The One Best Way to manage a business according to science

Page i
The One Best Way
to manage a business
according to science

Page iii
Marionito Marquez
The One Best Way
to manage a business
according to science
What Science tells us about how to secure the
creation of maximum shareholder value

Page iv
Copyright © 2020 by Marionito C. Marquez.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or
otherwise, except as permitted.
This book may not be lent, resold, hired out or
otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form of
binding or cover other than that in which it is
published without the prior consent of the author or
publisher.
References to the websites (URLs) were accurate at
the time of the writing. Neither the author nor the
publisher is responsible for URLs that may have
expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.
The One Best Way to manage a business according to
science – What Science tells us about how to secure
the creation of maximum shareholder value.
ISBN: 9798642833100
Imprint: Independently published
First Printing
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
has been applied for.

Page v
Contents
List of Figures x
Preface xii-xvii
Acknowledgements xviii
Part
One
A century-old question but one that
remains unanswered by many
executives of business organizations 1
1 What is the One Best Way to do work or
to manage a business to secure the
and sustainable profitability? 2
A question that we have been trying to
answer for more than a century. 3
2 Our more than 100 years of search to
find the One Best Way to do work or to
manage a business to secure the
and sustainable profitability 4
The Scientific Management revolution
and our search to find the One Best Way
to do work or to manage a business for
more than a century 5
The birth of Mass Production, Industrial
Corporation, and Business Strategy 28

Page vi
The Toyota Production System and the
arrival of innovative, low-priced but
high-quality products from Japanese
companies 50
The Value Chain and the Competitive
Advantage of the firm 56
Business Process Reengineering,
business transformation, and the age of
borderless competition and numerous
alternative products 58
Part
Two
Objective Myopia – A failure of
management that has been preventing
executives to secure the creation of
maximum shareholder value and
sustainable profitability 82
3 Objective Myopia 83
The Executives’ Objective Myopia 84
4 A failure of management in the
allocation of capital
97
A failure of management from the top 98
• The railroad companies
• Western Union
• Yahoo

Page vii
A failure of management that has been
going on for more than a century 107
• The Oil and Gas Industry
• The telecommunication Industry
• The Pharmaceutical Industry
• The Watch Industry
• The Beverage Industry
• The Airplane manufacturing
Industry
5 The five powerful but inherently myopic
perspectives widely used by many
Board of Directors and CEOs as rules of
thumb to manage their business 128
The five powerful but myopic
executives to run a business
organization 129
Perspective 1: Do what you love, love
what you do, and never give up 131
Perspective 2: We should broadly
define our business around the
customers’ needs within the industry
we are in to sustain its profitability or
growth 148
Perspective 3: Stick to the knitting or
invest in what you know 155

Page viii
Perspective 4: Put all your eggs in one
basket and then watch that basket 164
Perspective 5: Focus on your core
business and core competencies to
sustain the company’s profitability or
growth 172
Part
Three
The One Best Way to do work or to
manage a business to secure the
creation of maximum shareholder
value and sustainable profitability in
the passage of time and change in the
economic environment 180
6 The One Best Way to do work or to
manage a business according to science 181
The universal strategy and threats that
every executive should know 182
Clarifying the Nature of Science (NOS) to
find the One Best Way to do work or to
manage a business and allocate its
capital 190
What is Strategy? 227
The significance of the One Best Way to
do work or to manage a business in the
21st
Century and beyond 237

Page ix
End Notes 240
Bibliography 254
Index 256
About the Author 263

Page x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Wealth creation as the catalyst that have
shaped our economy and way of life 79
Figure 2: The selected list of products, services,
and companies that defined and
redefined our economy and our way of
life in the last 300 years 205
Figure 3: GDP per capita from 1 AD to 2006 206

Page xi
Dedications
To my family - for your understanding and support

Page xii
Preface
“Amazon is not too big to fail. In fact, I predict one day
Amazon will fail. Amazon will go bankrupt. If you look at
large companies, their lifespans tend to be 30-plus years, not
a hundred-plus years. The key to prolonging that demise is
for the company to obsess over customers and to avoid
looking inward, worrying about itself. If we start to focus on
ourselves, instead of focusing on our customers, that will be
the beginning of the end. We have to try and delay that day
for as long as possible.”1
These are the words of Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon,
to his employees when asked about the future of Amazon.
From his statements, we can observe the prevailing views
among executives that most companies do not last. Jeff
Bezos knew this fact based on history and statistics. The best
example is Sears that failed after more than 100 years of
existence.
From what Jeff Bezos stated, it is interesting to know why
many companies with several decades of profitable
operations fail, stop growing, or end up being sold for
survival? Are the so-called best management theories and
practices used by many executives to run a business not
enough? If we have found the best management theories

Page xiii
and practices using the scientific method to build a company
that will last, what Jeff Bezos needs to do is to methodically
follow those theories and practices to secure its future since
one of the natures of science is repeatability. But Jeff Bezos
knows the truth that we have not found the science of
managing a business to secure the creation of maximum
shareholder value and sustainable profitability in the
passage of time and change in the economic environment.
In fact, it is a question that we have been trying to answer
for more than a century.
What is the One Best Way to do work or to manage a
business to secure the creation of maximum shareholder
value and sustainable profitability in the passage of time and
change in the economic environment?
It is a century-old question but one that remains
unanswered by executives of business organizations. More
than hundred years ago, Frederick W. Taylor, known as the
father of scientific management, searched to find the one
best method and best implement (together known as One
Best Way) to do work or to manage a business to secure the
creation of maximum and permanent prosperity.2
As one of
the management consultants in the United States of
America, he highlighted that the soldiering of workers, the
antagonistic environment between the employers and the
employees, and the absence of scientific ways to do work or
to manage a business had been preventing the companies
to achieve the maximum efficiency and maximum
productivity which can pave the way to secure the creation
of maximum and permanent prosperity. With the goal to

Page xiv
solve the observed management and labor related issues,
Frederick W. Taylor searched to find the one best method
and best implement to do work or to manage a business to
secure the creation of maximum and permanent prosperity.
He wanted to prove that the management of a business
organization is a true science rather than a rule of thumb
which had been the common belief and practice of many
business executives and owners on that time. By 1911,
The Principles of Scientific Management was published. In it
Frederick W. Taylor highlighted the existence of one best
method and best implement to do work or to manage a
business among many ways in use and provided the
methods for the management to find it using the principles
of scientific management. For Frederick W. Taylor, the
primary objective of the business organization, its
management, and its shareholders are the same and it is to
secure the creation of maximum and permanent prosperity
which has been redefined as the creation of maximum
shareholder value and sustainable profitability for further
clarity in the early 1960s. Since then, we keep on developing
numerous methods and implements to do work or to
manage a business (e.g. business strategy, business model,
organizational design, and methods of business operation)
using scientific method to help executives secure the
primary objective. As a result, we have reached a
tremendous level of efficiency and productivity in our
business organizations using the best ways to do work or the
so-called best management theories and practices that
include the science of work (Time and motion study) and its
further improvement (e.g. Mass Production, Toyota
Production System, Value Chain, Reengineering and many

Page xv
others). However, as we achieved massive efficiency and
productivity using better methods and advanced
technologies in the passage of time, our global economy has
been shifted from make-to-order to make-to-stock and
service-on-demand that give us the power and freedom to
choose from numerous products and services that come
from various suppliers around the world. And as the
number of choices has increased and the free market
capitalism has been adopted to run the world economy, a
second era of competition has been created herein called
the age of borderless competitions and numerous
alternative products. This economic environment is
significantly different from the time when Frederick W.
Taylor developed the principles of scientific management
wherein the competitions and the existing alternative
products and services were both limited due to the
economic, political, and technological barriers that exist on
that time (e.g. lack of efficient method of production,
advanced machineries, efficient mode of mass
communication, free trade agreements, modern packaging,
and mass transportation). In the second era, we can
observe that the competitions become so stiff and are
taking place almost everywhere and in everything. As a
result, many business organizations that cannot compete in
the second era of competitions soon failed or simply
disappeared despite successfully creating a significant
amount of shareholder value and profit for many decades in
the past (e.g. Sears, Toys R Us, Penn Central Transportation
Company, Kodak, Blockbuster, and Circuit City). Some were
sold for survival (e.g. Chrysler, Yahoo, Mitsubishi Motors,
Sun Microsystem, Motorola Mobility, and Nokia Mobile

Page xvi
devices and services division) and some just stopped
growing and now on the path of total obsolescence (e.g.
Western Union, Xerox, Toshiba, and Blackberry). And with
the increasing number of failures among previously
successful companies, we can observe that we are brought
back to the century-old question: What is the One Best Way
to do work or to manage a business to secure the creation
of maximum shareholder value and sustainable profitability
in the passage of time and change in the economic
environment? With the publication of The Principles of
Scientific Management in 1911, Frederick W. Taylor thought
he found the answer but today we are still asking the
question.
This book is part of our more than 100 years of search to
scientifically find the One Best Way to do work or to manage
a business to secure the creation of maximum shareholder
change in the economic environment. It is written to
answer the century-old question and address, by clarifying
the Nature of Science (NOS), the proliferation of
pseudoscience in management of a business that
contributes to the failure of many executives to secure the
creation of maximum shareholder value and sustainable
profitability. If we will study the history of wealth creation,
the companies that defined our economies, and the
development of numerous transformative products,
services, and methods to do work or to manage a business,
we can find and conclude that many successful companies
failed, stopped growing, or ended up being sold for survival
not because of lack of capital to enter in emerging business

Page xvii
or because of the absence of economic opportunities to
grow rather there was a failure of management, primarily in
the allocation of capital, due to its executives’ objective
myopia.

