- Would you invest in this business? Why or why not?
From this business plan, it looks that investing in this business is quite prospective. However, I must to investigate this field and potential market further before I make the decision. Turning to a consulting company may be the first step for me because I need more useful information about this field that I am not familiar with.
- How strong is the company's industry position?
The company has achieved a breakthrough that solves a problem plaguing the semiconductor industry for the past 30 years. This technology offers a 1000x reduction in static power dissipation and a 30 percent increase in chip performance, contributing a lot to development of semiconductor industry.
- How clear is the value proposition?
The company is dedicated to solve the Static Leakage Problem faced by semiconductor industry for past 30 years. The I-MOS solution not only dramatically reduces static power consumption and increases chip performance, but it does so without increasing semiconductor fabrication costs. The I-MOS solution is cost-effective, by working in conjunction with standard CMOS processes, and increases manufacturing efficiencies, due to lower device variations.
- How targeted in the customer base?
As we see, the company is intended to commercialize this technology by licensing it to three main target customers, which are integrated device manufacturers, fables semiconductor companies, and semiconductor foundries.
- How unique is the business model?
This business model looks not so unique. The company derives multiple revenue streams from each licensing arrangement: the manufacturers pay I-MOS an upfront license fee and a per chip royalty fee, and the foundries pay a per wafer fee. This model should be kind of universe in this hi-tech industry.
- How protected is the IP?
IP is well protected because they hold the patent right. But the company is not the only one to hold IP.
- How experienced is the management?The management seems to be well experienced. Especially, the marketing team knows how to launch the technology to the market.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Week 3: Strategy and the Internet
At the first glance, most people think that the Internet brings more benefits than negative effect to the industry strusture.In the article, the author holds a different attitude toward this proposition. He states that most of trends the Internet has brought about is negative. It's during my undergraduate study that I learned Porter's five force model for the first time. So I am not unfamiliar with the idea. This model helps us to anaylze the current situation of industry.
As for the first factor "the intensity of rivalry among existing competitors" in the model, the Internet is an open system, enabling competitors access to offerings the company is providing. Thus, it eliminates proprietary offerings and intensifies the rivalry among competitors. The use of the Internet also tends to expand the geographic market, bringing many more companies into competition with one another. In the end, competition focuses on price mainly.
The second factor in the model is barrier to entry. I think that appearance of the Internet reduces barrier to entry sharply because the Internet technology makes access to channels and physical assets easier. Moreover, the Internet creates a new sales force. As for the threat of substitute products or service, the Internet makes the overall industry more efficient by expanding the size of the market. At the same time, it also mitigats the difference between offerings.
No matter for bargaining power of buyers or suppliers, the Internet still has more negative effects on them. The Internet shifts bargaining power to the end consumers and reduces switching costs of consumers. The Internet provides a channel for suppliers to reach end users, reducing the leverage of intervening companies. Internet procurement and digital markets tend to give all companies equal access to suppliers, and gravitate procurement to standardized products that reduce differentiation. Reduced barriers to entry and the proliferation of competitors downstream shifts power to suppliers.
As for the first factor "the intensity of rivalry among existing competitors" in the model, the Internet is an open system, enabling competitors access to offerings the company is providing. Thus, it eliminates proprietary offerings and intensifies the rivalry among competitors. The use of the Internet also tends to expand the geographic market, bringing many more companies into competition with one another. In the end, competition focuses on price mainly.
The second factor in the model is barrier to entry. I think that appearance of the Internet reduces barrier to entry sharply because the Internet technology makes access to channels and physical assets easier. Moreover, the Internet creates a new sales force. As for the threat of substitute products or service, the Internet makes the overall industry more efficient by expanding the size of the market. At the same time, it also mitigats the difference between offerings.
No matter for bargaining power of buyers or suppliers, the Internet still has more negative effects on them. The Internet shifts bargaining power to the end consumers and reduces switching costs of consumers. The Internet provides a channel for suppliers to reach end users, reducing the leverage of intervening companies. Internet procurement and digital markets tend to give all companies equal access to suppliers, and gravitate procurement to standardized products that reduce differentiation. Reduced barriers to entry and the proliferation of competitors downstream shifts power to suppliers.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Week2: Hirshberg's concept of "Creative Abrasion"
Hishberg's unusual management philosophy "hiring a divergent pairs" is really profound and meaningful to the succuess of Nissan Design International. As we see, these two different people Semple and Flowers working together will spark certain unexpected reaction called "creativity". I think the concept of "creative abrasion" is both quite simple and extremely difficult to achieve in the company.
There is no doubt that most of people don't think about matters divergently but straight. That's why inventors and scientist only account for a very small portion. However, hiring a divergent pairs is an interesting practise that helps to bring in a divergent thinking. One of key factors to perform "creative abrasion" successfully is the business culture that forms disciplines under which the company is run. Let's imagine a different situation: Hirshberg is an opponent of hiring a divergent pairs. This idea must have been stifled in the cradle if someone had raised it at that time. Just like what Hirshberg said, anyone in this pair need to have a pretty secure sense of self when the other person working on the same project as you has an entirely different set of priorities. So this kind of secure sense is the other key factor.
Befor I pursued my graduate study in WPI, I had three months' internship experience in American President Lines (APL) in Shanghai. Unlike Nissan, APL is a moving business forwarder. One of main functions of APL is to audit freight and surcharge and I worked for this audit department. At the first glance, "creative abrasion" seems to be unrelative to this kind of industry but we can't define creativity so narrowly. On the contrary, divergent thinking is absolutely necessary when we want to solve the problem. For example, we often find difference of total amount between APL's system (it should) and e-order generated by salesmen (it actually). Sometimes the reason why this difference comes up is not straightforward. Discussion or even controversy over the matter is essential when linear thinking by self doesn't work. When a divergent pair work together, abrasion will spark thinking in depth each other.
There is no doubt that most of people don't think about matters divergently but straight. That's why inventors and scientist only account for a very small portion. However, hiring a divergent pairs is an interesting practise that helps to bring in a divergent thinking. One of key factors to perform "creative abrasion" successfully is the business culture that forms disciplines under which the company is run. Let's imagine a different situation: Hirshberg is an opponent of hiring a divergent pairs. This idea must have been stifled in the cradle if someone had raised it at that time. Just like what Hirshberg said, anyone in this pair need to have a pretty secure sense of self when the other person working on the same project as you has an entirely different set of priorities. So this kind of secure sense is the other key factor.
Befor I pursued my graduate study in WPI, I had three months' internship experience in American President Lines (APL) in Shanghai. Unlike Nissan, APL is a moving business forwarder. One of main functions of APL is to audit freight and surcharge and I worked for this audit department. At the first glance, "creative abrasion" seems to be unrelative to this kind of industry but we can't define creativity so narrowly. On the contrary, divergent thinking is absolutely necessary when we want to solve the problem. For example, we often find difference of total amount between APL's system (it should) and e-order generated by salesmen (it actually). Sometimes the reason why this difference comes up is not straightforward. Discussion or even controversy over the matter is essential when linear thinking by self doesn't work. When a divergent pair work together, abrasion will spark thinking in depth each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)