ISSN 1940-204X

SPECIAL REPORT

The IMA Educational Case Journal:

A Retrospective of the First Five Years (2008-2012)
Timothy C. Miller, PhD, CPA Sean A. Peffer, PhD, CPA Matthew T. Sooy Dan N. Stone, PhD, CPA
Xavier University University of Kentucky University of Kentucky University of Kentucky (inactive)

THIS REPORT PROVIDES A GUIDE TO the first five years of cases published in the IMA® Educational Case Journal
(IECJ). Its goal is to promote the use of IECJ cases by facilitating instructors’ case searches based on teaching needs. It
indexes published IECJ cases, classifying them according to several teaching-relevant dimensions: managerial account-
ing topic, CMA® (Certified Management Accountant) topic, target audience, case firm size, case industry, case firm legal
entity type, and number of case downloads. It concludes with an analysis of case contributors and potential areas where
future work could better link management accounting instruction and case use. It also provides an electronic resource to
facilitate identifying relevant cases.1

INTRODUCTION Specifically, this paper investigates the following questions:

What is the topical focus of each case, as evaluated by

1. 
This report summarizes and organizes the first five years of
independent readers and as stated by case authors?3
cases (N = 64) of the IMA Educational Case Journal (IECJ).
2. Who is the target audience of each case? Is this audience
This fills a gap in the accounting education literature.
likely to understand the case?
Several papers review the accounting education literature,
3. What is the size of the focal companies in the cases?
including two reviews of accounting education cases.2 But
4. What are the industry settings of cases?
we are unaware of reviews of, or guides to, IECJ cases. This
5. Which cases are set in for-profit vs. not-for-profit
article addresses the gap by providing a guide for locating
organizations?
cases that cover specific management accounting content.
6. Which cases occur in corporations, partnerships,
Its primary objective is facilitating management accounting
governmental entities, or proprietorships?
instructors’ case-searching skills. Ultimately, by matching
7. Who gets published in IECJ? What are case authors’
instruction topics to relevant cases, it should improve the use
institutional affiliations and the research level of those
of cases and the instruction of management accounting.
affiliations?
8. Which cases are used most frequently?

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 1 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