Page xviii
Acknowledgements
To the inventors, innovators, executives, academia,
management consultants, economists, entrepreneurs, and
capitalists who define and redefine our economy and way of
life in significant ways that we cannot ignore, you have
influenced more people than you are aware of.

The Executives’ Objective Myopia
The creation of maximum shareholder value and
sustainable profitability has been widely considered as the
primary objective and performance measure of executives
and the business organization they run on behalf of its
shareholders around the world and yet many executives’
understandings of the primary objective can be observed
myopic. What has been understood myopically by many
executives is the primary objective of the shareholders for
which they financed the company: To secure the creation
regardless of the product, service, business, industry or
market the company may operate in the passage of time
and change in the economic environment as long as the
primary objective will be legally achieved. Why?
Because from the economic perspective of the
shareholders, to secure the maximum return on capital or
to make money as much as possible (which is achieved when
the public corporation secure the creation of maximum
shareholder value and sustainable profitability) is their
primary objective due to the fact that as we have shifted the
global economy from barter to the use of currency, we are

rich or poor according to the degree in which we can afford
to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of
human life using money. And these perspectives are
supported by many known economists, executives, and
management consultants. For instance, in one of the
famous New York Times articles in 1970, Milton Friedman
explained the direct responsibility of the executives to its
employers as well as the primary objective of the
shareholders in his own words
“In a free‐enterprise, private‐property system, a corporate
executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He
has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility
is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires,
which generally will be to make as much money as possible
while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those
embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”1
And from the history of business management, Alfred
Sloan Jr., the legendary CEO of General Motors, explained
the primary objective of the company as follows
“The strategic aim of business is to earn a return on capital,
and if in any particular case the return in the long run is not
satisfactory, then the deficiency should be corrected or the
activity abandoned for a more favorable one.”2
From what Alfred Sloan Jr. stated, the kind of business you
are in to earn a return on capital is just one of the means not
an end and should be abandoned if there is better
alternative or if does not provide a satisfactory return on
capital due to obsolescence or other factors.

Jack Welch, who achieved the creation of more than
$400 billion shareholders’ value and decades of profitability
that earned him the title as the Manager of the 20th
Century,
viewed the shareholders’ primary objective and his duty as
the Chairman and CEO of General Electric in the same way
like Milton Friedman and Alfred Sloan Jr., which is to secure
the creation of maximum shareholder value and sustainable
profitability regardless of the product, service, business,
industry or market GE may operate as long as its primary
objective will be achieved. It is for the same reason he scans
the market and enters in a business that offer an economic
opportunity to make money as close to low hanging fruit. He
exits from a business too (regardless of its performance in
the past) if commoditization is taking place and GE does not
have the competitive advantage.
Steve Jobs, who allocated Apple’s resources to reinvent
the products and services of other industries (e.g. music
player, phone, online stores, and games) after accepting his
defeat in personal computer, receives no complaint but
praise from Apple’s shareholders and Wall Streeters as he
led the company to become the world’s largest public
companies by market capitalization and among the most
profitable public companies.
Frederick W. Taylor, the father of Scientific Management,
expressed the same economic view too when he defined
that the principal object of the management and the
primary objective of a business organization and its
shareholders which is to secure the creation of maximum
and permanent prosperity without associating the primary
objective to a particular product, service, business, industry
or market where the company should operate.

Warren Buffett’s clear understanding of the primary
objective of the shareholders in financing a company can be
observed from the way he allocates Berkshire Hathaway’s
capital in various companies that operate in different
products, services, businesses, industries or markets using
the return on investment as guide. It is for the same reason
he moves the company’s capital to other investment
alternative when he perceives that the economic
opportunity to make money has changed or will be
unfavorable in the foreseeable future. His clear
understanding of the primary objective of the company and
its shareholders can be easily validated too from the rules
he established to manage a business as follows:
Rule No. 1: Never lose money.
Rule No. 2: Never forget rule number 1.
And if we will look back at the history of our economic
system, we can learn that in the early days of commerce
before the invention of money and credit, we produce
products more than what we can personally consume so
that we have extra to exchange it for other things that that
we need because of the fact that in economy, no one is self-
sufficient that led us to come at the same spot that created
the market, City, or State as Plato explained in his famous
book called The Republic. And as we encountered the
problem to exchange the various products and services in
the market using barter, we invented money as the basis of
commerce. As a consequence of the invention of money, the
product and service that we produce become one of the
many ways to earn money in the economy and while it is
important to have a great product to attract the taste of the

customers in the face of growing competitions, the product
is not the end objective of conducting a business but to earn
money as much as possible to have the means to buy the
other things that we need to live. That is why any excess
products that we produced that we cannot consume, sell, or
exchange for money is written-off and considered as waste
of scarce economic resources. It is for the same reason we
stop producing a particular product or service and use our
capital to other favorable business activities when there is
no economic opportunity to make money out of it. Even oil
may lose its economic value in the advent of cleaner and
cheaper source of energy.
However, due to the myopic understanding of many
executives on the primary objective of the shareholders on
the business organizations they run, they are allocating its
capital within a specific product, service, business, industry
or market they are in or they believe they know which is
limiting the economic opportunity of the company and can
be viewed in conflict on the interest of the shareholders
whose primary objective is to achieve the maximum return
on capital invested or to make money as much as possible
market the company may operate in the passage of time
and change in the economic environment as long as the
primary objective will be legally achieved. The conflict of
interest exists because from operational point of view of
managing a company, the executives of multi-million or
billion US dollar companies, for instance, can easily expand
its organizational capabilities by simply hiring someone with
expertise to understand the emerging economic
opportunities brought by transformative products, services,

or methods to do work or to manage a business to seize it
like how George Westinghouse bought the patents of Nikola
Tesla related to electric generators, transformers, and AC
motors and then hired him as a technical consultant. But
due to the executives’ objective myopia, we can find (if we
scrutinize the past events) that many companies and its
shareholders had been deprived of some of the biggest
economic opportunities to make money from numerous
companies with transformative products, services, or
methods to do work that emerged in the world economy
outside the industry that the executives know or they are in
to the extent that the company under their management
soon failed, stopped growing, or was sold for survival when
its products or services became obsolete or when the source
of the company’s livelihood was taken away by the same
companies that the executives previously ignored (e.g.
Railroad companies when its executives ignored the
automobile and airline companies, Western Union when it
ignored the impact of patent of Alexander Graham Bell, and
Yahoo when it ignored impact of Google’s search engine
technology).
To quantify the amount of economic opportunities lost
by numerous companies and its shareholders due to
executives’ own objective myopia, we will go back on the
history when the personal computer, the internet, and
smartphone were about to revolutionize and transform our
economy and way of life starting in the early 1970s up to the
present. By looking back at this particular period, we can
find and conclude that many executives of business
organizations that achieved the creation of significant
amount of shareholder value and decades of profitability
before the arrival of the Information Age had failed to

allocate its capital (e.g. as low as $35 million US dollar of
cash) that had caused their companies and its shareholders
to miss some of the biggest economic opportunities to
secure the creation of significant amount of shareholder
value and profit in the field of information technology that
have been dominated by startup companies like Microsoft,
Apple, Intel, Dell, Oracle, Adobe, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon,
Google, Alibaba, LinkedIn, Tencent, and Facebook and by
Venture Capital companies in the like of Sequoia, KPCB,
Naspers and Softbank at different period in the last fifty
years.
The amount of economic opportunities missed by many
large companies and its shareholders due to executives’
own objective myopia is staggering and can be measured
through several publications. For instance, Sequoia Capital,
founded in 1972 by Donald T. Valentine, invested few
million US dollars on several startup companies in the field
of information technology such as Atari, Apple, Yahoo, Cisco
and other technology companies that on a particular period
of time had created a total market capitalization around 1.4
trillion US dollars.3
And at the start of internet revolutions
in the early 1990s, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers
(KPCB) and Sequoia Capital invested twelve million and five
hundred thousand US dollars each at Google (founded in
1998) that turned into 3 to 4 billion US dollars return on their
investment when Google went Public in 2004.4
Masayoshi
Son of Softbank of Japan invested around $20 million US
dollars on Alibaba (founded by Jack Ma in 1999 in China)
that turned to more than $90 billion US dollars within a
particular period after Alibaba went Public in 2014. The
return of Softbank’s investment was equivalent to 4,500
times from the company’s original investment which is
considered as an astronomical achievement for an executive
who is primarily responsible to secure the creation of

maximum shareholder value and sustainable profitability on
which the executives’ performance is measured.5
Naspers, a little-known publishing company from South
Africa, invested 32 million US dollar in the early days of
Tencent in 2001 that was translated to USD 175 Billion
market value in 17 years while many century-old media and
publishing companies around the world had been struggling
to find ways to make money in the Information Age.6
From the study and analysis of the history as we search
for one best way to do work or to manage a business in the
last hundred years, we can find that many executives
missed to make money too by failing to invest on the second
wave of business transformation of an existing public
company like Apple that created more than one trillion US
dollar of market value and became one of the most
profitable companies in the recent history with the
reinvention of music player, online stores, mobile
computing, games, and telephone. And if we will go back on
the history of business management as early 20th
Century,
not all executives missed to invest on emerging economic
opportunities from an established company. In 1914 for
instance, the Executives of the already profitable chemical
company called Du Pont invested few million US dollars in
General Motors that was soon translated to several billion
US dollars which can be considered as one of the biggest pay
off in corporate investment in the early 20th
Century.7
And
to measure further the great economic opportunities
missed by numerous executives to make money in the
information technology due to their own objective myopia,
in the Global Top 100 companies by Market Capitalization
compiled by PWC as of March 31, 2018, seven out of top ten
largest companies by market capitalizations in the world are
all technology companies that did not exist fifty years ago.
The seven information technology companies have

