BUS544 – Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation

Spring 2014

INSTRUCTOR	Dr. Mark Meckler	OFFICE HRS.
CLASSROOM	Beverton Room	MONDAY
TELEPHONE	503/943-7467	TUESDAY	TBA
TELEPHONE		WEDNESDAY	TBA
FAX	503/943-8041	THURSDAY	TBA
EMAIL	meckler@up.edu	FRIDAY
OFFICE NO.	Franz 407
TIME	TBA	Or by Appointment

Course Prerequisite: BUS 504 or Equivalent

Course Description: Offers an introduction to technological innovation as a core business activity. The goal of the course is to produce students that are capable of tailoring their managerial work to the distinctive conditions of a technological innovation imperative. Through readings and case studies students learn what managers need to know about various contemporary technologies; how the market performance of technological innovations can be expected to vary under alternative environmental conditions; and how to manage technological innovation process itself. Students need not be technologically oriented to succeed in the course.

Learning Goals Addressed in this Course:

X	Research Skills – Students conduct one research project and are taught how to do a patent search
X	Analytic and Critical Thinking Skills – Case studies are used every class meeting with which students learn to analyze, critique and suggest a course of action to solve different business problems
	Value System -
	Interpersonal Skills –
X	Broad Core of Business Knowledge – The core materials bring together topics of strategic management, management of change, marketing, new product development, business law and operations management

Course Objectives:

1.To develop an awareness of the range, scope, and complexity of issues and problems related to the strategic management of technological innovation

2.To develop an understanding of the "state of the art" of the strategic management of technological innovation

3. To develop a conceptual framework for assessing and auditing the innovative technological capabilities of a business organization

4. To develop insight concerning the skills necessary to be effective as a general manager in the technological innovation process.

Leadership Skill(s) and Perspectives Addressed (on 1 ‑ 10 scale of intensity):

Communication	Problem Solving	Teamwork	Technology	Social Consciousness	Mathematical Decision Skills	Global Perspective
7	10	6	10	5	4	8

Texts:

• Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation by Robert A. Burgelman, Clayton M. Christensen, and Steven C. Wheelwright, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2009. This book is available through the bookstore and online.

Assignments, Evaluation, and Grading

Please pay attention to the due dates and times. Assignments will lose one full letter grade for each 24 hours (or portion thereof) that the assignment is late. This means if the assignment is due at 12:00 pm on Tuesday and you turn it in between 12:00 pm Tuesday and 12:00 pm Wednesday, an “A” paper becomes a “B” paper.

I expect you to raise any questions about grades on exams or assignments during regularly scheduled office hours (or by making an appointment) within one week of receiving the grade. Grades will not be changed after more than one week has passed from the posting date. There will be no “extra credit” assignments offered or accepted.

Grading Guidelines for Student Papers

"A" (Excellent)-This is an excellent paper. The content is thoughtful, perceptive and original. The style is superior, and the mechanics are close to flawless. The paper is comprehensive and demonstrates a good grasp of the concepts discussed in class and in your textbook. The analysis is outstanding and the insights developed are exceptional.

"B" (Good)-This is a good paper. Its original, complex ideas are well developed, well organized and compellingly defended. It does not contain any major distracting errors in mechanics and usage. However, it lacks the distinctive style and/or content necessary to set it above other papers. In particular, it does a reasonably good job of analysis but not exceptional. There is an easily recognized and well-connected link between the paper’s topic and the content being studied in the classroom.

"C" (Satisfactory)-This is an average paper. It is a competent effort that is generally clear and coherent, but it contains errors in organization and/or mechanics. It carries out the assignment in a routine manner, but the writing is not vigorous nor the ideas fresh. The paper does an adequate job of analysis and there is some connection between the topic covered and the content being studied in the classroom.

"D" (Poor)-This is a poor paper. It is intelligible but weak; it addresses the assignment but does not state or support a commitment to the topic. It contains frequent grammatical errors, making the paper difficult to read. Its content shows minimal effort. The paper does a poor job of analysis and there is little connection between the paper’s topic and the content being studied in the classroom.

