Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard
Clair Brown
Doshisha Business Cases 07-06
October 2007

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard
Ames Professor in the Management of Innovation and Technology
School of Business Administration, Portland State University
Clair Brown
Professor of Economics
Director, Center for Work, Technology, and Society, IIR
University of California, Berkeley
and Visiting Fellow
Institute for Technology, Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness (ITEC)
Doshisha University

This case study was originally prepared for MOT classes, funded by the Japanese Ministry for
Science and Education in 2004 with the support of the Alfred Sloan Foundation (U.S.) and
METI (Japan). The authors are grateful to our colleagues Linda Sattler, Neil Berglund, Ben
Campbell, B.Y. Cheon, Michael Flynn, Dave Hodges, Kiyoo Itoh, Rob Leachman, David
Mowery, and Dan Rascher for their help in data collection and valuable comments on earlier
drafts of this study. Copyright © 2007 by Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by
any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without permission
from the authors or Doshisha Business School.

This case study focuses on how firms structure their human resource andknowledge systems to support knowledge acquisition and problem solving by theirengineers, especially those in research and development. We use results from a uniquesurvey of engineers in three Japanese and two U.S. semiconductor companies to
describe the basic characteristics of the Human Resource (HR) Management andKnowledge Management (KM) systems for engineers in this industry.
From our fieldwork in the semiconductor industry over the last decade, we
observed differences in how companies are organized internally and how they interact
with the external technical community. We conducted a survey of engineers in order toexplore how companies vary in their “external” as opposed to “internal” orientation of
their HR and knowledge systems. Following the argument of Henry Chesbrough inOpen Innovation, we hypothesize that HR and knowledge systems with a relatively
external orientation allow R&D engineers better access to leading-edge technology than

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

1

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

systems with a relatively internal orientation. The statistical results presented below
show that the two U.S. companies have a more external orientation of the HR andKnowledge Management Systems than the three Japanese companies.
The Sample
Although our limited sample is not representative, it provides profiles of thesystems that are consistent with our extensive fieldwork at semiconductor companies inJapan and the United States. Here the respondents, who are engineers in R&D andfabrication facilities (fabs), include 35 engineers from three leading Japanese
semiconductor companies and 27 engineers from two leading U.S. semiconductor
companies. The surveys were collected during the mid-1990s. They represent whatmight be considered best practices from the industry in the two countries. 1
Organizational Structures for Creative Performance
Our conceptualization of the organization systems assumes the HR system has
three major components: 1) work organization; 2) training and skill development; and 3)
pay and promotion. The knowledge system also has three major components: 1)
sources of technical information; 2) communication networks; and 3) intellectual
property (IP) controls. As Figure 1 illustrates, the knowledge and HR systems overlap in
producing the organizational structure in which engineers solve problems and create
new technology. An engineer's activities are situated within the project team governedby these structures. Firms rely on the interaction between their organizational systems
and their employees’ activities involving problem solving and experimentation,
facilitated by their ability to import and integrate knowledge.
Companies creating new products in an industry with short product generations
find themselves relentlessly combining new internal knowledge with external
knowledge to keep pace with the industry. In the semiconductor industry, knowledge
specific to a product generation depreciates rapidly, and the need to create knowledge
requires support of individual creative activities. Although the team is still needed tocoordinate activities, the team is a less useful structure for training and sharing
knowledge (xx Why?). The individual requires autonomy to pursue learning and ideas
as he/she creates new knowledge.

1

The full sample consisted of surveys from 108 integrated circuit (IC) engineers from 1994 through 1998.

In addition to receiving responses from IC engineers who work for chip producers, we also received
responses from engineers who work for vendors of the manufacturing equipment used in chip plants (46respondents), as well as engineers who work in other capacities associated with the industry suchmaterials suppliers.