 Answers to these questions and supporting analyses are
presented in two formats: (1) a downloadable, indexed Excel
spreadsheet to allow for easy referencing of data to assist
instructors in course preparation and instruction (available
to IMA Academic Members in the Teaching Notes section
on IMA’s website) and (2) highlights provided in this paper
designed to help readers quickly locate relevant cases,
organized with the aid of an indexed reference in Appendix
1, which lists the cases in the first five years of the IECJ
sequentially from 1-64 and separates them into panels
by volumes 1-5 (See Appendix 1, panels A-E). Each case
includes the index number, title, author(s), publication year,
and issue. This index number from Appendix 1 is then used
as the reference (or primary key) in the tables. The Excel file
works in a similar fashion but allows for greater ease of use
because of capabilities such as electronic query and sorting.
METHOD
Two raters, working independently, coded the cases. Raters
had a combined nine years of professional accounting
experience (seven and two years, respectively) and 11 years
of accounting education (2.5 and 8.5 years, respectively).
Raters independently read and categorized each case by
topic (Q1a), industry (Q4), organization objective (Q5), and
legal structure (Q6). Next the raters used both the cases
and the teaching notes to classify cases by case author
topics (Q1b), target audience (Q2), and focal company size
(Q3). The remaining research questions (Q7 and Q8) were
assessed using additional data sources, including download
counts from IMA’s website and rankings from the Carnegie
Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.4
Raters categorized cases as referencing a topic (Q1a) if
they determined that the case would be useful for teaching
the concept. To ensure that topics reflected a core case focus
rather than tangential issues, raters limited the number
of topical classifications to three or fewer per case. This
design choice strengthens the descriptive usefulness of
case keywords in searches. For the classifications relating to
industry (Q4) and type (Q5 and Q6), raters determined (first
individually and then through discussion) the case content
and claims. Alternatively, if the case was silent to industry
and type, raters inferred classification. The remaining
classifications followed similar protocols. The two raters,
working independently, assessed topical classifications by
keyword and learning objective (Q1b), target audience
(Q2), and company size (Q3) and reconciled any differences
through discussion.
IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL
Thus each case was coded for topic twice—once
using case-author-generated keywords and once using
independently classified keywords. The rationale for
providing two classification methods for topics is to balance
completeness (i.e., citing all relevant topics for a case)
with precision (i.e., citing primary topics of the case).
Accordingly, independently determined keywords and
keywords provided by the case author(s) trend toward the
endpoints of this spectrum since raters were limited to three
or fewer keywords, while case authors provided as many as
10 keywords for some cases. Thus, the dual classifications
are complementary, not redundant. Each classification
potentially adds value, dependent on the goals of the case-
seeking instructor.
Because the independent raters are experienced
managerial accounting course instructors, the extent of their
agreement on the topical focus of a case is useful information
regarding the clarity of the case’s topical content. Inter-rater
agreement statistics for the topical classifications ranged
from very low (0.25) to perfect (1.0) with an average of 0.65.5
Appendix 2 lists all individual inter-rater agreement statistics
and procedures (See Appendix 2 and panels A and B).
Disagreements were resolved by consulting the teaching notes
for the cases and through discussion, including consulting
a third rater. The third rater has 20 years of managerial
accounting teaching experience and six years of professional
managerial accounting work experience. Inter-rater agreement
for the remaining classifications performed in this report
ranged from 0.44 to 0.94 (average = 0.8).
Q1A: TOPICAL CLASSIFICATION BY RATERS
Before classifying, a list of managerial accounting topics (n =
24) was generated from two commonly used texts: Managerial
Accounting by Ray Garrison, Eric Noreen, and Peter C.
Brewer and Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis by Charles
Horngren, Srikant Datar, and Madhav Rajan.6 These topics
comprise the standard array of topics generally associated
with management accounting, such as cost-volume profit
(CVP) and performance measurement. While it was
expected that topics would be added (e.g., fraud analysis),
an initial list of topics generated from texts commonly used
in managerial accounting courses was useful as a common
starting vocabulary for topical classification.
The benchmark for classifying a case was instructional
usefulness, meaning that the case coverage related to a topic:
(1) had sufficient depth to increase student understanding
and (2) was incrementally relevant compared to an assumed
base knowledge for managerial accounting students who had
2 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014
completed the relevant chapter in an introductory managerial
textbook. For instance, although many cases referenced
companies with an international footprint, only cases that
sufficiently discussed multinational operations to assist
instruction were classified as “multinational considerations.”
The inter-rater agreement calculation was based on the
original categories and additional classifications included as
“other.” Following these procedures, 21 cases were assigned to
a single topic, 29 cases to two topics, and 14 cases to three topics
for a total of 120 topical classifications (1.88 topics per case
across 31 topical classifications). (See Table 1 for classifications.)
Q1B: TOPICAL CLASSIFICATION BY CASE AUTHOR
KEYWORDS OR LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Topical classifications by raters (Table 1) and keywords
and learning objective classification identified by the case
author (Table 2) generally agree. Differences are primarily
because of the greater specificity and completeness of
author-supplied keywords. That is, raters utilized 120 topics
in total (or less than two topics per case on average) while
case authors supplied as many as 10 keywords for their cases,
resulting in 284 different classifications (or an average of
approximately 4.5 per case).
Because of parsimony concerns, the information
summarized in Table 2 is slightly modified from the keyword
list of 284 topics available in the electronic reference. Similar
keywords (e.g., “green technology” and “green energy
investments”) and acronyms (e.g., “BSC” and “balanced
scorecard”) are combined in the table. In addition, only
topics or keywords that appear more than once are included
in the table. Furthermore, 122 appear only once and
therefore are omitted from the table. The remaining 162
topical classifications are found in Table 2, while all 284
unmodified classifications appear in the Excel spreadsheet.7
Q2: TARGET AUDIENCE
For some cases, the authors identified multiple target
audiences (e.g., undergraduate cost accounting or
introductory managerial accounting). Raters used four
different target audience classifications based on the explicit,
or implicit, claims of the authors in the teaching notes: (1)
introductory undergraduate accounting students (sophomore
level), (2) upper-level accounting students (junior/senior),
(3) graduate students (MAcc or MBA), or (4) professionals
(executive or professional). For cases with multiple target
audiences, raters indicated all enumerated audiences.
IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL
Table 3 summarizes and aggregates the data and
assesses whether the reading grade level of the case exceeds
that of the author-supplied target audience. Reading
level is assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid grade level
comprehension statistic, which measures at what U.S. grade
level a student should be able to understand the material.8
For example, using a case among college sophomores would
suggest a required Flesch-Kincaid grade level statistic of
14 or less, while a case for graduate students would be 17
or less. Results indicate a range of case readability from
sixth to 16th grade reading level (mean = 12.2, standard
deviation = 1.9). Cases 57 and 59 were both intended
for introductory audiences but required higher levels of
reading comprehension than would be expected of their
target audience. Hence 98.6% of cases are suitable for their
proposed target audiences (142/144).
Q3: FOCAL COMPANY SIZE
Most cases provide information that allows for classification
of focal companies by size. Case classifications by size
appear in Table 4, Panel B. While there are many standards
and methods for size classification, we employ European
Commission standards, which include bright-line delineations
based on company work force, total assets, and/or net
revenue.9 The standards include four size categories—micro,
small, medium, and large (see Table 4, Panel A). The three
classification criteria (workforce, total assets, and net revenue)
generally covary (i.e., a medium company by workforce
also was generally medium by total assets). In some cases,
however, classifications were unclear. For instance, in case
55, “Sewmex: Short-Term Profit Planning in an International
Setting,” Sewmex is classified as large according to workforce
but as micro based on revenues. In these cases, raters classified
and resolved conflicts through discussion.
Q4: INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION
Table 5 partitions the cases into primary (Panel A) and
secondary (Panel B) industry classifications using the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) North American Industry
Classifications (NAICS).10 For this classification, raters
chose a single industry for each case dependent on the focal
company. A single discrete agreement statistic is calculated
for the primary (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.937) and secondary
