The secret of a good talk is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible.

Two Kentucky rednecks are out hunting, and as they are walking along they come upon a huge hole in the ground. They approach it and are amazed at the size of it. The first hunter says, "Wow, that's some hole; I can't even see the bottom. I wonder how deep it is!"The second hunter says," I don't know.  Let's throw somethin' down there, listen and see how long it takes to hit bottom."The first hunter says, "Hey, there's an old automobile transmission over there.  Give me a hand, we'll throw it in and see."

So they pick it up and carry it over and count one, two, three and heave it in the hole.  They are standing there listening, looking over the edge, when they hear a rustling behind them.  As they turn around, they see a goat come crashing through the underbrush, run up to the hole and, without hesitation, jump in headfirst. 

While they are standing there staring at each other in amazement, peering into the hole, trying to figure out what that was all about, an old farmer walks up to them.

Say there," says the farmer, "you fellers didn't happen to see my goat around here anywhere, did you?" 

The first hunter says, "Funny you should ask, but we were just standing here a minute ago and a goat came running out of the bushes doin' bout a hundred miles an hour and jumped headfirst into this here hole!"

The old farmer said, "Naw, that's  impossible!  I had him chained to a transmission."

Shown above are 4 men buried up to their necks in the ground. They can not move so can only look forward. Between A and B is a brick wall which can not be seen through. They know that between them are 4 hats, 2 - black and 2 - white; they do not know the color of the hat they are wearing. In order to avoid being shot, one of them must call out to the executioner the color of his own hat. if they get it wrong, everyone will be shot. They are not allowed to talk to each other and they have 10 minutes to figure it out.

Q. Which one of them calls out?Q. Why is he 100% certain of the color of his hat?

Time Saving Filing Quality of Document Accuracy

TrainingRequired Screen Capability

ServiceQuality

SpaceRequired

PrinterSpeed

Benefits

Lanier(.42)

Syntrex(.37)

Qyx(.21)

Focus

Criteria

Features

Alternatives

Capital Supplies Service Training

Lanier.54

Syntrex.28

Oyx.18

CostsFocus

Criteria

Alternatives

Best Word Processing Equipment

Best Word Processing Equipment Cont.

Benefit/Cost Preference Ratios

Lanier Syntrex Qyx

.42

.54.37.28

.21

.18= 0.78 = 1.32 = 1.17

Best Alternative

Protect rights and maintain high Incentive to make and sell products in China (0.696)

Rule of Law Bring China to responsible free-trading 0.206)

Help trade deficit with China (0.098)

BENEFITS

Yes 0.729 No 0.271

$ Billion Tariffs make Chinese productsmore expensive (0.094)

Retaliation(0.280)

Being locked out of big infrastructurebuying: power stations, airports (0.626)

COSTS

Yes 0.787 No 0.213

Long Term negative competition(0.683)

Effect on human rights and other issues (0.200)

Harder to justify China joining WTO(0.117)

RISKS

Yes 0.597 No 0.403

Result: Benefits

Costs x Risks; YES

.729

.787 x .597= 1.55 NO

.271

.213 x .403= 3.16

Should U.S. Sanction China? (Feb. 26, 1995)

YesNo

.80

.20YesNo

.60

.40YesNo

.50

.50

YesNo

.70

.30YesNo

.90

.10YesNo

.75

.25

YesNo

.70

.30YesNo

.30

.70YesNo

.50

.50

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Be

nefit

s/C

osts

*Ris

ks

Experiments

0 6 18 30 42 54 66 78 90 102 114 126 138 150 162 174 186 198 210

No

Yes

..

......

......

.....

......

......

.... .

.

