Spring

Spring 2005
Leadership in Times of Transformation Enterprise Transformation Stories of Transformation
the
ngineering
C H A I R
THE ALUMNI MAGAZINE FOR ISyE AT GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Enterprise Transformation
by William B. Rouse This issue of Engineering Enterprise focuses on a new initiative at Georgia Tech. Enterprise transformation is concerned with how large private and public sector enterprises address and pursue fundamental changes. These changes may involve new relationships to markets or constituencies or different product and service offerings, as well as typical pressures to reduce prices, increase quality, and improve service. We all have experienced many transformations in recent years. Wal-Mart transformed the retail market while Amazon was transforming the book market. UPS transformed from a package delivery company to a supply chain management provider. Starbucks convinced us to pay $4 for the coffee experience. The School of Industrial and Systems Engineering is a unit within a large enterprise Georgia Tech. Thus, it is natural to ask how enterprise transformation applies to Tech and other educational enterprises. In this issue, Wayne Clough, Techs president, provides essential insights into leadership during times of transformation. His interview clearly portrays the complexity, opportunity, and excitement of Techs evolving role in the world. There are also articles in this issue defining enterprise transformation and illustrating this phenomenon with vignettes from the transportation and computer industries over the past 200 years, as well as several more contemporary vignettes. Transformation is clearly not a new phenomenon. However, it is new and unusual for a university to tackle such a complex, multi-disciplinary problem area. Michael Tennenbaum (BIE 1957) provided the resources and encouragement to enable this pursuit. His own remarkable career is profiled in this issue. The Tennenbaum Institute (TI) was formed to pursue multi-disciplinary research and education that will provide knowledge and skills to enable enterprise transformation. The School of Industrial and Systems Engineering led the formation of this cross-university institute. TI now has broadly based involvement of faculty, staff, and students from many colleges and schools at Tech, as well as emerging collaborations with several partner institutions. By the time that the next issue of Engineering Enterprise appears, I will have completed my four-year tenure as Chair of ISyE and will be devoting full time to my role as executive director of the Tennenbaum Institute. In keeping with the multi-disciplinary nature of TI, my faculty appointment will be in both ISyE and the College of Computing. Many of my faculty and student colleagues will, of course, continue to be in ISyE. My almost four years as chair of the School have been rich in ideas, relationships, and visions of potential futures for our field. I feel privileged to have served in this role. I am indebted to the wealth of alumni who have supported the School in so many important ways. I expect that I will see many of you countless times over the coming years.
William B. Rouse is the H. Milton and Carolyn J. Stewart Chair and Professor in the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
PUBLISHED BY
ISyE Lionheart Publishing Inc.
Georgia Institute of Technology John Llewellyn, President
EDITORIAL
Managing Editor
Ruth Gregory ISyE / Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA 30332-0205 Tel: (404) 385-2627 Fax: (404) 894-2301 ruth.gregory@isye.gatech.edu Sarah Banick sbanick@mindspring.com
Contributing Editor
PUBLISHING/ADVERTISING OFFICE
LIONHEART PUBLISHING INC. 506 Roswell Street, Ste. 220 Marietta, GA 30060, USA (770) 431-0867 Fax: (770) 432-6969 E-mail: marvin@lionhrtpub.com
ART DIRECTION & PRODUCTION
Art Director Publication Designer
Alan Brubaker, ext. 218 albrubaker@lionhrtpub.com Donna Browning, ext. 226 donnam@lionhrtpub.com
SALES & MARKETING
Advertising Sales
Marvin Diamond, ext. 208 marvin@lionhrtpub.com
CIRCULATION
Circulation Manager
Maria Bennett, ext. 219 bennett@lionhrtpub.com
Engineering Enterprise is published quarterly by Lionheart Publishing Inc. and ISyE, Georgia Institute of Technology. Editorial contributions including manuscripts, news items, and letters to the editor are welcome. Unless stated otherwise, articles and announcements reflect the opinions of the author or firm and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Engineering Enterprise, Lionheart Publishing Inc., ISyE, its advertisers, or sponsors. Yearly subscriptions (four issues) are available for $18 (U.S.), $22 (Canada & Mexico). Payable in U.S. funds.
Copyright 2005 by Lionheart Publishing Inc. and ISyE. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher. Printed in the USA.
www.isye.gatech.edu
engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005
L E A D E R
A Conversation with Georgia Tech President Wayne Clough
Dr. G. Wayne Clough has been president of the Georgia Institute of Technology since 1994 and has played an important role in elevating Georgia Techs national and international stature. During his tenure as president, research expenditures have increased from $200 million to almost $400 million, enrollment has increased from 13,000 to 16,500, and more than $1 billion in private funds has been raised. In 1999, Georgia Tech received the Hesburgh Award, the nations top recognition for support of undergraduate teaching and learning; and in 2003 it was ranked among the top ten public universities by U.S. News and World Report. Cloughs interests include technology and higher education policy, economic development, diversity in higher education, and technology in a global setting. In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed him to the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and, in 2004, to the National Science Board. Clough received his B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering from Georgia Tech in 1964 and 1965, and a Ph.D. in 1969 in Civil Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.
2 engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005 www.isye.gatech.edu
S H I P
in Times of Transformation
EE: Youve held a wide range of academic leadership positions. What has changed over the years in the nature of the academic enterprise? Clough: A lot. First, universities have become much more prominent than in the past because they have become big in every sense of the word, including size of the student bodies and budgets, the growing array of sports and entertainment programs, and in terms of influence on society. University research today impacts almost every aspect of our lives and helps drive the economy. As such, universities are more exposed in terms of public opinion and the body politic. Today people want to know more about universities, what they are doing to educate students, where their research is headed, and what they are doing to insure accountability. There are positives and negatives that come with these new circumstances. Most people are very appreciative of the new ideas that come out of our research, but they are also concerned about some of the things happening in areas like biotechnology and cloning. There is more scrutiny about how we spend our money and whether it is invested wisely. Often, the increased scrutiny from public officials comes even as we rely less on public funding and more on private support. Much of this comes with the territory, and we have to accept it and learn to do a better job in communicating with the public about our commitment to core values and the things that are not changing, like teaching, learning, and creation of new knowledge.
www.isye.gatech.edu engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005 3
EE: How does it change the way you lead the institution? Clough: It means that you must have a broader view, and you need a team that appreciates our new and evolving role in society. You cant have people who only think about universities anymore, only about their own jobs. They have to think about the other dimensions of their job. So as we recruit, we try to hire people who have been at sophisticated institutions, where they have already thought about these things. Its one thing for someone to be very good at their specific area. But if they dont understand the larger dimensions of their work, they can make a decision, which normally is a very good decision in a narrow sense, but can be a very bad decision in a larger sense. Folks have told me, if you were to think of Georgia Tech as a city, we are one of the top 25 cities in the state and have a population density greater than that of New York City. We are a very complex, small city that is also a center of knowledge and talent for this state. As such, we have great influence. You have to use that influence wisely. EE: People in positions such as yours are often perceived to have considerable power, but actually have more influence than power. Is that the case at Georgia Tech? Clough: Thats for sure. I remember how Harry Truman described his job as president. He showed someone an administration tree on the wall, and it looked like a pyramid. He said, See that pyramid up there? There is the president at the top and it goes out to the cabinet members, etc. Thats all baloney. It ends with my secretary.A university president needs to realize the limits of power, respect those working with him, and appreciate that ultimately nothing gets done unless people are involved in setting the consensus for the future. Ultimately, much comes down to an ability to persuade and find an appropriate balance between an approach that uses more of the carrot than of the stick. EE: What do you see as the greatest challenges? Clough: Ive commented on how institutions as a whole have changed. Georgia Tech is clearly an exemplar of that. As an institution, when I was here in the 1960s, it was certainly a fine regional university. But today we have a very substantive national and global impact. Both of those are going to grow. Again, you have to learn how to use that position wisely and use it for the benefit of people, not for just your benefit. So Georgia Tech is very much in the middle of an expansion of its institutional role. Added to our expanded reach as an institution, we have worked hard to be among the leaders in changing to accommodate to a world where interdisciplinary, team-based approaches are becoming the norm to address the major issues our society faces. This moves us away from the more traditional disciplinary model that was used to create the university and many of the professions where our graduates work. Our challenge for the future is managing this transition to allow for the interdisciplinary model to thrive while maintaining the value created by the disciplinary model. I am proud
of what I see at Georgia Tech today, where our culture encourages interdisciplinary teams to solve problems, while we continue to have a strong respect for the value of the disciplines needed to drive some of the basic knowledge needed for the future. EE: So, this goes beyond the chemists having to understand the biologists. People need to understand the universitys role in the broader community, even in a global environment. Clough: Absolutely.As we become more active overseas, we must find a way to support the aspirations of those with whom we are partnering. Georgia Tech by and large has done a good job of that. We have to avoid being seen as being too unto ourselvesand be respectful of local customs, looking for positive ways to partner with local institutions. When we went to France, it wasnt a case where we were going to be there as an entity unto ourselves. Instead, we set up joint degree programs with the local universities, and we integrated ourselves with the local economy. A lot of universities just go in and say,Here we are, heres our flag, and were here. I believe we have succeeded because we have been concerned about our role in the community where we have set up shop. Here in Georgia, we took the same attitude when we began operations in Savannah.We really made a focused effort to understand the aspirations of the people we are working with and integrate them into our plans. EE: How broadly can we deploy our influence? What are the key tradeoffs? Clough: It is something that we do need to give some thought to. How far can we go, and keep coherence to Georgia Tech? Keep our brand intact and do the things that we want to do and maintain our integrity at the highest level? The demands for Georgia Tech as an institution are large, and there are some practical issues; for example, lets bring it back to Atlanta from the international for a moment. Atlanta is a city of five million, and so many here want to get a graduate education at Georgia Tech. But with traffic today, it is hard to drive to campus and not lose a large part of the day. Our challenge is how to deliver the educational services and still accommodate the issues this particular subset of our clientele faces.
www.isye.gatech.edu
Its a big decision, because if we chose not to deliver those services, somebody will. But at the same time, if we do, there are issues to be faced. Who is going to do it? Which faculty are going to do it? Are we going to have a physical location? Are we going to try to do it all electronically, which may not be a satisfactory solution in the long run? You extrapolate that internationally, where a new set of issues arise. Ultimately there has to be a limit to how many locations you can serve, particularly if you are speaking about permanent sites. We basically have two today France and Singapore and the question is, can we go to four or five in the immediate future? Were looking at Bangalore, and probably Shanghai and Beijing, and maybe an additional city. Wherever we go, we need to do it in a quality way that perpetuates our brand and core values. And we should continue our approach of working closely with the local community. Added to this, we need to think through what we will offer in the future. In the past it has largely been engineering, but we have recently created a new Global MBA. This would seem to complement what we do in engineering and offer a special niche to differentiate our business programs from those of other universities. Additionally, it opens new opportunities for our students, both those who come from the United States and from other nations. EE: Are the challenges for the future more of the same, or do you see some possible disconnects emerging? Clough: There are some general trends that will probably play out more or less like we think they will. And then there will be others that wont. For the past three years, I have been fortunate to chair the Engineer of 2020 Project for the National Academy of Engineering, and in the course of this effort we used a scenario-based planning approach. Peter Schwartz is the most prominent advocate of this approach, and we were fortunate to have him as our facilitator for our workshops. Peter advocates looking at a range of possibilities for the future while remaining open to new ideas and considering these in terms of multiple alternatives that might shape them differently. As an institution, it is important to use this type of approach. Suppose you do have a war, or suppose you do have a major calamity, as we did with the recent tsunami, affecting some part of the world? This could change the context for your planning. So we cant just lay out the trends as you see them, you must be ready to shift. EE: One of the trends is engineering education. The U.S. graduates about 65,000 engineers annually, while in Asia they graduate about one million a year. What are the implications of this trend? Clough: Europe joins Asia in producing more engineers than the U.S. Combine this with the non-growth trends for engineering enrollment in the U.S., and this does not portend a positive future in a world ever more driven by technology. Some would say we are okay because the supply seems to be