classifications (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.791). Agreement statistics
indicate high levels of rater agreement for this classification
(see Table 5).
3 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014
Q5 AND Q6: ORGANIZATION TYPE
Table 6 classifies cases by organization goal (e.g., not-
for-profit or for-profit) and legal organization type
(e.g., corporation, governmental entity, partnership, or
proprietorship) in Panels A and B, respectively. Some cases
explicitly stated these classifications. In the remaining cases,
raters inferred classifications. For instance, case 46, “À
Votre Santé: Product Costing and Decision Analysis in the
Wine Industry,” describes a family-owned company. Raters
assumed that this was a partnership organizational structure,
including LLCs, because of multiple family members’
involvement. Because some cases did not explicitly state
organization types, the level of agreement among coders was
low for legal organization type (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.443) but
higher for profit orientation (Cohen’s Kappa =0.715).
Q7: AUTHOR DEMOGRAPHICS AND AFFILIATIONS
Panel A in Table 7 presents the most frequently published
case authors and their affiliations. Panel B presents the
institutions whose case authors have most frequently
published cases, and Panel C presents the institutional
designation provided by Carnegie Rankings.11 A total of 105
case authors, with affiliations to 58 institutions, have been
published in the first five issues of IECJ. Most publishing
case authors are affiliated with U.S. institutions (84.6%),
while 8.8% are affiliated with Canadian institutions, and the
remaining 6.6% with institutions outside of North America.
Q8: FREQUENCY OF USE
The frequency of teaching note downloads from IMA’s
website provides a rough estimate of the demand for IECJ
cases. Table 8 presents the average number of downloads
by publication year. For example, the cases published in
2008 have been, on average, downloaded 16.76 times. The
download data indicate increasing case use across the five-
year history of the journal. For example, cases published in
2012 have almost three times as many downloads as the cases
published in 2008. The five most frequently downloaded
cases, from most popular to least, are cases 57, 56, 53, 51,
and 41. Reflecting the trend toward increasing downloads for
more recent cases, three of the most frequently downloaded
cases are from volume 5, and two are from volumes 4 and 3.
A search of the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
identifies cases that are available to IMA nonmembers.12
Seven cases and teaching notes (3, 8, 12, 16, 38, 47, and 52)
are available through the SSRN. The abstracts of the cases
IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL
available on the SSRN have been downloaded an average
of 212.7 times, suggesting that the public posting of cases to
SSRN may increase their use.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCES AND AVAILABILITY
OF ONLINE CASE SOLUTIONS
We searched for materials to supplement the classroom use
of cases. For some cases (such as No. 3), authors have posted
unpublished support materials that include their teaching
experiences with the cases and supplementary supporting
computations.13 In addition, for some cases (such as No. 4)
former students have posted solutions, often through study-
sharing websites that enable current students to review the
answers of prior students, sometimes for a fee. While study-
share websites and the public availability of case solutions
represent a potential risk to instructors hoping students will
conduct independent case analysis, two factors mitigate
this risk. First, plagiarism from online solutions is relatively
easy to detect once an instructor is aware of the source
solutions and/or through plagiarism detection services such
as Turnitin.com or SafeAssign (available through Blackboard
2013).14 Second, search results indicate that, for most cases,
there are no publicly available solutions. To the extent that
solution availability is related to the number of students who
have created solutions, the lack of public case solutions for
many cases underscores our belief that these cases, although
valuable, may be under-utilized.
SUGGESTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
Results suggest that some managerial accounting topics are
potentially under-represented. For instance, there were no
IECJ cases relating to a number of topics commonly taught
in management accounting courses (for example, job costing
and statement of cash flows). This leads to three speculative
questions regarding this lacuna:
Are these areas taught but are of little practical interest to
1. 
managerial accountants?
Are these areas taught and considered important by
2. 
practicing managerial accountants but insufficiently
complex to provide the basis for a rich and compelling
case study?
Are these areas taught and a potential focus of future
3. 
cases for IECJ?
In addition, we also note that the modal case concerns
a corporate (75%), for-profit (53%), manufacturing (47%)
4 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014
company. We can ask for similar speculations of such data, Thus multiple search criteria may be explored, without the
including whether it suggests the interests of practicing need to cross-reference tables.
managerial accountants, the availability or suitability of
industries for case analysis, or if there is a need for more ENDNOTES
nonprofit partnerships engaged in public administration.
Unfortunately, the available data on case use is limited 1
See the Excel spreadsheet (“IECJ Index”) in the Teaching
to IMA and SSRN downloads, which are at best a rough Note section of IMA’s website. You must be an IMA
measure. While collecting better data on the demand for the Academic Member to view the Teaching Notes. You
cases (i.e., the pedagogical use of accounting cases, both in can learn about membership through IMA’s website:
IECJ and more broadly) is useful in assessing the market www.imanet.org.
value of this body of academic work, we are unaware of data 2
 arbara Apostolou, Jack W. Dorminey, John M. Hassell, and
B
resources beyond those reported herein.
Stephanie F. Watson, “Accounting Education Literature
This article is designed to serve as a reference and guide
Review (2010-2012),” Journal of Accounting Education, June
for locating cases published in the first five years of IECJ
2013, pp. 107-161; Barbara Apostolou, John M. Hassell,
for educational use. That is, this article retrospectively focuses
James E. Rebele, and Stephanie F. Watson, “Accounting
on facilitating the use of the supply of published cases. But
Education Literature Review (2006-2009),” Journal of
a prospective need remains for generating and using high-
Accounting Education, September 2010, pp. 145-197; Barbara
quality cases for, say, additional exploration of the demand
Apostolou, Stephanie F. Watson, John M. Hassell, and Sally
for teaching cases. For instance, case editors and case writers
A. Webber, “Accounting Education Literature Review
would benefit from knowing the unmet and over-met needs,
(1997-1999),” Journal of Accounting Education, Spring
including where future cases could most benefit instructors’
2001, pp. 1-61; James E. Rebele, Barbara A. Apostolou,
goals. Separately, case writers and instructors would benefit
Frank A. Buckless, John M. Hassell, Larry R. Paquette,
from knowing the current extent of case use. For instance,
and David E. Stout, “Accounting Education Literature
how many cases do instructors typically use in a semester?
Review (1991-1997), Part II: Students, Educational
Which discussion/follow-up questions are most/least helpful?
Technology, Assessment and Faculty Issues,” Journal of
What makes teaching notes instructor-friendly vs. hostile?
Accounting Education, August 1998, pp. 179-245; James E.
Are teaching cases used more in advanced courses than
Rebele, Barbara A. Apostolou, Frank A. Buckless, John
introductory managerial accounting courses? Research,
M. Hassell, Laurence R. Paquette, and David E. Stout,
perhaps employing a survey method, could investigate
“Accounting Education Literature Review (1991-1997),
these questions. This information would benefit all parties
Part I: Curriculum and Instructional Approaches,” Journal
involved: editors, case writers, instructors, and students.
of Accounting Education, Winter 1998, pp. 1-51; James E.
In summary, the first five years of published cases in IECJ
Rebele, David E. Stout, and John M. Hassell, “A Review of
represents a rich and diverse source of cases. This collection is
Empirical Research in Accounting Education: 1985-1991,”
an important and valuable, though potentially under-utilized,
Journal of Accounting Education, Autumn 1991, pp. 167-231;
resource. We are encouraged and thankful that IMA provides an
Alan Reinstein and James R. Hasselback, “A Literature
increasing, high-quality collection of cases for classroom use.
Review of Articles Assessing the Productivity of Accounting
Faculty Members,” Journal of Accounting Education, Summer
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
1997, pp. 425-455; Stephanie F. Watson, Barbara Apostolou,
John M. Hassell, and Sally A. Webber, “Accounting
The Excel spreadsheet includes all of the case information
Education Literature Review (2000-2002),” Journal of
discussed herein but with several advantages.15 Foremost,
Accounting Education, December 2003, pp. 267-325; and
the spreadsheet includes categorical filters that enable
Stephanie F. Watson, Barbara Apostolou, John M. Hassell,
customized searches. Instructors may apply filters, based
and Sally A. Webber, “Accounting Education Literature
on their educational needs, to one or multiple categories
Review (2003-2005),” Journal of Accounting Education, 2007,
simultaneously. After doing so, the spreadsheet will
pp. 1-58. The two reviews of educational cases include:
automatically filter out cases that do not meet the instructors’
Marlys Gascho Lipe, “Using Cases Published in Issues in
search criteria, resulting in a shortened list of potential
Accounting Education: Categories and Topics at a Glance,”
targets. Additionally, because the spreadsheet is not subject
Issues in Accounting Education, November 2006, pp. 417-430
to printed space requirements, it includes all categorizations.