What to do about Iran

Benefits Opportunities

Costs Risks

Benefits Do Nothing

Opportunities Do Nothing

Costs Ground Invasion

Risks Israeli Action

Summary List of Highest Priority Actions

Priorities World Peace0.362

Regional Stability

0.356

Reduce Volatility

0.087

Protect Israel

0.196

Benefits (Do Nothing) 0.215 High High High Medium

Opportunities (Do Nothing) 0.124 Medium Low Medium Medium

Costs (Ground Invasion) 0.330 Very High Very High Very High Medium

Risks (Israeli Action) 0.330 Very High Very High Very High Medium

[Very High (1.00), High (.62), Medium (.38), Low (.24), Very Low (.14)]

Prioritizing Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks

for this decision

Actions Overall Priorities

Power Generating Technologies

Bio fuelsFossil

GeothermalHydro

NuclearSolar Wind

BenefitsEconomic

Kinds of use1. Electric Power generation

2. Heating and Cooling 3. Manufacturing and Industry

4. Transportation 5. Military

Storage Technological

Social Political

Environmental

OpportunitiesEconomic

Cost ReductionEmployment Level

Environmental Cultural Countryside

Reducing Pollution Reducing toxic waste Technological

EfficiencyInfrastructure Adv.

CostsEconomic

AvailabilityTechnology Development

Operations CostInitial Investment

MaintenanceOn going Cost

AvailabilitySupply / Demand Impact

TechnologicalTechnology costs

Political Social

Environmental

Risks Economic Demand

Generation and maintenance costs Macro economy

Natural resources Availability

Short term availability Long term availability

CostsEnvironmental

Natural resources Clean energy

Environmental impact Political

Social Technological

Strategic Criteria

Rating Intensities with Respect to Strategic Criteria

• Very High (0.419), High (0.263), Medium (0.160), Low (0.097), Very Low (0.061)

• * Idealized: Very High (1.000), High (0.619), Medium (0.381), Low (0.238), Very Low (0.143)

• A technological innovation capability (TIC) is vital for the competitive advantage of an enterprise.

• Evaluation of TIC is a useful way that serves as the key to achieving continuous improvement in industrial competition. – The object of TIC evaluation is to improve understanding

of an enterprise by discovering its strengths and weakness.– Evaluating different types of enterprises would also

support the government’s policy-making process by improving it’s comprehensive assessments.

Evaluating the Technological Innovation Capability of Industrial Enterprises Based on Both Data and Judgments

Technological innovation has aroused great attention by the government.Why?

Chinese technological innovation is still relatively behind that of the developed countries.A low level TIC leads directly to the decline of technological competitiveness and national science.Evaluation of the TIC of different companies can help the government make better decisions and adopt policies in supporting technological innovation.

Therefore:We need to establish an effective technology innovation evaluation system to enhance technical innovation and reduce resistance encountered in the process of technological innovation.

The ANP for evaluating TICs• In this paper, we organize the factors from the “Input-Process-

Output” process perspective of technological innovation. – In the “Input-Process-Output” process, elements in the hierarchy may need to

be considered as interdependent, having feedback relationships. Cluster CriteriaEmployee Input in Innovation R&D Employee

R&D Project participantsTechnological Innovation Institution Employee

Investment in Innovation R&D investmentTechnological Innovation Activities InvestmentTechnological Innovation Institution FundNew Product development InvestmentExpenditure on Importing TechnologyExpenditure in Domestic Technology

Technological Innovation Institutions

Number of Technological Innovation InstitutionValue of Equipment and Machines

Technological Innovation Projects &Activities

R&D ActivitiesNew product development projectTechnological Transformation Project