"F" (Fail) -This paper is unintelligible. It is incoherent, illogical, factually inaccurate, and logically inconsistent.

Grading Scale (Sample)

A = 93-100 C+ = 77-79 D- = 60-62

A- = 90-92 C = 73-76 F <60

B+ = 87-89 C- = 70-72

B = 83-86 D+ = 67-69

B- = 80-82 D = 63-66

Course Rationale

This course is an introduction to the management of technology as a core business activity and the management of research and development as functional departments. The material is largely based upon the assumption that success in the management of business ventures requires not only technologists capable of relating their endeavors to the environments in which they work, but also general managers capable of tailoring their managerial work to the distinctive conditions of technological innovation. The focus for the whole course will be on learning about different technologies and firms, and explaining how the market performance of these technological innovations can be expected to vary under alternative environmental conditions. The course also concentrates on the management of the technological innovation process itself.

The conceptual framework of this course is an evolutionary process perspective on technology strategy and innovation. The fundamental ideas underlying this evolutionary perspective are: (1) that a firm's technology strategy emerges from its technological competencies and capabilities, as well as from the vision of the leaders. (2) That technology strategy is shaped by observable external (environmental) and internal (organizational) forces. And (3), that the enactment of a technology strategy, through the experience it generates, serves to further develop the firm's technological competencies and capabilities. Within this organic perspective, the course draws on strategic management, economics, organizational behavior and organization theory for analytical tools to address important challenges faced by managers in technology‑based firms.

This course is designed to be very "practical" in the sense that students will hopefully be exposed to something of the complexity, scope and flavor of the planning and decision making which managers of technological enterprises actually face in their work. It is for this reason that heavy use will be made of the case analysis technique. Cases are stories, descriptions, outlines or pictures of the real life situation of organizations. In the "real world" managers rarely have access to sufficient information to make fully rational decisions, let alone to apply all the analytical techniques advocated in text books (Yes, this is true even for managers with a degree from the University of Portland!). Well-written cases report sufficient information to enable the reader to form a good idea of the salient features of an organization, but also leave enough unsaid to force the reader to do the hard thinking about what is at stake for the manager and the business in question.

Course Requirements and Assessment

Classroom sessions will be devoted to discussing cases, readings, speaking about current events and analyzing technological business cases. These classroom sessions will be interactive, and they are intended to expose you to the processes by which managers of technology‑based organizations grapple with problems associated with the adoption and pursuit of their goals.

Case Questions: Before each class, students must answer the questions about the case for the day (see schedule of events portion of this syllabus) and submit them via email not later than 11:00 AM the day before class. Students may be asked to prepare a full written analysis of a certain case or cases.

Case Analyses: All students will be required to prepare to present their views on each case during class. Student performance in class accounts for a large part of the final grade. In order to be prepared for class, students should be prepared to discuss each of the pre‑assigned questions about the case (see course schedule). In addition to the assigned questions for the case, each student should be prepared to make:

(Minimal Requirement) state what you believe to be the main issues facing the firm or the managers, which of these you think is the most critical issue (or must be dealt with first), and why.

(Ok) state the facts most relevant to the issue you think is most important. Try to sort out the facts on multiple levels of analysis, (the department, the firm, the industry, the economy). Make an effort to withhold judgment and just state the facts and relationships in an orderly way.

(Good) apply the theoretical readings from this class to the critical issue, helping us to make sense of the facts, and the situation.

(Great) proscribe future action about what you think is the most critical issue by using a theoretical basis established from course readings, and the facts presented in the case.

(Also Great) a unifying or summary statement of what others in the class seem to be saying, then moving the class forward to the next issue that needs to be considered.

Class Participation: Because participation is such an important part of the learning process, a significant proportion of your assessment will be based upon a mark awarded to you for participation in the class. Emphasis will be placed on factors such as explicit evidence of preparation for class, class attendance, critical analysis and depth of thinking, and your personal daily contribution(s) to the learning climate of the class. While the primary criterion for class participation is quality, not quantity, students must attend class. Missing three sessions (two in short summer terms) will lower the grade by a full point, with an additional point subtracted for each additional class missed. Each student should come to class with a well thought‑out perspective, idea or application to share with the rest of the class.