meeting the demand, but we are in a time of flux that makes traditional, predictive models highly uncertain. Technological breakthroughs are just around the corner in fields like nanotechnology and biotechnology that may call for many more engineers. And, we are seeing a new trend where international talent that used to come to our nation and bail us out is now going elsewhere. If we dont have the talent, the businesses of the future will go where it is, and under present circumstances that will not be in the U.S. Finally, beyond the need for pure technical talent, I would argue that we need more technically trained people who go on to careers that are not in engineering. This adds to the urgency of working on the issues. These trends and facts are among the reasons we undertook the Engineer of 2020 Project. While our initial goal was to try to understand the future in order to suggest educational models to help get us there, we realized well into the work that this was not enough. Because there are threats to engineering in the U.S., we proposed and developed a list of aspirations for the future of U.S. engineering. Our goal was to offer the aspirations so that we would have a set of guiding principles to lead us through the challenging times we are going to face.
Everyone refers to academia as a big ship, and it takes a long time to change the course.
EE: When you think about the challenges of the future, do you think the current academic business model is adequate to address the future? Clough: No, but I am encouraged by signs of willingness to change. Everyone refers to academia as a big ship, and it takes a long time to change the course. Ive been at several major national meetings recently where a number of higher education leaders have spoken about impressive new initiatives at their institutions. What seems to be happening is that every institution is beginning to approach things in a different way. Not at the core yet, but in specialized programs. That is true here at Georgia Tech in more ways than most, placing us in a leadership position. The good news is, our faculty are willing to develop new programs that are innovative and interesting to our students. Overall, I am encouraged by the new directions that I see in higher education. With enough such undertakings, we have a chance to entice more talented young people to undertake studies in engineering and science. EE: Some people argue that the traditional disciplinary orientation is in some ways in conflict with this broader view. Do you see that, or might a hybrid emerge?
www.isye.gatech.edu
In the end those who learn how to deal comfortably with the notion of opposites and their appropriate roles as the circumstances demand will be the winners.
Clough: As I mentioned earlier, there has to be a balance. We live in a world where what you might consider opposites have to work together. For example, consider intellectual property. On the one hand, there is a need for openness if we really want to make significant progress on innovation in this country, but at the same time we have to have clear protections for intellectual property if we are to encourage investment in new ideas. We have to find ways to deal with such opposites. Theres an interesting book that was just published, Innovation: The Missing Dimension that addresses another kind of opposites. It was written by two MIT professors [Richard K. Lester and Michael J. Piore, Harvard University Press] and speaks to the difference between the so-called rational approach to problem solving and the interpretive approach. They argue that the interpretive approach encourages a more flexible way of developing a solution to an open-ended problem than the traditional rational approach. The rational approach is the way we usually like to think, because we believe were in control of the problem. Interpretive means you are kind of floating out there. Many people are not comfortable in that because they cannot balance the opposites. We have to educate engineers to live in this interpretive world as long as they can when solving problems or addressing issues, because it keeps them open to the possibilities until such time as the rational mode should kick in. In the end those who learn how to deal comfortably with the notion of opposites and their appropriate roles as the circumstances demand will be the winners. EE: How did you come to be involved in the Council on Competitiveness, and in particular the Innovation Study? Clough: The Council is a great organization. As an administrator, I looked for organizations where there was a fit for me personally and a fit with the institution. When I became president of Georgia Tech, I talked to a number of people about what organizations I should try to represent on behalf of Georgia Tech. There are many national organizations, and in fact, a number of these you can say Georgia Tech should have a role in. It was clear to me that the Council of Competitiveness is a great fit with Georgia Tech. The Council is unique in that it engages government, industry, academia, and labor in constructive projects related to economic competitiveness. It deals with the corporate world, in a significant way, and it deals with the government world, particularly as it relates to technology and work force issues, which are key issues for Georgia Tech. It is an institution that doesnt have a political agenda but respects
and understands the political process. The Council suited me personally and provided an excellent venue that matched well with Georgia Techs sphere of influence. EE: And the Councils Innovation Study? How did that emerge? Clough: About every three or four years the Council reaches a point where it tackles new ideas and thrusts. It was formed in the 1980s to address what was then seen as the onslaught of Japan, Inc. The Council helped our nations industries identify best practices and pull together an alliance of government, industry, academia, and labor to work coherently on the issues. The result was a positive outcome for our nation. Later, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of national boundaries to trade, a new set of issues emerged. To some extent, these were washed under by the rush of the dotcom economy and the heady days of ready venture capital availability. The Council took on the study of clusters of economic development and how this drove not only the national economy but also regional economies. When this work was complete, the national and international circumstances were changed yet again we experienced the war on terror; the rise of technology-based economies in India, China, and Korea; and the threat of offshoring, particularly of manufacturing work. After much deliberation, the Council professionals and the board concluded the issue before us was whether the U.S. had done enough to protect its ability to innovate and to continue as a world leader in this important economic sector. After all, 50 percent of our economic growth of the past decade can be traced to innovation. We chose to make this one of the major initiatives of the Council for the next three to four years. It turns out it was a good choice. I was fortunate to be named, along with IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, to co-chair the National Innovation Initiative. We were joined by upwards of 400 professionals from a range of sectors who broke down the issues and created 30 recommendations to address our national innovation capacity. The report was issued at our summit in Washington in December 2004, and since this time it has been downloaded more than 125,000 times from the Council website. We are now moving into what we envision as a three-year implementation period to get our recommendations undertaken. EE: In terms of what you learned about innovation and competitiveness, are there lessons there for Georgia Tech? Clough: Definitely. I think much can be said for the notion of being an innovative university, and would argue that we are well on our way. The idea, as I see it, is that as innovators, we not only are interested in creating new ideas and knowledge, but we also are focused on moving these ideas into the world to benefit our economy and the well being of our society. Note that this is not just about advancing commercial prospects, but it has just as much to do with the way we might aid nonprofits in addressing some of our most nagging societal problems. This plays well within the long standing notion that Georgia Tech is a can-do place, but at the same time it elevates our
www.isye.gatech.edu
efforts in the context of using creative approaches, not just the old tried and true. This is not a complex idea, but it is complex to do it and do it right. It brings an excitement to the university, giving it a stronger role and helps provide a better appreciation of what we are about both to our students and those who depend on us outside our boundaries. A good example of innovation in the curriculum is found in the new Professional Science Masters degrees that have been created by our science faculty working with faculty in other disciplines. An example is the Human Computer Interface M.S. degree, which provides our students a new perspective on how computers, computer science, and technology can assist people and improve their lives. I was recently asked to keynote a conference on Professional Science Masters Degrees. I was surprised by the number of people who attended the conference, about 400. At the end, there was a huge line of people who wanted to talk to me. The common theme was, How could you do this? We cant do it at our university. I thought,Gee, it was easy at Georgia Tech. Why is it so hard for you? It made me realize we do have a culture that is more open, and Id like to think we have an innovative university. Now, we still have a lot of work to do. But Georgia Tech is well positioned, and we can be leaders. We talk about defining the technological research university of the twenty-first century. Here is one of those places where we surely can do that. EE: Was there anything that you learned in these studies that we are not doing right? Clough: I still dont think were doing the job we need to do for our students in engineering, science, and professional education. Were still educating our students based on old models, and that is the one that is tough to change. Care has to be taken to insure that what is essential to the learning process is learned and that the fundamentals are mastered. This limits the ability to take risks and make significant change. At the same time, if we look carefully at the future, continuing to do the same things we do now is not going to sustain us. Fortunately, we have some time, if we set our minds to it. That is the idea behind the Engineer of 2020 Project. We need to seriously think about the future if we are going to make the time consuming changes needed so that our curricula and educational processes are right to provide the kind of new talent needed by 2020. EE: Given the panorama youve portrayed, what advice would you give to young faculty members regarding how to think about their careers? Clough: A young faculty member needs to develop some sort of base, a disciplinary base, from which they have a strong starting point. I am a civil engineer who works with geotechnical problems, which means I work with foundations. You cant build a great building or glamorous museum or anything exotic or imaginative without a good foundation. So I encourage young faculty members to pick something they can
do very well, something that theyll be able to succeed with against the competition. But work hard, too, on what I call the fundamentals: teaching, research, and outreach and service. Those havent changed. The way we do things has changed, but the basics havent changed. Ive always thought that all the work I put into teaching my first five years and I worked very hard at it paid off enormously later on. It was much easier later on, because I had worked so hard in the first five or ten years. I hope young faculty would develop a balanced approach towards what they are doing, and understand clearly that they are here not only to create new knowledge, but also to educate. Then, as they get their feet on the ground, they need to explore interdisciplinary approaches that will help them grow to reach their full potential.
I hope young faculty would develop a balanced approach towards what they are doing, and understand clearly that they are here not only to create new knowledge, but also to educate.
EE: Some faculty are intrigued by multidisciplinary issues, but also a little concerned about whether that is the right place to put their energy at that stage in their career. Clough: Thats a good point. From my point of view, although Im a classical engineer and trained that way, the speciality that I chose was geotechnical engineering, a very interdisciplinary field. It involves geology, chemistry, math, and mechanics; and the nature of the beast that you work with, what Mother Nature gave us, is highly variable and hard to describe with the information that you get. So you live with uncertainty. What I tried to do in my own career was find focus areas where I could establish a clear reputation. At the same time, I loved to dabble in a few things. Gradually, as life expands, you begin to dabble a little more as you begin to get the capability. Faculty need to develop outward, and grow from the base into something they can maintain. Never infinitely expanding, because youll never get anything done unless you are Buckminster Fuller. Most of us need some sort of focus. EE: Any final comments? Clough: I congratulate you on your publication. Its beginning to push us in areas that we need to be pushed. It is part of the innovative university that Georgia Tech should be, a leader nationally and internationally.
www.isye.gatech.edu
Other Views on Enterprise Transformation from Georgia Tech Leaders