Technological Innovation Output

New Products OutputInvention PatentTransfer of Ownership of PatentRegistered MarkChinese National Standards and Industry standards

cost of independent research and development

Material and equipment costR&D costLabor costTime costRisk costSunk cost

cost of outsourcing technology

Transaction costOpportunity costFund raising costUse-costCost of transfer

The ANP for evaluating TICs

Employee Input in Innovation

Investment in Innovation

Technological Innovation Institutions

Technological Innovation Projects

& Activities

Technology Innovation Output

Technological Innovation Capability

Control layer

Network layer

Enterprises

Technological Innovation Cost

cost of independent research and development

cost of outsourcin

g technology

Enterprises

The ANP for evaluating TICs

The ANP for evaluating TICs

The ANP for evaluating TICs• Pairwise comparison of cluster

3

  Employee Input Investment Institutions Projects &

Activities Output Enterprises

Employee Input 0.1931 0.1021 0.2772 0.5136 0.2291 0.1740

Investment 0.0814 0.1471 0.1601 0.2229 0.1698 0.1417Institutions 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0849 0.0683Projects & Activities 0.4311 0.2535 0.0000 0.0000 0.4300 0.2562

Output 0.2615 0.4586 0.0954 0.1141 0.0517 0.3597Enterprises 0.0329 0.0388 0.4673 0.1494 0.0344 0.0000

Priority weights of the clusters

Unweighted matrix

Weightedmatrix

Limit matrix

we can get the priority of each indicator of all enterprises under the control of TIC.

The ANP for evaluating TICs

Priority of technological innovation capabilityPriority of technological innovation capability

Priority of technological innovation costPriority of technological innovation cost

Efficiency

(radio of Benefit and Cost)

Efficiency

(radio of Benefit and Cost)

• In the similar process, we can get the priority of each indicator of all enterprises under control of technological cost.

NamePriority of technological innovation capability(Benefit)

Priority of technological innovation cost(Cost)

Efficiency(radio of Benefit and Cost)

1 state-owned or state-controlled enterprise

0.49 0.33 1.46

2 other domestic enterprise 0.16 0.27 0.603 Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan investment enterprise

0.14 0.52 0.27

4 foreign Investment Enterprise

0.21 0.22 0.94

Results

Factors PriorityNew Products Output 0.1321R&D activities 0.1259R&D Employee 0.1233New product development project 0.1180R&D Project Participants 0.1117R&D investment 0.0499Technological Innovation Institution

Employee0.0496

Invention Patent 0.0392Technological innovation activities

investment0.0372

Chinese national standards and industry standards

0.0328

Technological transformation Project 0.0314New Product development investment 0.0236Registered Mark 0.0236Transfer of ownership of patent 0.0220Expenditure on importing Technology 0.0184Technological Innovation Institution Fund 0.0181Number of technological innovation

institution0.0159

Expenditure in Domestic technology 0.0139Value of equipment and machines 0.0134

Cluster Priority

1 Employee Input in Innovation 0.282 Investment in Innovation 0.163 Technological Innovation Institutions 0.034 Technological Innovation Projects &

Activities0.28

5 Technology Innovation Output 0.25

Conclusions• The results show that there is a highly imbalance in the TICs of

enterprises in China.• For several critical existing problems, we have some suggestions

for the Chinese government and enterprises.

Existing issues Advice measuresInnovation resources are distributed unbalanced.

For government: through macroscopic readjustment and control by the government are especially needed to encourage other domestic enterprises. There are possibilities: 1) Increase government investment in the early stages of industrialization of key technologies of science and technology focusing on the development of major scientific and technological research, basic research. The investment can be either: to make financial allocation, indirect bank interest subsidies or tax relief; 2) to encourage setting up of venture capital institutions and industrial enterprises to provide more financing channels.

Enterprise independent innovation ability is shortage.

For enterprises we suggest that: managers in enterprises should transform the old concept that “greater importance has been given to production than to technology and more emphasis on yield than on the quality of products”. The innovation input should be emphasized in China and input in R&D promoted. Here we suggest greater corporation with research institutions.

Shortage of talent in enterprises.

As our results show, technological innovation talent is the most valuable scarce resource of TIC. Government: the policy should guide and encourage active and innovative talents. To meet the diverse needs of motivation, recognition and protection of innovation gains to enhance through encouragement and even through law in order to protect innovation the momentum. Enterprise: companies should pay attention to scientific and technical personnel training and guidance for employees.

