1)What type of team was formed here? Was it necessary, in your opinion? 2)Use the team effectiveness model and related information in chapter 8, to identify the strengths and weaknesses of this team’s environment, design and processes. 3)Assuming that these four people must continue to work as a team, recommend ways to improve the team’s effectiveness. An average, or typical, case is often not the richest in information. In clarifying lines of history and causation it is more useful to select subjects that offer an interesting, unusual or particularly revealing set of circumstances.
A case selection that is based on representativeness will seldom be able to produce these kinds of insights. When selecting a subject for a case study, researchers will therefore use information-oriented sampling, as opposed to random sampling. Outlier cases (that is, those which are extreme, deviant or atypical) reveal more information than the potentially representative case. Alternatively, a case may be selected as a key case, chosen because of the inherent interest of the case or the circumstances surrounding it.
Or it may be chosen because of researchers’ in-depth local knowledge; where researchers have this local knowledge they are in a position to “soak and poke” as Fenno puts it, and thereby to offer reasoned lines of explanation based on this rich knowledge of setting and circumstances. Three types of cases may thus be distinguished: Key cases Outlier cases Local knowledge cases Whatever the frame of reference for the choice of the subject of the case study (key, outlier, local knowledge), there is a distinction to be made between the subjestorical unity  through which the theoretical focus of the study is being viewed.
The object is that theoretical focus – the analytical frame. Thus, for example, if a researcher were interested in US resistance to communist expansion as a theoretical focus, then the Korean War might be taken to be the subject, the lens, the case study through which the theoretical focus, the object, could be viewed and explicated.  Beyond decisions about case selection and the subject and object of the study, decisions need to be made about purpose, approach and process in the case study.
Thomas thus proposes a typology for the case study wherein purposes are first identified (evaluative or exploratory), then approaches are delineated (theory-testing, theory-building or illustrative), then processes are decided upon, with a principal choice being between whether the study is to be single or multiple, and choices also about whether the study is to be retrospective, snapshot or diachronic, and whether it is nested, parallel or sequential.
It is thus possible to take many routes through this typology, with, for example, an exploratory, theory-building, multiple, nested study, or an evaluative, theory-testing, single, retrospective study. The typology thus offers many permutations for case study structure. A closely related study in medicine is the case report, which identifies a specific case as treated and/or examined by the authors as presented in a novel form.
These are, to a differentiable degree, similar to the case study in that many contain reviews of the relevant literature of the topic discussed in the thorough examination of an array of cases published to fit the criterion of the report being presented. These case reports can be thought of as brief case studies with a principal discussion of the new, presented case at hand that presents a novel interest.