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

2

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

We argue that HR and knowledge systems can be characterized as having an
external (i.e., outside the firm) or internal (i.e., within the firm) orientation. The
components of the HR system can be described as internal or external according to theirorientation to firm-based rules or external markets, respectively, in determining how
work is organized, skills are learned, and how pay and promotions are determined. At
one extreme an internal HR system relies upon bureaucratic rules to organize work inteams, to train, and to structure compensation by seniority. At the other extreme an
external HR system relies upon the external labor market to set pay for individual
workers, who are in charge of their own careers and who work independently even
within project teams.
The components of the knowledge systems also can be described as internal orexternal. Internally-oriented knowledge systems rely primarily on private knowledge
sources (both personal contacts and documents) inside the firm. When engineers ininternal knowledge systems access external knowledge and information, their sources
are public in nature (patents, journal articles, reverse engineering, conferences,
tradeshows, popular press, and newsletters).
In contrast, we characterize an externally-oriented knowledge system as one that
relies on engineers’ external private networks with people at other companies and on thecompany’s private collaborative agreements (consortia). We assume that private
external sources contain state-of-the-art knowledge, while public sources contain more
dated material. The speed associated with word-of-mouth interactions versus the time ittakes to codify and then disseminate new technical knowledge also favors external
systems for problem solving in rapidly evolving industries. “Super-ordinate
relationships” like consortia raise the likelihood of knowledge transfers not only
because of scheduled meetings across the partnering companies but also on account of
informal relationships that grow out of the formal relationship. The importance placedon internal knowledge sources versus external sources has changed over time. In thepast, engineers were reliant on colleagues within their own organizations (Allen 1971),
and companies were likely to use a “local language” that impeded the ability of theirengineers to communicate effectively with outsiders (Katz and Tushman 1983). Today
problems and solutions are not likely to be local in nature as common technology isused across products. Communities of practice and, more generally, “networks ofpractice,” cut across organizational boundaries and link together, for example, engineers
in niche technology areas.
Based upon our fieldwork and past literature, we believe that engineers who
regularly tap into expertise both inside and outside of their firms and who are supported
by an HR system that encourages external ties would exhibit greater creative
performance.

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

3

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

Comparing Systems in Japan and the United States
The two countries under study are known for having different national labormarket institutions and for occupying different market positions in the industry.
Japanese employees are characterized as performing the majority of their work in teams
where the building of consensus is important. Japanese firms have struggled to breakinto high-margin semiconductor markets to move away from their reliance on the lowmargin DRAM market. U.S. engineers are characterized as more likely to work
independently and to seek career advancement and technical information from theirpersonal contacts outside their firms, which are leaders in the industry, particularly in
logic devices.
To some degree, national institutions constrain the firm’s ability to cultivate
external or internal knowledge and HR systems. Company control over intellectual
property is influenced by national labor market institutions. In Japan, where
professional careers are primarily advanced within a company, and alternative
opportunities for advancement are limited, engineers and their company share the same
goal of expanding and protecting knowledge within the company. Japanese companies,
which focus on team performance, are concerned with the long-term development of
their engineers and with long-term relationships within the company. With low turnover,they are less concerned about internalizing their engineers’ knowledge and protecting
knowledge.
In the United States where professional careers are often advanced through a
succession of jobs at different companies, engineers rely on expanding their own
knowledge for advancing their careers. In contrast with the situation in Asia, individual
engineers have less incentive to expand and protect knowledge within the company. U.S.
companies that focus on individual performance are concerned with labor mobility andcompeting for talented engineers with their competitors. They are less concerned withthe development of their engineers than with finding ways to retain their talent, protect
their IP, and internalize their engineers’ knowledge within the company. With shortproduct lifecycles, however, the protection of knowledge often is secondary to keeping
up with the state-of-the-art.
Here we use the survey results to describe the basic characteristics of the HR andKnowledge systems for engineers in major semiconductor companies in the twocountries. 2 Although our sample is not representative, it provides profiles of thesystems that are consistent with our extensive fieldwork at semiconductor companies inJapan and the U.S.

2

We also used a matched sample of the engineers from the two countries to document the HR andKnowledge systems. This subsample presented basically the same profile as the entire sample.

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

4

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

In the tables presented below, significant differences in the sample distributions
between the two countries are reported using Analysis of Variance, where the Prob > F
gives the level of significance that the countries differ in terms of the variable inquestion. For example, if a Prob > F is equal to 0.0013, then there is a significant
difference at the 1 percent level between the two countries. Differences in the sample
distributions that are statistically significant will be denoted as ** for p<0.01, * for
p<0.05, and + for p<0.10.
The Engineers
The Japanese engineers in the sample are six years younger (born on average in1958) and have more education (two years post BS) on average than the U.S. engineers(born on average in 1952 and 0.4 years post BS).** The U.S. engineers were moremobile than the Japanese engineers*: the U.S. engineers had worked for 1.6
semiconductor companies and spent 87% of their career at their current employer
compared to the Japanese engineers, who had worked only for their current employer.

HR System
Work Organization.
Almost all (93%) Japanese engineers reported working a majority of their time inteams, compared to 42% of U.S. engineers (see Table 1). When we asked how the teams
functioned (i.e., members worked independently, sequentially, reciprocally, or as ateam), the Japanese members were slightly less likely to work independently orsequentially than the U.S. members. However when we combine the information on
how independently the engineers worked, the U.S. engineers worked independently
81% of the time, compared to about 46% of the time for the Japanese engineers.
When asked about their major work activities, Japanese engineers spent the
majority (52%) of their time in development work**, little time (15%) in administrative
work**, and almost no time talking to equipment vendors (3%)**, material suppliers(2%)**, and customers (1%)**. U.S. engineers spent about the same amount of theirtime in development (23%) and administrative (27%) activities, and spent some timecommunicating with equipment vendors (5%), material suppliers (8%), and customers(6%).