NEGOTIATORS HAD NO WAY TO MEASURE THE

IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF INTANGIBLE FACTORS WHICH

CAN DOMINATE THE PROCESS

The AHP/ANP in Modern Negotiations

NEGOTIATORS HAD NO OVERALL UNIFYING

STRUCTURE TO ORGANIZE AND PRIORITIZE ISSUES AND

CONCESSIONS

NEGOTIATORS HAD NO MECHANISM TO TRADE OFF

CONCESSIONS BY MEASURING THEIR WORTH

NEGOTIATORS HAD NO WAY TO CAPTURE EACH PARTY’S PERCEPTIONS OF THE OTHER SIDE’S BENEFITS AND COSTS

NEGOTIATORS HAD NO WAY TO PROVIDE CONFIDENCE FOR THE OTHER PARTY THAT THE

OPPOSING PARTY IS NOT GAINING MORE THAN

THEY ARE

NEGOTIATORS HAD NO WAY TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF INTENSE EMOTIONS AND INNUENDOES WHICH NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS

IT CAN BE HARD KEEPING A STRAIGHT FACE AS A COURT REPORTER

These are from a book called 'Disorder in the American Courts' and how things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place._____________________________________ ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory? WITNESS: I forget. ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam? _____________________________________ 

ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual? WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard. ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female? WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm saying it was a male _____________________________________ 

ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work._____________________________________ ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? WITNESS: Oral. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 pm. ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time? WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question? _____________________________________ And the best for last:  ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law THINK ABOUT IT!  MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE LAWYERS......NOW, THAT SHOULD SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF YOU !!!  

____________________________________ ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year- old, how old is he? WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken? WITNESS: Are you shitting me? _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time? WITNESS: Getting laid _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: She had three children, right? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: How many were boys? WITNESS: None. ATTORNEY: Were there any girls? WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney? _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated? WITNESS: By death. ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated? WITNESS: Take a guess 

Why Do Some Societies Make Disastrous Decisions?

• First of all, a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives.

• Second, when the problem does arrive, the group may fail to perceive it.

• Then, after they perceive it, they may fail even to try to solve it.

• Finally, they may try to solve it but may not succeed.

Jared Diamond In his 2005 book Collapse

Observations About Group Decision Making

(1) Failure to Anticipate a Problem e

Groups may do disastrous things because they fail to anticipate a problem before it arrives, for any of several reasons.

• One is that they may have had no prior experience with such problems, and so may not have been sensitized to the possibilities (e.g. introducing foxes and rabbits in Australia).

• Another reason why a society may fail to anticipate a problem involves false analogy (e.g. France building the Maginot line thinking a new war would be like the 1918 trench war again).

(2) Failure to Perceive a Problem

Perceiving or failing to perceive a problem that has actually arrived. There are at least three reasons for such failures, all of them common in the business world and in academia.

• First, the coming-on of some problems is literally imperceptible.

• Second and a frequent reason for failure to perceive a problem after it has arrived is managing from a distance rather than being closely involved, a potential issue in any large society or business (headquarters far away).

• Third and perhaps the commonest circumstance under which societies fail to perceive a problem is when it takes the form of a slow trend concealed by wide up-and-down fluctuations. The prime example in modern times is global warming. Politicians use the term "creeping normalcy" to refer to such slow trends concealed within noisy fluctuations.

(3a) Failure to Try to Solve a Problem Societies often fail even to attempt to solve a problem once

it has been perceived because maintaining the problem is good for some people.

In contrast to that so-called rational behavior, other failures to attempt to solve perceived problems involve what social scientists consider "irrational behavior": i.e., behavior that is harmful for everybody. Such irrational behavior often arises when each of us individually is torn by clashes of values: we may ignore a bad status quo because it is favored by some deeply held value to which we cling. "Persistence in error," "wooden-headedness, "refusal to draw inference from negative signs," and "mental standstill or stagnation" are among the phrases that Barbara Tuchman applies to this common human trait. Psychologists us the term "sunk-cost effect" for a related trait: we feel reluctant to abandon policy (or to sell a stock) in which we have already invested heavily. Partly irrational failures to try to solve perceived problems often arise from clashes between short-term and long-term motives of the same individual.