Theoretical Readings: Student will take turns presenting/summarizing the theoretical readings and leading some class discussion regarding the readings. This is meant to test presentation and communication skills at least as much as mastery of the topic. On your assigned presentation day, prepare a 1-page summary of each reading for every other student in the class. Presenting each summary should take no more than 10 minutes. You should discuss some issues regarding the reading, or develop some other technique that you then use to stimulate class discussion.

There will be a final exam on the readings.

New Product Patent Project

Students will prepare a patent application and a short presentation to potential investors for an original technological innovation. Details to follow.

Assessment Options

In this course, you will be given some freedom to choose the mix and weighting of assessment options, within certain boundaries defined by the instructor, by which you will be graded. The purpose of this freedom is to allow you to tailor the assessment activities to match your own particular learning needs and objectives‑‑but to do so in such a way as to maintain equality of standards across the course. You will be required to indicate your chosen assessment options on a special form, which must be submitted to the instructor by the end of the session three.

Assessment Item

Minimum Proportion of Assessment Maximum Proportion of Assessment

Item 1: Case questions 15% 30%

Item 2: Patent Project 10% 35%

Item 3: Exam 15% 30%

Item 4: In-Class Performance (on 20% 30%

cases and readings)

Item 5: Readings leadership 5% 5%

The total of all items must equal 100%

Honors Pledge

All academic work done at the University of Portland must be in full compliance with the University’s Code of Academic Integrity as described in the Student Handbook. The Pamplin School requires all students to include the following pledge and student signature(s) on all work (papers, exams, etc.) submitted to the professor during the course of the semester (please place it on the front page of all submissions). If you are turning in a group paper, it is incumbent upon all members of the group to sign the pledge. This means every individual in the group is responsible for the integrity of the group’s assignment. Any paper turned in without the pledge and the appropriate signature(s) will be returned immediately to the student(s).  It will be left to the professor’s discretion on whether or not to assess a penalty for late submission.

Honors Pledge:

University and School of Business Policy on Cheating:

“Because of the University’s commitment to academic integrity, cheating on course work or on examinations will result in penalties that may include a grade of “F” for the specific exam or course work or a grade of “F” for the course. Any incident of cheating will be reported to the dean of the college in which the course is offered and to the dean of the college or school in which the student is currently enrolled” (University of Portland Bulletin). Students in the School of Business Administration who are turned in for an initial case of cheating will be put on probation. A second cheating incident will lead to dismissal from the School of Business. Note: Plagiarism is considered to be a form of cheating. It consists of taking the ideas, writings, etc. from another and passing them off as one’s own (Webster’s New World Dictionary).

Students with Disabilities:

If you have a disability and require an accommodation to fully participate in this class, contact the Office for Students with Disabilities (OSWD), located in the University Health Center (503-943-7134) as soon as possible. 

If you have an OSWD Accommodation Plan, you should make an appointment to meet with me to discuss your accommodations. Also, you should meet with me if you wish to discuss emergency medical information or special arrangements in case the building must be evacuated.

About the Instructor:

Prior to completing his Ph.D. in Management, Mark Meckler’s professional appointments spanned a wide array of industries, countries, and areas of expertise. These positions include being a sauté cook, a saucier and a Chef. After receiving an MBA, Dr. Meckler was the controller of an Airline catering company and then a food and beverage manager at a resort hotel. Just prior to receiving his doctorate from Florida Atlantic University, Dr. Meckler worked Bearings Securities in New York City as a closed-end fund analyst. He began his teaching career when he was a chef, continued at Rockland Community College in New York, through his doctoral program at FAU, and for 10 years as an assistant and an associate professor at the University of Portland, in Portland, Oregon. Dr. Meckler has published journal articles related to strategic management, truth-telling, human motivation, and human culture networks. Dr. Meckler is a suburban New York City who understands Thomas Wolfe’s declaration: “you can’t go home again.” Dr. Meckler now lives in the city of Portland with his wife and his Son. Together, they enjoy music, cooking, gardening and outdoor recreation.

