Search results

The paper seeks to build on a model from extant literature which utilized a similar historical analysis approach in a study of strategic decision making. Using the (unsuccessful) defence of Hong Kong in World War II as the historical case, the paper seeks first to apply Chung and McLarney's model in the analysis, and then extend the model so as to better handle the unique sequence of events that took place in 1941.

The paper employs a historical case event in an analysis of competitive strategies. The first section provides a descriptive historical account of the battle of Hong Kong. The second section describes the decision‐making model, while the third section applies the model to explain three sets of decisions: the decision to defend the colony, decisions made during the battle and the decision to surrender. The fourth section draws implications for strategic decision making in organizations, while the last section presents conclusions.

Organization theorists seem to be fascinated with planning and strategy formulation, at the expense of strategy implementation. While designing organizational strategy is often more glamorous than execution, it is the execution of strategy that ultimately determines an organization's competitive advantage. Clearly, the strategy of the Allied Forces in Hong Kong was not hard to figure out (Mintzberg). However, there is growing research on how lower organizational levels have a tremendous contribution in fundamentally changing, formulating organizational strategy and sometimes even obstructing strategy formulated at the top. The decision to defend Hong Kong in the face of the Japanese invasion, decisions made during the battle and the decision to surrender were all major, critical decisions, especially susceptible to such biases as overconfidence, problem framing, availability heuristics and confirming‐evidence. Overconfidence is particularly dangerous.

The study not only modifies and extends the model, but also contributes to the literature by augmenting the validity of previous case research.

Infection and cross-contamination have been massive concerns in the medical field. This study aims to investigate consumers’ awareness and their choices of endoscopes, which may deter them from the cross-contamination problem.

A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to 166 respondents in Penang, Malaysia. Participants were asked to make hypothetical choices and estimate their preference for endoscopes. The multinomial logit model was used to estimate the assumptions based on the stated preference data collected.

Only two-fifths of respondents are aware of their rights regarding endoscope selection. The findings are consistent with utility theory, where choices are made to maximise personal satisfaction. If given the choice, consumers preferred the single-use endoscope over the reusable or the doctor’s preferred endoscope. Price, insurance coverage and personal income are significant determinants of the consumer’s choice of endoscopes.

This study only investigates subjects living in Penang. Other possible important attributes to endoscope choices, such as environmental and device availability may be considered in future study.

The findings may create awareness among consumers about their rights when choosing medical devices. It may also improve health-care institutions’ (users’) and device manufacturers’ (industry players’) understanding of consumer needs and demands from socioeconomic perspectives.

The research offers insights into consumer rights and awareness of health-care services. Ultimately leading to better policy to protect consumers’ rights and safety.

This study contributes to the rare literature on consumer rights toward medical devices, in particular, the consumer’s awareness of the choice of endoscopes.