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 5 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

 and Gerald P. Weinstein, “A Tool for Accessing Accounting
Cases,” Journal of Accounting Education, 2005, pp. 204-214.
3
Beginning with the journal’s second year, keywords are
provided in the teaching notes. In the absence of keywords
for the first year, the raters inferred keywords from the
teaching notes. In the remaining four years, keywords were
provided by the author(s) of the cases.
4
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, “Institution Lookup,” http://classifications.
carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/institution.php.
5
Anthony J. Viera and Joanne M. Garrett, “Understanding
Interobserver Agreement: The Kappa Statistic,” Family
Medicine, May 2005, pp. 360-363.
6
 ay Garrison, Eric Noreen, and Peter C. Brewer, Managerial
R
Accounting, 14th Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, N.Y.,
January 2011 and Charles T. Horngren, Srikant M. Datar,
and Madhav V. Rajan, Cost Accounting: A Managerial
Emphasis, 14th Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
N.J., January 2011.
7
See the Teaching Note section of IMA’s website for Excel
spreadsheet (“IECJ Index”).
8
Microsoft Corporation, “Test Your Document’s
Readability,” Microsoft Office Help, http://office.microsoft.
com/en-us/word-help/test-your-document-s-readability-
HP010148506.aspx#BM2.
9
European Commission, “The New SME Definition: User
Guide and Model Declaration,” Enterprise and Industry
Publications, 2005. Translation of euro denominations into
U.S. dollars is based on the exchange rate of $1.35 to €1 (as
of November 2013).
IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL
10
Bureau of Labor Statistics, “BLS Standard for Sector
Aggregation Titles for NAICS,” October 20, 2008,
www.bls.gov/bls/naics_aggregation.htm.
11
Carnegie Foundation, http://classifications.
carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/institution.php.
12
Social Science Electronic Network (SSRN), 2014,
www.ssrn.com/en.
13
Alfred J. Nanni Jr., Dessislava Pachamanova, and Julia
Shanks, “Even’ Star Organic Farm,” SSRN, July 2007,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1003386
and Paul Mulligan, Alfred J. Nanni Jr., and Shahid Ansari,
“Hammond Cards, Inc: The Creative Acquisition,” SSRN,
July 2006, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=921475.
14
Blackboard, “SafeAssign,” https://help.blackboard.com/
en-us/Learn/9.1_SP_10_and_SP_11/Administrator/110_
Building_Blocks/010_Featured_Building_Blocks/
SafeAssign.
15
See the Teaching Note section of IMA’s website for Excel
spreadsheet (“IECJ Index”).
ABOUT IMA®
With a worldwide network of more than 65,000 professionals,
IMA (Institute of Management Accountants) is the world’s
leading organization dedicated to empowering accounting
and finance professionals to drive business performance.
IMA provides a dynamic forum for professionals to advance
their careers through CMA® (Certified Management
Accountant) certification, research, professional education,
networking, and advocacy of the highest ethical and
professional standards. For more information about IMA,
please visit www.imanet.org.
6 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014
Appendix 1: Listing of IMA Cases and Referenced Index (Volumes 1–5)
Panel A – Volume 1 Cases
Index Issue Year Title Authors
1 1 2008 Coors Balanced Scorecard: A Decade Of Experience Hugh Grove, Tom Cook, and Ken Richter
2 1 2008 Measuring And Controlling Value Created In Endesa Gary M. Cunningham and Scott Eriksen
3 1 2008 Hammond Cards, Inc: The Creative Acquisition Paul Mulligan, Alfred Nanni, Jr., and Shahid Ansari
4 1 2008 Mercedes-Benz All Activity Vehicle (AAV) Tom Albright
5 1 2008 TRIM Inc. Audrey Taylor
6 2 2008 Forest Hill Paper Company Thomas L. Albright
7 2 2008 Frosty Footwear, Inc.: Business Valuations Hugh Grove, Tom Cook, and Lisa Victoravich
8 2 2008 Calzados Pezutti Sociedad Anónima (CalPe SA) Marcela Porporato and Nelson Waweru
9 2 2008 Financial Services Corporation: Implementing an HR Balanced Scorecard Laurie Burney and Amy Paul
10 2 2008 Procomp Informatics: Stepping on Ethical Landmines in Asia Amy H. Lau and Claudia Huey-Ling Woo
11 3 2008 Aero Gear, Inc.: Performance Measurement, Cost Management, Larry Grasso
and Product Costing in a Lean Transition
12 3 2008 Delivering the Irving Promise Larry Carr
13 3 2008 Kiva Asbjorn Osland
14 3 2008 Pelarsen Windows: Humans v. Robots Shahid Ansari, Paul Mulligan, and Alfred J. Nanni, Jr.
15 3 2008 Northlake Bookstore: Benchmarking for Performance Evaluation Hugh Grove, Tristy Hillestad, and Lisa M. Victoravich
16 4 2008 Nypro, Inc Larry Carr
17 4 2008 Creating a Lean Enterprise: The Case of the Lebanon Gasket Company Peter Brewer and Frances Kennedy
18 4 2008 Activity-Based Management in Shell Gabon Shahid Ansari and Jan Bell

