New Technology Commercialization: Non-Market Public Policy Strategies for Innovators and Entrepreneurs

Paper ID #15708

Prof. Deborah Diane Stine, Carnegie Mellon University

Dr. Deborah Stine is Professor of the Practice for the Engineering and Public Policy Department and the Associate Director for Policy Outreach for the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). She was Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) at the White House from 2009-2012. From 2007-2009, she was a science and technology policy specialist with the Congressional Research Service, where she wrote reports and advised members of Congress on science and technology policy issues. From 1989-2007, she was at the National Academies – the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine – where she was associate director of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; director of the National Academies Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program; and director of the Ofﬁce of Special Projects. While at the National Academies, she was study director of the landmark National Academies report entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future which proposed the creation of the now established Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA- E). For this work, she received the Presidents Award– the highest staff award offered at the National Academies. Prior to coming to the Academies, she was a mathematician for the Air Force, an air-pollution engineer for the state of Texas, and an air-issues manager for the Chemical Manufacturers Association. She holds a BS in mechanical and environmental engineering from the University of California, Irvine, an MBA from what is now Texas A&M at Corpus Christi, and a PhD in public administration with a focus on science and technology policy analysis from American University.

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 New Technology Commercialization: Non-Market Public Policy Strategies for Innovators and Entrepreneurs

Introduction

In a project-based class at Carnegie Mellon University, undergraduate, master’s and PhD engineering students develop non-market public policy strategies at the intersection of new technologies, public policies, and business for real-world clients. The learning objectives of this course are for students to be able to:

• Discuss the difference between a market and non-market analysis. • Explain why non-market analysis and strategy development is important to innovation and entrepreneurship for new technology commercialization, and how they influence financial opportunities and challenges. • Identify the key elements of a non-market analysis: the “four I’s” of the nonmarket environment of business: Issues • Interests • Institutions • Information • Develop a non-market strategy for new technology commercialization. • Communicate that strategy orally and in writing to entrepreneurs, innovators, investors, and policymakers; • View new technologies from a variety of perspectives beyond engineering and business.

This paper illustrates how the topic of non-market analysis, typically taught in business schools, is taught in an engineering innovation focused class. In addition, the author has developed a video that provides students with an overview of the topic that is available for free on YouTube. Figure 1 illustrates how the perspective of a new technologies market potential differs from one perspective to another.

Figure 1: Different Perspectives of an Emerging Technology’s Market Potential

Exemplar student projects in the first three years illustrate how students apply the principles of non-market analysis for real world clients in fields such as water and air drones, autonomous cars, hydropower, biodiesel trucks, smart traffic lights, bike sensors, wearable technologies, edible electronics, and environmental technologies. Feedback from clients and students illustrate the utility of the course.

Faculty in other universities can teach a similar class or incorporate the topic in single or multiple sessions as part of an innovation and entrepreneurship education program. This will allow students to learn about a topic that they may not realize is critical until facing questions from potential investors.

Context and Goals

Engineers are taught how to design technologies that respond to societal needs, yet they frequently lack an understanding of the context under which those technologies will operate.

Autonomous Vehicles

For example, a self-driving (autonomous) car may work technically, and may have a market, yet this technology may still face policy barriers at the local, state, or national level. See, for example, this graphic, which illustrates the challenges posed to widespread commercialization for automated driving.

Figure 2: Automated Driving: Legislative and Regulatory Action (Source: Gabriel Weiner and Bryant Walker Smith, Automated Driving: Legislative and Regulatory Action, cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Driving:_Legislative_and_Regulatory_Action)

The analysis, prepared and regularly updated by Stanford Law, shows in blue the states that allow automated driving including California and Florida. Yellow shows states that are considering allowing automated cars on the road such as Texas and New York. And red shows states that discussed, and then failed to approve allowing self-driving cars on the road including Arizona and Oklahoma. Since driving laws vary by state, this poses a major non-market challenge to this industry.