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

5

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

Table 1. Time spent working in a team and independently
B.
C.
% team time spend% total time spent working
working
independently**a
independently + or
sequentially*
Japan
0.93
0.42
0.46
U.S.
0.42
0.54
0.81
a. Column C = (1-Column A) + (Column A)(Column B), which assumes the engineers
either work 100% time (“majority”) or 0% time (“not a majority”) on a team.
Country

A.
Work majorityof time on
team**

Skill Development.
The engineers spent a substantial portion of their time in training—approximately
one-fourth of their time. However the training for U.S. engineers was evenly split
between classroom and on-the-job training, while the Japanese engineers received threefourths of their training on the job. Over 85% of U.S. engineers had classroom training
in problem-solving methods, communication skills, and leadership skills, and over 90%
reported using this training in their work (Table 2). U.S. engineers were even more
likely than their Japanese counterparts (93% vs. 63%) to receive company-specificclassroom training. At least one-half of Japanese engineers had on-the-job training indesign of experiments, problem solving methods, communication skills, and writing
skills, and they were most likely to use their training in writing. (xx unclear)
Even with relatively high labor mobility, U.S. firms trained their engineers in basic
knowledge as well as job-related nontechnical skills, and provided training that would
be used regularly on the job. These results indicate that the Japanese companies wererelying on the formal education of their engineers, who had more graduate training thantheir U.S. counterparts.
Pay and Promotion.
In our sample, compensation systems were more oriented to company performancein the U.S. than in Japan, and individual performance was rewarded in both countries.
Profit sharing was reported by 82% of the U.S. engineers and none of the Japaneseengineers**. None of the Japanese engineers reported receiving stock options versus
one-third of the U.S. engineers**, where the options were worth 20% of total pay on
average. Individual performance pay (reported by 46% of U.S. and 43% of Japaneseengineers) was more common than knowledge-based pay (reported by 38% of U.S. and
18% of Japanese engineers).
Because of the importance of seniority, the compensation system for the Japaneseengineers was more internal than the system for the U.S. engineers. “Creativity andDoshisha Business Case 07-06

6

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

initiative in problem solving” was ranked the number one criterion for pay andpromotion in the U.S. and Japan. Seniority was the number two criterion for
determining pay and promotion in Japan, while seniority was not ranked as an importantcriterion for promotion or pay by U.S. engineers*.
Most Japanese engineers only ranked a few criteria—for example, problem solving(#1) and seniority (#2)—as important for pay and promotion. The U.S. engineers ranked
more criteria as important in promotion and pay decisions. “Suggestions andimprovements made” was an important criterion (#2) for promotion** in the U.S.,
followed by “meeting production targets”*, “skills learned” **, “communication withpeople outside team but within company”** and “team participation”**. These fivecriteria were also reported as the most important for determining pay in the U.S., but
only team participation and communications were ranked significantly different in the
U.S. and Japan.
Other criteria for promotion and pay were significantly different across the two
samples, although these criteria were not ranked by a majority of engineers in either
country. U.S. engineers were more likely to rank “willingness to share knowledge withothers”** as a criterion for pay and promotion and to rank “developing contacts withtechnologists in other companies”* as a criteria for pay. Japanese engineers were more
likely to rank “presented papers at professional conferences”** and “publishes papers in
professional journals”* as criteria for promotion.

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

7

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

Table 2. Training by Current Employer
Japan
Type ofTraininga
ProblemSolving
Methods
Design ofTechnical Experiments

United State

OJT

Class

0.54

0.49** 0.51** 0.52

0.85** 0.93**

0.51+

0.37** 0.37** 0.30+

0.78** 0.67**

Science

0.34

0.56

0.46

Paper Writing

0.68** 0.53+

Communication
Skills0.49
NonTechnical Company
Orientation
Leadership
Skills

Used?

0.37

OJT

0.26

Class

0.71** 0.20** 0.43+

Used?

0.56

0.43**

0.49** 0.43** 0.33

0.89** 0.93**

0.43

0.63** 0.43

0.93** 0.63

0.37

0.49** 0.46** 0.37

0.41

0.93** 0.93**% Total time spent in
training (previous year)
20%* 6%**-12%* 12%**-***p<0.01, *p<0.05, +p<0.10
a. Proportion reporting that they received training by topic and where the training
occurred on the job (OJT) or classroom (Class), and that they regularly used thetraining in their work (Used?).