Appendix 1: Listing of IMA Cases and Referenced Index (Volumes 1–5)

Panel B – Volume 2 Cases
Index Issue Year Title Authors
19 1 2009 Embezzlement at Sanchou College Avinash Arya and Jui-Chin Chang
20 1 2009 TallTree2 Hotel Casino John R. Mills and Jeffrey Wong
21 1 2009 Tri-Cities Community Bank – A Balanced Scorecard Case Tom Albright, Stan Davis, and Aleecia R. Hibbets
22 2 2009 Agile Machinery Group, Inc. – Rental Operations Analysis DeWayne L. Searcy and Tina M. Loraas
23 2 2009 Buns Bakery: Creating and Using a Master Budget Jason C. Porter and Teresa Stephenson
24 2 2009 Luxor Cosmetics Laura Hopkins and Shane Moriarity
25 3 2009 Ace Fertilizer Company: Ethical Cost Allocations and Price Determination Jerry Kreuze and Sheldon Langsam
26 3 2009 Turnaround and Down with Richard Brown: EDS 1999-2003 Norman T. Sheehan
27 3 2009 Competing with Fast Fashion at Zara Tom Klammer
28 4 2009 Creating Incentives for Change by Keeping Score Linda L. Brennan and D. David McIntyre
29 4 2009 My CPA Saved Me Millions…Or Did He? A Case Study of Professional Ethics and Robin Boneck and David S. Christensen
the SC2 Tax Planning Strategy
30 4 2009 Newport Home: Multichannel Merchandising and Inventory Management Regina M. Anctil, P. Jane Saly, and Michael E. Borneman

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 7 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

Appendix 1: Listing of IMA Cases and Referenced Index (Volumes 1–5)
Panel C – Volume 3 Cases
Index Issue Year Title Authors
31 1 2010 Argento Dairy Farm Marcela Porporato and Nelson Waweru
32 1 2010 Haworth, Inc.: Building for the Triple Bottom Line Paulette Ratliff-Miller
33 1 2010 JEA: On the Road to Cost Transparency John B. MacArthur, Jeffrey E. Michelman,
Bobby E. Waldrup, and Dana M. Wallace
34 2 2010 Johnson & Johnson: A Case Study on Sustainability Reporting Susan Borkowski, Mary Jeanne Welsh, and
Kristin Wentzel
35 2 2010 Kenco Engineering Corporation: Strategy-Driven Costing and Lean Management James T. Mackey, H. David Brecht, and Vernon Hughes
36 2 2010 Performance Management at Perelson Weiner, LLP Jan Bell, Alfred J. Nanni, Jr., and Shahid Ansari
37 2 2010 Alternative Costing Methods: Precision Paint Shop’s Dilemma Eileen Peacock and Paul Juras
38 3 2010 Even’ Star Organic Farm Alfred J. Nanni, Jr., Dessislava Pachamanova, and
Julia Shanks
39 3 2010 The Pudong Coffee Shop Peter Clarke
40 4 2010 Appaloosa County Day Care Center, Inc. Kristen Irwin, Debra Kerby, and Sandra Weber
41 4 2010 Bridgestone Behavioral Health Center: Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP) Analysis for Ronald Kucic, James E. Sorensen, and Lisa M. Victoravich
Planning and Control
42 4 2010 City of Waterloo, Iowa: Organizing a Chief Financial Officer Function William F. Bowlin and Margaret L. Andersen

Appendix 1: Listing of IMA Cases and Referenced Index (Volumes 1–5)

Panel D – Volume 4 Cases
Index Issue Year Title Authors
43 1 2011 Dräger Medical Systems, Inc.: Technology for Life Paul Mulligan and Alfred J. Nanni, Jr.
44 1 2011 Implementing Sustainability at Tata Steel George Joseph
45 1 2011 Let’s Go Aero Travel Trailers: Incorporating the New Model of the Organization into the Sally Wright
Teaching of Budgeting
46 2 2011 À Votre Santé: Product Costing and Decision Analysis in the Wine Industry Priscilla S. Wisner
47 2 2011 Jane Ashby Sinclair Art Museum Howard O. Rockness, Joanne W. Rockness, Charles L.
Earney, and Stacy J. Ankrum
48 3 2011 Impcorp Foods Hoang Nguyen and Gary Spraakman
49 3 2011 Sometimes Accountants Fail to Budget Gail Hoover King and Jane Saly
50 3 2011 TransGlobal Airlines Shane Moriarity, Laura Hopkins, and Andrew Slessor
51 4 2011 Don’t Leave Your Hand in the Cookie Jar Robert McDonald
52 4 2011 Western Cabinets – Building a Cabinet or Building a Transformation? Mark Klassen and Sresh Kalagnanam

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 8 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