recorded a combined market capitalization around USD 4.4
trillion US dollars led by Apple (USD 851B), Alphabet (USD
719B), Microsoft (USD 703B), Amazon (701B), Tencent (USD
496B), Alibaba (USD 470B) and Facebook (USD 464B).8
Many Board of Directors of Fortune 1000 were sleeping at
work from the view of Don Valentine because many big
companies, including Xerox, missed the great economic
opportunities to make money from information technology
companies at Silicon Valley. However, while many
companies and its shareholders missed to make huge
money in the information technology due to executives’
own objective myopia, we can observe that there is no
discussion or call to bring out and address this management
failure in the allocation of capital where many executives,
who are sitting with hundred millions to billions US dollars
of cash, maybe deemed serving their own interest rather
than the interest of the company and its shareholders. Why?
In the research paper called The Theory of Firm:
Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership
Structure, Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling
observed and wrote the following:
“Indeed, it is likely that the most important conflict arises
from the fact that as the manager’s ownership claim falls,
his incentive to devote significant effort to creative activities
such as searching out new profitable ventures falls. He may
in fact avoid such ventures simply because it requires too
much trouble or effort on his part to manage or to learn
about new technologies. Avoidance of these personal costs
and the anxieties that go with them also represent a source
of on-the-job utility to him and it can result in the value of

the firm being substantially lower than it otherwise could
be.”9
The economic opportunities to make money that were
missed by numerous executives in the advent of personal
computer, internet, and smartphone revolutions can be
gleaned as well from the view of John Sculley, the former
CEO of Apple and Pepsi, when he said in his own words
“Healthcare missed the PC and Internet revolutions, but it
can't afford to miss the cloud and mobile revolution.” 10
However, from the history of business management in the
last hundred years, we can find that it is not only the
healthcare companies in the like of Pfizer and
GlaxoSmithKline that missed the huge economic
opportunities brought by information technology because
the cash-rich Oil & Gas companies in the like of ExxonMobil,
BP, Chevron, Total, Aramco, and Shell had missed it too
(while ExxonMobil tried to enter in Personal Computer
business in the 1980s, it failed to acquire or invest on startup
companies like Apple, Intel, Oracle, and Microsoft). The
executives of giant telecom companies such as AT&T and
Verizon can be observed to miss the same great economic
opportunities too. They failed to invest despite they were
sitting with several billions of cash. The executives of
automobile industry (e.g. General Motors and Ford), the
airline companies (e.g. Boeing and United Airlines), and the
century-old business organizations like Procter & Gamble,
Nestle, and Coca-Cola missed the same great economic
opportunities despite their executives can easily participate
on numerous startup companies with transformative

products, services, and methods to do work or to manage a
business by investing or acquiring the startup companies
that emerged in the early 1970s onwards via a Corporate
Venture Capital Arm.
From the history, we can observe that there are too
many business organizations and shareholders around the
world that had been deprived by some of the biggest
economic opportunities to make money from information
technology not because of lack of capital or because of the
absence of economic opportunity to grow rather there was
a failure of management, primarily in the allocation of
capital, due to its executives’ own objective myopia.
While the failure of management in the allocation of
capital is widespread and the amount of economic
opportunities missed was so huge amounting to several
billion to trillion US dollars as illustrated, no executives came
forward to accept their failure of management, primarily in
the allocation of capital, except to Warren Buffett, the CEO
of Berkshire Hathaway. In one of the Berkshire Hathaway
shareholders’ meeting, Warren Buffett personally admitted
to his shareholders that he missed to invest in companies
like Google and Amazon because he failed to understand
how Google will make money and under estimated the
capabilities of Jeff Bezos to executes his strategy.11
With the
outstanding performance of Warren Buffett to produce a
remarkable return on Berkshire Hathaway’s capital under
his management, no shareholders have the guts to ask him
about his failure in the allocation of capital. However,
despite of his outstanding investment performance, Warren
Buffett came forward and publicly acknowledged his failure
in the allocation of capital because he knew deep inside that

his duty as an executive of the company he run on behalf of
its shareholders is to secure the creation of maximum
return on capital and from what has been taking place in the
information technology industry is too big to ignore. Hence,
he made his adjustment in his investment methodology by
investing in technology companies and startup companies
which he claimed that he does not understand before. And
with his admission on his shortcomings as the Chairman and
CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, the Oracle of Omaha showed
that he was not only one of the greatest investors in history
but one of the most ethical and transparent executives of a
public company in the history too.
From the history, the objective myopia of many
executives has existed for more than a century but left
undiscussed if we will trace it starting from the railroad and
telegraph companies in the mid-19th
Century. By looking
back at the history as we search to find the one best way to
do work or to manage a business in the last hundred years,
we can learn that it is being repeated throughout the
history. For instance, the manufacturers of typewriter soon
found themselves thoroughly massacred by numerous
Personal Computer companies in the advent of information
technology in the same way how the automobile killed the
horse breeding companies and made the highly successful
railroad business unprofitable. Yahoo was sold for survival
when its executives failed to buy Google’s search engine
technology in the early days similar to the failure of Western
Union’s executives to buy the telephone patent of
Alexander Graham Bell. These kinds of events can be
observed repeated when the discount store, internet, and
outsourcing companies took the world economy by storm at

different period in the last hundred years that caught many
executives unprepared. The consequence? Many successful
business organizations in the past soon failed or simply
disappeared. Some were sold for survival and some simply
have stopped growing and now on the path of total
obsolescence but not because of lack of capital to enter in
emerging business with transformative products, services,
and methods to do work or because of the absence of
economic opportunities in the market to grow rather there
was a failure of management, primarily in the allocation of
capital, due to its executives' own objective myopia.

A failure of management in
the allocation of capital
4

A failure of management from the top
The failure of management in the allocation of capital
comes from the top. The root cause of the failure of many
companies to secure the creation of maximum shareholder
change in the economic environment can be traced to its
Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer’s own
objective myopia. They focus on the business within the
industry they are in or they believed they know which is
limited and maybe considered catering their own interest
and not of the interest of the company or its shareholders.
Consequently, they missed some of the biggest economic
opportunities to make money from the arrival of numerous
transformative products, services, and methods to do work
despite the company is sitting with large amount of capital.
The consequence is so huge to the extent that the company
under their management soon failed, stopped growing or
ended up being sold for survival not because of lack of
capital to enter in the emerging business or because of the
absence of economic opportunities to grow rather there has
been a failure of management, primarily in the allocation of
capital due to executives own objective myopia. Thus:

• The railroad companies
The railroad companies that achieved the creation of
significant shareholder value and decades of profitability
for many years in the mid-19th
Century due to its
breakthrough technology and unmatched availability of
its transportation service in all-weather condition soon
failed not because of lack of capital to enter in emerging
businesses that have transformative products, services,
and methods to do work or because of the absence of
economic opportunities in the market to grow rather
there was a failure from its management, primarily in the
allocation of its capital, due to its executives’ own
objective myopia. Why? Because from 1870 to 1970
which is designated as the special century,1
the United
States of America had been an exciting place to grow and
make enormous money due to the invention of
numerous transformative products, services, and
methods to do work or to manage a business that could
have provided the railroad companies the necessary
economic opportunities to secure the creation of
maximum shareholder value and sustainable
profitability starting from the invention of practical
telephone in 1876, the invention of the practical light
bulb in 1879, the invention of induction motor in 1887
(and AC generator and transformer that ushered us to
the Age of electricity), the arrival of Oil Age (starting from
the invention of Kerosene as alternative to candle in
1859 followed by the invention of the gasoline-powered

automobile in 1885, and then the invention of plastic in
1907), the invention of motion picture camera in 1892
(that created the entertainment industry), the invention
of radio in 1895 (that created the mass advertising
industry), the invention of air conditioning unit in 1902,
the invention of airplane in 1903, the mass production
of automobile in 1913, the invention of practical
television in 1927, the establishment of discount stores
in 1962 (later dominated by Walmart), and the advent
of information age starting from the early 1970s that
continue until today.
From the history of business management, we can
observe that the previous success of the railroad
companies had caused their executives to believe that it
was the railroad business they were good at and
attribute their company’s success to their management
expertise. Hence, they failed to organize their company
around its primary objective and failed to expand their
organizational capabilities to understand the various
emerging transformative products, services, and
methods to do work invented by various individuals or
companies across different industries in the passage of
time and change in the economic environment to be able
to allocate its capital efficiently and effectively and seize
the glaring economic opportunities either through
merger and acquisition, investment, joint venture,
patent acquisition, franchising, cross licensing
agreement or even hiring the genius behind the
transformative product, service, or method to do work
either as an employee or management consultant. By
the time the railroad executives recognized their

