The Relationship Between Powerbyproxi And John Deeres

852 Words 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)
…show more content…
Effectively through cold calling, a business opportunity was realised within the scope of John Deeres business, in which a potential use for ICPT could be seen (Karlson & France, 2013). However, significant capital was needed to explore this avenue, of which John Deere consequently supplied in return for exclusivity of use of the resulting technology for a set period. For this technology development to occur, it would be expected that information and resources would be made available from both parties, and integrated in a form of collaboration. It can be argued that this satisfies the definition of open innovation, with the resulting technology would expected to be better then what could be achieved solely by PowerbyProxi (Teece, 1986). Further more, it is descriptive of the open innovation practice of ‘external participation’ on behalf of John Deer (van de Vrande et al., …show more content…
During August 2007, UniServices and PowerbyProxi signed an agreement in which UniServices gained a licensing fee and royalties on subsequent products that were developed as a result of the IP the owned, of which PowerbyProxi used as a starting point for consequent research. It can be argued that this exhibits ‘acquiring’ (Dahlander & Gann, 2010). This inbound, precuniary open innovation process was implemented so that PowerbyProxi could acquire resources from the external marketplace that they did not have internally. This ‘inward IP licensing’ for internal benefit is in of itself descriptive of open innovation practices, according to van de Vrande et al.

Related Documents