Appendix 1: Listing of IMA Cases and Referenced Index (Volumes 1–5)
Panel E – Volume 5 Cases
Index Issue Year Title Authors
53 1 2012 Budgeting for an Academic Department at a State University: Can You Believe the Numbers? Gloria Vollmers and Wendy Coons
54 1 2012 Jensen Pharma: A Governance Role-Play J. Kay Keels and Norman T. Sheehan
55 1 2012 SEWMEX: Short-Term Profit Planning in an International Setting Gus Gordon, David E. Stout, Sarah Hartzog, Matt Lusty,
and Jay Nelson
56 2 2012 Caribbean Brewers: Transfer Pricing, Ethics, and Governance Douglas Kalesnikoff and Suresh Kalagnanam
57 2 2012 Pikesville Lightening: Evaluating Strategic Business Expansion Opportunities Thomas G. Canace and Paul E. Juras
58 2 2012 Deploying Sustainability at Solea Jan Bell, Sinan S. Erzurumlu, and Holly Fowler
59 3 2012 A Green Winter: The Case of Proposed Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort Wind Turbine John B. MacArthur and Thomas L. Barton
60 3 2012 Alliance Healthcare Network: Using a Balanced Scorecard to Motivate Change Anne Sergeant and Paulette Ratliff-Miller
61 3 2012 The BBDE Health Center: A Case Study of Business Ethics Jason C. Porter and Darryl J. Woolley
62 4 2012 Unilever: The Financial Implications of Outsourcing Information Technology Services in a Barbara E. Tarasovich
Global Organization
63 4 2012 Alchemy – An Internal Auditing Case Herbert Snyder, James Clifton, and William Bowlin
64 4 2012 The Tennessee Valley Authority: The Cost of Power Bob G. Wood, Steven B. Isbell, and Cass Larson

Appendix 2: Coding Procedures and Inter-Rater Reliability

This appendix reports the inter-rater reliabilities for all classifications. As discussed, the independent raters classified each case
into topics (see Table 1) based on a standard of usefulness in instruction. Panel A shows a listing of these nondiscrete topical
classifications (i.e., a case is ranked in up to three classifications but not necessarily three). Reported sample sizes show the
number of cases in each category, as opposed to the number of choices made for each classification (one choice per topic for
each of the 64 cases). Including the final number of cases classified by this nondiscrete procedure, along with Cohen’s Kappa—
a measure of inter-rater agreement—provides a more complete picture of the ratings results and procedures.

Panel A of this appendix, which shows the raters’ topical reliabilities, does not reconcile directly to Table 1 for two reasons.
First, topics that were deemed to have not been addressed in any published cases are not tabled in the article. Secondly, the
“other” category is disbursed among the additional topics found by raters in the case readings of ethics, financial statement
analysis, financing, fraud, microfinance, overhead cost allocation, opportunity costs, risk assessment, strategy, sustainability,
theory of constraints, and valuation. If these two items are accounted for, the tables reconcile.

Panel B shows all of the remaining rater classifications, including the Table 2 classifications of topics that case authors provided
from keywords and learning objectives. The inter-rater reliability of these topics are performed differently than the Table 1
classifications because of (1) the consistency of the keywords (i.e., there was no interpretation needed for coding keywords) and
(2) the large variety of keywords found. While a list of 24 topics was generated and initially used for the Panel A classifications,
the keywords and learning objectives resulted in a list of 159 potential topics and 288 classifications into those topics. Listing
these would be, in our opinion, unnecessary. Instead, we generated agreement statistics only where one of raters or keywords
stated the case belonged in a topic. In other words, instead of each case being classified into 159 variables, we remove all
instances where both raters agreed the case did not belong. This resulted in a lower agreement statistic, but we feel more
appropriate with the data being examined.

The remaining topics in Panel B were classified using some form of discrete measurement, therefore all have sample sizes of 64.

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 9 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

 Appendix 2: Panel A: Topical Inter-Rater Reliability
Topic N Cohen’s Kappa
Activity-Based Costing (ABC) and Activity-Based Management 10 0.871***
Allocation of Support Department Costs, Common Costs, and Revenues 2 0.385***
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) 8 0.815***
Capital Budgeting 3 0.506***
Cost Allocation: Joint Products and Byproducts 1 0.660***
Customer Profitability Analysis and Sales Variance Analysis 1 1.000***
Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP) 8 0.715***
Decision Making and Relevant Information 9 0.440***
Determining How Costs Behave 4 0.416***
Flexible Budgets 1 0.488***
Inventory Costing and Capacity Analysis 2 0.245*
Inventory management, JIT, Lean Accounting 2 0.849***
Job Costing 0 1.000***
Management Control Systems 8 0.434***
Managerial Accounting, Concepts, and Terms 0 1.000***
Master Budgets and Responsibility Accounting 5 0.503***
Multinational Considerations 3 0.547***
Other 39 0.529***
Performance Measurement/Compensation 11 0.331**
Pricing 2 1.000***
Process Costing 0 0.660***
Spoilage, Rework, and Scrap 1 0.660***
Statement of Cash Flows 0 1.000***
Transfer Pricing 0 0.488***
Average 0.648
Note: ***, **, * indicate p values significant at the < 0.001, < 0.01, < 0.05 level respectively.

Appendix 2: Panel B: Inter-Rater Reliability

Remaining Topics N Cohen’s Kappa
Author Keyword and Learning Objective (Table 2) 288 0.874***
Audience – Undergraduate Introductory (Table 3) 64 0.909***
Audience – Undergraduate Advanced (Table 3) 64 0.881***
Audience – Graduate (Table 3) 64 0.881***
Audience – Professional (Table 3) 64 0.745***
Focal Company Size (Table 4) 64 0.792***
BLS Industry Primary (Table 5) 64 0.937***
BLS Industry Subsidiary (Table 5) 64 0.791***
Organization Type – Legal (Table 6) 64 0.443***
Organization Type – Goal (Table 6) 64 0.715***
Average 0.797
Note: ***, **, * indicate p values significant at the < 0.001, < 0.01, < 0.05 level respectively.