Dr. Stephen Cross: Enterprise Transformation and the Georgia Tech Research Institute
Dr. Stephen Cross is director of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, a vice president of Georgia Tech, and a professor in the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering. EE: What does enterprise transformation mean in the context of the research and education pursuits of GTRI? SC: The Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI), as Georgia Techs applied research arm, has been an integral part of Tech since 1934. We support a vast array of technical work through seven laboratories with a staff of 1,300 (including 250 Georgia Tech students). Let me give you one example related to enterprise transformation. We facilitated the development and adoption of enterprise technologies by federal, state, and local law enforcement communities and industry to host the National Amber Alert System (www.it.ojp.gov) and other information sharing initiatives. Through such work, we develop and codify innovative approaches for the creation of new communities of interest (e.g., enterprises) and their simultaneous design of new processes, insertion of appropriate technologies, and more often than not, change of culture. EE: How do you anticipate the Tennenbaum Institute may be able to help GTRI in these pursuits? SC: The Tennenbaum Institute (TI) is the intellectual crossroads of a rapidly forming interdisciplinary community for enterprise transformation. GTRI is an active participant and brings many skills, such as the development of large scale IT systems and modeling and simulation. TIs interdisciplinary research agenda compliments and extends the capabilities GTRI can now offer its diverse array of sponsors.
8 engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005
Dr. Richard A. DeMillo: Enterprise Transformation and Computing

Dr. Richard A. DeMillo is the John P. Imlay Jr. Dean of Computing and a Distinguished Professor of Computing at Georgia Techs College of Computing. EE: What does enterprise transformation mean in the context of the research and education pursuits of the College of Computing? RD: College of Computing programs in areas like high performance computing, electronic commerce, software and enterprise architecture, and information security have always been very attractive to students who want to work in the IT industry. We think its a significant opportunity for developing new academic programs and research initiatives to explore how the next generation of computers, networks, and applications will allow large organizations to adapt to the many kinds of change that affect industry today. EE: How do you anticipate the Tennenbaum Institute may be able to help the College of Computing in these pursuits? RD: The Tennenbaum Institute gives us the opportunity to train this expertise on defining the nature of information technology as a transforming enabler in the enterprise. Traditional academic computer science departments have never taken that challenge seriously, but because Georgia Tech focuses its efforts on the value that computing technology adds to enterprises, we have a chance to define a truly new discipline.
www.isye.gatech.edu
Dr. Thomas Galloway: Enterprise Transformation and Architecture

Thomas Galloway is dean and professor of the College of Architecture at Georgia Tech. EE: What does enterprise transformation mean in the context of the research and education pursuits of the College of Architecture? TG: The programs of the College of Architecture (both in education and in research) span the full range of practice concerning the United States built environment. This essentially means our work is directed to the pre-planning, design, construction, occupancy, and reuse stages of the man-made environment; its facilities; its products; and its physical systems; as well as to the protection of the natural environment in which they are placed. Thus, we are engaged in systems that are continuously transforming. Yet, often it is difficult at any given point in time to understand fully the genesis, and indeed the morphology, of these changing systems. Understanding transformative processes and their dynamics is critically important to our work. EE: How do you anticipate the Tennenbaum Institute may be able to help the College of Architecture in these pursuits? TG: We see the Tennenbaum Institute as providing a forum and an intellectual resource base which will assist our students, faculty, and research scientists in advancing our knowledge of transformative dynamics operating within the urban and developmental systems in which we work. These dynamics are multidimensional, ranging from real versus virtual worlds, to the interventions of technology in these systems which enable new realities, new behaviors, new institutional forms, new systems and, indeed, new urban forms.
www.isye.gatech.edu
Dr. Sue V. Rosser: Enterprise Transformation and the Liberal Arts

Dr. Sue V. Rosser is dean of the Ivan Allen College and holds the Ivan Allen Jr. Deans Chair in Liberal Arts and Technology.
EE: What does enterprise transformation mean in the context of the research and education pursuits of the Ivan Allen College? SR: Enterprise transformation is central to the research and educational missions of the six schools in the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. Because we view our mission as a liberal arts college in a technological university in the technological era of the twenty-first century, we attempt to create a crucial union of the humanities and social sciences with science and technology. EE: How do you anticipate the Tennenbaum Institute may be able to help the Ivan Allen College in these pursuits? SR: Because of its interdisciplinary approach to enterprise transformation, the Tennenbaum Institute facilitates our focus on the liberal arts with a Tech twist. For example, working with the enterprise transformation framework within the Tennenbaum Institute, our School of Public Policy is excited about the opportunity to help guide public sector organizations through a time of transition and sometimes wrenching change.
By William B. Rouse Executive Director, Tennenbaum Institute

