Entering the Case

Where the course begins: Judy and three possible directions

This course follows one teaching case, Become Judy, for 18 weeks. Judy is a creator. She runs a public YouTube channel under the handle @judy777 and publishes videos in Korean. Taipei East, a professional volleyball team in Taipei, has published material about Tokki Cutie, a cheerleading collaboration. Taipei East describes the collaboration as involving OM Entertainment, a company it presents as led by Judy.

Public company-registration lists, which the case reading uses as sources, also record several small companies registered in 2023 and 2025. So the public record shows a channel, a collaboration described by a sports team and some registered companies. It shows much less about how the work is actually done. This week is about the difference between those two things.

To make the questions concrete, this course follows a practice scenario. It is invented for learning, and it continues through all 18 weeks.

Practice scenario. After the public attention, messages begin to arrive at Judy's company. In one week, a professional team in Taiwan, a different club from Taipei East, asks whether the company could bring cheer performers to its home games next season. This course calls it the home team. An event organizer asks for help bringing one performer from Korea to a single festival and offers to pay for the coordination. A snack brand asks for a sponsored video, and a restaurant suggests a joint menu. Each message is flattering, and each one creates work.

The company cannot say yes to everything. The messages point toward three possible directions, which the course calls:

• Option A · Expansion: expand cheerleading and sports-entertainment talent management.
• Option B · Boutique: a small cross-border talent and advisory service for a few clients.
• Option C · Content-centered return: return to content, advertising, food service and personal brand.

The case does not say which direction Judy will choose, and this course will not choose for her. Over 18 weeks you will build the tools a manager needs to compare the options and argue for one. This week's question comes first: when personal attention begins to look like a business opportunity, what do we actually know, and which management questions appear first?

Where this week fits

Each week of this course asks one management question about Judy's company and produces one piece of written work, called an artifact. You bring each artifact to the next week. In Week 18, all the artifacts come together as a blueprint of a company that another manager could run. Weeks 1 to 3 build the foundation: what we know, who is responsible, and how to decide.

What you will read in this course

• The case reading (Become Judy) presents what public sources show about Judy's work.
• The practice scenario is an invented situation inside Judy's company, with roles, dates and numbers made up so that you can practice real decisions.
• This textbook teaches one management tool each week and applies it to both.

Three roles one person can hold

This course uses three words for the different jobs one person can hold. A creator produces creative work, such as videos, performances or food, and builds a public relationship with an audience. A manager coordinates other people's work, time and money so that a promise to someone can be kept. An entrepreneur gathers resources around a possible opportunity when nobody can yet predict whether it will work.

One person can hold all three roles on the same day. In the practice scenario, Judy might film a video in the morning. That is creator work. After lunch she answers the home team about travel and checks who will translate, which is manager work because other people's time depends on her answer. In the evening she wonders whether to hire a coordinator before next season without knowing how many requests will come, which is entrepreneur work.

The three roles carry different duties. The creator is responsible for the quality of the work and the relationship with the audience. The manager is responsible for coordination: who does what, by when, with which resources. The entrepreneur is responsible for choosing which uncertain opportunity deserves the company's limited time and money. A person can be excellent in one role and new to another.

In this course the three words describe work, not rank. A common misunderstanding treats them as stages of status, as if a creator "becomes" a manager by hiring an assistant. So the useful question for a growing creator business is "Which responsibility has changed?" If the company starts representing another performer, it now has a duty to explain terms clearly and to promise only work it can deliver. If an event crosses a language border, translation becomes part of management.

Role change also changes how other people see the business. Judy may experience the company as part of her own creative expression. A team member may see an employer, a brand a supplier, and a performer an agency that negotiates for her, and each view brings different expectations. Friendship can make early work easy, but clear authority, pay terms and a way to raise complaints still have to be designed. Week 2 returns to this problem.

Research supports looking at work context as well as personality. Dobrev and Barnett (2005) found that the roles people held inside organizations were linked to whether they later left to start their own businesses. For Judy's company, this points to a question about growth. Which work still depends on Judy personally, and which work could be done by people in roles that do not need her to be present?

Four questions that describe any business

This course describes every business with four linked questions. They are inspired by Koji Mitani's book on management for working people (Mitani, 2019). You will use them every week until Week 18.