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 10 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

 Appendix 3: Topical Matrix from Table 1

Activity-Based Allocation of Support

Balanced Cost Allocation: Customer Decision Making
Costing and Department Costs, Bench - Capital Cost-Volume- Determining
Scorecard Joint Products Profitability and Relevant
Activity-Based Common Costs, marking Budgeting Profit (CVP) Cost Behavior
(BSC) and Byproducts Analysis Information
Management and Revenues
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) 36
Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP) 5 46 50
Decision Making and Relevant Information 53
Determining Cost Behavior 3 24, 55 49
Ethics 56 25
Financial Statement Analysis
Fraud

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL
Inventory Costing and Capacity Analysis 11 44

11
Inventory Management, JIT, Lean Accounting 35
Management Control Systems
Master Budgets and Responsibility Accounting 24 20 24
Multinational Considerations 55 62 55
OH Cost Allocation 6
Opportunity Costs 20
Performance Measurement/Compensation 1, 6, 8, 9, 12, 21,
36 15
28, 36, 60
Pricing 5 5
Spoilage, Rework, and Scrap 14

VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

Strategy 50 50 30, 62
Sustainability 59 44
Theory of Constraints 37
Valuation
 Appendix 3: Topical Matrix from Table 1

Inventory
Inventory Costing Master Budgets Performance
Flexible Management, Management Multinational
Ethics Fraud and Capacity and Responsibility Measurement/ Pricing Strategy
Budgets JIT, Lean Control Systems Considerations
Analysis Accounting Compensation
Accounting
Balanced Scorecard (BSC)
Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP)

Decision Making and Relevant Information

Determining Cost Behavior
Ethics
Financial Statement Analysis 51
Fraud 10

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL
Inventory Costing and Capacity Analysis

12
Inventory Management, JIT, Lean Accounting
Management Control Systems 10, 61 10, 19, 63
Master Budgets and Responsibility Accounting 23 23
Multinational Considerations
OH Cost Allocation
Opportunity Costs 20
Performance Measurement/Compensation 16 45 2
Pricing
Spoilage, Rework, and Scrap

VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

Strategy 17 52 39 2, 62 2, 60 4
Sustainability 44 32, 58
Theory of Constraints
Valuation 39 39
Table 1: Rater Classifications by Topics
Topic N % Case Reference Numbers (Appendix 1)
Activity-Based Costing and Activity-Based Management 10 8.3 3, 5, 6, 11, 18, 33, 35, 36, 37, 40
Allocation of Support Department Costs, Common Costs, and Revenues 2 1.7 53, 56
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) 8 6.7 1, 8, 9, 12, 21, 28, 36, 60
Benchmarking 1 0.8 15
Capital Budgeting 3 2.5 31, 59, 64
Cost Allocation: Joint Products and Byproducts 1 0.8 46
Customer Profitability Analysis 1 0.8 50
Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP) 8 6.7 5, 22, 24, 41, 44, 46, 50, 55
Decision Making and Relevant Information 9 7.5 14, 20, 25, 30, 38, 43, 49, 53, 62
Determining Cost Behavior 4 3.3 3, 24, 49, 55
Ethics 8 6.7 10, 23, 25, 29, 51, 54, 56, 61
Financial Statement Analysis 1 0.8 51
Financing 1 0.8 47
Flexible Budgets 1 0.8 23
Fraud 3 2.5 10, 19, 63
Inventory Costing and Capacity Analysis 2 1.7 11, 44
Inventory Management, JIT, Lean Accounting 2 1.7 35, 17
Management Control Systems 8 6.7 10, 16, 19, 42, 48, 52, 61, 63
Master Budgets and Responsibility Accounting 5 4.2 20, 23, 24, 39, 45
Microfinance 1 0.8 13
Multinational Considerations 3 2.5 2, 55, 62
OH Cost Allocation 1 0.8 6
Opportunity Costs 1 0.8 20
Performance Measurement/Compensation 11 9.2 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 28, 36, 45, 60
Pricing 2 1.7 4, 5
Risk Assessment 1 0.8 26
Spoilage, Rework, and Scrap 1 0.8 14
Strategy 13 10.8 2, 4, 17, 27, 30, 32, 39, 50, 52, 57, 58, 60, 62
Sustainability 5 4.2 32, 34, 44, 58, 59
Theory of Constraints 1 0.8 37
Valuation 2 1.7 7, 39

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 13 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

Table 2: Case-Author-Supplied Classifications by Keywords and Learning Objectives
Keywords N % Case Reference Numbers (Appendix 1)
Activity-Based Costing (ABC) 9 5.6 3, 5, 6, 14, 18, 36, 37, 40, 50
Agency Theory 2 1.2 28, 54
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) 11 6.8 1, 8, 9, 12, 21, 28, 33, 36, 42, 58, 60
Benchmarking 3 1.9 1, 15, 18
Board of Directors 3 1.9 47, 49, 54
Budgeting 6 3.7 23, 24, 45, 49, 53, 57
Capacity Analysis 3 1.9 3, 5, 17
Capital Budgeting 3 1.9 31, 59, 64
Cost Allocation 4 2.5 5, 11, 40, 56
Cost Behavior 6 3.7 5, 6, 14, 30, 43, 57
Costing System 2 1.2 35, 37
Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP) Analysis 4 2.5 3, 24, 41, 55
Decision Analysis 2 1.2 30, 46
Differential Analysis 3 1.9 30, 38, 43
Energy Costs 2 1.2 59, 64
Ethics 8 5.0 10, 19, 23, 24, 25, 29, 54, 61
Financial Management 2 1.2 2, 47
Fraud 4 2.5 10, 19, 61, 63
Governance 2 1.2 54, 56
Green Technology 2 1.2 59, 64
Healthcare 2 1.2 41, 60
IMA Ethical Standards 2 1.2 51, 61
Incentives 2 1.2 36, 58
Internal Controls 2 1.2 10, 19, 42, 63
International Business 3 1.9 10, 55, 56
Lean Accounting 6 3.7 11, 14, 17, 27, 35, 43
Management Accounting 2 1.2 44, 48
Management Control 2 1.2 2, 52
Not-For-Profit 5 3.1 19, 41, 47, 49, 53
Performance Measurement 17 10.6 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 32, 35, 36, 39, 58, 60
Process Analysis 2 1.2 14, 43
Profitability Analysis 2 1.2 22, 39
Service Operations 3 1.9 36, 41, 58
Strategy 16 9.9 3, 4, 13, 15, 16, 17, 24, 27, 35, 36, 39, 43, 50, 52, 57, 60
Sustainability 4 2.5 32, 34, 44, 58
Target Costing 2 1.2 4, 5
Theory of Constraints 3 1.9 3, 35, 37
Transfer Pricing 2 1.2 20, 56
Triple Bottom Line 3 1.9 32, 34, 58