By William B. Rouse Executive Director, Tennenbaum Institute; Professor, School Strategic management of contemporary enterprises of Industrial and Systems Engineering and the College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology whether they are in the private or public sectors poses numerous challenges. Growth of impact, perhaps reflected in sales and profits or services to constituencies, is a continual challenge. Evolving the enterprises value proposition, the foundation for growth, is also an important challenge. Other essential challenges include achieving focus, implementing change, addressing uncertainty, sharing knowledge, and managing time (Rouse, 2001). There are a wide variety of ways to address these challenges, and numerous practices and case studies to draw upon (Collins & Porras, 1994; Collins, 2001; Rouse, 2001). Process improvements and other incremental changes may be sufficient for a particular enterprises challenges. However, in some cases, addressing these strategic challenges may involve enterprise transformation, i.e., fundamental changes in terms of relationships to markets, product and service offerings, market perceptions, cost pressures, and the processes associated with these issues (Hammer & Champy, 1993; Slywotsky, 1996;Womack & Jones, 1996). Understanding and supporting transformation can be critical to enterprises accurately assessing their current situations, successfully pursuing desired situations, and surviving the fundamental changes implied.
TRA
www.isye.gatech.edu
10
NSFORMATION
www.isye.gatech.edu engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005 11
ENTERPRISE TRANSFORMATION
Transformation Framework
sought. As another illustration, significant changes of strategies A framework for understanding the nature of transformation often require new processes for decision making, such as in is shown in Figure 1. The goal or ends pursued via transforma- R&D investments. tion tends to significantly differentiate initiatives. The approach or means adopted for transformation pursuits relates to both Perspectives on Transformation the goals pursued and the nature and competencies of the There are basically four alternative perspectives that tend to enterprise. The ends and means, as well as extent of integration underlie perceived needs for transformation: of the enterprise, influence the scope of transformation. Market and/or technology opportunities the lure of The ends of transformation can range from greater cost effigreater success prompts transformation initiatives ciencies, to enhanced market perceptions, to new product and Market and/or technology threats the danger of anticiservice offerings, to fundamental changes of markets. The pated failure prompts transformation initiatives means can range from upgrading peoples skills, to redesigning Competitors initiatives others transformation initiabusiness practices, to significant infusions of technology, to tives prompt recognition that transformation is necessary fundamental changes of strategy. The scope of transformation to continued success can range from work activities, to business functions, to over- Enterprise crises steadily declining market perforall organizations, to the enterprise as a whole. mance, cash flow problems, etc. prompt recognition that We have found this framework to provide a useful cattransformation is necessary to survive egorization of a broad range of case studies of enterprise transformation. Considering transformation of markets, The perspectives driven by external opportunities and Amazon leveraged IT to redefine book buying, while Wal- threats often allow pursuing transformation long before it is Mart leveraged IT to redefine the retail industry. forced on management, increasing the chances of having Illustrations of transformation of offerings include CNN resources to invest in these pursuits, leveraging internal redefining news delivery, Motorola moving from battery strengths, and mitigating internal weaknesses. In contrast, the eliminators to radios to cell phones, UPS transforming perspectives driven by external competitors initiatives and from solely package delivery to being a provider of inte- internally-caused crises typically lead to the need for transforgrated supply chain management services, and IBM mation being recognized much later and, consequently, often moving from an emphasis on selling computer products forced on management by corporate parents, equity markets, to providing integrated technology services. Examples of or other investors. Such reactive perspectives on transformatransformation of perceptions include Dell repositioning tion often lead to failures. computer buying and Starbucks repositioning coffee buying. The many instances of transforming business operations include MEANS Lockheed Martin merging three aircraft Strategy companies and Newell resuscitating numerous home products companies. Technology The costs and risks of transformation increase as the endeavor moves farther from the center in Figure 1. Initiatives focused on Processes the center (in green) will typically involve well-known and mature methods and tools Skills from industrial engineering and operations management. In contrast, initiatives towards the perimeter (in red) will often require Activity Costs substantial changes of products, services, Function Perceptions channels, etc., as well as associated large investments. Organization Offerings It is important to note that successful transEnterprise Markets formations in the outer band of Figure 1 are also likely to require significant investments in the inner bands. In general, any level of transformaSC OPE ENDS tion requires consideration of all subordinate levels. Thus, for example, successfully changing the markets perceptions of an enterprises offerings is likely to also require enhanced operational excellence to underpin the new image being Figure 1. Transformation Framework
12 engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005 www.isye.gatech.edu
REFERENCES
Collins, J.C., and Porras, J.I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Business. Collins, J.C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others dont. New York: Harper Business. Economist, (1999, June 24). ERP RIP? The Economist. Hammer, M., and Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Business. Rouse, W.B. (1996). Start where you are: Matching your strategy to your marketplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rouse, W.B. (1998). Dont jump to solutions: Thirteen delusions that undermine strategic thinking. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rouse, W.B. (2001). Essential challenges of strategic management. New York, Wiley. Rouse, W.B. (2005). Enterprises as systems: Essential challenges and approaches to transformation, Systems Engineering, 8 (2). Slywotsky, A.J. (1996). Value migration: How to think several moves ahead of the competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Womack, J.P., and Jones, D.T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
The architecting of such enterprise information systems should reflect the enterprise as a system, or system of systems
Approaches to Transformation
Delusions about the current situation can completely undermine strategic thinking about opportunities, threats, competitors, and crises (Rouse, 1998). Consequently, the approaches adopted may not match the underlying needs of the enterprise.
Enterprise Solutions
Transformation initiatives driven by external opportunities and threats tend to adopt strategy-oriented approaches such as: Markets Targeted, e.g., pursuing global markets such as emerging markets, or pursuing vertical markets such as aerospace and defense Market Channels Employed, e.g., adding web-based sales of products and services such as automobiles, consumer electronics, and computers Value Proposition, e.g., moving from selling unbundled products and services to providing integrated solutions for information technology management Offerings Provided, e.g., changing the products and services provided, perhaps by private labeling of outsourced products and focusing on support services On the other hand, transformation initiatives driven by competitors initiatives and internal crises tend to adopt operations-oriented approaches including: Supply Chain Restructuring, e.g., simplifying supply chains, negotiating just-in-time relationships, developing collaborative information systems Outsourcing and Offshoring, e.g., contracting out manufacturing, information technology support; employing low-wage, high-skill labor from other countries Process Standardization, e.g., enterprise-wide standardization of processes for product and process development, R&D, finance, personnel, etc. Process Reengineering, e.g., identification, design, and deployment of value-driven processes; identification and elimination of non-value creating activities Web-enabled Processes, e.g., online, self-support systems for customer relationship management, inventory management, etc. It is essential to note, however, that no significant transformation initiative can rely solely on either of these sets of approaches. Strategy-oriented initiatives must eventually pay serious attention to operations. Similarly, operations-oriented initiatives must at least validate existing strategies or run the risk of becoming very good at something they should not be doing at all. Recognitions of perspectives and adoption of appropriate approaches should be determined by a clear understanding of the current and emerging situations faced by the enterprise (Rouse, 1996).
Many approaches to transformation, especially those that are operations-oriented, are pursued in the context of information technology solutions such as: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Supply Chain Management (SCM) Sales Force Automation (SFA)
The large investments required to deploy these types of solutions need to be understood in the context of how they help enterprises address essential challenges and, in many cases, transform fundamentally.Installingthese solutions is only a beginning, as many enterprises have discovered after the fact (Economist, 1999). The architecting of such enterprise information systems should reflect the enterprise as a system, or system of systems (Rouse, 2005). Integration across the component systems should consider the primary value streams of the enterprise. Particular attention should be paid to how information and knowledge are shared and support creation and execution of programs of action that enhance value. Ideally, these types of enterprise solutions are viewed as just a piece of the transformation puzzle, albeit a large one. Addressing and resolving the people and organizational issues associated with these solutions are often the thorniest part of the road to success. Understanding work processes, both as they are and should be, is usually central. Training and aiding of personnel at all levels also tends to be very important, as does alignment of incentives and rewards with new processes.
www.isye.gatech.edu
13
Enterprise transformation is, by no means, a new phenomenon. The longbow transformed war as weapon technology often has when the English decimated the French at Agincourt in 1415. The invention of the printing press in 1453 led to the pamphlet wars, and Martin Luthers complaints in 1517 that seeded the transformation known as the Protestant Reformation. History is laced with many stories like this. In this article, I briefly review transformative developments and events in the transportation and computer industries, drawing on a longer work on these industries (Rouse, 1996).Attention then shifts to a range of contemporary stories of change in the telecommunications, retail, entertainment, information, and computing industries. These stories illustrate the range of ongoing transformation throughout the global economy.
STORIES OF TRANSFORMATION
Transportation
By William B. Rouse Executive Director,Tennenbaum Institute
Before the early 1800s, the dominant forms of transportation horse, stagecoach, sailing ship, and so on had not changed substantially in centuries. Then, within roughly 100 years, we had steamboats, railroads, automobiles, and aircraft. In the process of moving from stagecoaches and canal boats to jet planes, humankind changed the speed at which it traveled by a factor of 100. Trips that once took days now take minutes. Robert Fulton is traditionally credited with the invention of the steamboat. He was fortunate, however, to be able to build on a variety of earlier efforts. For example, several steamboats were demonstrated following James Watts improvements of the steam engine in 1775. Nevertheless, with Fultons demonstration in 1807, the steamboat industry blossomed. By 1819, a steamboat had sailed from Savannah, Georgia, to Russia. The first all-steam crossing, without the use of supporting sails, occurred in 1827. By the mid 1800s, transatlantic steamboat lines were competing. The first self-propelled steam land vehicle was reported in the late 1600s and, by the late 1700s, a French-built steam car had been demonstrated in Paris. Soon after, an English-built car was demonstrated. John Blenkinsop built the first practical and successful locomotive in Britain in 1812. The birth of the railway industry is traditionally credited to George Stephenson, who opened Britains Stockton and Darlington Railway in 1825. Soon after, it is argued, the railway era really began with the opening of the British Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830. By the 1850s, the railroads effects on the U.S. economy were pervasive. Uniform methods of construction, grading, and bridging emerged. Much of the design of rails,
www.isye.gatech.edu
14
locomotives, coaches, and freight cars was similar to what we have today, at least in terms of appearance. Frenchman Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot designed the first true automobile in 1769. This automobile was a steam-powered tricycle and was capable of traveling at 2.25 mph for 20 minutes. Germans Carl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler are credited with the first gasoline-engine automobile in 1885. In the United States, George Selden filed a patent for the automobile in 1879. Charles and Frank Duryea created a U.S. gas-powered automobile in 1892-93. By 1898, there were 50 automobile companies; another 241 went into business between 1904 and 1908. Interestingly, steam propulsion retained a dominant position for quite some time at the turn of the century, 40 percent of U.S. automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline. Serious speculation about flight occupied such thinkers as Roger Bacon in the thirteenth century and Leonardo da Vinci in the fifteenth century. There were numerous attempts over several centuries until Orville Wright, in 1903, flew for 12 seconds and landed without damage. In 1914, the U.S. Census Bureau listed 16 firms as aircraft manufacturers, with combined total output for the year of 49 planes. By 1918, the U.S. aircraft industry employed 175,000 and delivered 14,000 aircraft to a nation in war. After the signing of the World War I armistice, production in 1922 dropped to 263 planes. Commercial aviation eventually diminished the dominance of military customers in the aircraft market. Until the late 1950s, more than half of the commercial aircraft in the world were built by Douglas Aircraft, having continually built upon the success of the DC-3. But Boeing quickly moved into jet aircraft, mostly due to military contracts. Using the military KC135 as a starting point, Boeing introduced the 707 commercial transport in 1958. Douglas was much slower to shift paradigms. Boeings bet on jet aircraft provided the basis for its strong position in commercial aviation today. The patterns of innovation just outlined for steamboats, trains, automobiles, and airplanes are closely linked to propulsion steam, internal combustion, and jet engines. Combined with inventions in mechanical systems, aeronautics, and manufacturing including many, many inventions that never gained broad acceptance these patterns moved us faster and higher, both literally and economically.
Computing
Like transportation, the evolution of computer technology and the computer industry took centuries.
developed in the early 1800s. Jacquards punched card method for controlling looms also influenced American Herman Hollerith, who invented a card-based system for tabulating the results of the 1890 U.S. census. Holleriths venture led to what would later become IBM. During the latter half of the nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century, IBM, NCR, Burroughs, Remington Rand, and other companies led the business equipment industry with tabulators (IBM), cash registers (NCR), calculators (Burroughs), and typewriters (Remington). The dominance of these companies in their respective domains set the stage for them to become primary players in the computer market. The emergence of digital computing and the process of maturation of the computer industry started with John V. Atansoff of Iowa State University, who built a prototype of an electromechanical digital computer in 1939. By 1946, John W. Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert at the University of Pennsylvania had completed the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Calculator, ENIAC, which was the first all-purpose, all-electronic digital computer and led to Remington Rands UNIVAC. Remington Rand had some early success, including selling UNIVAC machines to the U.S. Census Bureau to displace IBM tabulators. IBM eventually beat out Remington Rand, because it recognized the tremendous potential of computers and how they must be marketed. IBM envisioned what was going to happen in the business machines industry and responded by developing a customer-oriented strategy to help customers deal successfully with new trends. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, a whole new segment of the computer market emerged interactive, rather than centralized, computing. IBM dismissed and then ignored this segment. It apparently could not imagine that customers would want to do their own computing rather than have IBM support and possibly staff a centralized computing function. Later IBM tried to catch up, but did so poorly. By the late 1960s, Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) dominated interactive computing with its minicomputers. By the late 1970s, Apple was putting the finishing touches on the first microcomputer that would spark a new industry. DEC, in a classic business oversight, failed to take interactive computing to the next logical step of personal computing. Apple, exploiting pioneering inventions at Xerox, created the Macintosh in the mid 1980s. The Mac became the industry standard, at least in the sense that its features and benefits were adopted
engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005 15
Like transportation, the evolution of computer technology and the computer industry took centuries. Frenchman Blaise Pascal built the first mechanical adding machine more than 300 years ago. German Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz, after seeing Pascals machine, created the Stepped Reckoner in 1673. Charles Babbage conceived the first digital computer in the 1830s. He envisioned this computerthe Analytical Engineas powered by steam that, as noted in the last section, was high tech in the 1830s. Babbage got his idea for a digital computer from Frenchman Joseph-Marie Jacquards punch-card programmed looms,
www.isye.gatech.edu
The patterns of innovation in computing revolve around power and speed.