On the positive side, policymakers may enhance support for self-driving cars as some analysts expect this new technology, once commercialized, to reduce traffic accidents and energy consumption and thus air pollution, resulting in less harm to the public. So, we’re at an early, though positive stage for this technology in terms of potential use by the broader public. But what impact will public policies and public opinion have on these cars reaching their full potential in the marketplace? That is where a non-market strategy is important. It’s not enough to know whether a technology works or its potential market, we also need to understand the opportunities and challenges public policies and public opinion pose for new technology commercialization.

Responding to that challenge requires development of a non-market strategy – actions that can be taken by firms interested in these technologies so that technology can reach its full potential in the marketplace.

Energy Storage

Public policies can pose opportunities as well. Energy storage systems are needed in order for us to move toward more renewable energy. We need to store energy from wind and solar power, for example, for when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. These batteries can be used for homes, microgrids, and by utilities for energy management. The commercialization of new technologies such as these has been supported by state policies such as a mandate in California that requires a given amount of energy storage by 2020. This non-market factor advances the commercialization of this new technology.

That is not to say there are still not regulatory challenges, however, to energy storage. A report from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, IREC, illustrates the policies that still need to be changed including those related to markets and market signals, standards, eligibility rules, and governmental oversight coordination.1

ABET Criteria

The course is designed to satisfy ABET criteria 3c and 3h, which requires that engineering students develop:

• (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability.” • (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.2

Some of the ABET criteria are proposed for revision in 2016-2017, but the following draft definition of “Engineering Design” shows ABET continues to continue the connection between engineering and public policy:

Engineering Design – Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs, specifications, codes, and standards within constraints such as health and safety, cost, ethics, policy, sustainability, constructability, and manufacturability. It is an iterative, creative, decision-making process in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and the engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally into solutions.3

Why Should Engineers Learn about Non-Market Analysis?

Entrepreneurs and innovators interested in commercializing technology in the biomedical, energy, transportation, information technology, robotics, aerospace, food, healthcare, and other industries require more than knowing whether a technology works and the potential market. Non-market factors such as regulations, standards, subsidies, and grants influence product, price, location, and other decisions. As a result, public policies provide both opportunities and challenges for the commercialization of an invention. Only by recognizing these opportunities or overcoming these challenges can an invention become a commercialized innovation.

Examples of opportunities include identifying the need for a new product or process as a result of a government-encouraged technological goal or regulation as well as the potential for Federal, state, or local governments to provide needed startup funds or as a possible early market for a new innovation. Challenges include the need to address product-related issues such as environmental, health, and safety concerns; field testing; and manufacturing. In some cases, an agency must approve a product before it can enter the marketplace. Issues such as standards, patents, trademarks, copyright, open standard, open source, and reimbursement policies provide both opportunities and challenges to the entrepreneur or innovator and a non-market strategy is needed to address them.

Throughout this process, innovators may need to interface with policymakers to obtain the optimal benefit. In sum, moving a new technology from invention from discovery to launch requires an innovation public policy strategy.

What are the Key Elements of a Non-Market Strategy Development?

As with all analysis methods, there are different ways to approach developing a non-market strategy development. The most-well known scholar in this field is David Baron, David S. and Ann M. Barlow Professor of Political Economy and Strategy, Emeritus at Stanford University. In his text, Business and the Environment,4 he recommends analyzing the four I’s:

• Issues • Interests • Institutions

• Information.

Issues are the basic unit of analysis and the focus of a firm’s non-market action. For example, in the case of the self-driving car, it might be driver safety. Interests are the individuals and groups with preferences about, or a stake in, the issue. In the self-driving car example, it might be nongovernmental groups focused on automobile safety such as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Institutions are the arenas in which interests seek to influence the outcomes on issues. This can be government agencies, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Adminsitration but it also might be standards organizations and others that can influence the eligibility of a product for the marketplace. Information is what the interests and institutional officeholders know or believe about the issues and the forces affecting their development. In this case, the media plays a major role in influencing what policymakers and the public know about a situation, and more indepth reports from think tanks like the National Research Council’s Transportation Research Board can also play a key role.