management deficiencies and attempted to diversify
their train transportation company, it was too late to
save their company from bankruptcy.
• Western Union
After creating significant shareholder value and profit
for many decades in the past because of its
breakthrough technology, Western Union founded in
1851 soon stopped growing as the company’s telegraph
technology, considered as cutting-edge on that time,
was replaced by the invention of the telephone in 1876
and then followed by the internet in the late 1960s that
soon powered by easy to use World Wide Web by 1989
that have completely changed the way we communicate
and access information today. Consequently, Western
Union sent its last telegram in 2006 to mark the end of
an era. And while the company’s core business was
made obsolete by more advanced technologies, Western
Union was survived by its venture on money transfer
business where it is still holding a significant market
shares around the world today. However, while the
company is one of the major players in money transfer
business, we can observe that it may be facing its biggest
challenge to thwart the risk of obsolescence on its entire
corporate history as the last bastion of its business, the
money transfer, is the prime target for disruption by
many large technology companies like Apple, Google,
Facebook, Samsung, Alibaba, and many startup Fintech
companies funded by Venture Capital and Private Equity

companies. And when the money transfer business will
be reinvented, no one may remember that Western
Union was once a shaper of American corporate history.
More than a century earlier, Western Union emerged
as one of the largest and most powerful companies in
United States of America and the world. By 1866 for
instance, Western Union had seized the control of the
largest telegraph network in America, becoming the first
American private corporation to monopolize a national
industry. The market shares of its telegraph business in
the United States of America reached 90 percent.2
Yet,
the company soon failed to sustain its growth and
maintain its relevance in the business of information and
communication due to its executives’ own objective
myopia. Throughout the Western Union’s history while
the company had been sitting with large amount of cash
or capital brought by the superiority of its telegraph
technology, the executives of Western Union had
believed that it was the business of telegraph they were
good at or the industry that they know that soon
deprived their business organization and its
shareholders to make money on emerging companies
that have transformative products, services, and
methods to do work or to manage a business in the last
hundred years that could have provided Western Union
the means to secure the creation of maximum
passage of time and change in the economic
environment. And due to the failure of its executives to
expand its organizational capabilities to understand the
telephone technology, they failed to buy the telephone

patent of Alexander Graham Bell which was offered to
them for just $100,000 dollars. The failure of executives
of Western Union to understand the impact of telephone
in the societies and the world economy had caused their
company and its shareholder to miss one of the biggest
economic opportunities that was created by a single
transformative technology, the telephone. To mention,
AT&T was so successful to the extent it was dismantled
into several companies by US government as part of its
anti-trust move to protect the American consumers from
monopoly. And from the study and analysis of the history
of business management in the last hundred years, we
can find that Western Union had missed the great
economic opportunities to make money inside and
outside its industry in the passage of time and change in
the economic environment not because of lack of capital
to enter in emerging businesses with transformative
products, services, and methods to do work or because
of the absence of economic opportunities in the market
to grow rather, like the railroad companies, there was a
failure of management, primarily in the allocation of
• Yahoo
Yahoo Inc., founded in 1995, was one of the great
success stories that came along with the invention of
World Wide Web by Tim Berners Lee in 1989 at CERN.
Jerry Yang and David Filo, the founders of Yahoo, were
among the few people who saw the great potential of

the internet technology to build an online business
before it become obvious to many. Soon, Jerry Yang and
David Filo’s success showed to the world the power of
the internet as an emerging platform to create wealth.
Their success was inspirational and astronomical at the
same time. They inspired legions of students and
entrepreneurs in the United States of America to tinker
the web and build online business that provides a new
avenue to create valuable services as well as money too.
And for many American companies that were searching
for ways to improve its competitive advantage against
Japanese companies, Yahoo’s success as information
powerhouse was an eye opener. As a result, web portal
via internet and intranet soon emerged in various
business organizations providing real time information
and valuable services to its customers, suppliers,
investors, and employees around the world. The growth
of Yahoo continued and seemed unstoppable. It
acquired numerous web related businesses to improve
its contents with the goal to keep users on its website
and then monetize it through advertisement. By the year
2000, its stock reached its highest market price value
making it a multi-billion-dollar company. But the success
did not last because after a year, the company stock fell
along with many technology companies due to the dot-
com bubble.3
And from the few years that followed,
Google emerged as a serious competitor to Yahoo’s
business as the former adopted the pay-per-click
business model and present text ads beside its search
engine result that provide more relevant information
compared to Yahoo and other rivals. For the first time,

the importance of relevant result using a search engine
was understood. While Google’s search engine
technology is superior, it is not new to Yahoo executives.
In fact, Google approached them to buy its search engine
technology starting from one million US dollar on several
occasions, but Yahoo executives repeatedly turned
down the offer as they failed to understand the
importance of presenting more relevant information to
users. Soon, Yahoo missed the great economic
opportunities to make money from Google’s search
engine technology that helped Google to create a market
capitalization worth more than 700 billion US dollars and
more than ten to twenty billion US dollars of profit each
year for many decades that followed. In addition to the
missed economic opportunities to make money from
Google, Yahoo lost the source of their livelihood too.4
The story of Western Union’s failure to buy the
telephone technology more than hundred years ago was
repeated by Yahoo. And like the executives of Western
Union, history showed that the executives of Yahoo
failed to organize their company and expand its
organizational capabilities to understand the numerous
emerging companies with transformative products,
services, and methods to do work inside and outside its
industry. They narrowed the company’s economic
opportunities within the industry they are in or the
business they believed they know as if it is the only
means to make money in the economy. As a
consequence, Yahoo soon stopped growing and later
was sold for survival not because of lack of capital to
enter in emerging business or because of the absence of

economic opportunities in the market to grow rather
there was a failure of management, primarily in the
allocation of capital, due to its executives’ own objective
myopia. Had yahoo executives expanded their
organizational capabilities to understand the emerging
business with transformative products, services, and
methods to do work, the story of Yahoo may be different
today. The multi-billion US dollars’ return on investment
of Yahoo in Alibaba proved the power of investing on the
genius of others which its executives should have done
earlier in the same way the Venture Capital or Private
Equity firms operates. It took only few million dollars
investment and a bottle of sake from Jerry Yang, the co-
founder of Yahoo, to accomplish such astronomical
return on its investment in Alibaba.

A failure of management that has been going on
for more than a century
From the study and analysis of the history of business
management in the last hundred years, we can find that
there are so many successful business organizations around
the world that soon failed, stopped growing, or ended up
being sold for survival after achieving the creation of
significant shareholder value and profit for many decades in
the past not because of lack of capital to enter in emerging
business or because of the absence of economic
opportunities to grow rather there was a failure of
management, primarily in the allocation of capital, due to its
executives’ own objective myopia. We have Bethlehem
Steel, Kodak, Sun Microsystem, Blockbuster, Toy R Us,
Circuit City, Blackberry, Motorola Mobility, and Sears to
name the few among many companies that were successful
previously but did not last. However, despite of the
prevalence of objective myopia among executives that has
been preventing the company they run on behalf of its
shareholders to secure creation of maximum shareholder
change in the economic environment, there has been no
discussion or move to bring out and address this century-old

failure of management in the allocation of capital which can
be traced from the heyday of the railroad and telegraph
companies in the mid-19th
Century as discussed. And if we
will analyze the history, we can observe that many
executives of highly successful companies today have been
managing their companies based on what they know or
based on the industry they are in that caused their business
organizations and its shareholders to miss to make money
on some of the biggest economic opportunities that
emerged in the world economy brought by invention and
reinvention of numerous products, services, and methods to
do work or to manage a business. And like those previously
successful companies that already failed, stopped growing,
or were sold for survival as discussed, we can observe that
the success of the selected companies that we will discuss
have obscured its executives the fact that the business
organizations they run are at significant risk to fail, stop
growing, or end up being sold for survival too not because
of lack of capital to enter on emerging business or because
of the absence of economic opportunities to grow rather it
is because of its executives’ own objective myopia.
In view of this widespread failure of management among
numerous executives, I have selected some of the most
successful and most admired companies around the world
today that operate in different businesses and industries to
highlight the widespread failure of its executives in the
allocation of capital that led their business organizations to
miss some of the biggest economic opportunities that
emerged around the world as discussed to the extent that
their companies’ source of their livelihood is now at risk to

become obsolete or to be taken away by the same
companies they currently ignored. The following companies
are selected for discussion to point out the century-old
failure of management:
• ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, Aramco and BP – Oil and Gas
industry
• AT&T and Verizon Communications – Telecom Industry
• Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline – Pharmaceutical industry
• Rolex SA and Swatch Group – Watch industry
• Coca-Cola – Beverages industry
• Boeing - Airplane manufacturing
From the above list of highly successful companies that
operate at different industries, we can observe the following
attributes that are common to these companies, namely:
1. All are highly successful and have accumulated
significant amount of capital through the years brought
by the company’s wonder product, superior service, or
innovative method to do work or to manage its business.
2. All are customer-oriented in the business or industry
where its executives believed they were good at because
of their companies’ past and current success.
3. All had missed some of the biggest economic
opportunities that emerged in the world economy in the
last hundred years not because of lack of capital to enter
on emerging businesses with transformative products,