throughout the personal computer industry. Microsoft and Intel were the primary beneficiaries of this innovation. Microsoft prospered when IBM chose it to create the operating system software DOS for IBMs personal computer. DOS soon became the industry standard, except for Apple enthusiasts. Then Microsoft Windows replaced DOS as the standard. With the introduction of Windows, Microsoft was able to create software applications for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, and databases, and it now controls these markets. Now, of course, the Internet is dominating attention. Microsoft is battling with a range of competitors, hoping to transform a variety of inventions into dominant market innovations. The rules of the game have changed substantially as this industry has moved from mainframe to mini to micro and now, Internet. Most inventions will not become innovations, but certainly a few will. The patterns of innovation in computing revolve around power and speed. More and more computing operations, faster and faster, differentiate the mainframe, mini, and micro eras. Increasing user control has also been an element of these patterns, although it results in increasing numbers of layers between users and computation. Further, it has been argued that pervasive networking is only possible with increased centralized control of standards, protocols, etc. Thus, the latest pattern of innovation may inherently borrow from old patterns.
Todays Stories
net bubble burst and customers could not repay loans, Lucents $250 billion market cap in 1999 quickly shrunk by more than 90 percent (Lowenstein, 2005). While AT&T and Lucent were stumbling, Nokia was a star of the telecommunications industry. However, by 2003, Nokia was losing market share (35 percent to 29 percent) due to stodgy designs of cell phones, unwillingness to adapt to cellular providers, and internal preoccupation with reorganization. It finally reacted with new phone designs (e.g., a velvet cell phone!) and market share rebounded. Nevertheless, the company is being pushed down market to maintain growth in an increasingly competitive market. One expert projects Nokia will end up with something like a 22 percent market share, with Asian competitors the main beneficiaries (Economist, 2005, Feb 12). The retail industry has been highly competitive for several decades. Proctor & Gamble (P&G) is one of the stalwarts of this industry. It has maintained its competitive position by boosting innovation, ditching losing brands, buying winning ones, and stripping away bureaucracy. However, the consumer goods industry has found itself caught between slowing sales, rising costs, and waning pricing power. The big box retailers now have the pricing power, both via private labels and trade spending, i.e., requiring suppliers to pay for store promotions, displays, and shelf space. P&Gs acquisition of Gillette for $50 billion follows its acquisition of Clairol for $5 billion and Wella for $7 billion. At the same time, P&G sold off numerous brands. China is a rapidly growing P&G market, but whether these changes can sustain P&Gs growth remains to be seen (Economist, 2005, Feb 5).
We have just skimmed through two centuries of innovations in transportation and computing and the formation (and demise) of thousands of enterprises. Now, lets consider what has happened in the opening few years of this century. The telecommunications industry provides several recent, compelling stories of transformation, particularly failures to transform. Perhaps the biggest story is AT&T. The company underestimated the opportunities in wireless, then overpaid for McCaw Cellular to catch up, and later spun the cellular business off. It attempted to get into computers via NCR, and then spun that off. AT&T overpaid for TCI and MediaOne, and then spun both off. It also spun off Lucent. AT&T came late to the Internet data market. All of this created a debt crisis. With reduced market cap, AT&T was acquired by Southern Bell Corporation, a former Baby Bell. (Economist, 2005, Feb 5). Lucent, AT&Ts progeny, does not fare much better. Adopting a high tech image when spun off in 2000, Lucent abandoned the traditional Baby Bell customers for Internet startups who bought on credit. Lucent overdid mergers and overpaid. It delayed developments of optical systems. Of greatest impact, it inflated sales to meet market expectations. When the Interengineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005
We have just skimmed through two centuries of innovations in transportation and computing and the formation (and demise) of thousands of enterprises.
Despite fierce competition in the breakfast foods business including a redefinition of breakfast by time-pressured consumers Kelloggs remained committed to its broad strategy that involved excelling at new product development, broad distribution, and a culture skilled at executing business plans. To sustain this strategy, Kelloggs needed a distribution channel for delivering fresh snack-like breakfast foods. It acquired Keebler, which had a similar brand strategy. Revenue rose by 43 percent between 1999 and 2003 and operating income nearly doubled (Harding & Rovit, 2004). Newell had a 30-year track record of successfully acquiring more than 60 companies in the household products industry. Its success is recognized by the industry, which has adopted the concept of Newellizing acquisitions. Rubbermaid seemed
16
www.isye.gatech.edu
R E F E R E N C E S
Large high-technology companies also have to address the challenges of transformation.

