits Analysis Report" of 2006 produced as a contracted input to the newly appointed NPPB. The report opened with the claim that "the utility value of the postcode has increased dramatically with it now being used across a broad range of activities including, the ordering of a taxi, the planning major infrastructure investments, the assessment of risk and the identification of customers in call centre interactions." This variation on previous lists of benefits in the first paragraph of the report, provided a clear statement of priority. 

The CBA report drew on input from 55 stakeholder groups and identified overwhelming support for and perceived value in a National Postcode system. The method used aggregation/extrapolation of representative or estimated costs/benefits at the level of individual entities (consultees), aggregated to industry sector then aggregated to national economy level. The findings were that for the Postal Sector a postcode implementation cost would be ~13.1Million with an on-going annual cost of ~2.2Million. Identified benefits were listed as 1) A saving of up to €0.20 cents per item delivered with the use of a postcode. 2) Improved data quality in databases held by stakeholders. 3) Improved data analysis producing savings, CSO indicated an improvement of 0.2% efficiency would save ~€65Million of voted Government expenditure (p vi). 4) Enhanced services for customers, e.g. reduced on-line or on-call times with customer service operators. Notably the monetary CBA report contrasted the anticipated postcode take-up rate in Ireland with those from Portugal and Northern Ireland to make predictions on the business case (appendix B).

It also referred to the eventual installation of the postcode management licence holder (PMLH) to operate the National Postcode contract. The major deliverable being a PAD (postal address database) with addresses associated with correctly assigned postcodes. The anticipated PAD would contain a geo-referenced address database, postcode boundary definition, and require on-going postcode boundary/geo-location assignment to addresses, maintenance. Notice was also drawn to the IPR (intellectual property right) potential of the PAD and its need for the property to reside with the state, albeit the PMLH would be responsible for managing the resource. 

Design considerations circa 2006

The software consultancy services firm, Version 1, had been contracted to produce a technical specification on 22 Dec 2005. The eventual technical design document (22 pages long) provided a list of 36 different postcode models from which a shortlist of 5 models were short-listed and then further reduced to three. Analysts took account of requirements from: the NSB (National Statistics Board), ISDI (the Irish Spatial Data Infrastructure initiative), public agencies authorities and utilities already compiling and managing spatial databases, postal operators (An Post) and the legal requirement for USO (Universal Service Obligation).

However the Data Protection Commissioner rejected the ‘One-to-One’ postcode-identity model (letter of 26 June 2006), stating that it should not be adopted as it enabled the ready identification of individuals, citing the examples of postcode being used to "identify patterns of crime or illness."(p38, C-2). Therefore a 1:1 PAD would not be desirable, and that any public database linking addresses with geo-coordinates would require a public debate and legal certainty in order to address possible threats to privacy. The Commissioner advised the general principle that the postcode should not allow a property and therefore a family to be identified (NPPB, 2006: Appendix), judging that allocating "a postcode to each individual property would be viewed as intrusive and an infringement of privacy rights." Even if a code did not resolve an individual level, it might still "allow the identification of the ‘family’ and from a data protection perspective, this was not acceptable." (NPPB, 2006: p4). 

It was also envisaged that the Government's own Small Area Spatial Code initiative for electoral subdivisions, census returns etc. would also align with postcode area maps although the systems under consideration did not envisage encoding geo-code data in the postcode. A 'blockface centroid' (centre of the polygon describing a postcode area) could be stored as a lookup field in the PAD (postal address database). The principle of non-identification of the individual effectively determined that the areas encompass multiple addresses and ruled out public access to fine grained geo-coordinate data in or associated with the postcode. The data protection principle required that internal geo-codes could only be used for the delivery of mail and not made publicly accessible. 

The design specification elaborated on three technical design options: 1) Post-town boundary model. 2) Fixed grid model. 3) Postal sector model. It also presented an operational specification and allocation specification. However, without geo-coordinates it would not enable fine location of non-addressable objects such as bridges, electricity poles, transformers, pump stations, signage, traffic lights etc. used by utility services.  The eventual recommendation was for a postcode of the form [ABC] [123]. The format would aid memorability, with the first three characters representing an alpha/alphanumeric abbreviation of the post-town (or existing postcode in the case of Dublin) and the last three numbers acting as a code for a small spatial area.

The NPPB approved the recommendation for a route based postcode system based on Postal-Towns and of the form [ABS] [123] collinear with the small spatial area model (e.g. street side, block, sector, area) but not so small as to publicly identify individuals and addresses. Where non-unique addresses arose e.g. where roads or houses were not currently numbered or named, it was proposed that numbered or named within the scope of the Postcode implementation project.

The NPPB also recommended that the postcode system be operated under a license holder governance model in which the postcode management would be tendered for commercial contract. The Postcode Management Licence Holder (PMLH) option was seen to be preferable due to its perceived independence and the ready availability of expertise in the private sector as opposed to the government sector. 