A similar model that builds upon David Baron’s 4 I’s is from David Bach, Senior Associate Dean for Executive MBA And Global Programs and Senior Lecturer in Global Business and Politics at Yale and David Bruce Allen, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Professor of Strategy and Business Ethics at the University of Surrey. As discussed in an article in MIT’s Sloan Business School Review5, Bach and Allen keep Baron’s 4 I’s – issues, interests and information, remains institutions as “arenas”, but add into analysis the identification of the key actors and the assets the actors need to prevail in the arena – focusing more on the key elements of a non-market strategy. These are the questions Baron and Bach propose be addressed in a non-market analysis:

• What is the Issue? • Who are the Actors? • What are the actors’ Interests? • In what Arena do the actors meet? • What Information moves the issue in this arena? • What Assets do the actors need to prevail in this arena?

Much of the work done by these and other scholars focuses on large, multi-national corporations, and are taught in business schools. The difference in our work is that we focus instead on new technologies, and specifically on non-market strategies for the engineers and innovators who are developing those technologies. At this stage of the process, engineers can sometimes take action to modify their design in response to non-market opportunities or challenges, work with the government agencies involved so ensure that any policy activities do not pose a barrier to their version of a technology or alternatively encourage it, and the enhance their communication to the public and stakeholders so they are more willing to support, or at least not oppose, their technology.

A related topic from the Harvard Business Review by Nick Lovegrove and Mathew Thomas, talks about the need for “Triple-Strength Leadership”6 which they indicate is based on Joseph Nye’s concept of a “Triple Strength Athlete,” who can “engage and collaborate across the private, public, and social sectors.” They illustrate this situation with a leader who worked for

Coca-Cola to reduce the amount of water used to provide the soft drink by half in water impoverished areas.

But what we really need for new technology commercialization are “Quadruple-Strength Leaders” -- engineers who can engage and collaborate in the technical, private, public, and social sectors. Focusing on the commercialization of new technologies in a classroom setting helps build engineers who can be entrepreneurs and innovators who successfully practice in all these sectors.

Classroom Setting

In teaching this class, we felt it was important to focus on real-world situations. So working with technology transfer office at University X as well as local accelerators, we identified entrepreneurs and innovators who were facing non-market challenges and interested in identifying non-market opportunities.

Once the concept of non-market analysis is explained to accelerators, it was not very challenging for them to identify clients with new technologies who might be interested in our student team’s reports. Potential clients also did not have a hard time understanding the concept and could immediately identify examples related to their product.

The reports were completed at no cost for the clients, and in accordance with university policies, students released use of the reports to the clients prior to the classwork beginning. We asked clients not to provide any proprietary information be provided to the students, so there would be no concerns about release of data.

The culminating assignment for the course is a proposal for a nonmarket policy strategy, which teams present to the client and other experts who assessed the presentation based on a pre- determined rubric and scale. Students also provide a draft report to the client prior to the presentation, which is then finalized after the presentation to incorporate the comments from the clients and other experts. This is then graded for their review.

On a weekly basis, students develop each section of the report through the class blog. Clients may or may not, at their will, make comments on the students draft material. Students on one team comment and score another team’s work.

The nonmarket public policy strategy report and presentation includes the following elements:

1. Technology Overview. Describe the new technology or process and information about its potential market(s). 2. Challenge/Opportunity Identification. Describe specific non-market challenges or opportunities and state how and why it is important to the client’s firm. 3. Policy Context. Identify the origin of the problem/opportunities and where it currently stands on the policy agenda including why it has emerged. 4. Policy Forum. Discuss the public policy forum or forums in which the issue or issues are likely to be addressed including the business and non-business constituencies that are likely to favor or oppose it.

5. Range of Outcomes. What factors will determine how successful you are likely to be? What outcomes might be likely and how would they impact your firm or association's interests and objectives? 6. Bargaining Context and Spreadsheet. Identify your firm or association's potential allies or adversaries and construct a distributive politics spreadsheet to analyze likely outcomes. 7. Strategy and Arguments. Suggest an appropriate market/nonmarket strategy to deal with the issue(s). Discuss the arguments that might be used to support or challenge your firm or association's position. Consider engineering changes that might be enhance the acceptability of your technology.7

In the first few weeks of the class, students are briefed on the non-market concept and go through an module (with videos) focused on teaching the basic principles of public policy analysis to engineers (discussed in another ASEE paper and available at no-cost to anyone at http://oli.cmu.edu/courses/free-open/policy101/). They also watch videos on key analysis techniques such as risk analysis and benefit-cost analysis. These are available at Carnegie Mellon’s Engineering and Public Policy YouTube Channel (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfjulqY44XvXHDz_77CS2OYhMR6N04gIx).

