Victor Tang

Patent Litigation as a Leading Market Indicator

The purpose of this paper is to introduce patent litigation as a leading indicator of market growth. We model the intensity of patent litigation and the market growth for the personal computer and cellular phone market in the USA. By means of these analytic models, we show that patent litigation is a leading indicator of market growth. We are also able very precisely to delineate discrete stages of the products market life cycle and demarcate the time when life-cycle transitions are about to take place. We close this paper with a discussion on new lines of patent research that are potentially useful for managerial practice and for investment decisions.

Multifunctional Enterprise Readiness: Beyond the Policy of Build-Test-Fix Cyclic Rework

NASA, the US Government and many companies attempt to manage the development and launch of new technology using Technology Readiness Levels, TRLs. Unfortunately, TRLs as generally defined are outdated and flawed, based on the extent of prototype or hardware use in the field. Urgency in improving TRL levels drives early release of hardware before it is ready, and initiates cyclic rounds of debugging and fixing failures in the field or laboratory. Such a build-test-fix approach to product development is now well documented to be inefficient and wasteful. We present updated definitions of technology readiness levels (TRLs) based on the lean and design-for-six-sigma product design methodology, a radical departure from the “build-test-fix” methodology of conventional TRLs. We argue that the iterative build-test-fix approach of cyclic rework is costly to product development, as well as, downstream manufacturing and services. We call our updated TRL the L-TRL, for Lean TRL. Consistent with our L-TRL, we also present updated definitions for Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) to address lean and six-sigma manufacturing principles. Hence we call them L-MRL. We address a void in the literature and unveil definitions for service readiness levels (SRLs).Copyright

International joint venture of two giants in the CRT industry: strategy analysis using system dynamics

The past decade has seen a dramatic rise in the number international joint ventures (IJV) and a great majority of them fail. Although the research literature continues to expand, there is an imbalance to the attention paid to the process and operational management side of IJVs. We begin this article with a survey of the literature and we segment the research stream into the life cycle phases of an IJV: the IJV input, process, and output schools of investigation. Then, we present an overview of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) industry and the competitive forces that influenced LG and Philips to form a strategic joint venture. Next, which is the core of this article, we use the disciplines of system dynamics to perform strategy analyses of the dynamics of the LG-Philips IJV. The fundamental intent of this paper is to demonstrate how system dynamics is an effective analytic instrument to derive strategic measures, as well as countermeasures to strengthen the IJV operations and to weaken competitors and blunt the impact of their actions. We show how we can model technology-intensive businesses, in the context of industries and markets, by means of systems with intricate and technology-idiosyncratic feedback characteristics, but whose complex system behaviour is substantially more easily discernable from their graphic representations. Fourth, we close this article with a discussion on the limitations of our analysis and potential areas for further research.

Does-It-Work? Metrology for Functionality and Efficacy

We will unpack this question very systematically and rigorously. First, we make clear that this question cannot not be addressed as if discussing a light bulb, a used car, or a radio. To answer “does it work” in a meaningful and thoughtful way, we adopt the approach used by pharmaceutical companies. Demonstrating that a drug works is a stringent process, which is also regulated by unforgiving laws. A drug works if its developers can verify that it is functional. The science must be valid. Then its efficacy must be verified with people. The science and the statistics must be valid. A drug works if and only if both functionality and its efficacy are verified. This the standard we seek. Second, verification requires instruments, a measurement system, and processes that specify how the instruments are to be used and how measurement data are to be analyzed and interpreted. Simply stated, a metrology must exist. We need a metrology for our paradigm. Regrettably, in spite of our best efforts, we are unable to find a metrology for prescriptive decision paradigms. As a result, we developed a metrology and measurement instrument. To our knowledge this is a first in this field and very meaningful contribution. We invite scholars to research this subject and add to the body of knowledge of metrology in the praxis of decision theory.