Knowledge Systems
Next we profile the sources of knowledge and communication networks used by
the engineers.
The large majority of engineers reported that teams kept an archive of documentsfrom previous projects (86% of Japanese, 67% of U.S.)+. Only slightly fewer reported
that the company has a document control system that stores information about previous
projects (74% of Japanese, 63% of U.S.). However only one-third of the Japaneseengineers received training on how to control confidential information compared tothree-fourths of the U.S. engineers**.

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

8

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

Sources of Technical Information.
Engineers in both countries rated their colleagues within the company as their mostimportant source of technical information, with journals and conference presentations as
the second and third most important sources, respectively (see Table 3). The Japaneseengineers rated journals, conference presentations, and patents as significantly more
important sources of technical information than the U.S. engineers did. This indicates agreater reliance by the Japanese engineers on external public knowledge, which isconsistent with the popular notion that U.S. companies are further along the technology
curve. The U.S. engineers rated two private external sources—material suppliers andbenchmarking studies—as significantly more important sources than the Japaneseengineers did. However other private external sources— technologists at othercompanies, equipment vendors, and customers—were not ranked significantly different
in the two countries.
Table 3. Importance of Sources of Technical Information(based on 7-point scale from 1=not important to 7=very important)

Colleagues in own company
Journals, books, etc.**
Presentation at conferences**
Patents**
Technologists at other companies
Equipment vendors
Materials suppliers+
Customers
Benchmarking studies***p<0.01, *p<0.05, + p<0.10

Japan
5.9
5.6
5.1
4.6
4.1
4.0
3.5
3.2
3.0

U.S.
5.9
4.5
4.3
2.0
3.6
4.4
4.5
4.0
4.1

External and Internal Communication Networks.
Within their own fabs, engineers from both countries rated face-to-face meetings
with individuals as the most important channel, and group meetings or seminars as thesecond most important channel for finding out useful technical information. U.S.
engineers were more likely than Japanese engineers to rely upon email* and electronic
memos** and less likely to depend upon internal newsletters*.
At another fab within their company, face-to-face meetings were also the mostimportant way to find out technical information for Japanese engineers, while email+was the most important channel for U.S. engineers. Telephone contact was more
important than group meetings in both countries. U.S. engineers were again more likely

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

9

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

than Japanese engineers to rely upon electronic memos** and less likely to use
company newsletters*.
Channels of communication with fabs outside one’s company indicate that U.S.
engineers operate in a knowledge system more oriented toward external private
channels, and Japanese engineers operate in a knowledge system more oriented toward
external public channels (see Table 4). The top channels of information about othercompanies for Japanese engineers were conferences, the popular press*, and public
newsletters**. In contrast, the top channels of information for U.S. engineers weremembership in a consortium**, trade journals, attending conferences, and personal
telephone contacts*. Together these information channels indicate U.S. engineers haveprivate access to information about leading technology outside their companies, while
Japanese engineers rely on public sources for technical information.
Table 4. Channels of Technical Information Acquisition from Other Semiconductor
Companies(based on 7-point scale from 1=not important to 7=very important)Access
MethodJapan
UnitedStatesExternal: PublicAttending conferences
5.1
4.8
Popular press*
4.8
3.8
Trade journals
4.6
5.1
Public newsletters**
4.5
3.3
External: Private
Face to face meetings
3.6
4.3
Visiting other fabs
3.4
3.7
Personal telephone contact*
3.0
4.3
Personal email
3.0
3.7
Company-directed
Reviewing patents**
4.3
2.0
Reverse engineering*
2.9
1.9
Consortium Membership**
2.5
5.3**p<0.01, *p<0.05, +p<0.10
Two-thirds of engineers in both countries reported attending at least one
conference during the year. For those attending conferences, the Japanese engineers
attended 2.4 and U.S. engineers attended 1.7 (not significantly different). Most U.S.
and Japanese engineers (73% and 69%, respectively) belonged to a professional society.
In learning information from equipment vendors, engineers in both countries rated
face-to-face meetings as the most important source. This is not surprising, sinceequipment engineers from the vendor company are usually stationed at the fab.

