Tian Heong Chan

Associate Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management Emory University, Goizueta Business School

  • Atlanta GA

Chan's research focuses on the decisions and dynamics of how teams go from ideas to products.

Contact

Emory University, Goizueta Business School

View more experts managed by Emory University, Goizueta Business School

Media

Social

Biography

Tian Chan joined Goizueta after completing his PhD in Technology and Operations Management from INSEAD. He also holds a MS degree in Management Science & Engineering from Stanford, and a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering from UC Berkeley. Previously he led technology and operations development projects at PSA International. His research focuses on new product development processes, specifically the effects of individuals coming together to perform different sorts of work in the product development process (e.g., collaborative design, complex problem-solving, customer-supplier co-production, collective action, etc.).

Education

INSEAD

PhD

Technology and Operations Management

2016

Stanford University

MS

Management Science and Engineering

2003

University of California, Berkeley

BS

Mechanical Engineering

2002

Areas of Expertise

New Product Development
Service Innovation
Project Management
Technology Management

Publications

The Emergence of Novel Product Uses: An Investigation of Exaptations in IKEA Hacks

Management Science

T. H. Chan, S.-Y. Lim

2023-05-01

2023

View more

When do teams generate valuable inventions? The moderating role of invention integrality on the effects of expertise similarity, network cohesion, and gender diversity