services, and methods to do work or because of the
absence of economic opportunities in the market to
grow rather there was a failure from its management
due to its executives own objective myopia. Hence, they
failed to organize their company around its primary
objective and failed to improve their organizational
capabilities to understand the emerging transformative
products, services, and methods to do work or to
manage their business to be able to allocate its capital
efficiently and effectively in the passage of time and
change in the economic environment. Consequently,
they had deprived their business organizations and its
shareholders some of the biggest economic
opportunities to make huge money from emerging
businesses with transformative products, services, and
methods to do work to secure the creation of significant
amount of shareholder value and profit.
4. All are in danger to end up like the Railroad companies,
Western Union, or Yahoo due to their executives’ own
objective myopia and can be expected to miss further
the arrival of many great economic opportunities in the
future unless its executives will change its perspectives
on the primary objective of the company and strategy in
the allocation of its capital.
From the history of business management, the risk that a
company may fail, stop growing, or end up being sold for
survival is always present because there is no company
immune to product obsolescence and saturation of
demand. And if we will recall as discussed in Chapter 2, due
to our desire to create wealth in the economy to protect our

own interest or welfare, we keep on inventing and
reinventing the numerous products, services, and methods
to do work or to manage a business that continuously
replacing the current products, services, and methods to do
work or to manage a business of many companies in the
passage of time and change in the economic environment,
thus:
• The Oil and Gas industry
The companies in the Oil and Gas industry are in
trouble today, not because of the current inroad of
electric vehicles from Tesla, Nissan, and Toyota which is
still insignificant at present rather it is because of the
commoditization of oil brought by the effect of fracking
technology to extract oil and gas, the effect of global
politics and government regulations, and the effect of
discovery of new oil and gas reserve that continuously
bringing more suppliers of oil and gas in the world
market in excess of global demand.
The US, one of the largest importers of oil for
instance, lifted its 40-year ban to export oil and started
to sell oil everywhere. It even surpassed the Saudi Arabia
and Russia as the biggest oil producer in the world at a
particular period. 5
And from the current economic
events and trajectory of technology advancement in
battery and energy generation such as the use of
hydrogen, the oil and gas industry’s future is bleak in the
next following decades to come because of the growing

environmentally conscious customers, innovative
capitalists, scientist, and government leaders who are
working hard to eliminate the harmful effects of carbon
emission and plastics in our environment triggered by
our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels. In the
automobile industry for instance, Tesla and Nissan
planned to sell long range Electric Vehicle (EV) in the
$30,000-dollar range. And in the near future, the cost of
electric car may be lower than the gasoline counterpart
as the cost of battery, which account the most significant
part of Electric Vehicle cost, is expected to go down due
to economies of scale.
The impact of these development may not be
immediate but there is one thing which is certain: As
more electric cars will be on the road every year,
someone will be left holding a barrel.6
Moreover, with
the rate of innovation in the field of energy, perhaps in
the near future, we may find that the role of oil may be
of less value before we even finish it because the future
of our transportation and the way we will produce our
electricity to light, heat or cool our homes, offices, roads
and factories in the near future will be environment
friendly that will come from solar powered battery,
hydrogen fuel cell generators, thermonuclear reactors,
nuclear fusion, and cryogenic storage. The road where
we use the asphalt, a by-product of oil, may be replaced
too in the future with solar-powered panels that can
recharge the electric vehicles as it moves on the road.7
Many countries such as UK, France, Germany, and India
want to ban the use of gas and diesel engine for
automobiles in the few decades. China is working on the

plan to ban the production and sale of gas and diesel-
powered automobile in the future too.8
And for the non-
biodegradable plastics that come from oil that pollute
our environment, it may be replaced by biodegradable
materials as well such as bio-inspired plastic, fungal
foam, natural liquid silk, and seaweeds in addition to
growing use of paper and wood. When this time will
come that we do not need oil except to be used as
lubricant, we will find that this story is not new because
it happened already before in many industries, but we
are busy to look at the history to learn and understand
the present and improve our journey to the future as we
manage our business organizations to secure its primary
objective.
• The telecommunication industry
The telecom companies have been enjoying its
tremendous success for more than hundred years due to
its product breakthrough that monopolized the business
of communication. And because of the economic power
achieved by AT&T through its breakthrough technology,
the US government was forced to step in to break the
company in 1982 to protect the public from harmful
effect of monopoly in the society. However, today we
can observe that the telecom companies’ future will be
in trouble similar to the telegraph technology that they
successfully replaced because lurking outside the
telecommunication industry are handful and brilliant
innovative capitalists from giant technology companies

that are working hard to solve the information divide and
keep the internet neutral like before that can make the
business model of telecommunication companies less
profitable if not totally obsolete. Google started
beaming internet access for free in many areas in the
United States of America that may cut the demand of
voice and data package being sold by telecom
companies.9
Moreover, Google laid its own cable under
the sea and started to develop a balloon that can be
suspended in the air for a long period of time to beam
ultra-fast wireless internet to billion people around the
world which can bypass the wires and cables owned by
telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, Charter and
Comcast which are being used as the basis of the
telecom companies’ right to control who can access the
popular websites like Netflix, YouTube, Google and
Facebook.
Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO and founder of Facebook,
is trying to close the internet divide too around the world
using their own satellite and drone technology that may
bypass the cables and wires that served as the money-
making machines for telecom companies for centuries.
Unlike AT&T, the young Facebook founder seems not
interested to make money in communication in the same
way the telecom companies run their business as proven
by his reluctant to charge the customers after spending
nineteen billion US dollars (USD 19B) on WhatsApp.
Sending message through WhatsApp and conducting
video conference on Facebook messenger are free that
reduced the profit of telecom companies derived on
Short Messaging System (SMS) and long-distance call.

Although the Facebook’s satellite did not reach its
rightful place when it exploded together with the rocket
of Space X, Mark Zuckerberg has the vision, the money,
and the will to succeed to bring the internet to the rest
of the world to connect everyone on the planet through
Facebook and perhaps using its Virtual Reality
technology while the telecommunication executives still
believe that it is the telecommunication business that
they know or the industry they are good at. The Space X
of Elon Musk that pose one of the biggest threat to
telecommunication companies received permission too
to launch its small constellation of satellites to beam the
internet that will eliminate the need for the cables
controlled by telecommunication companies. Microsoft
and Facebook helped to fund MAREA, the 6,600 km
submarine cable system, that connect US to Southern
Europe.
From the study and analysis of the history, the
telecom companies’ supremacy could have ended if
Corning Inc. have used its patented low-loss Fiber Optics
technology to enter in the telecom business by itself
through Merger and Acquisition rather than selling its
invention to existing telecom companies. If the
executives of Corning Inc. could have followed the
business model to own the entire widgets like Apple or
Ford Motor Company to control the total customers’
experience, it could be one of the most powerful players
in the telecommunication industry and made its
competitors, like AT&T and Verizon, obsolete with their
inferior technology. We have seen this kind of corporate
success story when Samsung invaded the Television

business using digital technologies and triumphantly
beat many Japanese companies that use the analog
technology. With the existence of numerous Venture
Capital, Investment Banks, Hedge Fund, and Private
Equity around the world that are ready to provide the
necessary capital to finance a breakthrough product,
service or new method to communicate, the possibility
that Corning Inc. could have pulled it off in the same way
telecom companies replaced the telegraph may not be
far from reality. But Corning Inc. missed that great
economic opportunity and now it might be Space X that
may successfully pull it off in the future that will replace
the technology and business model of many
telecommunication companies while its executives
believe that it is the business they know.
• The Pharmaceutical industry
The Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most
enviable industries in terms of economic performance
whether the state of the economy is good or bad. Most
of the leading publicly owned pharmaceutical companies
have been considered as blue chips. Why? Because there
is no individual on the planet who is not willing to pay for
expensive medicines to save or extend the lives of his
love ones. The only hindrance that prevents a person to
buy the pricey medicine or to access the expensive
health care services that he needs can be linked to his
limited disposable income, lack of access to credit, or the
absence of health care insurance coverage. This fact
somehow contributes to the perspectives of many

pharmaceutical executives to think that they will not lose
as the population continued to grow and age. Hence,
they stick on their core business and core competency
that they believe they know because they have been so
successful for the past centuries. The achieved success
might have contributed as well to the common belief and
practice among pharmaceutical executives to ignore the
arrival of great economic opportunities outside its
industry in the last hundred years such information
technology, supermarket chain, outsourcing, social
media, and e-commerce. However, we can observe
again that the numerous geniuses, innovative capitalist,
and innovative philanthropist inside and outside the
pharmaceutical industries are working hard in solitude
and in collaborative efforts around the world that soon
may disrupt the business of pharmaceutical industry
when their grandiose goal will make the medicines, the
primary source of pharmaceutical companies’ livelihood,
less important if not totally obsolete. Bill Gates, an
innovative philanthropist has been using his vast wealth
to eliminate diseases through vaccine such as malaria at
almost no cost to the people.10
Google, founded by two
geniuses in the field of information technology, has
entered into life science business too and would like to
disrupt the healthcare industry in the way they disrupted
numerous industries inside and outside the its
industry.11
Samsung, the South Korean conglomerate,
is bringing its capital, innovation and marketing
capabilities to Pharmaceutical industry too.12
Sergey
Brin, the co-founder of Google and Larry Ellison, the
founder of Oracle, are pouring their personal money into