• Target: who is involved? Who uses the offer, who pays for it, who influences the decision to buy, and who carries the risk if it fails? These can be different people. Fans may watch a performance that a team pays for.
• Value: what problem is solved? What benefit is offered, to whom, and how will the receiver know it was delivered? Attention can be part of the value. A partner may really be paying for reliable scheduling, translation or access to an audience.
• Capability: what can the company do repeatedly? A capability is work the company can perform again and again at a dependable standard. It rests on routines, people and partners as well as on talent.
• Revenue Model: how does value become money, and when? Who pays, for what, when does the money arrive, and which costs come before it? A sponsored video, an appearance fee and a restaurant meal have different payers and different timing.

The four questions work together, so a change in one changes the others. Suppose the Target moves from fans to a sports team. The Value then changes from entertainment to reliable delivery on game day. That needs a different Capability, such as scheduling and travel. It also needs a different Revenue Model, such as a fee paid some weeks after the game.

The course also uses a second lens: the four classic management functions of planning, organizing, leading and controlling. The four questions describe what a business is. The four functions describe what managers do to run it, and later weeks take them up in turn: planning with goals in Week 5, organizing in Week 8, leading in Week 14 and controlling in Week 16. Week 18 brings both lenses together.

The questions also help with a common confusion about money. Revenue is the value of what the company has sold. Cash is the money actually in its bank account. Registered capital is a figure recorded when a company is registered. A company can show growing revenue and still run short of cash if it pays its costs before customers pay; Week 13 studies this in detail.

The questions show why a personal brand is a strong start and still an incomplete business model. A well-known name makes a new offer easier to notice. It can also help partners trust the offer sooner. The business still has to decide who owns the content, who approves a message and who handles a complaint. It also has to pay people on time when the founder is busy.

Applying the four questions to the Tokki Cutie collaboration

Try the questions on the one collaboration the public record describes. The Taipei East page tells us that a cheerleading collaboration existed and how Taipei East chose to present it. The table shows what that page lets us say for each question, and what a manager would still need to find out.

Most of the right-hand column is still open. That is normal at the start of a case. The rest of this chapter shows how to keep track of what is open and how to close it.

Four questions behind every promise

Public attention can mean several different things. It can mean that people noticed. It can mean that an audience finds a person credible or entertaining. It can also mean that a partner sees a way to reach a group of fans. Sometimes it is only the short-lived result of one video, one event or a platform's recommendation system.

Calling all of these "demand" hides the question a manager must answer: what exact problem is the partner paying to have solved, and what work must be done to keep the promise? Take the home team's request in the practice scenario. It shows that the home team values something about Judy's company. It does not yet say how many performers are needed, who pays for travel or what happens if a performer falls ill.

Before choosing a response, ask four questions about the promise.

1. Who makes the promise? The person or company that tells the customer "we will do this".
2. Who performs the work? The people who perform, translate and schedule.
3. Who receives the money? The company or person the customer pays.
4. Who bears the consequences if the promise fails? The party that must apologize, refund, absorb the extra cost or lose reputation.

The answer to each question may be one person, several people or different companies. A customer may sign with one company, receive the service from another and blame a third in public. When an answer is unknown, write it down as unknown and say which decision it affects.

The "can deliver" test

A useful habit is to test strong sentences before you use them. Take the sentence "Judy's company can deliver a cross-border sports-entertainment service." The public page supports a much narrower sentence: "A team described a collaboration involving OM Entertainment." The words "can deliver" add a claim about capability. They assume the company can handle agreements, translation and payment again and again. Until each of those has support, the stronger sentence is an inference.

Worked example: one sponsored video, two companies

Here is how the four questions and the Revenue Model work with numbers. The example uses the snack brand's request from the practice scenario.

Judy's company agrees to make one sponsored video for the snack brand. The brand will pay NT$100,000. Judy's company hires a production company to film and edit the video for NT$40,000. Judy appears in the video.

Step 1: revenue and cost for Judy's company. Judy's company records NT$100,000 of revenue and NT$40,000 of production cost. NT$100,000 − NT$40,000 = NT$60,000. That NT$60,000 must still pay for Judy's time and for translation, so it is not yet profit.