Production and Operations Management

T. H. Chan, H. Liu, S. Keck, W. Tang

2023-01-01

2023

View more

Business Method Innovation in US Manufacturing and Trade

Manufacturing & Service Operations Management

T. H. Chan, A. Bharadwaj, D. Varadarajan

2023-01-01

2023

View more

Show All +

Research Spotlight

5 min

Why Simultaneous Voting Makes for Good Decisions

How can organizations make robust decisions when time is short, and the stakes are high? It’s a conundrum not unfamiliar to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Back in 2021, the FDA found itself under tremendous pressure to decide on the approval of the experimental drug aducanumab, designed to slow the progress of Alzheimer’s disease—a debilitating and incurable condition that ranks among the top 10 causes of death in the United States. Welcomed by the market as a game-changer on its release, aducanumab quickly ran into serious problems. A lack of data on clinical efficacy along with a slew of dangerous side effects meant physicians in their droves were unwilling to prescribe it. Within months of its approval, three FDA advisors resigned in protest, one calling aducanumab, “the worst approval decision that the FDA has made that I can remember.” By the start of 2024, the drug had been pulled by its manufacturers. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight and data from the public’s use of aducanumab, it is easy for us to tell that FDA made the wrong decision then. But is there a better process that would have given FDA the foresight to make the right decision, under limited information? The FDA routinely has to evaluate novel drugs and treatments; medical and pharmaceutical products that can impact the wellbeing of millions of Americans. With stakes this high, the FDA is known to tread carefully: assembling different advisory, review, and funding committees providing diverse knowledge and expertise to assess the evidence and decide whether to approve a new drug, or not. As a federal agency, the FDA is also required to maintain scrupulous records that cover its decisions, and how those decisions are made. The Impact of Voting Mechanisms on Decision Quality Some of this data has been analyzed by Goizueta’s Tian Heong Chan, associate professor of information systems and operation management. Together with Panos Markou of the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, Chan scrutinized 17 years’ worth of information, including detailed transcripts from more than 500 FDA advisory committee meetings, to understand the mechanisms and protocols used in FDA decision-making: whether committee members vote to approve products sequentially, with everyone in the room having a say one after another; or if voting happens simultaneously via the push of a button, say, or a show of hands. Chan and Markou also looked at the impact of sequential versus simultaneous voting to see if there were differences in the quality of the decisions each mechanism produced. Their findings are singular. It turns out that when stakeholders vote simultaneously, they make better decisions. Drugs or products approved this way are far less likely to be issued post-market boxed warnings (warnings issued by FDA that call attention to potentially serious health risks associated with the product, that must be displayed on the prescription box itself), and more than two times less likely to be recalled. The FDA changed its voting protocols in 2007, when they switched from sequentially voting around the room, one person after another, to simultaneous voting procedures. And the results are stunning. Tian Heong Chan, Associate Professor of Information Systems & Operation Management “Decisions made by simultaneous voting are more than twice as effective,” says Chan. “After 2007, you see that just 3.4% of all drugs and products approved this way end up being discontinued or recalled. This compares with an 8.6% failure rate for drugs approved by the FDA using more sequential processes—the round robin where individuals had been voting one by one around the room.” Imagine you are told before hand that you are going to vote on something important by simply raising your hand or pressing a button. In this scenario, you are probably going to want to expend more time and effort in debating all the issues and informing yourself before you decide. Tian Heong Chan “On the other hand, if you know the vote will go around the room, and you will have a chance to hear how others’ speak and explain their decisions, you’re going to be less motivated to exchange and defend your point of view beforehand,” says Chan. In other words, simultaneous decision-making is two times less likely to generate a wrong decision as the sequential approach. Why is this? Chan and Markou believe that these voting mechanisms impact the quality of discussion and debate that undergird decision-making; that the quality of decisions is significantly impacted by how those decisions are made. Quality Discussion Leads to Quality Decisions Parsing the FDA transcripts for content, language, and tonality in both settings, Chan and Markou find evidence to support this. Simultaneous voting or decision-making drives discussions that are characterized by language that is more positive, more authentic, and more even in terms of expressions of authority and hierarchy, says Chan. What’s more, these deliberations and exchanges are deeper and more far-ranging in quality. We find marked differences in the tone of speech and the topics discussed when stakeholders know they will be voting simultaneously. There is less hierarchy in these exchanges, and individuals exhibit greater confidence in sharing their points of view more freely. Tian Heong Chan “We also see more questions being asked, and a broader range of topics and ideas discussed,” says Chan. In this context, decision-makers are also less likely to reach unanimous agreement. Instead, debate is more vigorous and differences of opinion remain more robust. Conversely, sequential voting around the room is typically preceded by shorter discussion in which stakeholders share fewer opinions and ask fewer questions. And this demonstrably impacts the quality of the decisions made, says Chan. Sharing a different perspective to a group requires effort and courage. With sequential voting or decision-making, there seems to be less interest in surfacing diverse perspectives or hidden aspects to complex problems. Tian Heong Chan “So it’s not that individuals are being influenced by what other people say when it comes to voting on the issue—which would be tempting to infer—rather, it’s that sequential voting mechanisms seem to take a bit more effort out of the process.” When decision-makers are told that they will have a chance to vote and to explain their vote, one after another, their incentives to make a prior effort to interrogate each other vigorously, and to work that little bit harder to surface any shortcomings in their own understanding or point of view, or in the data, are relatively weaker, say Chan and Markou. The Takeaway for Organizations Making High-Stakes Decisions Decision-making in different contexts has long been the subject of scholarly scrutiny. Chan and Markou’s research sheds new light on the important role that different mechanisms have in shaping the outcomes of decision-making—and the quality of the decisions that are jointly taken. And this should be on the radar of organizations and institutions charged with making choices that impact swathes of the community, they say. “The FDA has a solid tradition of inviting diversity into its decision-making. But the data shows that harnessing the benefits of diversity is contingent on using the right mechanisms to surface the different expertise you need to be able to see all the dimensions of the issue, and make better informed decisions about it,” says Chan. A good place to start? By a concurrent show of hands. Tian Heong Chan is an associate professor of information systems and operation management. he is available to speak about this topic click on his con now to arrange an interview today.

Tian Heong Chan

2 min

Expert Perspective: Unpacking the Innovation Process

Have you ever looked at a table or chair, stool, or other household item and thought, “I can use this another way”? If you have, you might be an innovative hacker, someone who operates from a product-first search process, which is the opposite of the “classic” problem-solving method. Tian Chan, assistant professor of information systems and operation management, worked with long-time friend and fellow researcher, Shi-Ying Lim, assistant professor of information systems and analytics at the National University of Singapore, to see if starting with a product generates more novelty (or uniqueness). And they used IKEA furniture as the basis for their research. “Problem-first searching is the ‘classic’ way we think about problem solving. It starts with a problem, such as needing a swing, before identifying possible solutions, like a person turning an IKEA stool into a swing,” explains Chan. Whereas product-first searching “starts with a product in mind,” such as this IKEA hacker having a stool and wanting to make it into something different, then “searching through alternative needs” to identify the most viable option for the stool’s new life. This same method of problem-solving created the jogging stroller, says Chan. It just took one parent, frustrated with pushing a standard four-wheel stroller, to invent a more effective stroller for runners. Ultimately, the research, which involved hours upon hours of searching for examples of IKEA hacking, revealed that traditional, problem-first thinking remains the most effective way to both solve a problem and create a novel, new use for an item. However, product-first searching presents many opportunities for creative uses of everyday things. IKEA hacking is popular for a few reasons: The furniture is popular, inexpensive, and usually requires self-assembly. Tian Chan It’s particularly the self-assembly aspect that invites novel uses for common items. During his research, Chan uncovered examples of people taking an IKEA coffee table, flipping it upside down, and attaching it to the ceiling for pets to perch from. “Users are endowed with such a large variety of interesting problems,” says Chan. “Companies should look toward users if they wish to more effectively identify novel uses for their existing products.” Interested in knowing more? Tian Chan is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at the Goizueta Business School at Emory University. Simply click on his icon now to connect with him today.