research and development to defeat mortality.13
Sean
Parker, another innovative capitalist, donated money
and want to end cancer that are killing score of people
around the world.14
In addition to numerous innovative
capitalists and innovative philanthropists, many doctors,
lone inventors, and scientists around the world are
burning the midnight oil to find the best way to edit our
genes to treat diseases or design a new generation of
human species that does not need to swallow the pricey
medicine in the future that make us puke. Recent news
is not good for pharmaceutical companies’ future too as
US Government has authorized to edit human embryo
using CRISPR for the first time to effectively correct the
disease-causing genes.15
The use of chemo therapy
that kills our healthy cells in the process as we wage our
war against cancers may become obsolete too. We have
success stories that cure breast cancer by pumping 90
billion cancer-killing immune cells to human body.16
In Japan, scientists have been studying the mystery of
jellyfish that, perhaps, may give us the key to achieve
immortality.17
There is ongoing research to develop molecular
machines at various laboratories to enter in our blood
streams. These technologies live in science fictions
previously but may soon can become a reality that can
kill the cancer cells or remove the clog in our veins given
the speed of advancement in information technology,
biotechnology, and nanotechnology.18
From the trajectory of inventions and innovations in
life sciences and healthcare industry, we can observe
that if the executives of pharmaceutical will not organize

their companies and develop further their organizational
capabilities to identify the best customers’ needs and
economic opportunities that can be created or filled by
transformative products, services, and methods to do
work where they can use their accumulated capital
gained from their past successful business operations to
secure the creation of maximum shareholder value and
sustainable profitability, they may end up like the Penn
Central Transportation Company, Western Union, or
Yahoo in the future. And as many technology
companies have entered in the business of everything
including the industries where the executives of
pharmaceutical companies believed they were good at,
the possibility to replicate the success of numerous
innovative capitalists and innovative philanthropists
from information technology industry to disrupt the
healthcare industry is not far from reality. In fact, with
the entry of Google, Samsung, Bill Gates, and other
innovative capitalists like Larry Ellison in the healthcare
industry, the ground invasion to beat the pharmaceutical
companies has started already.
• The Watch industry
The watch industry had its own time and place in the
history of business. Throughout the last centuries, its
craftsmanship and attention to details have been
faithfully providing the source of its wealth and
livelihood. Like the other industries with one product
wonder, there was a time that Swatch made a big wave
around the world and sold its wristwatch like a hot cake.

It saved the declining Swiss watch industry at a particular
period of time.19
And by the year 2006, the 333 millionth
wristwatch of Swatch company was produced.20
At the
height of Swatch success in the 1980s, many customers
buy more than one with different colors and people wear
it at the same time. It is just others’ people watch that
was used as Swatch tag line due to its ubiquity.
On the luxury watch category, there was a
remarkable story of success too. Due to quality,
precision, and prestige of Rolex, its brand became the
favorite among the rich and famous. It is a status symbol
that is worth to be paid for. Some people even
considered it as an investment. No wonder it is one of
the greatest brands in the world.
However, despite success of many watch companies
in the past, many are in trouble today and its
competitions can be observed are not coming from its
own industry but from information technology
companies in the like of Apple, Google, and Samsung. Its
ubiquitous smart phones have provided many advanced
features and utilities that we need or use every day
including the local time that we used to look at our wrist.
But the threat to watch companies’ existence did not
end on the arrival of smart phone alone because the
same information technology companies are trying to
innovate and replace the craftsman’s watch that provide
the industry’s old players its livelihood for centuries
through smart watch which is powered by beautiful
design, intelligent software, and advanced hardware
technologies honed from their experience in developing
personal and mobile computing devices in the last forty

five (45) years. Rolex, one of the most luxurious and
expensive watch, has enemy from undiscussed sources
too like the growing crime in various cities around the
world that made its expensive watch less desirable to be
seen at people’s wrist because it is like inviting dangers
to its owner brought by the increasing number of thieves
that are roaming around the cities looking for target.21
Hence, the watch companies can be observed in trouble
today and its future is bleak not solely because of its
competition within and outside its industry rather due to
the failure of its executives to organize their companies
around the company’s primary objective and improve
further its organizational capabilities to understand the
emerging transformative products, services, and
methods to do work to allocate its capital efficiently and
effectively to secure the creation of maximum
shareholder value and sustainable profitability
market they may operate in the passage of time and
change in the economic environment while they have
time to do so.
• The Beverage industry
The beverage companies’ success led by Coca-Cola
Company seems insatiable for several decades or
century. Coca-Cola’s wealth generating machines seem
perfected. Its products and distributors are literally
everywhere in the world from luxurious places up to the
various slums within and outside the cities around the
world. The taste of Coca-Cola is international that suits

to its customers regardless of the nationality, customs,
and genders. It is considered as one-product wonder.
However, despite of its success, we can find that its
subsequent executives’ memories are short and their
understanding of the primary objective of the company
they run on shareholders’ behalf can be observed
myopic. How they have forgotten the method of doing
business that built it up and brought the success and
livelihood that their business organization has been
enjoying for the last hundred years? From the history,
we can learn that due to the founder’s capability to
identify the customers’ needs that the Coca-Cola’s
formula can create in the future, he acquired it from the
genius who invented it that become the source of the
company’s livelihood for the next hundred years that
followed. Yet, throughout its history, despite the
company was sitting with enormous cash or capital to
the tune of tens to hundreds of billion US dollars of cash,
the next generations of Coca-Cola’s executives failed to
organize its company around the product of human
ingenuity and expand its organizational capabilities to
identify the best customers’ needs and economic
opportunities that can be created within and outside its
industries using its huge capital or cash gained from the
success of Coca-Cola’s product in the last hundred years
to secure the creation of maximum shareholder value
and sustainable profitability in the passage of time and
change in the economic environment. And due to
executives’ own objective myopia, we can observe that
Coca-Cola missed some of the biggest economic
opportunities that emerged in the world economy in the

last hundred years such as the business of supermarket
chain, outsourcing, information technology,
biotechnology, and internet that have generated the
shareholder value and profit that surpassed Coca-Cola
today. And even at the industry they are in, we can
observe that they missed to acquire some promising
companies like Red Bull which has been creating
significant amount of shareholder value and profit for
many years since it was founded in 1987.
Today, we can observe that the company’s primary
product is in danger of failure or significant decline due
to the increasing number of health conscious customers
around the world who believed that sugared water and
the pervasive health problems around the world like
obesity are somehow linked to their consumption of
carbonated drinks like Coca-Cola.22
Moreover, the
growing competitions from the existence of numerous
healthy drinks, fresh juices, and bottled waters that
become available from luxurious places up to the slums
within and outside the cities around the world that
compete in every product of Coca-Cola company, the
future of the company may be in question.
From the history, we can observe and realize that its
subsequent executives have actually put the Coca-Cola
company on the path of total obsolescence not because
of the lack of capital to enter on numerous emerging
methods to do work or because of the absence of
economic opportunities to grow rather there has been a
failure of management, primarily in the allocation of

Unless or until there will be a change on its executives’
perspectives while they have time, it may end up like the
Penn Central Transportation Company, Western Union,
and Yahoo in the near future.
• The Airplane manufacturing industry
The airplane manufacturing industry that has been
dominated by Boeing is under threat too from various
companies and innovative capitalists inside and outside
its industry which Boeing executives have been ignoring.
Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, is investing on
flying car by himself using his own wealth generated
from Google.23
There is a company called AeroMobil
from Slovakia that is building car that can transform into
aero plane in just three minutes. The company is
expecting to launch its product in the near future.24
But
the risk of Boeing to survive as a company does not end
to the area of flying cars that may be powered by solar
or nuclear fusion in the future because lurking at Silicon
Valley are innovative capitalists who are working hard to
disrupt the business of Airlines in the coming years.
Hyperloop, the transportation envisioned by Elon Musk
and backed up by Richard Branson, may soon cut the
need for airplane to travel between states.25
With the
continuous development of wonder materials, the
Hyperloop technology may soon be installed underneath
the ocean too in the future similar to the ongoing
installation of bullet train under the ocean in China that

may connect countries without the need to que for more
than three hours before to fly and take the risk of plane
crash that we accept today as unalterable given.
And while these promising technologies are being
developed that will transform the way we move people
and goods from one place to another that can make
airplane less profitable if not totally obsolete in the
future, the airplane as a product is starting to enter in
commoditization too. Boeing tasted the competition
when Airbus entered in the market. Now, China is using
its manufacturing power, research, and development,
and huge labor force to produce an airplane too. In 2015
for instance, it unveiled its C919 jetliner with 158 seats
that can compete with Boeing 737.26
For many decades,
Boeing has been generating an enormous wealth from
its airplane business. It has been so successful that made
the company as one of the export powerhouses of
United States of America for many decades. But despite
of its success, its executives can be observed to be
afflicted by their own objective myopia. Throughout its
history, the company put its resources in one basket
believing that it is the Airplane manufacturing business
where they are good at. Hence, they missed some of the
greatest economic opportunities that emerged in the
world economy despite the company is sitting with
enormous cash and possessing an engineering talent
which is not available to many business organizations.
They ignored startup companies and the growing
number of innovative capitalists as if they are distinct
and unique business that will last and yet the future is
getting clear that the Boeing may find itself in danger not

only from companies within its industry such as Airbus or
Chinese companies rather to the venture capital
companies and innovative capitalists outside its
industries. And unless or until the executives of Boeing
will change its business perspectives in the allocation of
capital, it may end up like the Penn Central
Transportation Company, Western Union, or Yahoo and
not because of lack of capital to enter in emerging
methods to do work or because of the absence of
economic opportunities in the market to grow rather it
will be attributed to the failure of management,
primarily in the allocation of its capital, due to its
executives’ own objective myopia.
There are many successful companies today that are now
in danger due to their executives’ own objective myopia.
However despite of the observed business failures and
deprivation of companies and its shareholders on some of
the biggest economic opportunities that emerged in the
world economy, there have been no discussions or call to
resolve this particular kind of failure from the management
that had caused the business organizations, shareholders,
workers, and other stakeholders to suffer either by way of
company closure, fire sale of the company, or deprivation of
the company’s economic opportunity to secure the creation
in the passage of time and change in economic
environment. And while the management failure of this
nature has been going on for more than hundred years and
the error of analysis are repeated by numerous executives

in different business or industries around the world that
include some of the oldest, largest, and most admired
companies in the world today, the failure of management
caused by executives’ own objective myopia has been left
undetected by the next generations of companies’ Board of
Directors, CEOs, and shareholders alike because it has been
obscured by the company’s success in the past that last for
a very long period of time. And unless and until executives
will change their perspectives on the primary objective of
the shareholders and their strategy in the allocation of its
capital, many successful companies may end up like the
Penn Central Transportation Company, Western Union or
Yahoo in the future.