From Postcode to Address-code; reports and revisions to the postcode project: 2008 - 2010

The period 2008-2010 is marked by a little apparent progress on the postcode project. Postcodes no longer appeared as a strategic issue in ComReg reports now that it had moved under the aegis of the NPPB. The issue also appeared to have moved off the political agenda, making progress slowly in the background.

At the 2007 conference "Postal Services in the 21st Century" Chris Osborne, who had been commissioned by ComReg to research and report on the benefits of opening the postal market to competition, stated that the lack of a public postcode or postcode access file posed a "significant barrier to entry" for new suppliers in the postal services market. Osborne stated that stakeholders believed that rural delivery still required local knowledge. He also claimed that the An Post Group of Trade Unions acknowledged that a public postcode would reduce the margins and profits that An Post received from the Direct Mail industry, that it used in turn to cross fund the Universal Service Provision.

By September 2008, two years after the results of the original comprehensive consultation, PA Consulting produced an updated business case for postcodes. This report appeared to reopen the project requirements and specification by focusing on the benefits to Government Departments. It considered the views of the Departments of: Agriculture, Environment Heritage and Local Government, Health & Children, Social & Family Affairs, Transport, and the Revenue Commissioners. 

The results indicated further support for the introduction of a postcode system but they also raised doubts about the suitability of the proposed six character system itself. The concerns included the need for coherence between the postcode system and "Atomic Small Areas" (ASAs) by the Dept of Environment, Heritage & Local Government). The desire to “harness the full potential of a modern geo-referencing system” expressed by the Dept of Health and Children. And the Dept of Transport expressed a desire for a grid-based model to allow referencing of infrastructural objects on a whole-country basis. 

In contrast with the assessment from 2006 the 2008 report advised that the 2006 Implementation costs were understated by €1,737,336, maintenance costs were overstated by €14,579, and monetary benefits were understated by €3,345,367 per annum (p6). Overall it was estimated that quantifiable benefits would amount up to €22m 15 years (p6).

In April 2010 the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources reported on the Postcodes project. This report dealt explicitly with the opinion of the Data Protection Commissioner in 2006, that allocating postcode to each address would be intrusive and raise privacy issues. The committee found that "The postcode relates not to the person but to the property. If a person moves house they do not take their postcode with them." (p22) The committee determined as follows: 

"1. It is recommended that the Data Protection Commissioner be requested to consider afresh his advice already set out in 2006. It may be that, in light of new technologies, a different approach is possible. 

2. Legal opinion should also be sought to assess the implications of the advice of the Data Protection Commissioner before any final decision on the project is made and, if necessary, new legislation should be considered by the government." (p23) 

In arguing for an address code as opposed to a postal-sector code the committee quoted a major Irish bank's claim that "precise addressing of every deliverable address in Ireland... "should lead to improvements... (in) Customer Identification and Data Protection." (p26) 

Further support for a postcode design that incorporated individual address codes was offered by the Health Intelligence section of the Health Service Executive. In a letter from the HSE (appendix 1) it was stated "that an area based system (hide one property within so many other properties which may be miles apart) is inappropriate, unnecessary, outdated and a waste of resources". The letter outlined sixteen benefits of a location postcode, including spatial analysis of health issues, stating that an area based system could not overcome the non-unique address problem and or improve equity of service response between rural and urban areas, both identified as 'fatal limitations' of an area code" system (p37).  Prof. A Stewart Fotheringham of the National Centre for Geocomputation at NUI Maynooth provided further arguments in support of a postcode that referenced at the level of individual buildings.

By December 2010, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR) sought an update on the proposal requirements and cost-benefit analysis in 2010 (ref) in advance of commending the procurement process to award a Postcode Management License Holder (PMLH) and contract the implementation of the National Postcode System (NPS). PA Consulting Group was again responsible for producing the report. 

This report incorporated the intent of the Oireachtas Committee including estimates of the costs of implementing a 'postal sector model' compared with a 'refined postal sector model'. The 'refined postal sector model' (a postal address code rather than a postcode) would provide 'unique address point identification' which it was claimed would produce significant benefits. Under the heading "Optimum Technical Specification" the report stated that "In order to further magnify the extent of the benefits identified in this report it shall be necessary to refine the model as proposed by the NPPB to facilitate unique address identification". No further mention was made of the earlier concerns raised by the Data Protection Commissioner in 2006 regarding the perceived issues of mapping a code to each individual addressable property. The resolution of this objection presumably being satisfied following the deliberations of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Oireachtas, 2010).

plotly

plotly may be worth considering for graphing and visualisation. An example of someone's graph of their personal weather station data.

https://plot.ly/~flann321/9/