Step 2: suppose the production company has the same owner. Now the two companies form one group, and the production company records NT$40,000 of revenue from Judy's company. If you simply add both companies' revenue, you get NT$100,000 + NT$40,000 = NT$140,000. That figure counts the same money twice, because the NT$40,000 only moved from one company in the group to another. The group's revenue from outside customers is still NT$100,000.

Step 3: ask who checks quality. The brand will judge the finished video, and it has no contract with the production company. So Judy's company needs a named person to check the production company's work before the brand sees it. Both the money path and the responsibility path must be clear.

This lesson matters for the case. The public registration records list more than one company. So whenever someone quotes a revenue figure or a promise, ask first: which company does it belong to?

Evidence, inference and unknown

A case discussion becomes unreliable when three kinds of statement are mixed together. Keeping them apart is the main skill of this week.

• Evidence is an observation that someone else can trace to an identifiable source. It names the source, the date the source was checked and exactly what the source shows. Example: "Taipei East's web page, checked on a stated date, describes a collaboration called Tokki Cutie."
• Inference is our reasoning from observations to an interpretation. Example: "Judy's company may be able to build a service that coordinates performers for sports teams." An inference can be reasonable and useful, while other explanations still fit the same observations.
• Unknown is an important point that the available evidence cannot answer. Example: "Who received the payment for the Tokki Cutie collaboration." An unknown is a question to investigate, so it stays open until a source answers it.

The three categories describe the link between a statement and its support. They are different from levels of personal confidence. You can feel sure that an unknown is important and still call the fact unknown. Two classmates can also disagree about an inference while agreeing on the observation behind it. That makes disagreement useful, because both can point to the same source and propose the next check.

The same test applies to flattering statements. "The audience trusts Judy" sounds like a fact, but trust cannot be seen directly. A repeat purchase, a recommendation to a friend, a renewed contract and a friendly comment are different signals. A careful writer names the signal that is present and says what it shows.

Two more habits keep a record honest. First, word missing evidence carefully. "Not found in the sources we checked" is accurate, while "does not exist" usually claims more than we know. Public sources show only what people choose to publish. Second, date every important entry, because web pages are edited and translations are corrected.

AI tools and your evidence

AI tools can help sort sources or translate a Korean-language video. They can also produce a confident sentence with no source behind it; the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology calls this risk confabulation (Autio et al., 2024). So when an AI tool helps, keep the original source in your record and check any important claim against it yourself. Week 3 returns to human judgment when AI is used.

The evidence record

The evidence record is this week's artifact. It is a table in which a team writes down each important statement about the case, where it comes from and how strong it is. A folder of links becomes an evidence record when every entry uses the same four columns.

1. Statement: one sentence, written as narrowly as the source allows.
2. Source and date checked: where a classmate could find it, and when you last looked.
3. Status: evidence, inference or unknown.
4. What would change it: the source, person or observation that would confirm, weaken or answer it.

The table shows five sample entries. A new team member should be able to read any entry and see why it is there and how to challenge it.

The status column stops readers from treating every item as equal. The last column turns each gap into the next task. Week 2 uses this record to ask who in the company would be responsible for each piece of work.

Company registration records in the case

The case reading uses five entries from Taiwan's public company-registration lists. They matter for two reasons. First, more than one company appears in the case sources, so every promise and every number must be tied to a specific company. Second, two company names point to business lines in the options, one to food service and one to cheerleading. That second point is our inference from the names.

Treat each row as a dated legal record: a company name, a date and an amount of registered capital. (In each name, 有限公司 means "limited company".) The four questions behind a promise need other sources. Registered capital is a legal figure, so it tells you nothing about revenue, profit or cash in the bank.

Planning and testing when the future is unclear

A traditional business plan starts with a clear goal and a known market. It then asks which resources and steps will reach the goal. This works well when conditions are stable. It works less well for Judy's company, where audiences, platform rules and partners can all change at once.

Sarasvathy (2001) described two ways of reasoning about new ventures. Causation starts from a chosen goal and plans the means to reach it. Effectuation starts from the means a person already has, such as skills and contacts, and asks what can be built with partners who commit along the way. Each suits different conditions. A large commitment that is hard to undo deserves forecasts and formal checks, while a small test that can be stopped can be judged by what the company controls and learns.

