How Do Institutional Actors in the Financial Market Assess Companies’ Product Design? The Quasi-rational Evaluative Schemes

While various strategic business issues related to product design have been explored by academicians and practitioners, one issue has largely been ignored: how do financial markets assess and evaluate companies’ product design? The purpose of this article is to examine this issue, especially when it comes to the assessments and evaluations made by the most essential actors of contemporary financial markets: investment analysts and institutional investors. I develop propositions concerning the product design-related evaluative schemes and heuristics used by the financial market actors in evaluating companies as investment opportunities. I illustrate my propositions with examples from, e.g., the mobile phone industry as well as with interview excerpts from interviews with investment analysts and institutional investors. Propositions are provided both for assessments of companies’ individual end products (‘design as the end product’ perspective) and for assessments of companies’ design capabilities (‘design as a capability’ perspective). In essence, the propositions highlight that the evaluative schemes used by financial market actors are partly rational, yet involve biases and are likely to lead to overvaluation and undervaluation of certain kinds of product designs by certain kinds of companies. Thus, even from the perspective of profit-maximization, many of the evaluative schemes of the financial market actors are, at most, quasi-rational. Moreover, the evaluative schemes of the financial market actors may motivate company managers to pursue certain kinds of product design rather than others—and may even lead to self-reinforcing (vicious or virtuous) circles of certain kinds of product designs being advocated.     

Two Concepts of Mechanism: Componential Causal System and Abstract Form of Interaction

Although there has been much recent discussion on mechanisms in philosophy of science and social theory, no shared understanding of the crucial concept itself has emerged. In this paper, a distinction between two core concepts of mechanism is made on the basis that the concepts correspond to two different research strategies: the concept of mechanism as a componential causal system is associated with the heuristic of functional decomposition and spatial localization and the concept of mechanism as an abstract form of interaction is associated with the strategy of abstraction and simple models. The causal facts assumed and the theoretical consequences entailed by an explanation with a given mechanism differ according to which concept of mechanism is in use. Research strategies associated with mechanism concepts also involve characteristic biases that should be taken into account when using them, especially in new areas of application.     

When the boundary opens: family and hospital in co-evolution

This paper reports how, at the outset of a crisis, a psychiatric hospital admission team in Finland has experimented with openly discussing treatment decisions in the presence of and with patients and members of their families and social network. The paper aims to clarify the co-evolving process between the family and hospital and reports some results using this approach.     

Understanding the Covariation Among Childhood Externalizing Symptoms: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Conduct Disorder,Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,and Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms

Conduct disorder (CD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) are common childhood externalizing disorders that frequently co-occur. However, the causes of their comorbidity are not well understood. To address that question, we analyzed data from > 600 Finnish twin pairs, who completed standardized interviews at age 14. Behavior genetic methods were used to examine how genetic/environmental factors contribute to each disorders symptoms and to their covariation. We found significant genetic effects on each disorder with only modest evidence of shared environmental influences. Our data suggest the comorbidity among CD, ADHD, and ODD is primarily explained by shared genetic influences; however, each disorder was also under unique genetic influence, supporting the distinction of each disorder.