like a natural match, with the opportunity to sell household products through the same sales channels. However, the acquisition dragged Newell down, and lost 50 percent of the value of the investment. Newells focus on efficiency and low prices did not match Rubbermaids brand focus and premium prices (Harding & Rovit, 2004). Clear Channel and Thomson illustrate transformation in the entertainment and information sectors, respectively. Clear Channel Communications (CCC) executed a long series of acquisitions of radio stations, accelerated by the 1996 deregulation, rising to lead the industry with 1,200 stations. CCC focused on cost leadership involving packaged play lists, central distribution of formats, and shared personnel. It sold bundled advertising and promoted live concerts. Between 1995 and 2003, its revenues grew 55 percent annually and shareholder return averaged 28 percent annually (Harding & Rovit, 2004). From 1997 to 2002, Thomson transformed itself from a traditional conglomerate that included newspapers, travel services, and professional publications into a focused provider of integrated electronic information to specialty markets. It sold more than 60 companies and 130 newspapers. With the proceeds of $6 billion, Thomson acquired 200 businesses, becoming a leader in electronic databases and improving operating margins significantly (Harding & Rovit, 2004). Large high-technology companies also have to address the challenges of transformation. Following the reunification of Germany, prices in Siemens markets dropped dramatically, by as much as 50 percent in three years in some businesses. Siemens reacted by focusing on cost reduction, innovation as reflected by patents, growth, and culture change, prompted by the CEO convincing people that there was a crisis. It adopted many of General Electrics ideas, i.e., only staying in businesses where it could be No. 1 or No. 2; GEs people development ideas; and GEs benchmarking practices. Siemens focused on financial markets, alliances, and the internal political and persuasion process. From 1992 to 2004, revenue almost doubled, net income more than tripled, and revenue per employee almost doubled (Stewart & OBrien, 2005). By 2002, under the leadership of Louis Gerstner, IBM had been pulled back from the brink, transforming from a mainframe maker into a robust provider of integrated hardware, networking, and software solutions. The new CEO, Samuel Palmisano, continued the companys transformation via a bottom-up reinvention of IBMs venerable values. The transformed values are: 1) dedication to every clients success,
2) innovation that matters, for IBM and for the world and, 3) trust and personal responsibility for all relationships. Processes and practices are now being aligned, or realigned, with these values (Hemp & Stewart, 2004).
Conclusions
The need to transform change in fundamental ways has long been a central element of the economy and society. Many enterprises are started; some flourish. Those that succeed eventually must face the challenges of change; some succeed in transforming, as illustrated in this article. Most enterprises fail to transform. The study of enterprise transformation focuses on understanding the challenges of change and determining what practices help most to address change and successfully transform.
Economist, (2005, February 5). The fall of a corporate queen. The Economist, 57-58. Economist, (2005, February 5). Consumer goods: The rise of the superbrands. The Economist, 63-65. Economist, (2005, February 12). Nokias turnaround: The giant in the palm of your hand. The Economist, 67-69 Harding, D., and Rovit, S. (2004, September). Building deals on bedrock. Harvard Business Review, 121-128. Hemp, P., and Stewart, T.A. (2004, December). Leading change when business is good. Harvard Business Review, 60-70. Lowenstein, R. (2005, February). How Lucent lost it: The telecommunications manufacturer was a Potemkin village. Technology Review, 78-80. Rouse, W.B. (1996). Start where you are: Matching your strategy to your marketplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stewart, T.A., and OBrien, L. (2005, February). Transforming an industrial giant. Harvard Business Review, 115-122.
GAMS
OPTIMIZATION
The General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) is a high-level modeling system for mathematical programming problems. It consists of a language compiler and a stable of integrated high-performance solvers. GAMS is tailored for complex, large scale modeling applications, and allows you to build large maintainable models that can be adapted quickly to new situations.
GAMS Development Corporation

1217 Potomac Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007, USA Tel.: +1-202-342-0180 Fax: +1-202-342-0181 sales@gams.com http://www.gams.com
www.isye.gatech.edu
18
www.isye.gatech.edu
www.isye.gatech.edu
19
20
www.isye.gatech.edu
www.isye.gatech.edu
21
22
www.isye.gatech.edu
GRADUATE STUDENTS
The Tennenbaum Institute has nine Tennenbaum Fellows working with Executive Director Bill Rouse and other Institute faculty. Dr. Rouse highlighted several of these students at the Institutes inaugural event in October 2004, emphasizing the characteristics that they share. First, among the nine, no two have the same undergraduate degree, said Rouse. Thus, it is a very diverse group. Second, all these students have some practical experience, ranging from internships to founding roles in startups. Hence, they appreciate the complexity of enterprises and are enthusiastic about research addressing this complexity. He maintained that graduate students are the free electrons in the Institute, binding to new ideas with much energy, and bringing the faculty along with their ideas, questions, and enthusiasm. Indeed, numerous benefactors have told me that students such as these are one of the primary attractions of the Institute.
BAABAK ASHURI
Ultimate Goal:
I would like to have a challenging career with a prestigious corporation that appreciates cuttingedge ideas and gives me an opportunity to learn, apply business and systems engineering tools, and move forward.
Education:
positive transformation. Im at the right place at the right time. Ive seen the momentum that the Tennenbaum Institute brings to Georgia Tech, and Im proud to be a part of that.
Why the Tennenbaum Institute?
decision-making, and became interested in his perspectives on real-world problem solving. My role here is multidisciplinary I am involved in establishing channels of collaboration between the colleges of Architecture and Engineering.
Etc.
Real world business problems are so complicated that no single research discipline can offer a complete solution. I attended Bill Rouses class in
Born and raised in Tehran, Iran
B.S. in Civil Engineering, Sharif Institute of Technology, Tehran, Iran M.S. in Building Construction and Facilities Management, Georgia Tech Ph.D. student in ISyE
Experience:
RAHUL BASOLE
Ultimate Goal:
Construction Project Manager for EDT Inc. Tutor for Georgia Tech Athletic Association
Research Interests:
While I see myself in academics down the road, I hope to use my Ph.D. to bridge the gap between academics and industry practice in a strategic consulting and technology management setting that emphasizes fundamental and practice-oriented research. My ultimate goal is to return to and grow my own enterprise mobility solutions venture.
Education:
Graduate Research, Engineering-Economic Systems and Operations Research, Stanford University Ph.D. student in ISyE
Experience:
Founder and vice president of research at mobileAnalytics Director of R&D, MShift Consultant, AMS-CGI
Research Interests:
Mobile enterprises Mobile ICT adoption Technology management & strategy

Why Georgia Tech?
Virtues of virtual enterprises Strategic workspace decision-making Knowledge work

Why Georgia Tech?
Atlanta is a great city. Atlanta and Georgia Tech are going through a large
B.S. in Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech M.S. in Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan
I chose Georgia Tech for its stimulating academic environment, worldrenowned industrial and systems engineering program, and the opportunity to work with some of the fields leading researchers.
Continued on next page
www.isye.gatech.edu
23
JAMES CAVERLEE
Ultimate Goal:
GRADUATE STUDENTS
A career in academia
Education:
B.A. in Economics (magna cum laude), Duke University M.S. in Engineering-Economic Systems & Operations Research, Stanford University Ph.D. student in Computer Science, Georgia Techs College of Computing
Experience:
DOMINIE GARCIA
Ultimate Goal:
Why Georgia Tech?
Teaching, researching, and consulting in a university environment
I come from the management side of the enterprise. I actually began my program in the College of Management. I liked that fact that it was a small program and in Atlanta.
Education:
Worked with consulting firms in Washington, D.C. and Palo Alto, California
Research Interests:
B.A. in Economics, Vassar College M.B.A., Babson College Ph.D. student in ISyE
Experience:
Web services Workflow systems Distributed information retrieval

Program manager for the vice chair, AOL Time Warner Co-Founder, Emerging Venture Network
Research Interests:
I was the first student to join TI. I began my Ph.D. in management with the intention of studying organizational change and transformation. Then I met Bill Rouse, we began to talk about opportunities, and he brought me over to ISyE. The Tennenbaum Institute gives me great access to contacts, people, and data for writing what I hope will be a very interesting dissertation, and then begin a longer path of transformation research.
Enterprise transformation is a big challenge with lots of important unanswered questions requiring expertise from a number of fields. Its also a great opportunity for me to leverage my background in economics and industrial engineering from my current vantage point as a computer scientist.
Etc.
Triggers and processes of transformation Outcome measures of transformation
PARMINDER JUNEJA
Ultimate Goal:
Research Interests:
Originally from Shreveport, Louisiana. Married to Sherry, and we have a one-year-old son, Luke.
RAHUL BASOLE
continued from page 23
The Tennenbaum Institute enables students to pursue interdisciplinary, innovative, and forward-looking doctoral research. My particular research interest is in examining the value, transformational impact, and adoption dynamics of mobile information and communications technologies (ICT) in enterprises. In order to address these issues, I need to consider a range of disciplines. The Tennenbaum Institute enables me to investigate these issues and draw on expertise from a plethora of disciplines across and beyond Georgia Tech.
Etc.
To generate knowledge that will assess quality of workplace environment; contribute to enhancing quality of life, work, and environment; to share the knowledge gained with the academic and intellectual community.
Education:
Communication modeling in planning processes Whole life cycle cost modeling for workplaces Workflow modeling in collaborative virtual environments
Why Georgia Tech?
Bachelors in Architecture, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh, India Masters in Building Science and Construction Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India Ph.D. Student in Architecture at Georgia Techs College of Architecture
Experience:
I was impressed with Georgia Techs strong academic reputation, interdepartmental collaboration, and professional excellence. My advisor, Dr. Augenbroe Godfried, is an intellectual, supportive, and promising advisor.
I enjoy my research, the welcoming opportunities to explore and grow, and the advancement of knowledge.
Etc.
Native of Chandigarh, India
Originally from Cologne, Germany Played Intercollegiate (NCAA) Tennis at Virginia Tech
Information Technology analyst, TCS America Architect, Chandigarh

www.isye.gatech.edu
GRADUATE STUDENTS
SEBASTIAN KLEINAU
Ultimate Goal:
specializing in automotive manufacturing and operational finance Master's student in ISyE