Operations: Foundations and Processes

We introduce the conceptual and theoretical foundations of our prescriptive paradigm for robust decisions. Whereas decision-making is an event, executive decision management is a life-cycle of a complex of five spaces. The five spaces are: The Problem Space, Solution Space, Operations Space, Performance Space and the Commitment Space. Consistent with the prescriptive nature of our paradigm, we concentrate on actionable processes and procedures within each of those five spaces. The goal of our prescriptive paradigm is to enable systematic design of robust decisions. The key sociotechnical processes are robust design synthesis, Design of Experiments (DOE) using gedanken experiments, Gage R&R, making uncertainty tractable with spanning set of uncertainty regimes, and the process to represent system behavior phenomenologically.

Summary: Executive Decision Synthesis Paradigm

We have two goals for this chapter. The first is to present a summary of the key ideas of our prescriptive decision paradigm. Second is to state the overarching concepts of our paradigm. These concepts are “like the skeleton, which, invisible to the naked eye, gives form and function to the body” (Morgenthau, Politics among nations. Alferd A. Knopf, 1960). These concepts are faintly visible throughout the book, but they form the skeleton of our book. We must be clear that we are making no claims about paradigm as theory. We are grounded on theory, but we are not building theory. Third, we will argue that we a rigorous paradigm. To demonstrate rigor, we submit our paradigm to tests of theory formulated by scholars. These tests of theory are the “eye of the needle” to demonstrate the paradigm’s rigor, not to claim to theory. But nevertheless, we will thread the needle. We conclude that we have a rigorous prescriptive paradigm for robust executive decisions. The functionality and efficacy of our systematic process is verified by our simulations and case studies.

Verifying Efficacy: Yokozuna Project

This is the second chapter of Part III. We engage with a real world customer to verify the efficacy of our methodology. In the previous chapter, we worked with HiTEM, a high- technology contract manufacturer of electronics components. In this chapter, we report our work with a world-class e-business service company, eSvcs Japan, eSvcsJ for short. This chapter documents an evaluation of an eSvcsJ decision that was under implementation with a world-class Japanese manufacturer. The client of eSvcs, we name Yokozuna. Yokozuna is a title given to grand champions Sumo wrestlers. Yokozuna is a gigantic enterprise, intensely competitive, and remarkably nimble for its size. The firm has a demanding no-nonsense CEO and an authoritarian command and control system that emphasizes execution. The appellation, Yokozuna, is appropriate.

Verifying Functionality: Maximizing Annual Operating Income (AOI)

This chapter is another verification simulation using the same ADI surrogate except for a different executive decision—to maximize annual operating income (AOI). This a decision to deal with internal operations. The goal is to demonstrate to the industry and its employees that the executive managers of the firm and competent and are able to run ADI. Best effort has been made to attach the data for the simulations as appendices and all the calculations are shown and illustrated.

Verifying Efficacy: HiTEM Inc.

This chapter is an introduction to Part III, the third step in our presentation of our paradigm and prescriptive methodology. This first chapter of Part III is our first real business-enterprise case study executed in the field. Whereas in Part II, we used the ADI system dynamics model as a surrogate to verify functionality, we now go to field in the real word to verify efficacy. Functionality and efficacy demonstrate that our methodology works.

Verifying Efficacy: Navy Force Structure

This chapter is a challenging case study that deals with national security. The strategic decision is about the size and structure of the US Navy for the year 2037. This case itself is a grand gedanken experiment done with experts. This case is demanding because it is very multidimensional. We had to consider geopolitical issues, economics, recent and not so recent history, international law, national cultures, NATO, and so on. The solution space under the uncertainty conditions specified consisted of 1,374,389,534,720 candidate decision alternatives. We constructed robust decisions using our decision-synthesis methodology without constraining the ability to explore any region of the solution space under any uncertainty. No data or information—in physical, electronic or verbal—in this chapter originate from any classified sources. The analyses and inferences do not represent positions of the US Navy.