- Class Participation: 20%
- Case Write-ups: 40%
- Course Project: Intermediate reports (deliverables) and presentations: 20%
- Course Project: Final report and presentation: 20%
- How do you explain the current status of Plastigon after four years of effort?
- What should Elsner do about Plastigon?
- What does the Plastigon experience teach us?
- Where does the difficulty lie in the management of "vol-de-nuit"?
- How should Lemonde approach this problem?
- Does ULG have enough capacity to accept all projects proposed by the 3 brands? If not, which ones should be postponed?
- If they accepted all the projects what would be the utilization rate for the formulation labs?
- What is the biggest threat confronting iMotors?
- What are the key enablers of the business model?
- Does iMotors have a competitive advantage in the industry?
- What do you think are the reasons that the Kittyhawk project failed?
- What do you think of the product concept the Kittyhawk team pursued?
- What is your view on the concept selection process?
- How does continuous casting fit in with USX’s existing business?
- How much would USX save by implementing continuous casting? Should Kappmeyer sign the proposal?
- What is the difference between a disruptive innovation and a sustaining innovation?
- Where should Rogers manufacture its Electroluminescent lamps? Should the product be sold as a finalized or a semi-finalized good?
- When should the product be introduced in the market?
- How does Rogers manage the technology transfer process? What about the process and product development process?
- Does Delta run the risk to get stuck in a low commodity business?
- What could Delta do to influence their power in the value chain as technology suppliers?
- How does 3iInfotech compete? What are the core elements of their strategic position?
- What is the contribution of product development (GDCs) to the company strategy?
- Derive a mission for the GDC.
- Think about 3i's strategy repositioning; what made it feasible?
- What is driving Vandelay to consider acquiring R/3?
- What are the concerns that (i) the CEO is facing with the acquisition, and (ii) the project manager is facing with the acquisition?
- What are the advantages of technology-enabled vs. clean-sheet reengineering approaches?
- What do you think about the fairness of the new evaluation process in IASEB?
- Is Robert correct in his process steps?
- What should Peter Mc Gregor do?
- Analyze the advantages and disadvantages with Solagen
- What is your recommendation?
- Choose a single company that you happen to either know because of your subject (e.g. an electronics engineer would have heard of Solectron), or you have done an internship with them (this second possibility would enable you to acquire more data for your project). Try to study and analyze an important technological decision you know they have undertaken in the past few years. How to do that? Either though studying documents and secondary evidence on the process and results of the technological choice, or by contacting them and talking with them through formal interviews. Remember: you have an advantage! You are coming from GTech which is a good brand name for approaching companies. You have to be smart in selling your project idea to them! After all, they could benefit from such a study with much less cost than what they would pay to a consultant.
- Choose an industry and analyze how the industry evolved over time technologically. A part of the course will discuss relevant topics therefore you will have some background knowledge for that. Your focus should be on the industry level analysis – that is how many companies operate in that industry, how many stayed and exited after technological changes, the “why” associated with it etc. Such a study would require search on secondary sources, such as databases of the Georgia Tech library. What would be the benefit? Detailed knowledge of an industry where you may see your career located after your degree in GTech. Although it may sound tedious, not many engineers possess that type of knowledge.
- Choose a brand new technology and analyze potential applications, discussing strengths and weaknesses in managing its development and implementation. Throughout the course we will discuss relevant topics. In that respect try to exploit the GaTech environment! You are lucky to be in a school that is known for its technological advance, and for the big number of inventions that take place on its campus. Take advantage of that! Talk with people from engineering if you have “techie” questions. Find out where the technology front lies, and use the course knowledge and your imagination for the potential applications. Do not forget that possible utilizations of new technologies may stem from discussions with industry people. As in option (a) try to interview people that work in the relevant industries.
- Choose carefully the development capital intensity of your product! Examples: semiconductor = bad; too expensive, unless the project is sponsored by a company; internet based auction for xyz good = better; although you would need to have a venture capitalist supplying you with >$1m to get the company going, you could easily get to the stage of a working prototype even at your computers!
- The "imitation fear" effect: If you think you have a great idea that runs the risk to be copied if you bring it to discussion in the course, then you have two choices: first, DO NOT use it for the class, or, second, try to develop a simpler and vaguer version of it, and exploit the class to get some feedback. Whatever the case, keep in mind that very often people have had the illusion that they had a fantastic idea that later on turned out to be already done by somebody else. Hence, be really careful when thinking about it!