Three other studies add useful questions. McMullen and Shepherd (2006) explain entrepreneurial action as a response to uncertainty that different people see and bear differently. In the practice scenario, the home team's request looks different to each person. Judy may see a chance to learn, a performer may see a risk to her income, and the home team may see a risk to its reputation. So a manager should say whose uncertainty is being discussed.

Wood, Bakker and Fisher (2021) point to timing: when action starts, how fast it moves and what comes first. Testing one partnership before hiring a coordinator teaches different lessons from hiring first. Arikan, Arikan and Koparan (2020) describe how curiosity can lead a person to explore a possibility before there is enough information to call it a market. The exploring itself can reveal a customer, a partner or a limit.

Explaining differences by how work is arranged

This case suits a class of students from many countries, because its problems cross borders. The course has one rule for such comparisons. Explain a difference by how the work is arranged, such as who approves, who pays and which language the terms are written in. A person's nationality or generation cannot tell you which explanation is correct. Week 4 develops this method in depth.

Example: a student team meeting. Think of your own project team in this course. One member speaks quickly in English during meetings, and another says little but writes careful comments afterward. The team might read speed as leadership and silence as low commitment, and both readings could be wrong. The quiet member may be working in a second language, preparing, or unsure how to disagree.

The better response is to change the meeting design. A written agenda, a facilitator who rotates each week and a clear deadline for written comments make everyone's contribution visible. A short decision note after each meeting shows what was agreed. These choices lower the cost of asking a question, whoever asks it.

What each option would need to show

Week 1 does not recommend an option. At this point the useful question is which evidence each option would need. The table sets this out as a starting list for your evidence record.

Each option carries assumptions, required capabilities and possible losses. Week 3 turns these into a decision memo that compares the options side by side.

Class practice: your first evidence record

This practice is done without AI tools. Your teacher will tell you which worksheet to use and how to submit it.

1. Sort eight statements. Label each statement below as evidence, inference or unknown. For each piece of evidence, name the source a classmate could check.
   • Judy's public YouTube channel uses the handle @judy777.
   • The channel publishes videos in Korean.
   • Taipei East, a professional volleyball team, has a web page about a cheerleading collaboration called Tokki Cutie.
   • The Taipei East page presents OM Entertainment as a company led by Judy.
   • A company whose name includes the words for "cheerleading entertainment" was registered in July 2025.
   • Judy's company can supply performers for any team that asks.
   • Many viewers of the channel would pay to see the performers live.
   • Who received the payment for the Tokki Cutie collaboration.
2. Add "what would change it" for two entries. Choose the two inferences. For each, write the source, person or observation that would confirm or weaken it. "Find more data" is too vague; name the record, person or comparison you need.
3. Choose an option to investigate first. Write which option you would look into first and one unknown that could change your view of it.
4. Check each other's work. Swap with a classmate. Find one statement you labeled differently, point to the exact words behind the difference, and agree on the source or definition that would settle it.

Some statements mix an observation with an interpretation. If you find one, split it into two sentences before you label it. Keep your record, because Week 2 builds on it.

Using the method outside the case

The questions from this week work far beyond Judy's company. When a popular social post brings a queue to a family restaurant, the post is evidence of attention, but the kitchen's ability to serve twice as many customers is still an inference. A student club may hold a successful event and gain new members, while the budget, safety and roles for the next event remain unknown. In each setting, ask what changed from one person's activity into shared responsibility. Carry the questions to the new setting, and check the answers again there, because each sector has its own rules.

Key points and what you bring to Week 2

• One person can be a creator, a manager and an entrepreneur on the same day. Each role carries different duties, so ask which responsibility has changed.
• Target, Value, Capability and Revenue Model describe any business. A change in one of them changes the other three.
• Every promise raises four questions: who promises, who performs, who receives the money and who bears the consequences. The answers may be different people or companies.
• Keep evidence, inference and unknown apart. An inference stays an inference until the work behind it has support.
• Revenue, cash and registered capital are three different things. When you see a number, ask which company it belongs to.

For Week 2. Bring your evidence record. Many of its unknowns are questions about people: who promised, who did the work, who was paid. In Week 2 you will use the record to find who in Judy's company would be responsible for what, and build a role and decision map.