Client Interactions with Students

When the client, typically the CEO/Founder, comes to speak to the class, they describe the technology and what questions they have regarding non-market opportunities and challenges from their perspective. When the client speaks to the class, it is important to draw through questioning and discussion from them the key information the students need to move forward – specifically the 4I’s from their perspective, and the stakeholders who are influencing the situation.

The result often surprises students. For example, a CEO of a company that develops wearable technology for truck drivers surprised students when he mentions that the wives of the truck drivers were a major influence on their willingness to accept the technology.

An illustration of the key organizations that may influence the non-market environment for a firm is provided in Figure 3. Actors can include opinion leaders, interest groups, governments, the public, media, think tanks, standards organizations, and others who are interested in and can influence the commercialization of a new product. In an analysis, students need to identify all these organizations and understand their position as well as the degree of influence based on the assets that they have. Eventually, they will conduct a Prince analysis8 of these actors relative to their policy options.

Public

Governments Media

Interest Groups Think Tanks

Opinion Standards Leaders Firms Organizations

Figure 3: Illustrative Non-Market Environment Actors What Actions Might be Included in a Non-market Strategy?

There are many actions firms can take. They can try to influence government either by directly talking or negotiating with policymakers, known as majority building strategies. For example, they can target information analysis to issues that policymakers care about, say job creation. Or they can use representation strategies – targeting the voters in a policymaker’s distract to encourage them to influence the legislator for the firm.

Firms can also interact with policymaker and the public through traditional and social media, participate with other firms in trade associations that share similar views, or go back to the design board and think about how they might change the design of their product to make it more acceptable. For example, a firm in Texas installed radar to detect birds on their offshore wind farms so that wind turbines stop when a flock of birds are detected. Keep in mind that organizations opposing a product will be taking similar actions in the same arenas.

Rubric

The following table provides the rubric that is used to assess the student’s written work. The rubric provides detailed information as to the expectations of the student’s reports, and the analytical techniques. Note that a number of public policy analysis techniques are used to support the student’s works. These are taught via a free online-module at University X discussed in a separate ASEE paper.

FINAL NONMARKET STRATEGY REPORT RUBRIC Project Report Outline (* = most important Evaluation Criteria sections) 1. Cover Page, Overall Design, and Analysis The report should be professional in design with graphical elements to make it Principles readable at a glance and pleasing to the eye. Reports will eventually go on to a public website, so you should be proud of its appearance and design. Text should address the client, but keep in mind that the report will be read by others. A good analysis provides credible evidence (including statistics, logical reasoning from similar situations, and expert opinions) that can support your evaluation. The evaluation is unbiased and all evidence is documented. In some cases, the student will need to recognize that insufficient information is available and acknowledge that deficiency. 2. Executive Summary The executive summary is a memo of no more than one page and addressed to the client(s). It provides information on the 4 I’s, Bach/Allen “graphic,” briefly describes how you went about answering the problem, discusses the results of your analysis, and provide recommendations that are clearly supported by your analysis. 3. Technology Overview. Describe the new The technology should be described in such a way that the report can be shared technology or process and information about its with someone beyond the innovators such as a venture capitalist. There should be potential market(s). information about the intellectual property (such as patents, trademarks, etc.), whether or not a separate company has been established, and information on both the potential market(s) and actions taken thus far to move into those markets. 4. Challenge/Opportunity Identification. Describe The opportunities and challenge(s) identified should include both those identified specific non-market challenge(s) or opportunity by the client and others you may have identified in your research. Each should be (ies) and state how and why it is important to your stated as a clear question. firm.