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

10

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

Otherwise U.S. engineers relied more on private channels (telephone calls**, visit
vendor’s facilities, and email**), and Japanese engineers relied more on trade shows,the popular press**, conferences, and public newsletters**.
Problem-Solving Process.
To understand how the knowledge system influences how engineers do their jobs,
we surveyed the chronology of knowledge acquisition activities in solving a specifictechnical problem that the engineer had worked on recently. We asked the respondents
to describe the problem, classify it, and walk through the problem-solving procedures inchronological order (1 = the first source consulted, so a low score reflects earlier
consultation). In both countries, the engineers approached a co-worker on the team, thewhole team, or a co-worker on another team early in the process of problem solving (seeTable 5). U.S. engineers were likely to approach someone from outside the company
earlier in the knowledge-gathering process**, and Japanese engineers tended to go totheir supervisors earlier in the process*. Although use of team and company documents
was not ranked highly by most engineers, the U.S. engineers ranked use of these
documents even lower than the Japanese engineers+.
Table 5: Sources of Knowledge to Solve a Specific Technical Problem(ranked by importance)
Rank
Japan
Whole
team
(3.7)+
1
Co-worker on team (3.8)+
2
Supervisor (6.3)*
3
Worker on another team (6.4)
4
Person from manufacturing (6.8)
5**p<0.01, *p<0.05, +p<0.10

U.S.
Co-worker on team (4.2)
Whole team (5.7)+
Worker on another team (6.9)
Person outside company (7.2)**
Person from manufacturing (8.0)

Summary: External or Internal Orientation Profiles
Our survey of engineers presents profiles of HR and Knowledge Management
Systems that are strikingly similar in Japan and the United States in their internalorientation in some key components: spending substantial time in training, using
company colleagues as the primary source of technical information, and relying on coworkers and teams for solving problems. They are also similar in their externalorientation in the use of problem-solving performance in determining pay andpromotion and the reliance on journals and conferences to learn about technicalinformation at other semiconductor companies,

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

11

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

However significant differences also exist. In work organization, U.S. engineers
spent the majority of their time (81%) working independently, while their Japanesecounterparts spent over half (54%) of their time working with others. Although U.S.
engineers displayed more mobility than the Japanese engineers, the U.S. engineers
received more classroom training. They were also more likely to use their training
regularly on the job, which indicates their training was targeted to skills needed for theircurrent job assignment. In skill acquisition, the U.S. companies seemed to be
developing their workforce rather than relying solely on external hires. Seniority was
not an important criterion in pay and promotion for the U.S. engineers, while seniority
figured heavily for the Japanese engineers. Most U.S. engineers (82%) received profit
sharing, while none of the Japanese engineers did.
For technical information, Japanese engineers were more likely than U.S.
engineers to rely upon external public sources (journals, conference presentations, andpatents); U.S. engineers were more likely to rely on external private sources (material
suppliers and benchmarking studies). For technical information on other semiconductor
companies, U.S. engineers were more likely than Japanese engineers to rely on external
private contacts (consortium membership and personal telephone calls), while Japaneseengineers were more likely to rely on external public sources (popular press, public
newsletters, and patents). 3 When solving problems, U.S. engineers approached someone
outside the company sooner in the process, and Japanese engineers went to theirsupervisor sooner.
Overall the survey results indicate that the engineers at these two leading U.S.
semiconductor companies, compared to their Japanese counterparts at three leading
Japanese companies, operate in more externally-oriented HR and Knowledge
Management Systems and therefore have better access to knowledge about leading
technologies outside their companies. We conclude that the use of Open Innovation
Systems by the U.S. companies most likely provides them a competitive advantage indeveloping new products.

3

Our finding that Japanese engineers were not likely to consult people outside of their company differsfrom Irwin and Klenow’s finding that Japanese memory chip producers do appear to learn from eachother and from other countries (Irwin and Klenow 1994).

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

12

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

References
Allen, Thomas J. (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Chesbrough, Henry William (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative forCreating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Irwin, Douglas A. and Klenow, Peter J. (1994). Learning-by-Doing Spillovers in the
Semiconductor Industry. Journal of Political Economy 102(6), 1200-1227 (December).
Katz, Ralph and Tushman, Michael L. (1981). An Investigation into the Managerial
Roles and Career Paths of Gatekeepers and Project Supervisors in a Major R&D
Facility. R&D Management 11(3), 103-110 (July).

Doshisha Business Case 07-06

13

Profiles of HR and Knowledge Management Systems
in Japanese and U.S. Semiconductor Companies
Melissa M. Appleyard and Clair Brown

Figure 1. The Drivers of Creative Performance

Knowledge System

HR System
Work Organization
Skill Development

Project TeamWork Process
Autonomy

Sources of Knowledge
Public; Private
Internal; ExternalCommunications Networks

Incentives

IP Controls
Individual Knowledge
Creation

Creative Performance
Problem-Solving Capability
Patents
Product Release
Doshisha Business Case 07-06

14