885948 TTC Journal of Information Technology Teaching CasesNatour

Teaching Case
JITTC
Journal of Information Technology

CompSupport: A series of Teaching Cases

2020, Vol. 10(1) 11­–18
© Association for Information
unfortunate events Technology Trust 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/2043886919885948
DOI: 10.1177/2043886919885948
Journals.sagepub.com/jittc

Sameh Al Natour

Abstract
CompSupport Inc. was a leader of online support services for personal computers and devices. After a brief period
operating in a B2C channel, the company shifted and refined its focus to two primary customer segments: Internet
service providers and corporate accounts. CompSupport’s key mandate was to improve their customer’s helpdesk
operations through outsourcing in order to achieve two goals: cost reduction and improved customer service. In May
2017, the lack of liquidity meant that the company would be unable to make its next pay period without an additional
injection of funds. The company arrived at a crossroads, and a decision had to be made. The alternatives consisted of two
buyout options and a merger opportunity. This case study evaluates CompSupport’s state at the time of the decision, and
highlights the events that took place prior to the decision period that may have contributed to the company’s problems.

Keywords
Competitive advantage and e-business, strategy, mergers and acquisitions, outsourcing, IT support, start-ups

It was a rare sunny Vancouver day in May of 2017, as John
McLeod (CTO and co-founder) sat across from his long-
time friend and business partner, Mike Thomas (CEO and
co-founder). They had few hours left to decide the future of
their company, CompSupport Inc. After a year of turmoil
and a string of bad luck, it became apparent that the com-
pany could not survive on its own, and decisive action was
needed. Only enough cash was available to make the pay
period ending that afternoon, and if no action was taken,
CompSupport would need to file for bankruptcy the follow-
ing morning. Thomas and McLeod needed to evaluate two
buyout offers and a proposed merger. In addition, many
unanswered questions of what led to the current situation
and the lessons learned needed to be considered to ensure
that the mistakes of the past would not be repeated. Before
choosing, Thomas and McLeod needed to seriously reflect
on their experience, and critically evaluate the company’s
position by deciding whether the business model they
developed really created customer value, and whether it
would be worth burning more cash to sustain it.
a computer support services company, with CompSupport
signified the birth of a company with the desire to be a
leader in the growing eSupport marketplace. With Mike
Thomas, the president and director of Reconnaissance
Technologies Inc. as the new CEO and director of the
newly merged company, and John McLeod, the previous
CEO of Reconnaissance and new CTO of CompSupport,
the future looked bright. The previous software industry
experience of these two individuals was to be the founda-
tion of the success of this company. Both have had experi-
ence in creating and managing their own companies before,
and industry observers had every reason to believe in their
ability to succeed.
The long standing mission of CompSupport has been to
provide fast, innovative and comprehensive PC support
services to computer users online. With the rapid adoption
of all types of computing devices, a growing need for sup-
port service was inevitable. Customers were likely to be
Ryerson University, Canada

Company background Corresponding author:

Sameh Al Natour, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto,
Although CompSupport had been founded in 2012, the 23 ON M5B 2K3, Canada.
June merger in 2014 of Reconnaissance Technologies Inc., Email: salnatour@ryerson.ca
12 Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases 10(1)
faced with both hardware and software problems that
required personalized support. This growing potential mar-
ket, which is estimated to be worth tens of billions, pro-
vided the opportunity for CompSupport to position itself as
a leader in this industry.
Products and changing business
model
CompSupport was looking to position itself as a computer
support services provider focused on designing, aggregating
and marketing innovative solutions to minimize the produc-
tivity gaps associated with hardware and software failure
and loss. The introduction of the Global Replace service in
August 2014 addressed the needs of mobile, enterprise, and
small office/home office (SOHO) notebook users by provid-
ing a single solution for notebook failure, loss or damage.
Users could regularly back up their critical files and applica-
tions on CompSupport servers for US$19.95 per month, and
restore files online in the case of minor data loss or have a
full image restoration shipped for more substantial losses. In
the case of notebook loss, the customer would be sent a
replacement notebook for up to 2 weeks.
In October of that same year, a new support portal was
launched to provide automated disc maintenance, online
virus scan and performance checks at regular intervals, as
well as the opportunity for customers to participate in
online technical support forums. This product was targeted
to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as a single-source
support solution to make the support experience easier for
those companies that could not afford to maintain an IT
staff, as well as to reduce the costs for those companies
with IT departments. The goal of the product was to partner
up with Internet Service Providers (ISPs), Internet portals
and hardware vendors for the sale and resale of these ser-
vices. Later that year, CompSupport introduced Live Assist
and Email Assist features which allowed support staff to
communicate with customers using email and instant mes-
saging, as well as remotely accessing a customer’s desktop
to diagnose any problems.
The new support portal was rapidly gaining acceptance
in early 2015. Many well-established companies such as
Telus, British Telecom and other ISPs were looking to cre-
ate privately branded sites based on the support portal. With
many customers of their own, ISPs were forced to address
the issues of growing support problems. To manage this
explosive growth during the first half of 2015, CompSupport
introduced a client services division that would be respon-
sible for the implementation, training and consultation of
business customers that went along with purchasing these
customized support portal services.
By mid-2015, CompSupport introduced a product offer-
ing designed to return their focus back to customers. The
launch of a live 24×7 eSupport service with unlimited access
to all the functions available in the support portal such as
live interactive chat and remote diagnostic and repair were
included for the price of US$36.50. Customers were assured
prompt and timely service, so much so, that CompSupport
guaranteed a response turnaround time of 4 h.
In support of their goal to establish a stronghold on the
eSupport market, CompSupport acquired MyHelpDesk
Inc. of Northernwood Massachusetts. This initiated the
restructuring of the company away from software develop-
ment, which CompSupport had been so successful with, to
establish a profitable revenue stream and create shareholder
value. Top management decided that all sales and market-
ing activities would be focused on eSupport solutions for
corporations, ISPs, PC hardware manufacturers and PC
warranty providers with the intention to significantly
reduce operating expenses. The individual customer site
would still be maintained, however, no additional effort
would be made to actively promote it.
CompSupport started off the following year by securing
US$3.7 million in financing. By April of the following year,
MyHelpDesk was launched as a product very similar to the
support portal that provided live instant messaging and
remote access solutions for customers. Many of the large
ISPs continued purchasing the solution and became increas-
ingly interested in online support in addition to the telephone
support they currently subscribed to. These customers pro-
vided steady subscription revenues that would occur on a
recurring basis, adding stability to the cash flow of the com-
pany. The new focus began to show positive signs very
quickly. By August, a large North American retailer had
agreed to a multiyear agreement to provide the MyHelpDesk
system to both their current and new computer customers.
The business outlook was promising for CompSupport,
and there were reasons for optimism. Although the company
had yet to become profitable, operating expenses were
reduced by approximately 40% and the future growth of the
company in 2017 was estimated to provide revenues of
US$4.5 to US$6.0 million which would result in the com-
pany becoming cash flow positive within a year. During the
first month of 2017, CompSupport was able to secure another
US$907,000 of private financing to maintain and further
develop operations. WarrantyNet, a major US warranty com-
pany, had agreed to purchase the MyHelpDesk proprietary
software to remotely diagnose and solve software and con-
figuration problems of WarrantyNet contract holders.
Securing large contracts like WarrantyNet and the large
retailer were promising feats for CompSupport. There was
much optimism between Mike and John that the goal of
profitability in the current year is, in fact, possible. (See
Exhibit 1 for overview of the company history.)
The changing face of computing
Due to the quickening pace of evolution in computing tech-
nology in the last decade, significant strides were made to
improve the accessibility, availability and applicability of
computing solutions. This evolution was driven primarily
by the need for simplification, thereby reducing the level of
Natour 13

Exhibit 1. Milestones.

Date Event
23 June 2014 CompSupport merges with Reconnaissance Technologies
2 August 2014 CompSupport introduces Global Replace Data Backup and notebook replacement services
27 October 2014 CompSupport launches proactive support portal
13 December 2014 CompSupport partners with Webex and Facetime to provide live, real-time, interactive eSupport
6 July 2015 CompSupport goes live with new Helpdesk
19 July 2015 CompSupport to launch 24 x 7, ‘Dime a Day’ eSupport service
6 October 2015 BT to launch 24 h eSupport service for UK SMEs
January 16, 2016 CompSupport announces successful completion of over US$3 million in financing
19 March 2016 CompSupport launches MyHelpDesk system
5 April 2016 CompSupport sells Help Desk solution to seven new ISPs
8 April 2016 Leading ISP, SkyeNet, selects CompSupport help desk solution
8 August 2016 A large retailer chooses CompSupport to provide expanded 24x7 technical support to computer
customers
9 January 2017 CompSupport announces completion of US$907,000 financing
19 March 2017 CompSupport secures service contract with WarrantyNet
15 May 2017 Decision time. Thomas and McLeod must decide the future of the company