- Exploit the GaTech environment, and the Atlanta area! You are lucky to be in a school that is known for its technological advance, and for the big number of inventions that take place on its campus. Take advantage of that! Talk with people from engineering if you have "techie" questions. Find out where the technology front lies. Try to engage personal contacts and identify problems and potential projects.
- When defining the team, you have to abide to a diversity constraint with respect to the members' backgrounds! Each team should involve both technical competence and managerial capabilities hence each team is required to have AT MOST 3 MBA students (if not I will redistribute people!) and AT LEAST 2 different background specializations (e.g. ME, MBA, ECE etc.).
- What is the core function of your product to be?
- Why do you think it will be useful?
- Update on the project progress and its intermediate results. These sessions can be used for further exploration of possibilities and of course for exhibition of your work! A short report will be asked and an equally short presentation.
- Present the "final"working prototype (so that the class is convinced that it works). Put together the relevant information for your product. That implies including a summary of all previous steps. Then offer estimates for production/service launch, how much time would it take to get to full capacity (as a proxy from the defections you observed during prototyping), what capacities are you planning to achieve.
- What does the operating unit need to do well? In other words, the firm, or the plant, or the strategic business unit (SBU), must have a key performance dimension. It must have some capabilities that render the unit competitive or it does not have some capabilities and it should acquire them. Usual questions that may help along these lines of analysis are: what is the main product/service? Who is the customer of the firm? What are their characteristics? How are the customers affected by the often employed performance dimensions (e.g. cost, reliability, product design and features, delivery capabilities and service, product variety)? It may also be helpful to examine the unit competitors, and to realize what differentiates the competition in terms of performance. Final point: very rarely a unit can excel along all performance measures compared to their competitors.
- Examine the evidence. Try to think along the lines of a medical doctor’s work: why is management concerned? What are the symptoms of the problem? They may be vague observations such as “profits are declining,” or specific data on “losing customers due to product unavailability,” or “excessive inventory.” These symptoms drive performance deterioration.
- Perform an initial diagnosis. At that stage you will need to employ analytical thinking (especially if you refer to OM cases) and tools that can represent the process steps, their characteristics and their outcome. The answer will identify the underlying causes for the symptoms. Most times the answers are not necessarily unidirectional. There may be multiple underlying causes and you will need to prioritize them or focus on the one with the most apparent impact.
- Identify potential management actions. Such levers can improve the current situations, and they are usually identified through the case questions. For example, the first case for this course (i.e. Shouldice Hospital) focuses on capacity expansion. The main actions relate to potential ways for expanding the capacity. When the case questions do not make the levers clear, relate back to the main stakeholders (i.e. customers, competitors) and think along their perceptions and weaknesses (they may reveal potential actions).
- Estimate the action outcomes. Since you have identified potential levers, each may cause different results both desirable and undesirable. Record the potential outcomes and undergo a ranking of these outcomes. Which lever seems to ensure improvement with the minimal negative impact? Once this is done, consider contingencies. This implies performing a “what if” analysis for the potential outcomes (in a sense you will need to set out actions for the circumstances when an action may not lead to the expected outcome). Think of this latter analysis as the second order effects.
- Finally, set up a plan of action. Prioritize the potential actions and decide about their mix. As a last step assess the potential for committing to a set of actions without full information; perhaps you could think about potential experiments/tests that could provide you with additional information in case you need to resolve further uncertainty.
- Cambell Soup (HBS)
- Vol de Nuit: The Dream of the Flying Car at Lemonde Automobiles SA (INSEAD)
- R&D Management at Universal Luxury Group – Perfumes and Cosmetics (A) & (B) (INSEAD)
- iMotors: New Competition in Used Cars (A) (INSEAD)
- Hewlett-Packard: The fight for the Kittyhawk (HBS 9-697-060)
- Continuous Casting Investment at USX Corporation (HBS)
- Rogers Corporation: Electroluminescent Lamps (HBS)
- Delta Electronics: Bringing the Computer into the Car (INSEAD)
- 3i Infotech (INSEAD)
- Vandelay Industries Inc. (HBS)
- IASEB: Structuring the Evaluation of IT Services (CoM)
- Solagen: Process Improvement in the Manufacturing of Gelatin at Kodak (HBS)
- Supplement 4 on Operations Technology, Chase, Aguilano, and Jacobs
- K. T. Ulrich, and S. D. Eppinger Ch. 16, Product Design and Development, Irwin / Mc-Graw-Hill
- Christensen C. Ch. 9 Innovator’s Dilemma, HBS Press 1997
- DeMeyer A., C. H. Loch, and M. T. Pich “Managing Project Uncertainty: From Variation to Chaos”, Sloan Management Review, 43 (2), Winter 2002, 60-67
- P.S. Adler et al. 1995 “From Project to Process Management”, Management Science, March 1995.