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 14 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

 Table 3: Case Target Audience and Understandability
Audience N % Case Reference Numbers (Appendix 1)
Undergraduate – Introductory Courses 15 10.7 5, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 32, 41, 45, 57*, 58, 59*, 60, 61
2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41,
Undergraduate – Advanced Courses 60 42.9
42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 14, 21, 38, 43, 55
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
Graduate Courses 60 42.9
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64
Professional 5 3.6 6, 12, 16, 45, 47
Total 140 1

*Cases are potentially too difficult for the audience (per Flesch-Kincaid Readability analysis). Both cases assess as readablity for junior-level college
students but may be too difficult for sophomore-level undergraduates.

Table 4: Classification by Size

Panel A - European Commission Size Standards
Work Force Asset Total (in US$) Net Revenues (in US$)
Large More than 250 More than 58 million More than 67.5 million
Medium 50-249 13.5 million-58 million 13.5 million-67.5 million
Small 10-49 2.7 million-13.5 million 2.7 million-13.5 million
Micro Less than 10 Less than 2.7 million Less than 2.7 million

Panel B – Case Classification by Size

Size N % Case Reference Numbers (Appendix 1)
Micro 9 14.1 6, 23, 31, 38, 39, 40, 46, 49, 53
Small 17 26.6 3, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 25, 28, 35, 36, 41, 47, 48, 55, 57, 59, 61
Medium 9 14.1 11, 17, 20, 24, 43, 45, 51, 52, 63
Large 29 45.3 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 42, 44, 50, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 15 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

Table 5: Case Classifications by Primary and Subsidiary Industry
Panel A – Primary BLS Industry
N % Case Reference Numbers (Appendix 1)
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51,
Goods 34 53.1
52, 54, 55, 56, 62, 63
2, 9, 13, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 57, 58,
Service 30 46.9
59, 60, 61, 64

Panel B – Secondary BLS Industry

N % Case Reference Numbers (Appendix 1)
Education and Health Services 7 10.9 19, 40, 41, 49, 53, 60, 61
Financial Activities 3 4.7 9, 13, 21
Leisure and Hospitality 6 9.4 20, 39, 47, 57, 58, 59
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 32, 34, 35, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 52,
Manufacturing 30 46.9
54, 55, 56, 62, 63
Natural Resources and Mining 4 6.3 12, 18, 31, 38
Professional and Business
4 6.3 26, 28, 29, 36
Services
Public Administration 1 1.6 42
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 9 14.1 2, 15, 22, 27, 30, 33, 48, 50, 64

Table 6: Case Classifications by Organization Type

Panel A: Organization Type - Goal
N % Case Reference Numbers (Appendix 1)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48,
For-profit 51 79.7
50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63
Not-for-profit 13 20.3 13, 15, 19, 33, 40, 41, 42, 47, 49, 53, 60, 61, 64

Panel B – Organization Type - Legal

N % Case Reference Numbers (Appendix 1)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54,
Corporation 48 75.0
55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63
Governmental 7 10.9 15, 19, 33, 42, 50, 53, 64
Partnership 6 9.4 12, 28, 29, 36, 46, 59
Proprietorship 3 4.7 31, 38, 39

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 16 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014

 Table7: Case Authors and Their Affiliations
Panel A – Most Frequently Published Case Authors
Case Author Institution # of Cases Author Adjusted
Alfred Nanni, Jr. Babson College 5 1.83
Shahid Ansari Babson College 4 1.50
Tom Albright University of Alabama 3 2.50
Jan Bell Babson College 3 1.17
Hugh Grove University of Denver 3 1.00
Paul Mulligan Babson College 3 1.17
Lisa Victoravich University of Denver 3 1.00
14 Authors 2
84 Authors 1

Panel B – Most Frequently Published Authors’ Institutions Panel C – Case Publications by Carnegie Rankings
Institution # of Cases Author Adjusted # Published
Shorthand Cases
Babson College 10 9.5 Carnegie Research Designation (Shorthand)
Designation (ordered by
University of Denver 4 3.7 affiliation)
University of Saskatchewan 4 3.5 Research University – Very High Research Activity R1 3.75
University of Alabama 3 2.3 Research University – High Research Activity R2 17.5
York University 3 2.5 Doctoral/Research University R3 1.2
8 Institutions 2 Teaching University/College Teaching 27.8
46 Institutions 1 Not Ranked – International N/R (Int'l) 10.5

Note: “# of Cases” increments by one for each case in which the author is named, Not Ranked – Industry N/R (Industry) 3.3
regardless of the number of coauthors. “Author Adjusted # of Cases” adjusts publication
counts for the number of authors per case. For each case and author, it adds a fraction of Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, “Institution Lookup,”
one where the fraction depends on the number of named coauthors (1/# of coauthors). http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/institution.php.
For instance, a sole-author-published case equals 1, whereas a case with three authors
has a value of 1/3 for each author.

Table 8: Average Number of Teaching Note Downloads By Case Publication Year

Year # Downloads
2008 16.76
2009 18.68
2010 26.67
2011 30.20
2012 47.89
Average 26.91

IM A ED U C ATIO NA L C A S E JOURNAL 17 VOL. 7, N O. 1, ART. 3, MARCH 2014