SME: small and medium enterprise; ISP: Internet service provider.

skill and training needed to operate these systems, and sec-
ond by the declining price of hardware.
The eSupport industry mirrored and exploited this trend.
The factors driving adoption of computing technology were
also driving the need for simplified support solutions.
Businesses were increasingly developing critical processes
tied into technology and needed support to be available
around the clock. Like many other Internet initiatives of
this era, eSupport promised significant cost savings and
improvements in usability. By providing support by means
of online methods, businesses reduced costs associated
with operating a proprietary call centre and improved rela-
tionships with customers.
The value of eSupport was catching on. Call centre sup-
port alone was no longer sufficient to satisfy the needs of
customers, and integrated solutions were becoming neces-
sary for regular operations. Mike Thomas cited a number of
factors influencing the eSupport industry:
•• Dynamic landscape fuelled by evolving technolo-
gies and the advent of new players.
•• Traditional support providers face significant barri-
ers for participating in the new support provision
model.
•• Industry-wide move towards open standards led by
tech giants.
•• Empowered users demand higher standards of
support.
Competition
Competition was growing rapidly as more businesses con-
tinued to recognize the value of eSupport. In the 3 years
since CompSupport was born, numerous direct competitors
had sprung up. To the customer, the product/service offer-
ings between the businesses were difficult to differentiate
thus creating intense competitive pressures. The race was
on to secure target customers able to supply enough reve-
nue to support the intense growth. However, like other
industries conducting business online, the eSupport indus-
try was beginning to experience consolidation. In addition,
the firm itself created competitive pressures. Due to the
nature of the product, CompSupport’s primary clients were
becoming competitors, in that they were able to provide
tech support to their customers. In effect CompSupport was
cannibalizing its own market share. Four market segments
were identified: content providers, matchmaking services,
guaranteed interaction services, and evolved call centres.
IT background
Early on, the development team at CompSupport recognized
the need to create user-friendly customizable applications
that allowed users to report problems, and allowed support
analysts to communicate effectively with customers. Later
on, when it became apparent to the company’s executives
that the corporate segment of the market exhibited the best
return potential, the need to develop an application that facil-
itated more complicated corporate support processes arose.
The MyHelpDesk suite was launched after smaller par-
tially successful applications were developed. The initial
requirements were ad hoc at best, and the design process
only became structured after customers signed up and spe-
cific requirements could be obtained. The initial products
had to be rewritten, and the development effort of
MyHelpDesk was underway in late 2015. Steve Hamlin,
the former Development Manager reflected back on the
initial stages:
14 Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases 10(1)
The initial specs were very loose and were very client driven. I
knew roughly what needed to be done based on what I was
hearing from John and from Bruno in sales. In terms of the
requirements of the product, they didn’t really start to formulate
until we started working more on the web application. Prior to
that, it was a collaborative effort to pull together thoughts and
ideas for the product. Having gone through the product during
the rewrite, I had a number of ideas that would make things
more streamlined.
Since its establishment, one of CompSupport’s core assets
was its talented development team. The MyHelpDesk suite
was considered by many in the industry to be cutting-edge,
and was seen as a useful tool for any helpdesk operation.
MyHelpDesk client
The MyHelpDesk Client was the client component of the
MyHelpDesk suite. The client was available online to
users, who would login and report software or hardware
problems. Depending on the entity the user was affiliated
with (that being a specific ISP or a corporate account) mul-
tiple modes were available to communicate with support
analysts. Each user belonged to one contracting customer
company, each called a Site. Moreover, customers could