Please find a detailed course schedule on the following pages

BUS 544, SP11, Strategic Mgt of Technology, Detailed Class Schedule

Subject to change – changes will be announced in class and on the class website (teaching.up.edu/bus544/544meckler.htm

Date Case Studies to Prepare Theoretical Readings

1. Jan. 15| Introduction to Course|

Have Book|

2. Jan. 22| Integrating Technology and Strategy: Technology and the Manager||

|Case: Advent Corporation|

Read Case Prahalad and Hamel, “The Core

Competence of the Corporation” (p. 66)

Teece, “Profiting from Technological

Innovation: Implications for Integration,

Collaboration, Licensing and Public

Policy” (p. 32)

Introduce Term Projects: Christensen and Bower,

1. New Product Patent Project “Customer Power, Strategic

Investment, and the Failure

of Leading Firms (p.330)

3. Jan. 29 Technological Evolution and Innovation Patterns

(Deadline for Assessment Options Mix)

Case: StubHub(A): January 2004 (p. 124) White, “Management

1. In 2000, what market conditions motivated Criteria for Effective

Fluhr and Baker to found StubHub? Innovation” (p. 97)

Differentiate between the primary and secondary

markets for event tickets.

2. What was the most critical component of the Abernathy and Utterback,

StubHub business model prior to 2004? “Patterns of Industrial

3. What innovations seem most critical to Innovation” (p. 253)

StubHub’s future (in 2004). Relate the

management challenges to the theoretical

readings Christensen & Kaufman, “

Assessing Your Organization’s

Capabilities: resources, Processes,

and Priorities” (p. 153)

4. Feb. 5 Technological Disruption and Limits on Strategic Differentiation

Case: The US Telecom Industry 1996 – 1999 Anderson and Tushman,

(p. 388) Read Case “Technological Discontinuities

and Dominant Designs: A

Cyclical Model of Technological Change”

Christensen, Verlinden, and

Westerman, “Disruption, Disintegration,

and the Dissipation of Differentiability” (p. 363)

Patent Search Tutorial

Christensen, “How can we Beat

Our Most Powerful Competitors?” (p. 310)

5. Feb. 12 Technological Evolution, Architectural Innovation, and Industry Competition

Case: Making SMaL Big: SMaL Camera Christensen, “Exploring the

Technologies (p. 350) Limits of the Technology

S-Curve. Part I. Component

1. Given the case and the readings to date, Technologies (p. 259)

answer the general question: How different

can you be? On what does this depend?

Christensen, “Exploring the

2. Apply the principles of Teece (1986) to SMaL’s Limits of the Technology S-

situation. Curve. Part II. Architectural Technologies (p. 278)

3. Apply White’s (1978) criteria to SMaL’s product

in 2003. Christensen and Bower,

“Customer Power, Strategic

4. Which option should SMaL take? Explain your Investment, and the Failure

recommendation and defend your logic. of Leading Firms (p.330)

6. Feb. 19 Technological Evolution and Industrial Innovation

Case: Digital Creation and Distribution of Moore, “Crossing the Chasm

Music: Revisited 2005 (p. 445) – and beyond” (p. 429)

1. Describe the recording industry value chain.

Arthur, “Competing

Technologies: An overview”

(p. 435)

Meza and Burgelman, “Finding the Balance:

2. What is the nature of the technology disruption Intellectual Property in the

of the music industry? Why did it threaten the Digital Age” (p. 453)

incumbents?

3. What effect did new technologies like “GarageBand”

have on incumbents?

4. Describe UMG’s eLabs division. What were

its goals, what tactics were used

(according to the case)?

