2002 - Volume 1 - JEFF. Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics

DIRECTOR’S
CORNER
Role Playing in Forecasting
While there still seems to be a lot of
black magic in forecasting, the application
of experimentation and scientific
principles to the practice of forecasting
has resulted in more understanding of
the process and some improvements in
the results.
A recent study by a marketing professor
in the Wharton School at the
University of Pennsylvania has suggested
a useful tool to improve forecasting
efforts. With a colleague from Victoria
University in New Zealand, Professor J.
Scott Armstrong has been studying how
to make more accurate predictions,
specifically in conflict situations.
Professor Armstrong has explained that
such situations include the crucial decisions
arising from such diverse activities
as military clashes, marketing challenges;
labor-management conflicts and
others. Such circumstances would even
include the conflict situations involved
in the competing research and development
groups of competitive industrial
companies striving for the best technologies,
superior products, and
enhanced positions in the marketplace.
Professor Armstrong explains that
“research tells us that experts are not
good at forecasting decisions in conflict
situations. The reason is that conflicts
are complex and often involve several
rounds of action and reaction.
Fortunately, there is an effective alternative:
role-playing. For conflict situations,
research shows that role-playing
yields the most accurate predictions.”
The research involved a large number
of students who were presented with
descriptions of six actual conflicts and
were then instructed to select the most
likely decisions. Without any further
assistance, the results were only slight-
ly better than chance; the participants
were correct on only 27% of the decisions.
The researchers then asked 21
game theorists from around the world to
make predictions, reasoning that their
greater understanding of conflicts,
along with their expertise and knowledge
of game theory would produce
better forecasts. Surprisingly, they were
Authorship and Inventorship
INJ DEPARTMENTS
correct on only 28% of their decisions.
A large group of students (352) were
then given the same assignment, but
were instructed to use role-playing in
their efforts. On average, there were
61% correct predictions versus the 27%
when similar participants made unaided
predictions. Professor Armstrong concluded:
“I have been involved in forecasting
since 1960 and have never
before encountered a forecasting
method that produces such large
improvement over other procedures.”
Over a wide range of studies, the
researchers found that instructing the
decision makers to think life their opponent
or giving them information about
the roles of the parties involved did not
improve accuracy of their decisions.
In granting a U.S. patent, the Patent Office requires that everyone that contributed
to the invention be listed as one of the inventors; also, it is a requirement
that no one be listed as an inventor, unless they made an actual contribution to
the patent.
Obviously, such is not the case when considering the authors of a paper or publication.
A recent study of scientific papers whose publication corresponded
timewise to the granting of a US patent was made. Of the 40 papers studied, 38
had more authors than inventors, only two had the same number, and none had
more inventors than authors.
In both the academic and industrial research worlds, the gift of authorship is
somewhat common. In the granting of a patent, no such gift is possible, as such
action would be the basis for invalidating a patent.
In an effort to stem such practices, the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors has established guidelines for authorship; these guidelines
require that each and every author contribute to all of the following elements:
Conception and design or analysis and interpretation of data.
Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
Final approval of the version to be published.
With such guidelines in place, some observers have expressed the opinion that
the specifications for co-inventorship are less stringent than co-authorship. This
stems from the fact that inventorship requires that each of the inventors work on
the same subject matter and make some contribution to the inventive thought and
to the final result.
A somewhat similar situation exists in the order of listing authors and inventors.
Seniority in position or tenure often rules the order, not the proportion of
contribution. This situation is often a little more difficult to sort out.
The scholar who carried out the study suggested that designating an “author”
be done only for those “who made a significant contribution to the conception of
the work.” Clearly, all authors should also merit co-inventorship if the technology
proves patentable. (P. Ducor, Science 2000, 289, 873-875).
Life is a little simpler when there is only one author or one inventor.
INJ Spring 2002 7