view their problem history, and reactivate past problems if
they haven’t been resolved (screenshots of the client soft-
ware are available in Exhibit 2).
Due to the fact that the services offered to each user
depended on the level of service contracted, not all func-
tionality was available to all users. Each user saw a differ-
ent customized view of the client application according to
the services that were available to the Site they belonged to.
The customization was done through an application called
WebShift that was built internally. Webshift retrieved all
kinds of site specific information, and appropriate graphics,
text, or functionality was displayed.
The user could communicate with analysts through chat,
email, or telephone. Prior to taking any action, users were
required to create the problem through the client applica-
tion, and provide a short description. Alternatively, users
could use the SelfHelp feature available through the client,
and try to resolve the problem themselves.
MyHelpDesk analyst
To facilitate the work of the analysts, iCommunicate, a
third-party software, was integrated with the MyHelpDesk
database so that analysts could view user problems and
effectively communicate with users. User-created problems
were automatically assigned to support analysts. Analysts
needed to login when using the system and they could set
their status to online or offline. Incoming chats, emails or
phone calls were assigned to active analysts evenly. A sup-
port analysts’ supervisor oversaw the process and made
sure no calls or chats went unanswered.
Since iCommunicate was tightly integrated with the
MyHelpDesk database, analysts could view a detailed his-
tory of user problems. Reporting customers were quickly
identified before the analyst responded to any incoming
chats or calls, and the relevant problem retrieved. Moreover,
the system enabled analysts to remotely access the user’s
computer or device, and fix the problem remotely if needed.
Having been a third-party application that was not
designed for the CompSupport’s specific needs, iCommuni-
cate was viewed as problematic and difficult to expand. After
customer requirements started becoming more specific and
elaborate, the general consensus was that iCommunicate
should be phased-out and its functionality should be trans-
ferred to the MyHelpDesk Administrator application.
MyHelpDesk administrator
The need for an application like MyHelpDesk administra-
tor arose after signing the contract with the large retailer.
The retailer’s internal team needed to be able to view the
results of the diagnostics CompSupport’s analysts per-
formed, so appropriate action could be taken if needed. A
new tool called the Escalation Tool was created and incor-
porated into the administrator application. After prelimi-
nary investigation, support analysts could determine that
the user’s problem needed onsite attention, and hence
would escalate it. In addition, the administrator application
incorporated various reports that were available to the com-
pany clients online (screenshots of the administrator appli-
cation are available in Exhibit 3).
With increased customer requirements, new functionality
was added to the administrator application incrementally.
The Content Management tool enabled CompSupport’s
operation supervisors to add and edit predefined chat mac-
ros and boilerplate text, which were customized for each
client site. With increased levels of phone support, case-
creation functionality was added to the administrator tool to
minimize the use of iCommunicate.
The storm
In that day in May, Thomas and McLeod not only needed to
decide the future of their company, but also needed to
reflect back on the mishaps and miscalculations in the last
few years. Since its establishment, CompSupport had
always been in a continuous search for suitable customers
for the products it offered. Only after some painful lessons
was CompSupport able to concentrate its efforts on offering
its customers what they actually needed rather what they
were thought to need. At no time did CompSupport conduct
any actual market research. Steve Hamlin commented on
this issue by saying,
I think that there was not enough time spent doing market
analysis, market requirements, etc. A lot of ideas were the
Natour 15
Exhibit 2.  MyHelpDesk client.
brainchild of various internal staff with no adequate
affirmation with the actual client base.
The gathering storm
The year 2016 brought CompSupport both good and bad for-
tune. Signing a contract with a major company retailer brought