The five powerful but
inherently myopic
perspectives widely used by
many Board of Directors and
CEOs as rules of thumb to
manage their business
5

The five powerful but myopic
executives to run a business
organization
It is impossible to have a widespread failure of
management in the allocation of capital that would be left
undetected for more than a century without a cause. Hence,
we will discuss the five powerful but inherently myopic
perspectives that have been widely accepted and used by
many executives as rules of thumb to run a business
organization because of its proven power to create a
significant amount of shareholder value and profit in the
past. These five perspectives have been identified and
codified from personal accounts of many successful
executives and from the various studies conducted on many
successful companies as we search to find the one best way
to do work or to manage a business in the last hundred
years. And from the study and analysis of the history of the
development of best management theories and practices,
we can find that the failure of management in the allocation
of capital remains undetected because the duration of the
success of many companies that used these five powerful
perspectives was so long to the extent that its obscured the
fact to the next generation of executives and shareholders
that the perspectives that had been used by the previous

executives to succeed had caused their companies to miss
some of the biggest economic opportunities to make money
that emerged in the economy and had put their business
organization on the path of total obsolescence. The five
powerful but inherently myopic perspectives are as follows:
Perspective 1: Do what you love, love what you do, and
never give up.
Perspective 2: We should broadly define our business
around the customers’ needs within the industry we are in
to sustain its profitability or growth.
Perspective 3: Stick to the knitting or invest in what you
know.
Perspective 4: Put all your eggs in one basket and then
watch that basket.
Perspective 5: Focus on your core business and core
competencies to sustain the company’s profitability or
growth.
Each of these five powerful but inherently myopic
perspectives to run a business organization will be discussed
in detail to explain how the erroneous use of these
perspectives can lead to executives’ own objective myopia
that prevent companies to secure the creation of maximum
passage of time and change in the economic environment.

End Notes
Preface
1. Eugine Kim, “Jeff Bezos to employees: 'One day, Amazon will fail'
but our job is to delay it as long as possible”, CNBC,
November27,2018, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/bezos-
tells-employees-one-day-amazon-will-fail-and-to-stay-
hungry.html (Accessed: February 15, 2019)
2. The first time the phrase “Finding the One Best Way” reached the
general public started from the work of Edward Mott Woolley in
March 1911. Later it was associated to Frederick W. Taylor and the
efficiency movement he started. See Robert Kanigel, The One Best
Way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency,
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press,2005, pp. 441)
Chapter 1
1. This line of thinking was inspired by discussions in The principles
of Scientific Management by Frederick Winslow Taylor (New York
and London: Harper and & Brother Publishers, 1919, pp. 9-10) and
“Marketing Myopia” by Theodore Levitt, Harvard Business
Review, July-August 2004, p. 138. Originally published in 1960.
Chapter 2
1. Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management
(New York and London: Harper & Brother Publishers, 1919), p. 9.
2. The origin of shareholder value single focus started accordingly as
a response to turbulence of US Stock Market in late 1960’s and
1970’s. See Peter Atwater, “Maximizing Shareholder Value May
Have Gone Too Far” Time, June 3, 2016,

http://time.com/4355685/maximizing-shareholder-value/
(Accessed: May 21, 2018)
3. Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 112.
4. Stephen Bainbridge, “A Duty to Shareholder Value”, The New York
Times, April 16, 2015,
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-
are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/a-duty-to-
shareholder-value (Accessed January 17, 2018)
5. Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management
(New York and London: Harper & Brother Publishers, 1919), pp. 5-
6.
6. Ibid., p. 25
7. Ibid., p. 25
8. Ibid., pp. 36-37
9. Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices
(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993), p. 181.
10. Carol Kennedy, Guide to the management gurus (London:
Random House Business Books, 2007), pp. 86-90.
11. Wikipedia contributors, "Hawthorne effect," Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawth
orne_effect&oldid=852550458 (accessed August 11, 2018).
12. Wikipedia contributors, "Program evaluation and review
technique," Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progra
m_evaluation_and_review_technique&oldid=854178211 (accesse
d August 11, 2018).
13. Wikipedia contributors, "Operations research," Wikipedia, The
Free
Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operati
ons_research&oldid=856047670 (accessed August 23,
2018).
14. Jeff Sutherland, Scrum (London: Random House Business Books,
2014), pp. 23-39.
15. Wikipedia contributors, "Taylor Society," Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_
Society&oldid=803242694 (accessed August 2, 2016).

16. Duff McDonald, The Firm: The Story of McKinsey and its secret
influence on American Business (New York: Simon &
Schuster,2013), p.13.
17. Jack Welch, Winning (New York: Harper,2007) p.189.
18. Ibid.
19. See Leonard DeGraaf, Edison and the rise of innovation (New
York: Sterling Signature,2013, p.xx)
20. See “Thomas Edison,” Time, December 31, 1999, p. 146.
21. Wikipedia contributors, "Harvard Business Review," Wikipedia,
The Free
Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvar
d_Business_Review&oldid=846359751 (accessed August 11,
2018).
22. John T. Landry, “HBR Lives Where Taylorism Died”, Harvard
Business Review, November 16, 2012,
https://hbr.org/2012/11/hbr-lives-where-taylorism-died
(Accessed: January 29, 2018)
23. Wikipedia contributors, "Frederick Winslow Taylor," Wikipedia,
The Free
Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederi
ck_Winslow_Taylor&oldid=807079024 (accessed August 2,
2016).
24. Michael G. Freeman, “Don’t throw the Scientific Management Out
with the Bathwater,” Quality Progress, April 1996, p. 61
25. Ibid., p. 63.
26. Steven Watts, The People’s Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American
Century (New York: Vintage Books, 2006). p. 3
27. David A. Hounshell, “The Same Old Principles in the New
Manufacturing”, Harvard Business Review, November 1988
https://hbr.org/1988/11/the-same-old-principles-in-the-new-
manufacturing (Accessed: June 3, 2017)
28. Steven Watts, The People’s Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American
Century (New York: Vintage Books, 2006), p. 42
29. Henry Ford, My Life and Work (New York: Double Day, Page &
Company,1923) p.73
30. Bryce G. Hoffman, American Icon: Allan Mulally and the fight to
save Ford Motor Company (New York: Crown Business, 2012), p.6.

31. Cal Seelig and New translation and revision by Sonja Bargmann,
Ideas and Opinions: Albert Einstein (New York: Three Rivers Press,
2010), p.4.
32. This discussion draws from introduction of Peter Drucker on
Alfred Sloan Jr.’s book entitled “My Years with General Motors”
(New York: Doubleday, 1990), pp. v-xii.
33. This discussion draws from article of H. Igor Ansoff entitled
“Strategies for Diversification”, Harvard Business Review,
September-October 1957, pp. 113-124
34. This discussion and observation draw from the article of H. Igor
Ansoff entitled “Strategies for Diversification”, Harvard Business
Review, September-October 1957, pp. 113-124 and from the
article of Theodore Levitt entitled “Marketing Myopia”, Harvard
Business Review, July-August 2004. Originally published in 1960.
35. Wikipedia contributors, "SWOT analysis," Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SWOT_
analysis&oldid=853892598(accessed August 12, 2018).
36. Tim Hindle, Guide to Management Ideas and Gurus (London:
Profile Books Ltd., 2008), pp. 215-216.
37. Dr. John V. Richardson Jr., “A Brief Intellectual History of the
STEPE Model or Framework”, UCLA, revised May 9, 2017
https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/richardson/STEPE.htm
(Accessed: August 12, 2018)
38. Phil Rosenzweig, The Halo Effect…and the eight delusions that
deceive managers (New York: Free Press, 2007), p.88.
39. Ibid., p. 98
40. Henry Mintzberg, “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning”,
Harvard Business Review, January-February 1994
https://hbr.org/1994/01/the-fall-and-rise-of-strategic-planning
(Accessed: March 19, 2018)
41. James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones, Donna Sammons Carpenter
and Daniel Roos, The Machine that Changed the World (New York:
Rawson Associates Macmillan Publishing Company,1990) pp. 48-
49
42. https://www.toyota-
global.com/company/vision_philosophy/toyota_production_syste
m/ (Accessed: August 12, 2018).