Research Interests:
A career as a management consultant
Triggers and processes of enterprise transformation Outcome measures of transformation

Why Georgia Tech?
I was interested in the cross-sectional notion of the Tennenbaum Institute. I enjoy the freedom in choosing my research topic, because we can focus on many different kinds of transformation. The research is independent, which is very motivating.
Etc.
Education:
Bachelor of Business Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Germany Completed one year of graduate studies at the University of Karlsruhe in business engineering,
Georgia Tech has a great reputation, and I was awarded a fellowship to study here.
Kleinau is a native of Hamburg, Germany. After graduating from Tech this spring, he will work an internship in the U.S. before returning to complete his masters degree at Karlsruhe.
MARK G. MYKITYSHYN
Ultimate Goal:
To make a contribution to further the research agenda at the Tennenbaum Institute and, at the same time, produce research that will influence practice in my professional field.
Education:
B.S., United States Naval Academy M.S. in Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT E.A.A. (Engineer of Aeronautics and Astronautics), MIT M.P.A., Harvard University Ph.D. student in ISyE
Experience:
Currently, I am a co-founding partner of the White Oak Group, a private investment firm, where I serve as vice chairman of Strategy and Technology for DataPath, Inc. I was also a co-founding Partner of Five Paces Ventures, an Atlantabased venture capital fund, where I led the firms investment strategy in next-generation network infrastructure software. Before this, I co-founded Backwire, Inc., which was later sold to Leap Wireless International. Ive also been a management consultant in the aerospace practice at BoozAllen & Hamilton where I led and participated in numerous engagements.
Research Interests:
systems. I also worked with NASA on the design, test, and evaluation of the Multifunction Electronic Display System (MEDS) that was implemented into the Space Shuttle fleet.
Why Georgia Tech?
In my research of companies, I focus on the systems level and ISyE at Georgia Tech certainly has the reputation in this field. The program and faculty here speak for themselves.
Naval Aviator Consultant, Booz Allen Founding general partner of both a venture capital and private equity group
Enterprise transition / transformation Predictability of emergent growth While at MIT, I investigated human performance and engineering issues associated with the design and evaluation of advanced avionics and navigation
Through buying and selling companies with my investment group, I became very interested in the success and failure of these companies. I want to better understand what makes certain companies successful and some not. The environment at TI is very collaborative in trying to solve problems that business leaders face every day. Were learning the trends to see and avoid, or see and fix.
Etc.
Married with two daughters
www.isye.gatech.edu
25
GRADUATE STUDENTS
MICHAEL PENNOCK
Ultimate Goal:
I would like to take my career in a more research-oriented direction. This could be either academic or commercial.
Education:
Graduate Research Assistant, Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems, University of Virginia
Research Interests:
Investment Valuation
Why Georgia Tech?
B.S. Systems Engineering, University of Virginia M.S. Systems Engineering, University of Virginia Ph.D student in ISyE
Experience:
Its ranked number one by U.S. News & World Report for graduate programs in industrial engineering. It has an excellent reputation in the engineering community. ISyE is a large program with a lot of resources and opportunities.
integrated systems. These systems often have fairly decentralized control structures and unexpected emergent behaviors. Thus, they present a special set of challenges to those trying to improve the performance of these systems. It is a fertile and valuable area of research, and I think that transforming an enterprise is a perfect example of such a situation. As the Tennenbaum Institute is newly formed, being one of the first set of graduate students offers the opportunity to influence the direction TI takes in its formative stages.
Etc.
Married to Amanda.
Systems Engineer, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Missile Defense National Team
Increasingly, the problems we face both in commerce and as a society revolve around large-scale, complex, human-
CLARENCE WARDELL
Ultimate Goal:
Why Georgia Tech?
FREE SUBSCRIPTION OFFER!
My ultimate goal is to teach and conduct research at a university. Additionally, I would like to pursue consulting opportunities in both the corporate and government sectors, in which I hope to have a meaningful role in shaping and advancing policy.
Education:
I chose Georgia Tech based on several reasons, the first of which was the superior reputation that the ISyE School has. However, in addition to this, I particularly liked its location, along with the flexibility that I perceived I would have in deciding what area to concentrate in, as far as my graduate studies were concerned.
B.S.E. in Computer Engineering, University of Michigan

Experience:
Much of PSQHs focus is on improving patient safety through re-engineering its delivery systems and increasing performance with respect to quality of care, accessibility and use. Editorial features include case studies and articles covering risk management, hospital redesign, systems analysis, the role of safety officers, barcoding & RFID and remote monitoring.
Worked at Intel Corporation Conducted research for NASA in Cape Canaveral, Florida, and Cleveland, Ohio
Research Interests:
To subscribe please visit the web site at www.psqh.com Enter keycode: EE on the subscription form
Model-based analyses of corporate financial statements Predictive measures of transformation initiatives
I like the flexibility associated with my role in the Tennenbaum Institute. With the goals of the institute in mind, I appreciate the opportunity to look at topics which I have interest in, and perceive to be in line with these goals. As I mentioned above, one of my goals in pursuing a Ph.D. is to be able to one day affect policy and how organizations operate. I see enterprise transformation as a broad area that can lead me toward these goals. I view the subject matter to be very germane to my long term interests of societal improvement.
www.isye.gatech.edu
in the
NEWS
ALUMNI
Samuel A. Flax, BIE 1978, has been elected to the newly-created post of executive vice president and general counsel at American Capital, a publicly traded buyout and mezzanine fund with capital resources of more than $4.8 billion. Flax, formerly a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP, has been American Capitals external counsel since before the companys 1997 initial public offering. He joined Arnold & Porter in 1985, after completing Washington & Lee University School of Law.
Elizabeth Betty Plummer, ISyE employee from 1979 until her retirement in 1990, died in December 2004, after a long battle with cancer. Plummer is survived by her husband, Dave, a daughter and son, and three grandchildren. Assistant Professor Roshan Vengazhiyil has received a $400,000 grant from the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program of the National Science Foundation. His study, Design and Analysis of Experiments for Developing Robust Products and Processes, aims at developing an efficient method for experimentation that will save time and money for conducting experiments.
STUDENTS
Shu-Chuan Lin, a Ph.D. student in statistics, has been awarded the Merck Foundation Fellowship in Health Economics. The fellowship funds 50 percent of a graduate research assistantship for up to three years. Lin is a student of J.C. Lu; her research focuses on Bayesian analysis to design clinical trials.
NEW FACULTY
Arkadi Nemirovski, whose fundamental contributions in continuous optimization have significantly shaped the field in the last 30 years, has joined ISyE as the John Hunter Chair and professor. Nemirovski earned his Ph.D. in Mathematics from Moscow State University in 1974 and his Doctor of Sciences in Mathematics in 1990 from the Institute of Cybernetics of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev. In recognition of his contributions to convex optimization, Nemirovski was awarded the Fulkerson Prize in 1982 from the Mathematical Programming Society and the American Mathematical Society (jointly, with L. Khachiyan and D. Yudin). In 1991, he received the Dantzig Prize from the Mathematical Programming Society and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (jointly with M. Grotschel). In 2003, in recognition of his seminal and profound contributions to continuous optimization, Nemirovski was awarded
FACULTY AND STAFF