CompSupport the credibility it needed, and increased its rev-
enues significantly. However, with the financial market under-
going major restructuring, no further financing was available
to the company. The lack of funds forced the executives of
CompSupport to make the tough decision of downgrading.
More than half of the company’s employees were laid-off on
13 September, in an effort to cut costs and bring the company
closer to the break-even point (See Exhibit 4 for company
financials). Thomas commented on this by saying,
By reducing expenses while maintaining our current revenue
level, we are now well positioned to reach operating
profitability by incrementally growing our revenues during the
balance of fiscal year 2017.
During these difficult days, Thomas and McLeod
together with other executives, realized that the only
16 Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases 10(1)
Exhibit 3.  MyHelpDesk administrator.
hope the company had in surviving was to get to the
break-even point. Only essential employees were kept to
maintain operations, and to meet customer requirements.
Responsibilities became interrelated, and some employ-
ees were given more work than they could handle. This in
part led to diminishing employee morale, which was only
to decrease with the days to come. Other restructuring
moves were that of prioritizing customer accounts. That
fall of 2016, CompSupport realized that many of the
accounts held had negative margins, and efforts were
made to discontinue them. Moreover, the company’s
executives realized that they needed to concentrate their
efforts on corporate accounts.
Glimpses of hope
It was widely thought at CompSupport that the large retailer’s
contract was all the validation that was needed. CompSupport
was able to prove that their offering could significantly reduce
PC support costs for companies through outsourcing. An
additional round of financing took place early in 2017. The
money raised, however, was used to pay some of the mount-
ing debts, to at least keep creditors going. Furthermore, in an
effort to limit dependencies on external entities, the decision
was made to start offering telephone support in-house, a ser-
vice that was previously outsourced. Phone support had tradi-
tionally lower margins than online support. While support
analysts could handle multiple chats or respond to multiple
emails at the same time, they could only answer one call.
The sales team couldn’t deliver any new customers
until well into 2017. A major US warranty company,
WarrantyNet, and after an initial trial period, decided to
sign-on with CompSupport to provide diagnosis and tech-
nical support services to its customers. Although the snow-
ball effects of the large retailer’s contract were largely
overestimated in the past, the WarrantyNet contract came
as another testament to CompSupport’s ability to help cus-
tomers reduce costs. With the addition of WarrantyNet,
most of the revenue now came from two customers. A
natural progression of this was that product development
was now steered by the two customers and their needs.
With the new contract, CompSupport moved closer to
the break-even point. Nevertheless, the new contract
brought an added load of work to the already overworked
company. WarrantyNet required much customization, and
the MyHelpDesk Administrator site needed to be extended,
and new functionality added. Since the primary responsi-
bility of CompSupport was that of diagnosing problems
experienced by WarrantyNet’s customers, and report back
to WarrantyNet, integrating the systems of both companies
was given priority. Concentrating on two major customers
meant that CompSupport now had fewer resources to serve
its other customers. This in part led few smaller customers
such as Skyenet to depart, resulting in a top line revenue
loss of US$175,000 per month.
The final blow
Even with the new contract with WarrantyNet, CompSupport
was still far from the break-even point. Mike Thomas ech-
oed his concerns in February of 2017, and presented some
temporary measures the company was to proceed with:
We remain focused on becoming cash flow positive from our
operations. Since this has not happened as quickly as expected
and to reflect the challenging market conditions, we have,
effective February 20, 2017, implemented changes that will cut
an additional 20% out of our payroll costs through staff
reduction and salary rollbacks. However, in the event that we
are unable to maintain our current level of revenues or if we
Natour 17

