Application Of A False Dichotomy Exists Within The Open Vs. Closed Innovation Process

852 Words Oct 21st, 2015 4 Pages
Paul Trott and Dap Hartman (2009), propose that a false dichotomy exists in the open vs. closed innovation debate, instead the two paradigms are not mutually exclusive with most, if not all, firms carrying out principles of both. I believe that this is the case with the firm PowerbyPoxi, hence I agree with the statement “PowerbyProxi has adopted both open and closed innovation processes”. This can be demonstrated by analysing the relationship between PowerbyProxi and some of its major stakeholders.

It can be argued that in the initial stages of PowerbyProxi saw the adoption of closed innovation processes, especially prior to its conception with the efforts of Fady Mishriki in pursuit of developing the original inductive power transfer (ICPT) technology. The initial development of the ICPT, despite seeing collaboration of researchers under the University of Auckland, was relatively closed. No external parties were involved and all IP was controlled and withheld by UniServices (Karlson & France, 2013). It would appear that Mishriki continued this approach when aiming to commercialise the technology by trying to develop the technology himself for the likes of miniaturised embedded wireless chargers for consumer devices (Karlson & France, 2013). It could be argued that Mishriki was perhaps aiming at being a first mover to allow the greatest value to be captured from the market. This was further substantiated with UniServices denying a broad license that would cover the entire…

Related Documents