7. Feb. 26 Organizational Context, Technology Choice and Technology Strategy

Case: Eli Lilly and Company: Drug Development Morrison, “Gunfire at Sea:

Strategy (p. 470) A Case Study of Innovation”

Read Case (p. 486)

Patent Project In-class workshop Thomke and Nimgade, “Note on New Drug

Development in the United States” (p. 465)

8. Mar. 5 Impact of Organizational and Industrial Context on Corporate Entrepreneurship

Case: Hewlett-Packard: The Flight of the

Kittyhawk (p. 509)

1. What mistakes did HP make in executing the Christensen and Overdorf,

Kittyhawk project? “Meeting the challenge of Disruptive Change”

Posted to Moodle

2. Why did the Kittyhawk team make these Henderson and Clark,

mistakes? Really dig to get to the ‘root’ cause of “Architectural Innovation:

each of these mistakes. The Reconfiguration of Existing Product

3. What should HP have done instead (for each Technologies and the Failure

mistake) of Established Firms” (p. 496)

4. Give a brief action plan for each

of the major problems. Burgelman, “Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy

Making and Organizational Adaptation:

Theory and Field Research” (p. 544)

9. Mar. 12 Impact of Organizational and Industrial Context on Corporate Entrepreneurship

Case: Intel Corporation: The DRAM Decision Burgelman, “Strategy as

(p. 521) Vector and the Inertia of

Read Case Co-evolutionary Lock-in”

(Posted to Moodle)

Burgelman and Grove, “Strategic Dissonance”

(p. 563)

Spring Vacation – March 17 – 22: All Classes Cancelled

10. Mar. 26 Managing Time to Market: Moving From Innovation to Product Development

Case: Creating a University Technology Cohen and Levinthal,

Commercialization Program: Confronting “Absorptive Capacity: A

Conflicts Between Learning, Discovery and New Perspective on

Commercialization Goals (Meyer, et al., 2010) Learning and Innovation”

(Posted to Moodle) (p. 746)

Read Case Burgelman & Sales, “Transforming Invention

Guest Speaker – Peter Vomocil, founder Into Innovation: The

Take-Shape, Inc. Conceptualization Stage” (p. 730)

11. Apr. 2 Systems for Successful New Product Design and Introduction

Case: Performance Indicator (Posted to Moodle) Moore, “Living on the Fault Line

1. Why has it been so difficult for Osinski and (from Crossing the Chasm and Beyond) (p. 855)

Winskowicz to get a golf ball manufacturer to

sign a contract for their new technology? What

are the most significant network externalities? Tushman and O’Reilly,

What are the major barriers to adoption? “Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary

and Revolutionary Change” (p. 974)

2. How much do you think a potential customer Burgelman, “Managing the

(that is a golf ball manufacturer such as Internal Corporate Venturing

Bridgestone or Acushnet) should be willing Process: Some

to pay for Performance Indicator’s technology? Recommendations for

(Yes, do the numbers) practice (p. 955)

3. In light of your analysis, what should Osinski

and Winskowicz do?

12. Apr. 9 New Product Development Cycles

Wheelwright and Sasser,

“The New Product

Development Map (p. 1119)”

Clark and Wheelwright, “Organizing and Leading

Heavyweight Teams” (p. 1053)

Wheelwright and Clark, “Creating Project Plans

to Focus Product Development” (p. 1091)

13. Apr. 16 Case: We’ve Got Rhythm! Medtronic

Corporation’s Cardiac Pacemaker Business

1. Review the history of how Medtronic nearly

lost its position as market leader in the 1970s Garvin, “Building a Learning Organization” (p. 1193)

and 1980s. Try to chart on a piece of paper

what the root cause of those outcomes were.

2. Which of the improvements in the new product Burgelman and Doz, “The

development process that the Medtronic Power of Strategic

management team implemented strike you as Integration” (p. 1205)

having been particularly crucial to turning the

company around?

Nystrom and Starbuck, “To Avoid

Organizational Crises, Unlearn”

3. What do the concepts of product line architecture and

train schedule mean in the pacemaker business?

What are the costs and benefits of having implemented

These concepts as the Medtronic management team

has done? What elements of Medtronic’s approach

could be applied in very different business settings?

4. Evaluate the nature of senior management

involvement in Medtronic’s implementation of its

product development system. Which elements of the

system does senior management need to be intimately

involved in, and which can it delegate or pay less

attention to?

14. Apr. 23 Presentations of Term Projects

14. Apr. 30 Final Exam – Meet during scheduled class time

Please note that this syllabus is subject to change. All changes will be announced in class.