President Clough has recommended to the Georgia Board of Regents that Associate Professor Paul Griffin be promoted to professor, and Assistant Professor Pinar Keskinocak be promoted to associate professor with tenure. Assistant professor Pinar Keskinocak has been named the 2005 CETL/BP Junior Faculty Teaching Excellence Award. CETL is Georgia Techs Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. Keskinocak received $1,000 and recognition at several campus events.
the John von Neumann Theory Prize by the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (jointly with M. Todd). He is the only individual to have won all three of these prestigious prizes. He continues to make significant contributions in almost all aspects of continuous optimization: complexity, numerical methods, stochastic optimization, and nonparametric statistics. Nicoleta Serban is joining ISyE as an assistant professor in statistics. Dr. Serban recently completed her Ph.D. in statistics at Carnegie Mellon University. She also holds a B.S. in mathematics and an M.S. in theoretical statistics and stochastic processes from the University of Bucharest, in addition to an M.S. in statistics from Carnegie Mellon. Serbans graduate research has focused on general nonparametric statistical methods motivated by recent applications from proteomics and genomics, and her research contributions are in analysis of multiple curves and analysis of multiple peaks. While at Carnegie Mellon, she served as both a teaching assistant and a research assistant. In addition, she has worked as a summer research intern for both Siemens Corporate Research and Eli Lilly and Company. She is a member of the American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, and the International Biometric Society. She was also a member of the University of Bucharest senate for four years. In 2004, Serban was awarded the David Byar Young Investigator Award from the ASA Biometrics Section.
www.isye.gatech.edu
27
E M I L
Returns Management
By John Vande Vate, Ph.D. and Gorkem Bedir
This is the second in a series of articles that highlight current investigations supported by Georgia Techs Executive Masters in International Logistics (EMIL) program. Co-author Gorkem Bedir, a Ph.D. student, and her advisor, Dr. Jane Ammons, are exploring how industries can best manage reverse logistics for returned items. The article originally appeared in the January 2005 issue of Frontline Solutions Magazine at www.frontlinetoday.com.
During the holiday season that just passed, millions of Americans stood in line to return something they received or purchased. Whether it was an ugly tie, a waffle iron that didnt work, or a digital camera that was just too extravagant, product returns represent an important part of the total supply chain. How important? In the United States, companies spend roughly $950 billion annually on logistics and 4.5 percent of this, or $43 billion, is for returns. At the retail level alone, returns add up to $16 billion a year. And retailer return policies have made headlines lately with stories about services that track frequent returnees as part of an effort to prevent return fraud. Depending on the industry, return rates range from roughly 3 percent to as high as 50 percent of total shipments. The average retail store has about a 6 percent return rate. In the consumer electronics industry, the rate is about 8.5 percent, in the apparel industry its 19.4 percent, and online apparel purchases are returned at a rate of 35 to 40 percent. Yet in spite of the magnitude of these numbers, returns management gets little attention from most companies. When they develop their logistics strategies, the focus is usually on outbound supply chain efficiency. The dollars involved arent the only reason to pay attention to returns management. Consumers care about how their returns are handled, and may
make future shopping decisions based on their returns experience. They are extremely sensitive to the returns process, and it plays a big part in customer satisfaction. Manufacturers also have cause to be concerned about the disposition of returned products: if offquality items are allowed to re-enter the retail channel, they can have a negative impact on brand image. Given its volume and importance in the overall supply chain, returns management offers sizable business opportunities for 3PLs, and many of them are now targeting this sector with reverse logistics services and programs for customers. UPS, for example, works with companies to facilitate product returns and repairs through its network of UPS Stores, its package delivery services, and its Supply Chain Solutions services. Toshiba America Information Systems and UPS have joined forces to provide a convenient, fast return and repair program for Toshiba laptop computers. Consumers who need service start by getting repair consent from Toshiba; then they take their laptop to the nearest UPS Store where it is packaged and shipped to a specially designed repair center at UPS Supply Chain Solutions campus in Louisville, Kentucky, adjacent to the UPS Worldport global air hub. With this system in place, it is possible to receive, repair, and return a laptop to its owner all in the same day. This system underscores one of the most important features of an effective returns management network: speed. Fast, responsive returns management increases customer satisfaction. Another major concern for manufacturers is the high cost of improper returns. These include products misused by consumers, products returned after warranties have expired, and products from other manufacturers. While these returns occasionally
In the United States, companies spend roughly $950 billion annually on logistics and 4.5 percent of this, or $43 billion, is for returns.
involve fraud or stolen goods, most often they are the result of errors or improper training on the retail level. Whatever the causes, last year Philips Consumer Electronics billed back $45 million to retailers for unauthorized shipments of returned goods. Such post-shipment rejections are expensive for both the manufacturer and the retailer. To ease the problem, Philips now works with third-party vendors, GENCO Distribution System and Ozark Electronics Repairs Inc., to ensure that only eligible products make it back to the manufacturer. The 3PLs place employees in retailers return centers to verify that items are eligible for return before they are shipped. They also evaluate defects and determine if components are missing. The Philips returns management program has identified between 5 and 10 percent of all retail returns as being ineligible for return to the company. It also speeds refunds and reconciliation because retailers know what to expect before the product leaves their return centers. Some retailers, including Target, Best Buy, Sears, and Wal-Mart, are preventing improper returns by beginning the screening process at the customer service desk of their stores. Using software developed by SiRAS.com, UPC codes and serial numbers of Nintendo, Sega and Philips/Magnavox products
www.isye.gatech.edu
are scanned at the time of purchase. That data includes warranty and product exchange information. Should the consumer want to return the item, the retail clerk can simply go to a website to find out when and where the product was purchased, what the warranty states about returns, and whether or not it is eligible. In this way, improper returns are caught at the stores customer service counter, avoiding the expense of shipping back to the manufacturer. The value of an effective returns network is magnified when product returns involve international shipments. ADTRAN, a telecommunications equipment manufacturer located in Huntsville, Alabama, entered the China market in 1999 through a network of distributors in major Chinese cities. The company met with great initial sales success. ADTRAN had neglected to establish clear reverse logistics procedures, however, and as a result soon suffered the usual fallout in terms of customer dissatisfaction, duplicate product replacements, and reduced revenues. International trade issues, including double payment of VAT, duties, taxes, and fees once for the original product and then again for the replacement further complicated the picture, adding expenses and delays. To counteract these problems, ADTRAN has developed a comprehensive reverse logistics strategy that addresses warranty repair, nonwarranty repair, and advanced replacements. The strategy is designed to tap opportunities for savings by cutting VAT costs, eliminating China Customs penalties and quarantines, and saving on labor and transportation costs by performing tests and repairs in China. To facilitate the program, ADTRAN hired a 3PL reverse logistics partner with expertise in China Customs procedures, and a post sales service partner with the facilities, staff, and resources to handle testing and repair of failed products locally, as well as to destroy obsolete products within China. By setting up clear reverse logistics flow procedures that integrate the services of
these 3PL partners, ADTRAN is seeing immediate savings and a more fluid flow of products to the worlds second largest telecommunications market. These examples, as well as other successful returns management systems, help us define the characteristics of an effective reverse logistics strategy. First, a returns management process must have clear guidelines regarding what can be returned, replaced, or repaired, and these must be implemented consistently. Speed is also critical in returns management so that returned products dont lose their potential value while awaiting disposition. In addition, the returns procedures must address the issue of disposition, not only in terms of what to do with each returned item, but also when and where to do it in order to get the most value out of the returned goods without compromising the supply chain. ADTRAN, for example, realized significant savings both in time and money by moving the dispo-
sition decision to China, and Philips realized savings and improved relations with its customers by moving the initial disposition decision to its customers returns centers. If forward logistics is all about getting the right product in the right place, reverse logistics is all about making the right decision in the right place, and a key part of making the right decision is having the right information. An effective returns management process serves as an invaluable information resource, providing a stream of data that can enhance the returns process as well as improve product design and manufacturing quality, indicate packaging problems, and draw attention to marketing issues. A carefully planned reverse logistics network provides a wealth of information to help fine-tune forward logistics processes and keep you from returning to the same mistakes again and again.
Subscribe to ORMS Today, your source for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.
Visit us on the web: www.orms-today.com or call Maria Bennett: 770.431.0867, ext. 219 for more information
www.isye.gatech.edu
ALUMNI NEWS
Please take a minute to complete this form, and mail or fax it to the school. Please send to: Engineering Enterprise School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology 765 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205 or fax to 404.894.2301
What h happen as been ing wit Job cha h you? nge? Any rec ognitio n yo wish to share w u it your cl assmat h es?
Name ________________________________________________________ Degree/Year____________________________________________________ Home Address __________________________________________________ City _________________________ State _____ Zip ____________________ Home Phone ( ___ ) ___________________ Title/Company Name ______________________________________________ Business Address ________________________________________________ City _________________________State _____ Zip _____________________ Business Phone ( ___ ) ___________________ E-mail Address __________________________________________________ Your news _____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Other IE topics you would like to read about in Engineering Enterprise ________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

Spring

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spring

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spring 2005

Leadership in Times of Transformation Enterprise Transformation Stories of Transformation

THE ALUMNI MAGAZINE FOR ISyE AT GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ISyE Lionheart Publishing Inc.

Georgia Institute of Technology John Llewellyn, President

ART DIRECTION & PRODUCTION

Art Director Publication Designer

SALES & MARKETING

Marvin Diamond, ext. 208 marvin@lionhrtpub.com

Maria Bennett, ext. 219 bennett@lionhrtpub.com

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

Other Views on Enterprise Transformation from Georgia Tech Leaders

Dr. Richard A. DeMillo: Enterprise Transformation and Computing

Dr. Thomas Galloway: Enterprise Transformation and Architecture

Dr. Sue V. Rosser: Enterprise Transformation and the Liberal Arts

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

By William B. Rouse Executive Director, Tennenbaum Institute

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

By William B. Rouse Executive Director,Tennenbaum Institute

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

The patterns of innovation in computing revolve around power and speed.

Large high-technology companies also have to address the challenges of transformation.

GAMS Development Corporation

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

Born and raised in Tehran, Iran

Mobile enterprises Mobile ICT adoption Technology management & strategy

Virtues of virtual enterprises Strategic workspace decision-making Knowledge work

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

Why Georgia Tech?

Teaching, researching, and consulting in a university environment

Web services Workflow systems Distributed information retrieval

Triggers and processes of transformation Outcome measures of transformation

Native of Chandigarh, India

Information Technology analyst, TCS America Architect, Chandigarh

specializing in automotive manufacturing and operational finance Master's student in ISyE

Why the Tennenbaum Institute?

A career as a management consultant

Triggers and processes of enterprise transformation Outcome measures of transformation

Married with two daughters

engineering ENTERPRISE Spring 2005

Systems Engineer, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Missile Defense National Team

Why Georgia Tech?

FREE SUBSCRIPTION OFFER!

Why the Tennenbaum Institute?

B.S.E. in Computer Engineering, University of Michigan

Model-based analyses of corporate financial statements Predictive measures of transformation initiatives

FACULTY AND STAFF

You might also like