Tian Heong Chan

2 min

Innovation: Should it always be a team sport?

Conventional wisdom has it that innovation is very much a team sport. To create a breakthrough innovation that is vastly more successful than its predecessors, you need to prioritize teams over the individual. That's not always the case, according to Tian Heong Chan, assistant professor of information systems & operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. It depends very much on the degree to which the invention can be broken down into discrete chunks of work. Chan and colleagues from INSEAD published a paper, “Revisiting the Role of Collaboration in Creating Breakthrough Inventions,” in the Manufacturing and Service Operations Management journal in 2020. In it, they look at more than one million U.S. patents for new products filed between 1985 and 2009. The majority of these patents were awarded for innovations in function—machines, processes or products that delivered some kind of utility. The others corresponded to design; in other words, the distinct visual form or aspect of a product, like Coca-Cola’s iconic curvy bottle or the Apple iPhone. Sifting these patents for breakthroughs (those ranked by citations as being in the top 5 percent of their product class), Chan and his colleagues were able to look at whether standout innovations were the product of teamwork or whether any of them had actually been developed by a lone innovator. And what they found sheds fascinating and useful new light on the dynamics undergirding the innovation process. As a rule, breakthrough functional products—those awarded patents for some kind of utility—do tend to be created by teams. But when it comes to inventions that are centered on breakthrough designs, it’s a whole different ball game. Here, the solo inventor is every bit as likely to create a breakthrough as an entire team. The study looks at a diverse cross-section of industries from computers to cars, Chan and his co-authors found that lone inventors do relatively better on these types of integral inventions. It’s a fascinating work of research – and if you are looking to know more, then let us help. Tian Heong Chan is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. He is available to speak to his research and this important topic – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Tian Heong Chan
Show More +

In the News

Why Simultaneous Voting Makes for Good Decisions

Emory Business  online

2025-02-12

How can organizations make robust decisions when time is short, and the stakes are high? It’s a conundrum not unfamiliar to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Together with Panos Markou of the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, Chan scrutinized 17 years’ worth of information, including detailed transcripts from more than 500 FDA advisory committee meetings, to understand the mechanisms and protocols used in FDA decision-making: whether committee members vote to approve products sequentially, with everyone in the room having a say one after another; or if voting happens simultaneously via the push of a button, say, or a show of hands. It turns out that when stakeholders vote simultaneously, they make better decisions. Drugs or products approved this way are far less likely to be issued post-market boxed warnings (warnings issued by FDA that call attention to potentially serious health risks associated with the product, that must be displayed on the prescription box itself), and more than two times less likely to be recalled. The main reason why these changes happen, however, has less to do with the voting mechanism itself than to positive changes in the discussion.

View More

Unpacking the Innovation Process

Emory Business  online

2022-07-25

Have you ever looked at a table or chair, stool, or other household item and thought, “I can use this another way”? If you have, you might be an innovative hacker, someone who operates from a product-first search process, which is the opposite of the “classic” problem-solving method. Tian Chan, assistant professor of information systems and operation management, worked with long-time friend and fellow researcher, Shi-Ying Lim, assistant professor of information systems and analytics at the National University of Singapore, to see if starting with a product generates more novelty (or uniqueness).

View More

Most & Least Innovative States

WalletHub  online

2022-03-23

How can state policymakers encourage and facilitate innovation?

Innovation tends to have significantly positive geographical spillovers (meaning firms, institutions, or individuals at close locations benefit from frequent collaborations, sharing of ideas, etc.). So fostering/encouraging some kind of innovation hub (if none or few exist in the state) whereby such positive benefits of co-location can happen would be a good start. I also think that the presence of maker spaces or coding spaces where young kids can play and tinker with building products/software codes is useful to encourage innovation from a young age.

View More

Show All +