- Dyer O., “Japanese-style Partnerships: Giving Companies a Competitive Edge”, Sloan Management Review, Fall 1993
- “Alstom Transport ESS” Chapter 4, Industrial Excellence, Loch C.H. et al. Springer-Verlag 2003
- Subramanian R., and R. Adner. “Profits and the Internet: Seven Misconceptions”, Sloan Management Review, Summer 2001
- J. M. Utterback “Innovation and Industrial Evolution”, Chapter 4 in Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, J. M. Utterback, HBS Press, 1994.
- Thomke S., and E. von Hippel, “Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value”, Harvard Business Review, April 2002, pp. 74-81
- Bower J. L., and C. M. Christensen, “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave”, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1995, pp. 43-53
- Pisano G. and S. Wheelwright, “The New Logic of the High-Tech R&D”, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1995.
- M. E. Porter, “Technology and Competitive Advantage”, Ch. 5 in Competitive Advantage, M. E. Porter, The Free Press 1985
- Markides C., “A Dynamic View of Strategy” Sloan Management Review, Summer 2001.
- Leonard-Barton D., Bowen K. H., Clark K. B., Holloway C. A., and S. Wheewright, “How to Integrate Work and Deepen Experience” Harvard Business Review, September-October 1994.
- R. E. Bohn, “Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge”, Sloan Management Review, Fall 1994.
- Loch C. H., and U. A. S. Tapper “Implementing a Strategy-Driven Performance Measurement System for an Applied Research Group”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, pp. 422-436
- Chew B., Leonard-Barton D., and R. E. Bohn, “Beating Murhy’s Law”, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1991.
MGT 6772: Managing Resources of the Technological Firm
Professor: Stylianos (Stelios) Kavadias
Office: 452 Technology Square Management Building
Phone: 404-894-4370
Office Hours: With Appointment.
Course Description and Learning Objectives
The course focuses on the challenges associated with the effective management of the resources of the firm for long-term competitive advantage. I place particular emphasis on the advantage created by the efficient use of a hard-to-acquire resource: technology. In today’s fierce competition among firms, successful technologies constitute the number one “weapon” for long-term viability and growth.
The course discusses several key themes, such as performance measurement, technology adoption, industrial dynamics etc. through the "lens" of process management. Therefore, rather than aiming to forecast and/or optimize the outcome of a system, the scope will be to understand the mechanisms of the underlying process(es) and the determining drivers of certain possible outcomes. The latter provide a basis of assessment of managerial actions given the conditions encountered in the field. Unfortunately, the management reality is far more complex than any chemical, mechanical or electrical system, since apart from physical boundary conditions and underlying phenomena, they involve additional unpredictable (also known as chaotic or nonlinear) factors: human behavior, human interactions and social systems. Still, the state-of-the-art research in management (and especially process management, or operations management), has achieved a deep level of understanding of some critical phenomena and decisions, maintaining a very rigorous level of analysis (i.e. mathematical models employing Markov decision processes, empirical analyses of time series data etc.)
Overall the course will cover methods to design (plan), measure (assess), and improve (change) the technological capabilities for firm products or services.
The course is designed for students that want to familiarize themselves with a deeper comprehension level of the management of technology concepts and methods. The only pre-requisite is the student interest in the topic! Students are going to get exposed to case studies of management phenomena. That is, short descriptions of specific management problems, which through analysis and discussion reveal caveats that may hamper successful decision making in a firm and undermine future growth. In addition, articles from managerial publications such as Harvard Business Review, and Sloan Management Review will be distributed. The participants shall also acquire an overview of the field of technology management, and apply some of the concepts in a semester project (more details see evaluation section).
