I agree with Gordon. There are a couple other things to keep in mind. Bain is 
a "strategy" firm with a very limited capacity to provide seriously 
quantitative analysis. I doubt that they would have been able to distinguish 
those companies which seriously attempted to create (and understand)  RO 
models from the large number who might have had a single person who dabbled 
in the area.

>>> "Gordon Sick" <gordonsick@mac.com> 04/26/00 10:55PM >>>
Soussan,
    The article is interesting but I have to wonder how serious the Bain
study is. Most of the graphs of adoption rates look pretty flat to me, so I
doubt that the results have much statistical significance. They had lots of
management systems to ponder and only reported the most dramatic changes,
and the changes aren't dramatic.
    Moreover, real options differs from the other management systems in one
very important respect: it is built upon an intellectually sound model that
is designed to add value to corporations. The others are based more upon pop
culture and don't have an intellectual basis.
    Of course, academic integrity doesn't necessarily gain mind share or
market share for real options. There is an important network effect and the
large number of quality people working in the field has the effect of
enhancing the mind share for real options. I think we are headed in the
right direction--there is enormous interest in seminars and for consulting
work. We'd all want more, but the trend is unmistakably in favour of real
options.
    Thus, I'd love to see the actual Bain study. I tried to log onto their
site, but needed a password that I don't have.
    Thanks for sending it.
--cheers, Gordon
------------------
Gordon Sick, Professor of Finance
Faculty of Management, Scurfield Hall 150
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
sick@ucalgary.ca
Tel: +1 (403) 220-7165, Fax: +1 (403) 284-7903 (Calgary)
Preferred fax: +1 (425) 732-1248 (US)

Other activities:
Book Review Editor Journal of Finance

Course on Managing Not-for-Profit Organizations
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~sick/cobra


----------
>From: "Faiz, Soussan" <faizs@texaco.com>
>To: "'114463.3226@compuserve.com'" <114463.3226@compuserve.com>,
"'adam.borison@us.pwcglobal.com'" <adam.borison@us.pwcglobal.com>,
"'alberto.micalizzi@sda.uni-bocconi.it'"
<alberto.micalizzi@sda.uni-bocconi.it>, "'atriantis@rhsmith.umd.edu'"
<atriantis@rhsmith.umd.edu>, "'gardner.walkup@us.pwcglobal.com'"
<gardner.walkup@us.pwcglobal.com>, "'gordonsick@mac.com'"
<gordonsick@mac.com>, "'jes9@mail.duke.edu'" <jes9@mail.duke.edu>,
"'jmatheson@sdg.com'" <jmatheson@sdg.com>, "'jmccormack@sternstewart.com'"
<jmccormack@sternstewart.com>, "'lenos@ucy.ac.cy'" <lenos@ucy.ac.cy>,
"'lgc@roce-inc.com'" <lgc@roce-inc.com>, "'martha_amram@sdg.com'"
<martha_amram@sdg.com>, "'timothy.luehrman@us.pwcglobal.com'"
<timothy.luehrman@us.pwcglobal.com>, "'TomCopeland@monitor.com'"
<TomCopeland@monitor.com>, "'Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com'"
<Vince.J.Kaminski@enron.com>
>Subject: Real Options - A Management fad?
>Date: Tue, Apr 25, 2000, 12:59 PM
>

> Not sure whether you've come across the attached article in the latest
> Economist?!
>
>  <<Fading_Fads.pdf>>
> If the stated survey claim is true (and BTW I don't agree with their
> definition of "real options analysis"), the "message" doesn't seem to be
> getting across.  I personally don't think that ROA is a fad.  However, as
> Tim Luehrman has stated, we have a major "language" and "practical
> application" issue.
>
> I certainly encourage rectifying the "hopeless" message of this article by
> proposing a "counter-point" article in The Economist.  In my view, ROA isn't
> everything, however, it provides a powerful nucleus for the creation,
> protection, and delivery of value (Navigant - thanks for your focal chart!).
> We should also learn from the lessons of the other so-called "management
> fads"!!
>
> Soussan Faiz
> Texaco Inc.
> (914) 253-4187
>
>
>
>
>