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…
It can be argued that this was brought about due to the substantial resources that were needed to commercialise the existing ICPT technology (Huizingh, 2011). Chesbrough (2003) argues that as firms look to advance their technology, the use of both internal and external ideas and paths to market should be used to fully realise this. It is without doubt that that PowerbyProxi had a significant degree of absorptive capacity in regards to incorporating external knowledge, due to the extensive internal competencies in place, especially with Mishriki background, hence we can expect that external knowledge would effectively be capitalised upon with the resulting relationships with major stake …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.,
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…
It can be argued that this was brought about due to the substantial resources that were needed to commercialise the existing ICPT technology (Huizingh, 2011). Chesbrough (2003) argues that as firms look to advance their technology, the use of both internal and external ideas and paths to market should be used to fully realise this. It is without doubt that that PowerbyProxi had a significant degree of absorptive capacity in regards to incorporating external knowledge, due to the extensive internal competencies in place, especially with Mishriki background, hence we can expect that external knowledge would effectively be capitalised upon with the resulting relationships with major stake …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.,