Exhibit 4.  CompSupport financial statements.

2017 2016 2015

Revenue
  Licence fees US$73,370 US$133,663 US$7,358
  Services and other US$2,004,536 US$502,912 US$0
 Total US$2,077,906 US$636,575 US$7,358
Costs and expenses
  Cost of licence fees and services US$1,757,366 US$1,217,697 US$45,791
  Development costs US$411,068 US$1,109,416 US$543,812
  Marketing and promotion US$622,866 US$1,845,829 US$472,196
  General and administrative US$1,345,439 US$1,808,845 US$660,961
  Amortization and write-down US$718,562 US$2,663,119 US$43,824
  Stock-based compensation expense US$0 US$188,918 US$346,081
Total US$4,855,301 US$8,833,824 US$2,112,665
Loss from operations (US$2,777,395) (US$8,197,249) (US$2,105,307)
Interest income (expense), net (US$37,302) US$189,426 (US$1,397,937)
Loss for the period (US US$2,814,697) (US$8,007,823) (US$3,503,244)

incur unanticipated expenses, we will require additional capital be good for shareholders, it might not necessarily be the
in the near term. best from an employee point of view.

However, it wasn’t until April 2017 that it became evident
that the company would not be able to survive on its own.
The large retailer was undergoing some major restructuring,
and they were expected to change their pay cycle. This meant
that CompSupport might not be able to pay their employees.
In addition, it was observed that most of the WarrantyNet
users were using phone support rather than one of the
cheaper, higher-margin eSupport options. By April of 2017,
more than 80% of cases were resolved through phone calls,
resulting in lower margins than expected.
Hamlin thought that CompSupport made the mistake of
not diversifying its operations early on. As the Development
Manager, Hamlin firmly believed that CompSupport should
have entered the software-consulting arena. He summa-
rized the company’s mistakes by saying:
I tend to be one that likes to diversify so you can survive
different cycles. They tended to hop from strategy to strategy.
Each hop would result in abandoning the previous strategy
and also effectively tossing the customers that were in the
previous strategy. Many companies have a known baseline
income from consulting of software development to help
support their ventures. I think that too much effort was spent
on the ‘core’ business as it was called. More time should have
been spent making sure the company was self sufficient prior
to investing heavily on the visionary part of the business.
The merger option
One of the options CompSupport needed to consider was
that of merging with another company. The Vancouver
high tech market was undergoing a major consolidation
phase that year, and it made good sense for the executives
of CompSupport to consider the merger option. Royus
Ltd, a company that provides support for networked com-
puters entered into merger negotiations with CompSupport
in the spring of that year. Other than the physical proxim-
ity (Royus was across the street from the CompSupport
offices), both companies’ offerings were complementary
in nature. While CompSupport offered support for per-
sonal computers and devices, Royus had an established
market in the network support segment. Moreover, Royus
had the cash CompSupport was in desperate need for.
The merger option formed a threat to many of the
CompSupport employees. As the case with any merger, lay-
offs could be expected to transpire if the merger with Royus
took place. Furthermore, since CompSupport was smaller,
expectations were that the merger would affect the
CompSupport employees much more than those of Royus.
On the other hand, a merger with Royus meant that both
Thomas and McLeod will still have a significant stake, and
shareholders will still own a part of the company.

In April of that year, Thomas and McLeod realized that

they had to explore new options.
Alternatives
Thomas and McLeod had few alternatives they needed to
consider that sunny day in May. While one alternative can
The sell-out option
That spring, the shareholders of CompSupport were pre-
sented with two buyout options. Kemper Insurance
Companies, the parent company of WarrantyNet, and a
WarrantyNet competitor1 were both interested in acquiring
CompSupport. For Kemper, it was clear that CompSupport
would save WarrantyNet significant costs, and acquiring
18 Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases 10(1)
the company as a subsidiary made perfect sense. For
CompSupport, the good news was that Kemper was known
to be in the habit of acquiring companies and keeping its
interference with the day-to-day operations to minimum.
Selling the company, however, meant that both Thomas
and McLeod together with other shareholders would no
longer be able to shape the company’s vision or strategic
direction. Whether the company is acquired by Kemper or its
competitor, it was expected that operations would be mini-
mized to only serve the acquiring company’s customers.
The next step
With all of the events of the last year in mind, there was
no reason for Thomas or McLeod to believe that some
miracle was about to happen that would save the com-
pany. They both realized that no matter what course of
action they choose to follow, this might be one of their
last meetings as the top executives of CompSupport.
However, they found consolation in the fact that no mat-
ter what alternative they choose, the MyHelpDesk sys-
tem and its business model were there to stay. They had
less than 2 h left to make the decision, and they knew
that they have to carefully consider the interests of both
the shareholders and the employees. A decision could no
longer be postponed; Thomas and McLeod wanted the
business to survive another day.
Case questions
1. Evaluate the ‘product and market’ fit for
CompSupport. Is it appropriate?
2. Trace the evolution of CompSupport’s business
strategy and identify the benefits to customers/part-
ners. With each change, how did CompSupport’s
actions continue to match the strategy?
3. Evaluate CompSupport’s revenue model and their
financial standing.
4. How would you classify CompSupport’s offer-
ing? (service/product/solution) Do you think
CompSupport would have been more successful
as a software company?
5. Which alternative should Thomas and McLeod
choose?
Acknowledgements
Sameh Al-Natour prepared this case with assistance from N Datt
and D FitzGerald. The case was developed solely as the basis for
class discussion. Some names, facts and figures have been
changed for educational purposes. Cases are not intended to
serve as endorsements, sources or primary data, or illustrations of
effective or ineffective management. The main company’s name
was changed to protect the privacy of its officers.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Sameh Al Natour https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5706-0026
Note
1. We were not allowed to release the name of the company
making the second offer.
Author biography
Sameh Al Natour is an Assistant Professor at the Ted Rogers
School of IT Management at Ryerson University. He holds a PhD
and a MSc from the University of British Columbia, an MBA and
a BS from Simon Fraser University. His research interests include
the design and evaluation of human-computer interfaces, the
adoption of technological artefacts, and individual decision mak-
ing. He teaches courses in information systems strategy and
emerging technology.