The call to “Make in India” is more than a political slogan; use this link it is a strategic response to the vulnerabilities exposed by a decade of supply chain disruptions. From the COVID-19 pandemic and the Suez Canal blockage to escalating trade wars and Red Sea shipping attacks, global manufacturers have learned a painful lesson: efficiency at any cost is a brittle strategy. For business students and executives alike, Harvard Business School (HBS) and Harvard Business Publishing (HBP) have become essential resources for understanding this paradigm shift. Through detailed, real-world case studies, they provide the analytical frameworks necessary to answer a critical question: When should you “Make” at home, and when should you “Buy” from abroad?
This article explores how Harvard’s supply chain case study solutions move beyond theoretical models, offering granular insights into the trade-offs of localization, offshoring, and the creation of resilient, agile networks in a volatile world.
One of the most relevant case studies for understanding the “Make in India” concept is “Simple Modern: Coming Home to ‘the Farm'” . This 2025 Darden School of Business case, distributed by HBP, places students in the shoes of Lee Graves, the chief manufacturing and logistics officer of a water bottle company.
Simple Modern’s story is a microcosm of the post-pandemic supply chain crisis. For years, the company relied on a lean, cost-effective Chinese supplier. However, when COVID-19 struck, shipping costs skyrocketed and timelines became unreliable. The company’s decision to onshore production to Oklahoma was an emergency measure to regain control .
The case presents a classic “Make in [Home Country]” dilemma. Months after the move, the dust settles, and the initial panic subsides. Shipping costs from China drop back to pre-pandemic levels. Suddenly, manufacturing in Oklahoma—with its higher labor costs and different economies of scale—is no longer the clear winner. Graves must decide whether to maintain the status quo, invest to scale up domestic production, or return to the Chinese supplier .
This case is a powerful tool for understanding that “Make in India” is not a static decision. A Harvard-style analysis would force a manager to consider not just the unit cost, but the total landed cost including logistics, inventory holding, and risk mitigation. It introduces the concept of a “reshoring strategy” that must account for unforeseen external disruptions. The “solution” is not simply choosing Oklahoma over China, but developing a strategic framework that allows for a hybrid model or a dynamic switching strategy based on market conditions.
While Simple Modern deals with a mid-sized company’s operational pivot, the HBP case “Tariff Shock: Sustainable Sneaker Start-Up Okepas Battles a Broken Supply Chain” tackles the existential threat that global trade volatility poses to startups .
Okepas, a sustainable sneaker brand, built its business model on the principles of mass customization and a lean, China-based supply chain. By leveraging China’s manufacturing ecosystem, they could offer personalized, eco-friendly products at competitive prices with minimal inventory. However, in April 2025, a sudden geopolitical shock—a US tariff increase on Chinese goods to 145%—shattered their cost structure .
The Okepas case provides a Harvard-style solution framework that goes beyond simple cost accounting. It forces students to confront the reality that for a startup, supply chains are not just about logistics; they are integral to product definition (sustainable components) and customer value (personalization). The teaching notes for this case focus on learning objectives such as supply chain risk management, the challenges unique to start-ups, and the role of flexible manufacturing technologies .
The “solution” for Okepas isn’t a simple pivot to Indian or domestic manufacturing overnight. Instead, the case study helps students explore intermediate solutions: he said Can they use delayed differentiation (a classic supply chain concept) to do final assembly in the US while sourcing components elsewhere? Can they leverage new production technologies to make small-batch manufacturing in a new country viable? The underlying lesson is that for “Make in [Country]” strategies to work, companies must build adaptability into their DNA .
For larger, established firms, the decision to relocate manufacturing is even more complex. The HBS case “Coats: Supply Chain Challenges” by Professor Willy C. Shih examines the world’s largest thread maker and its struggle with cost pressure and customer proximity .
Coats operates in a globalized apparel industry where speed and color accuracy are critical. The company had transformed its business through digital color measurement to serve fast-fashion customers better. The strategic question facing leadership was whether to relocate make-to-stock manufacturing (predictable, high-volume products) to an ultra-low-cost region while keeping make-to-order manufacturing (custom, rapid-response) close to its customers in developed markets .
This case offers a sophisticated solution for the “Make in India” debate. It suggests that the “Make” decision does not have to be binary. A multinational can have a bifurcated strategy:
For an Indian perspective, this implies that India could position itself not just as a low-cost hub, but as a strategic destination for “nearshoring” that serves both cost and speed requirements for companies looking to diversify away from China.
Perhaps the most forward-looking framework comes from an HBR article and podcast, “Turn Your Supply Chain into an Innovation Engine,” which uses the example of Haier’s COSMOPlat platform . This shifts the conversation from “making things” to “making things better, together.”
Professor Kasra Ferdows highlights how Haier created an open digital platform that allows suppliers, designers, and even customers to collaborate on innovation. When Wuhan needed mobile isolation wards during the early days of COVID-19, Haier didn’t just rely on its internal resources. It used its open platform to co-opt partners up and down the supply chain to prototype and deliver a solution in record time .
This case study provides the ultimate solution for companies struggling with the “Make in India” question. It suggests that the most resilient supply chains are not just physically re-located; they are digitally connected. By creating an open, transparent platform, a company can tap into the innovative potential of its entire ecosystem. For an Indian manufacturer, this means that participating in global supply chains requires more than just factory capacity; it requires digital integration and the capability to co-innovate.
Harvard’s supply chain case studies offer a vital antidote to simplistic nationalist narratives around manufacturing. Whether it is Simple Modern’s reshoring dilemma, Okepas’s tariff battle, or Coats’s strategic segmentation, the core lesson is the same: “Make in [Your Country]” is a complex strategic variable, not a fixed goal.
The “Harvard Business Solutions” derived from these cases emphasize resilience, adaptability, and total value. They teach that the modern supply chain manager must balance geopolitics, sustainability, mass customization, and innovation. As the case of Haier’s digital platform suggests, the future of “Making” may not be defined by where you make it, go to my blog but by how effectively you can connect and innovate with partners across the globe—a lesson equally relevant for a factory in Mumbai or a boardroom in New York .