Course Materials
All cases of the course outline and relevant articles or book chapters are included in the package. Additional readings and materials will be passed out in class.
Course Grading Policy
Evaluations will be based upon the following components weighted as indicated:
Class Participation refers to regular class attendance, but it goes beyond student simple presence in class. It has as prerequisites, of course, courteous and professional comportment in class. Students are expected to prepare the cases in advance, and participate actively in the class discussion enriching the views of their classmates as well as mine. Please, ensure that comments made do not insult in ANY way fellow classmates and/or the instructor. Although I will not take class attendance students should be aware that missing a session impacts the total grade through less participation. In addition, each session contains key elements to be used for the final project. This will constitute the individual performance part of your grade.
Case write-ups should address the questions that accompany the case assignment. In preparing your write up, you should be aware of two major points: (a) be concise and well structured; I am not supposed to guess what you may have implied by your write up; Note also that lengthy write ups DO NOT necessarily get better grades, (b) be punctual; late submissions will be penalized by 20% less on grading. The case write-ups will have to be done ONE by each team, and together with the course project they will determine the team performance part of your grade!
Course Project; see Special Section.
Honor Code
The GeorgiaTech Honor Code applies. Students are responsible for the information contained in the Academic Honesty policies found here .
Course Tentative Schedule
Session 1: (January 8) Introduction and Overview of the Course
Background: (any) Technology Quarterly, The Economist
Session 2: (January 17) Positioning strategies in manufacturing and services
Supplement 4 on Operations Technology, Chase, Aguilano, and Jacobs.
Management of Technology within the firm: the process view
Session 3: (January 22) Product - Process Design Integration
Case: Campbell Soup
Session 4: (January 24) Project Management
Ch. 16, Product Design and Development, K. T. Ulrich, and S. D. Eppinger Irwin / Mc-Graw-Hill
Session 5: (January 29) [PRESENTATION 1] Team mission statement
Session 6: (January 31) Managing Highly Uncertain Technology Development [CASE WRITE-UP 1]
Case: Vol-de-Nuit: The Dream of the Flying Car at Lemonde Automobiles SA
DeMeyer A., C. H. Loch, and M. T. Pich "Managing Project Uncertainty: From Variation to Chaos", Sloan Management Review, 43 (2), Winter 2002, 60-67
Session 7: (February 5) R&D Portfolio Management
Case: R&D Management at Universal Luxury Group
P.S. Adler et al. 1995 "From Project to Process Management", Management Science, March 1995.
Session 8: (February 7) Managing Technology in the Supply chain
Dyer O., "Japanese-style Partnerships: Giving Companies a Competitive Edge", Sloan Management Review, Fall 1993
"Alstom Transport ESS" Chapter 4, Industrial Excellence, Loch C.H. et al. Springer-Verlag 2003.
Session 9: (February 12) Restructuring the value-chain [CASE WRITE-UP 2]
Case: iMotors: New Competition in Used Cars (A)
Subramanian R., and R. Adner. “Profits and the Internet: Seven Misconceptions”, Sloan Management Review, Summer 2001.
Technological Innovation and Industrial Dynamics
Session 10: (February 14) Technology Innovation, Basic Concepts
“Innovation and Industrial Evolution”, Chapter 4, Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, J. M. Utterback, HBS Press, 1994.
Session 11: (February 19) Where can we find Innovation?
Thomke S., and E. von Hippel, "Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value", Harvard Business Review, April 2002, pp. 74-81
Session 12: (February 21) The Innovator’s dilemma
Case: Hewlett-Packard: The Fight for the Kittyhawk
Christensen C. Ch. 9 Innovator’s Dilemma, HBS Press 1997
Session 13: (February 26) Disruptive Innovation
Case: Continuous Casting Investment at USX Corporation
Bower J. L., and C. M. Christensen, "Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave", Harvard Business Review, January-February 1995, pp. 43-53
Session 14: (February 28) Diffusion and Technology Transfer
Case: Rogers Corporation: Electroluminescent Lamps
Pisano G. and S. Wheelwright, “The New Logic of the High-Tech R&D”, Harvard Business Review, September-October 1995.