5. Research Questions Policy Context. Identify the origin of the The research question section should specify the policy analysis criteria (e.g., This section provides the current state of affairs (status quo) and clearly identifies 1. problem/opportunities and where it currently Select the Criteria a minimum of two policy alternatives to the status quo that will respond to the effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, equity) you will be addressing, and stands on the policy agenda including why it has challenges/opportunities identified inoperationalize them relative to your specific problem. The questions should be the previous section. emerged. open-ended enough to allow you to discuss the multiple policy alternatives.

6. Policy Forum. Discuss the public policy forum or This section should be specific in identifying and briefly describing the position forums in which the issue or issues are likely to be (based on evidence if at all possible) of the key actors including competitors, addressed including the business and non-business policymakers, nongovernmental organizations, economic development constituencies that are likely to favor or oppose it. organizations, and others who can help advance or may oppose the policy actions the client make take. 7. Range of Outcomes.* What factors will determine This section uses both text and a visual representation to provide a clear how successful you are likely to be? What comparison of the criteria. Key criteria that should be addressed are (1) outcomes might be likely and how would they effectiveness – how likely is a particular strategy likely to achieve the company’s impact your firm or association's interests and goals; (2) efficiency – how much investment of time and financial resources will be objectives? necessary for a particular policy; how likely is it to give the biggest “bang for the buck.” Provide pro/con analysis for each criteria for each option. 8. Bargaining Context and Spreadsheet.* Identify Similar to the previous section, both text and visual representation should be used your firm or association's potential allies or to transform detailed discussion into a clear comparison of criteria. The two adversaries and construct a distributive politics addressed in this section are: (3) ease of political acceptability – who is likely to spreadsheet to analyze likely outcomes. support or oppose this policy, and what is their power and salience in the policy (prince analysis); (4) equity – who are the winners and losers for the proposed policy. Provide pro/con analysis for each criteria for each option. 9. Strategy and Arguments.* Suggest an appropriate Recommendations are clearly stated and logically follow from the analysis of market/nonmarket strategy to deal with the alternatives. Prepare Bach/Allen style graphic to summarize strategy and

issue(s). Discuss the arguments that might be used arguments. to support or challenge your firm or association's position. 10. Writing Guidelines The paper should be well-written, use figurative elements such as subheadings, bullets, or figures so it is readable at a glance. It should be at least 11 point font, single-spaced, with 1 inch margins, left justified. There should be no plagiarism in the paper. Rather than a general bibliography, specific sentences should be cited with the appropriate references. The nature of the references (e.g., academic, government, advocacy, think tank, etc.) should be considered in the analysis. All numbers must be cited. You may use either footnotes or endnotes.

Sample Report Excerpts

Below are some key graphics from one of the student reports to illustrate the results. This report focused on a company that provides biodiesel fuel for trucks.

Outcome Assessment

The number of students in these classes is quite small (approximately 10 students) and the class has only been taught twice. It is being taught the third time in the Spring of 2016. Each class works on 3-4 projects in groups of 2-4 students. The class is a mix of senior undergraduates,

master’s, and PhD students. The ability of students does not vary greatly by degree, but more on the intensity of interest and effort in the project.

Since the classes and number of projects are so small, statistical analysis is not possible. However, we can provide the following qualitative assessment based on an anonymous survey

• 90 percent of students were satisfied or very satisfied with the class, and felt they learned a great deal from the class. • Some interesting responses from students as to what surprised them about the class were: o “How some of the non-market issues facing these companies can range from fairly minor to very large. Each market place is different and has different regulations and barriers to entry.” o “Arguably more important than marketing.” o “How independent it can be from market strategy and how many different facets it can take on.” o “I think how convoluted policy making is in real time compared to doing it on paper.”

Clients assessed reports on a 1 (low) – 5 (high) scale. All gave students either a 4 or 5 on their report. Provided below are some illustrative comments about the impact the reports had on a few company’s actions following the students’ analysis.

