Publication database

This note proposes a new set-up for the fund backing the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM). The proposed fund is a Multi-Tier Resolution Fund (MTRF), restricting the joint and several supranational liability to a limited range of losses, bounded by national liability at the upper and the lower end. The layers are, in ascending order: a national fund (first losses), a European fund (second losses), the national budget (third losses), the ESM (fourth losses, as a backup for sovereigns). The system works like a reinsurance scheme, providing clear limits to European-level joint liability, and therefore confining moral hazard. At the same time, it allows for some degree of risk sharing, which is important for financial stability if shocks to the financial system are exogenous (e.g., of a supranational macroeconomic nature). The text has four parts. Section A describes the operation of the Multi-Tier Resolution Fund, assuming the fund capital to be fully paid-in (“Steady State“). Section B deals with the build-up phase of the fund capital (“Build up“). Section C discusses how the proposal deals with the apparent incentive conflicts. The final Section D summarizes open questions which need further thought (“Open Questions“).

The six vignettes in this case present situations that call for the application of one of the six leadership styles: coercive, pacesetting, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, and coaching. The vignettes, each demonstrating a correct, incorrect, or possible use of a particular style, can be used in class for the purpose of developing students’ leadership style, diagnostic skills, as a group discussion material, or as test material for post-class examination. Each of the vignettes is a generalized experience story based on examples shared by participants in executive education programs run over the course of the author’s eight years of teaching the leadership styles model as presented by Goleman (2000) at a leading European business school. The vignettes have been tested within the context of MBA and executive MBA programs, and executive education courses for high potentials, middle managers, and board level executives.

This is a set of six vignettes designed to help undergraduate and graduate students, as well as participants in executive education programs, understand the differences in use of six different leadership styles identified by the work of Litwin and Stringer (1971) and further popularized by Goleman (2000), Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2013), and the Hay Group (2009).

A firm that lacks the specialized complementary assets necessary to commercialize an innovation faces a trade-off between contracting with an incumbent to access those assets and integrating downstream into commercialization. According to the framework developed in the prior literature, under a strong appropriability regime the innovator is likely to be better off contracting with an incumbent (as long as it can negotiate reasonable terms). However, we argue that if the innovator can learn from its experience in product commercialization, and thereby build its own commercialization capabilities, then the benefits of integrating downstream may outweigh the opportunity costs of learning and foregone profits. Alternatively, by engaging in joint commercialization, the innovator may be able to avoid these opportunity costs, albeit at the expense of higher inter-organizational governance costs. We illustrate the relationship between the choice of commercialization mode, commercialization experience, and performance in the context of the pharmaceutical industry. Specifically, we study how commercialization mode and experience affects the likelihood of drug approval. We find that when innovators lacking commercialization experience participate in the commercialization process though either joint commercialization or by commercializing alone, the product is less likely to be approved. However, innovators that have participated in the commercialization process in the past are more likely to successfully commercialize subsequent innovations under joint commercialization than those which have only contracted the commercialization to an incumbent. The results suggest that in some circumstances participating in the commercialization process, either through self-commercialization or by engaging in joint commercialization, may be the optimal strategy even for firms without the requisite complementary assets.

 

View all ESMT Working Papers in the ESMT Working Paper Series here. ESMT Working Papers are also available via SSRN, RePEc, EconStor, and the German National Library (DNB).

In 2008 Joe Justice saw the announcement for the Progressive Insurance X Prize—a $10 million prize aimed at the (im)possibility to build a 100 miles per gallon (mpg) car to road-legal safety specifications. Joe persuaded his wife to use their college grad savings of $5,000 to pay the registration fee. He started the work alone but blogged about what he was doing and what he was learning. Through social networking tools like Facebook and WordPress bloggers who shared his interest learned about his project. Some of these people joined Joe in his endeavor to tackle the challenge. Only three months later, Wikispeed had been formed. It counted 44 members in four countries, and had a functioning prototype which was entered in the X Prize competition. In 2010 they came in 10th in the mainstream class, outrunning more than one hundred other cars from well-funded companies and universities around the world. Following the press reaction to the success of team Wikispeed in 2011 they were invited to showcase their concept car at the Detroit auto show, the largest motor show in the world. Their car, the SGT01, was put on display in Cobo Hall right next to Ford and Chevrolet. Wikispeed was contacted by more than a hundred people who were interested in joining the team as well as in ordering the prototype. By 2013, more than five hundred people had joined team Wikispeed. They had also sold nine prototypes. The immediate issue of the case study is the decision whether the team should use a pair of existing axles, cut and weld them together to the right length for the next iteration of their prototype or develop their own pair of axles from scratch. More fundamentally, this case study looks at the way team Wikispeed used tools from the world of software development like modularity, which they call object-oriented architecture, scrum, and extreme manufacturing (XM) to organize their innovation efforts.

Depending on the scope of the course, the following teaching objectives can be emphasized: to discuss ways of how to coordinate product development efforts in the absence of traditional hierarchies; to understand the conditions when distributed innovation processes can be used in industries with physical products; to understand the key elements of agile development: modularity, scrum, and extreme manufacturing; to examine the principles and potential limitations of agile development for hardware development; to understand the roadblocks to agile product development in large established organizations.

Are you familiar with one of the following situations? You have developed this great strategy for your company, your product, or your department but for some reason, it does not get heard. You have a good team, but there are some who just do not seem to join forces and leave you out in the rain when the situation calls for action. There is your boss, a nice guy, but somehow he seems immune to all your efforts of convincing him of this new idea that you want to implement. Situations like this are common for managers on all levels. They make us feel powerless. They make us feel struck in the inertia of our organizations. They might make us see ourselves as victims of the circumstances we are operating in. When trapped in situations like this, we start blaming others for their incompetence or our company for its laziness or complacency. Situations like this tell us about the influence that we have on others and their influence on us: This is what this book is all about.

This paper summarizes the findings from a series of interviews between October 2012 & February 2013 with people at New Zealand companies that were founded in order to commercialize an innovation internationally. The interviews focused on the steps the companies had taken to commercialize their innovation on the international market and the issues they had faced in the process.

We analyze incidence and evolution of patent thickets. The paper provides a modeling framework showing how competition for patent portfolios, complementarity of patented technologies and hold-up affect patenting. Predictions are that technological opportunity reduces patenting in complex technologies, while increasing patenting in discrete technologies. Competition has the opposite effects. The predictions are tested using European patent data in a panel with 2,074 patenting firms in thirty technology areas over fifteen years. A new measure of technological complexity is applied. GMM estimation results confirm the predictions of our preferred model. Patent thickets are found in nine out of thirty technology areas.

© 2013 The Editorial Board of The Journal of Industrial Economics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Insbesondere Sozialkompetenz und personale Kompetenz zeichnen erfolgreiche Führungspersönlichkeiten aus. Dieses Buch unterstützt sowohl junge als auch erfahrene Führungskräfte in der Analyse ihrer eigenen Motive, Werte, Emotionen und Persönlichkeitseigenschaften sowie deren Wirkung auf den Führungserfolg. Zielsetzung ist es, einen authentischen Führungsstil zu entwickeln und eigene Stärken zu erkennen und auszubauen. Best-Practice Beispiele und Fragen zur Selbstreflexion unterstützen den Transfer der Inhalte in den Unternehmensalltag.