• Religious values tend to be especially deeply held and hence frequent causes of disastrous behavior. For example, much of the deforestation in Easter Island had a religious motivation: to obtain logs to transport and erect the giant stone statues that were the object of veneration.

(3b) Failure to Try to Solve a Problem • Many of the reasons for such failure fall under the

heading of what economists and other social scientists term "rational behavior," arising from conflicts of interest between people. People pursue their own interests by behavior harmful to other people. Scientists term such behavior "rational" precisely because it employs correct reasoning, even though it may be morally reprehensible. They are a few and reap benefits that each person in society gives a little to satisfy and therefore do not oppose strongly. One obvious solution is for the government or some other outside force to step in, with or without the invitation of the consumers, and to enforce quotas. Another is for consumers to recognize their common interests and to design, obey, and enforce prudent harvesting quotas themselves.

(3c) Failure to Try to Solve a Problem • Clashes of interest involving rational behavior are also prone to and

when the principal consumer has no long-term stake in preserving the resource but society as a whole does.

• A further conflict of interest involving rational behavior arises when interests of the decision-making elite in power clash with the interests of the rest of society.

• All such decisions involve gambles, because one often can't be certain that clinging to core values will be fatal, or (conversely) that abandoning them will ensure survival.

• Some other possible reasons for irrational refusal to try to solve a perceived problem are more speculative. One is a well-recognized phenomenal in short-term decision-making termed "crowd psychology. Individuals who find themselves members of a large coherent group or crowd especially one that is emotionally excited, (Cont’d on next slide)

(3d) Failure to Try to Solve a Problem • (Cont’d) may become swept along to support the group's decision,

even though the same individuals might have rejected the decision if allowed to reflect on it alone at leisure. As the German dramatist Schiller wrote, "Anyone taken as an individual is tolerably sensible and reasonable-as a member of a crowd, he at once becomes a blockhead.”

• The final speculative reason for irrational failure to try to solve a perceived problem is psychological denial. This is a technical term with a precisely defined meaning in individual psychology, and it has been taken over into the pop culture. If something that you perceive arouses in you a painful emotion, you may subconsciously suppress or deny your perception in order to avoid the unbearable pain, even though the practical results of ignoring your perception may prove ultimately disastrous.

• Thus, human societies and smaller groups may make disastrous decision for a whole sequence of reasons: failure to anticipate a problem, failure perceive it once it has arisen, failure to attempt to solve it after it has be perceived, and failure to succeed in attempts to solve it.

(4) Try to Solve a Problem but Do Not Succeed

• Of course societies don't regularly fail to solve their problems. If that were true, all of us would now be dead or else living again under the Stone Age conditions of 13,000 years ago. Instead, the cases of failure are sufficiently noteworthy to warrant study. Creativity is needed to devise solutions and it needs to be encouraged in every way.

• Part of the reason for failure involves difference among environments rather than among societies: some environments pose much more difficult problems than do others.

• Politicians, and other leaders are too self-absorbed in their own pursuit of power to attend to their society's underlying problems.

• Numerous characteristics that tend to lead to bad decisions, such as a premature sense of ostensible unanimity, suppression of personal doubts and of expression of contrary views, and the group leader guiding the discussion in such a way as to minimize disagreement..

• The answer to why they fail partly depends on idiosyncrasies of particular individuals and will defy

prediction. But better understanding of the potential causes of failure from past examples may help planners to become aware of those causes of the problem, and to avoid them.

• Decisions about the future need to assume different anticipatory scenarios to be prioritized and composed to a most likely composite scenario. The unknown may be included as “the other” factor, but only if there is sufficient knowledge about the known factors that the unknown has small likelihood of influencing the outcome.