43. Yasuhiro Monden, Toyota Production System: An Integrated
Approach to Just-In-Time (Florida: CRC Press, 2012) p. 3
44. Larry Rubrich & Mattie Watson, Implementing World Class
Manufacturing (Indiana: WCM Associates, 2004), p.7
45. Jeffrey K. Liker, The Toyota Way (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004)
pp. 28-29
46. Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage (New York: Free Press,
1985) p.33
47. Ibid. p.38
48. Noel M. Tichy and Stratford Sherman, Control Your Destiny or
Someone else will (New York: Collins Business Essential, 2005) pp.
246-247
49. Jack Welch, Winning (New York: Harper,2007) p.170.
50. Wikiquote contributors, "Steve Jobs," Wikiquote,
, https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Jobs&oldid=2
445493 (accessed August 12, 2018).
51. The statement is part of testimony of Alan Greenspan to the U.S.
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on February
13, 2001. See Daniel C. Wood, SAP SCM: Application and Modeling
for Supply Chain Management (New Jersey: John Wiley & Son,
2007)
52. Thomas H Davenport, Process Innovation: Reengineering Work
through Information Technology (Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 1993), Preface.
53. Michael Hammer, “Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate,
Obliterate”, Harvard Business Review, July – August 1990, p. 105
54. Robert J. Gordon, The rise and fall of American Growth (New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2016), p. 17.
55. Ibid., p. 17
56. This discussion draws from the book written by Louis V. Gerstner
entitled Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? published by
HarperCollins Publishers in 2002.
57. Michael Dell, Direct from Dell: Strategies that revolutionized an
Industry (London: Profile Book Ltd, 2004) pp.211-223.
58. As quoted in Steven Holzner, How Dell Does It (New York:
McGrow-Hill, 2006), p.23.

Chapter 3
1. Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of business is to
increase its Profits”, New York Times Magazine, September 13,
1970, http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf (Accessed:
December 4, 2018)
2. Alfred Sloan Jr., My Years with General Motors (New York:
Doubleday, 1990), p.49
3. George Anders, “Inside Sequoia Capital: Silicon Valley’s Innovation
Factory”, Forbes, March 26,2014,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2014/03/26/inside-
sequoia-capital-silicon-valleys-innovation-factory/#df91e793a828
(Accessed May 30, 2015)
4. Matt Marshall, “Did Google Guru make investment ever?”,
Siliconbeat 2004,
http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2004/11/15/did_google_gur
u_make_investment_ever.html (accessed October 1, 2017)
5. Peter Elstrom and Pavel Alpeyev, “Softbank’s Son Chases Boyhood
Dreams with $100 Billion Fund”, Bloomberg 2017,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-
21/softbank-s-son-chases-boyhood-dreams-with-100-billion-fund
(Accessed: May 22, 2017)
6. Loni Prinsloo, “Tencent’s 60,000% Runup Leads to One of the Biggest
VC Payoffs Ever”, Bloomberg, March 3, 2018,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-22/naspers-
sells-10-6-billion-of-tencent-to-fund-investments (Accessed: July
24, 2018)
7. Phil Frame, “Feds took 15 years to make Du Pont give up stakes at
GM”, Automotive News, June 26, 1996,
http://www.autonews.com/article/19960626/ANA/606260744/fe
ds-took-15-years-to-make-dupont-give-up-stake-in-gm (Accessed:
September 3, 2017)
8. See “Global Top100 companies by Market Capitalization”, PWC,
March 31, 2018 Update. Page 39.

9. Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling, “Theory of the Firm:
Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure”,
Journal of Financial Economics, October 1976, V. 3, No. 4, pp. 305-
360.
10. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_sculley_581459
(Accessed May 3 ,2016)
11. Julia Horowitz,“'I blew it': Warren Buffett laments missing out on
Google”, CNN Money, May 6,
2017.http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/06/investing/buffett-
google-berkshire-meeting/index.html (Accessed: May 7, 2017).
Chapter 4
1. Robert J. Gordon, The rise and fall of American Growth (New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2016), p. 1.
2. Joshua D. Wolff, Western Union and the creation of the American
Corporate Order 1845-1893 (New York: Cambridge Press, 2013, p.
2).
3. Wikipedia contributors, "Yahoo!," Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo!
&oldid=854387128 (accessed August 18, 2018).
4. David A. Vise, The Google Story (New York: Bantam Dell Publishing
Group, 2005, p.4)
5. Javier Blas and Laura Hurst, “The U.S. is exporting its oil
everywhere,” Bloomberg, 2016,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-18/from-
china-to-switzerland-u-s-crude-oil-exports-go-mainstream
(Accessed March 19, 2016)
6. Tom Randall, “Here’s how electric cars will cause the next oil
crisis,” Bloomberg, 2017,
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/
(Accessed November 28, 2017)
7. Leo Kelion, “England to test charge-as-you-drive electric
motorways”, BBC, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-
33886180 (Accessed November 25, 2017)
8. Allana Petroff, “These countries want to ban gas and diesel cars,”
CNNMoney, 2017,

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/11/autos/countries-banning-
diesel-gas-cars/index.html (Accessed December 6, 2017)
9. Mark Bergen, “Google Fiber wants to beam wireless to your
home,” re-code, 2016,
https://www.recode.net/2016/4/14/11586114/access-google-
fiber-ceo-interview (Accessed December 6, 2017)
10. Noah Kirsch, “Philanthropy King: Bill Gates gives away $4.6B,
Unveil New Campaign to combat malaria”, Forbes, 2017,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/08/15/philanthr
opy-king-bill-gates-gives-away-4-6-billion-unveils-new-campaign-
to-combat-malaria/#37cae36c30d3 (Accessed December 6, 2017)
11. Lydia Ramsey, “Silicon Valley is getting interested in healthcare-
here’s why that could be a good thing,” Business Insider, 2017,
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-ventures-on-starting-a-
tech-company-vs-a-life-sciences-company-2017-5 (Accessed
December 5, 2017)
12. Kanoko Matsuyama and Jungah Lee, “Samsung Invest in Drugs
after outselling Apple’s iPhone,” Bloomberg, 2014,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-
12/samsung-invests-in-drugs-after-outselling-apple-s-iphone
(Accessed December 1, 2016)
13. Adam Leith Gollner, “The immortality Financiers: The Billionaires
who want to live forever,” DailyBeast, 2013,
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-immortality-financiers-the-
billionaires-who-want-to-live-forever (Access October 16, 2015)
14. Erika Fry, “Sean Parker: This is how Tech Billionaires do
Philanthropy,” Fortune, 2016,
http://fortune.com/2016/11/02/sean-parker-philanthropy/
(Access November 3, 2016)
15. Alessandra Potenza, “Human embryos edited for first time in the
US using CRISPR,” The Verge, 2017,
https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/27/16049340/human-
embryos-dna-crispr-gene-editing-us (Accessed September 15,
2017)
16. John Gabbatiss, “Woman cured of advanced breast cancer using
own immune cells in exciting global first”, Independent, June 4,
2018, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/breast-
cancer-cure-tcell-immunotherapy-tumour-treatment-disease-
world-first-a8382806.html (Accessed: August 19, 2018).

17. Lauren Said-Moorhouse and Amanda Sealy, “Does immortal
jellyfish have the secret to everlasting life?” CNN, 2014,
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/28/world/asia/can-immortal-
jellyfish-unlock-everlasting-life/index.html (Accessed December 6,
2017)
18. Andy Coghlan, “Chemistry Nobel Prize goes to invention of
molecular machines,” New Scientist, 2016,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2108002-chemistry-nobel-
prize-goes-to-invention-of-molecular-machines/ (Accessed
October 5, 2016)
19. Nicholas Foulkes, “How Swatch save the Swiss watchmaking
industry”, Telegraph, 2010, http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-
features/TMG7866146/How-Swatch-saved-the-Swiss-
watchmaking-industry.html (Accessed July 28, 2016)
20. Swatch, “History,” Swatch.com, 2017,
https://www.swatch.com/en_us/explore/history/ (Accessed
December 6, 2017)
21. Philip Whiteside, “Man shot and stabbed to death for his Rolex in
Greenwich,” SkyNews, 2017, https://news.sky.com/story/man-
shot-and-stabbed-to-death-for-his-rolex-in-greenwich-10963687
(Accessed December 6, 2017)
22. Marion Nestle, “Coca-Cola says its drinks don’t cause obesity.
Science says otherwise,” The guardian, 2015,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/11/coca
-cola-obesity-health-studies (Accessed December 6, 2017)
23. Rob Ludacer, “The newest flying car is backed by Larry Page – and
you can buy it by the end of the year”, Business Insider, 2017,
http://www.businessinsider.com/ceo-google-invested-flying-car-
larry-page-kitty-hawk-2017-4 (Accessed December 6, 2017)
24. See
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2017/07/19/aeromobi
l-flying-car-cnn-tech-lon-orig.cnn (Accessed August 19, 2018)
25. Aric Jenskins, “The story behind Richard Branson’s investment in
Virgin Hyperloop One”, Fortune, 2017,
http://fortune.com/2017/10/19/virgin-hyperloop-one-richard-
branson/ (Accessed December 6, 2017).
26. Tom Philip, “China arrives in ‘big jet club’ with homegrown
passenger plan,” The Guardian, 2015,

The One Best Way to manage a business according to science

The One Best Way to manage a business according to science

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The One Best Way to manage a business according to science

Similar to The One Best Way to manage a business according to science (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The One Best Way to manage a business according to science