• “After reading your report, I have a greater understanding of the pros and cons of each of our options as well as a solid framework for COMPANY’s non-market strategy for the next 10 years. Using your recommendations, we have just begun the pathway petition process with the EPA (Option 4) and are continuing to pursue new fuel partners (Option 5).” • From an update from one client who acted upon student’s recommendations from the first year the class was taught: “I just wanted to give you a quick debrief on the meeting with Secretary [IN STATE CABINET]. . .The Secretary and his team were excited about both our technologies and seemed to understand the regulatory hurdles we were facing and were positive about trying to remove those hurdles.”

The biggest challenges in the class were team dynamics. As with all project classes, some students do more work than others, which can cause some irritation. From a client perspective, some clients were highly interactive with the students, providing regular feedback on the blog and in phone calls and meetings. Other clients were too busy to spend much time with the students. Typically, if clients assigned a younger staff member to the project, the interaction was better than if the CEO/Founder did the interaction themselves. Of course, some of these companies are so small that there may be only a CEO/Founder at this stage.

Future Work

In future work, we will follow-up with the clients to see if the reports developed by the students had impact on their organization’s decisions, and reach out to students to see if the lessons they learned as a result of this class influenced their activities upon graduation. Given the small

numbers of projects and students involved, statistical analysis is not possible. However, sufficient lessons may be learned if other engineering schools decide to incorporate similar curriculum into their innovation and entrepreneurial programming.

Conclusion

In sum, why is an understanding of nonmarket factors important? First, it promotes confidence in your capabilities as it shows you have a realistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities of nonmarket factors for a new technology that you are promoting. Second, non- market factors influence a firms existing or potential profitability and thus your strategy to respond to them will influence the willingness of a venture capital firm, angel, or government agency to invest in a product you care about. Finally, it’s important to care about what your competition is doing. If your competitor is active in the public policy arena and you are not, they may be able to influence the outcome so that their product is benefited while your product is not. For example, by requiring a safety device they have already developed and included in their engineering design, while you have not. So, understanding non-market factors, and developing a strategy to respond to them is important for new technology commercialization, whether it is one in which you are involved, or one that you support for other goals – such as is the case of energy storage and renewable energy.

For a product to be successful in the marketplace requires more than knowing if it works or its potential market. We also need to understand key policies that present opportunities or challenges for that new technology, and develop a non-market strategy to respond. While a market strategy focuses on the interactions between firms, say whether one car is better than another due to a particular feature, a non-market strategy focuses on social, political, and legal arrangements outside the marketplace such as regulations or nongovernmental organization opposition. So, when we are developing a non-market strategy, we want to look at least at the 4I’s. The issues that are of concern to policymakers and the public, the interests that have a stake in the issue, the governmental and nongovernmental institutions, including media and the public, that influence that outcome, and information as to the degree to which the issue is or is not a concern. By developing a non-market strategy, a new technology has a greater chance of reaching its full potential in the marketplace.

Bibliography

1 http://www.irecusa.org/deploying-distributed-energy-storage/ 2 http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/eac-criteria-2013-2014.pdf 3 ABET, “Criteria For Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2016 – 2017,“ Accessed January 31, 2016 at http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for- accrediting-engineering-programs-2016-2017/#outcomes. 4 Baron, David P. Business and Its Environment (7th edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2013. A useful article that summarizes this work is Baron, D. “The Nonmarket Strategy System,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall 1995 at http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-nonmarket-strategy-system/. 5 Bach, David and David Bruce Allen, “Beyond the Market: What every CEO needs to know about Nonmarket Strategy”. MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2010 at http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/what-every-ceo-needs-to-know-about-nonmarket- strategy/. 6 Nick Lovegrove, Nick and Matthew Thomas, “Triple-Strength Leadership,” Harvard Business Review, September 2013 at https://hbr.org/2013/09/triple-strength-leadership. 7 Adapted from UC Berkeley Syllabus for class “Business and Public Policy” for course taught by Professors Rui J. de Figueiredo and Pablo T. Spiller. 8 Coplin, W.D., & O’Leary, M.K. (1976). Everyman’s PRINCE: A guide to understanding your political problems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. A useful tutorial developed by Syracuse University is suitable for students and available at no cost at http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/tips/prince1.html.