Session 15: (March 5) OEM-Supplier Technology Transfer
Case: Delta Electronics: Bringing the Computer into the Car
Technology Strategy and Organizational Structure
Session 16: (March 7) Technology Strategy
"Technology and Competitive Advantage", Ch. 5, M. E. Porter, Competitive Advantage, The Free Press 1985.
Session 17: (March 12) Project Day; no session
Session 18: (March 14) Project Progress Presentation
Session 19: (March 26) Project Progress Presentation
Session 20: (March 28) Technology Strategy[CASE WRITE-UP 3]
Case:3i Infotech: Transformation from IT Outsourcing to IT Products
Session 21: (April 4) A framework for technology strategy
Markides C., "A Dynamic View of Strategy" Sloan Management Review, Summer 2001.
Session 22: (April 4): Core Capabilities
Leonard-Barton D., Bowen K. H., Clark K. B., Holloway C. A., and S. Wheewright, "How to Integrate Work and Deepen Experience" Harvard Business Review, September-October 1994.
Session 23: (April 11) Productivity and Quality
Case: Vandelay Industries Inc.
R. E. Bohn, "Measuring and Managing Technological Knowledge", Sloan Management Review, Fall 1994.
Session 24: (April 16) Evaluation in Services and Organizational Structure [CASE WRITE-UP 4]
Case: IASEB: Structuring the Evaluation of IT Services
Loch C. H., and Tapper U.A.S. 2002. "Implementing a Strategy-Driven Performance Measurement System for an Applied Research Group", Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, pp.185-198
Session 25: (April 18) Managing Technological Change
Case: Solagen: Process Improvement in the Manufacturing of Gelatin at Kodak
Chew B., Leonard-Barton D., and R. E. Bohn, "Beating Murhy’s Law", Sloan Management Review, Spring 1991.
Session 26: (April 23) Final Student Presentations - Delivery of final report
Session 27: (April 25) Final Student Presentations - Delivery of final report
Appendix I: Course Project
The course project is the most important part of your grade! It is supposed to exhibit that throughout the class you acquired the knowledge and hopefully the ability to successfully study the management of technology process. It will be conducted in teams of 5-6 students. There will be a constraint in the team composition: in each team there should be at least 3 different disciplines represented! Diversification may seem a big hurdle to overcome, but it also guarantees more open minded approaches in different problems. Hence exploit it! At the same time such diversification will be offering a great opportunity: it will simulate real management teams! Once out in the “real world” there will be no guarantee of homogeneity in views and opinions. Hence, try to learn from this experience.
There are three main options for your project theme:
All these imply that students must be careful about the product idea. Here are some important issues to keep in mind:
The following deliverables are expected with respect to the course project (a report and a presentation by each team; time will be determined upon full knowledge of participants)
Deliverable 1
Hint: Use your fellow classmates and myself as "sounding boards" for good feedback! You can always try to focus and refine the exact questions you are planning to answer through your project.
Deliverable 2
Final deliverable
Remarks I will ask the group members to evaluate each other's participation in the project, and in case of serious indications of non-cooperation, I retain the right to penalize the responsible member. Remember: ONLY in cases of serious deviations!
Deliverable 1
Case studies usually address a problem that appears to hamper productivity and efficiency in a company (as a whole or a specific unit within it). The idea behind the case study method is to familiarize the student audience with real problems where multiple confounding factors seem to impact the business unit performance, but eventually not all of them do. Usually, a few causes surface – through a careful analysis – as the major ones; the ones that management should focus on. The operations management cases often involve making future plans and proposing a potential plan to escape the further deterioration of performance.
One of the natural reactions from the student side involves the difficulty to know “where to start.” The current note aims to aid along these lines. I am laying out six potential steps that can provide a guideline for starting with the case analysis. Although each case is entirely different than the others and requires the use of different tools, there are some common approaches to its analysis. Still, several case studies also entail the element of “intended confusion”, that is they are written in such ways that may confuse or mislead the reader; in such circumstances the student audience needs to “think out of the box.” The first few times this sounds rather unfair, but as experience in analyzing situations is built, such complex problems appeal as the most interesting ones. Finally, case studies that are extremely realistic tend to have no “best” solution! In these situations the analysis should involve a prioritization of issues: ask yourselves the question “which is the urgent problem here?”
More specifically the six steps are:
Course Cases
Course Articles (including optional)