Ideagoras are places (websites) where companies can “post” problems/issues and receive solutions. Although they do end up paying, the process is much cheaper than investing millions in R&D. To me, it seems more beneficial to firms than open source products because it allows matching problems with solutions. Once again, I see major conflicts stemming from IP Rights disputes. The authors point out that it is harder to transfer ideas and technology. With EBay, tangible property is being bought, but with sites such as innocentive.com and yet2.com, it allows for some ambiguity. I just skimmed the innocentive.com FAQ and it appears that the “solver” must transfer ownership of IP rights over to the “seeker” before accepting the cash reward. Rewards typically range from $10,000 to $100,000. If you came up with something really great, couldn’t you make more than $100,000 by patenting or copyrighting it yourself? I guess there’s always that option before you sign it away. Ideagoras seem great for businesses for certain types of “problems.” It would not be wise to place too much in the hands of an innovator who doesn’t even work for your company.
I’m not sure what type of requirements there are for submitting a solution, but ideagoras coud potentially give rise to very diverse solutions. A grad student in
In the last part of the chapter, the book talks about competing without innovation (ex: Dell v. HP). I think it is only a matter of time before firms will not be able to compete without innovating. Products and services are being updated way too fast for a firm to stand still. In today’s economy, if companies don’t improve their product, consumers will still desire the next step and find a way to implement it themselves.
6 comments:
Many firms do compete without innovating. Ford spends 1/10 on R&D that GM does. Ford just reverse engineers any developments GM has. Pepsi does the same thing, but is much better at it. Pepsi realized it couldn't beat coke in sales or innovation, so it reverse engineers Cokes new flavours, saves money, and is more profitable as a result.
Perhaps that is why GM stock is at $39.99 and Ford's is at $8.76 ??? (Coca cola bottling stock is worth almost twice as much as Pepsi bottling?)
It seems like Ford is working pretty hard on their new product line (maybe stealing is hard work?). Anyhow, I think they expect to be operating at a profit in 2010 or 2011 (??). I mean, it seems like your theory would work in Fast food also. McDonalds would do research and scout out the perfect location and then KFC or Burger King would buy the lot across the street. I just think that at some point, it's a losing game.
Pepsi is better than Coke in terms of its return on equity. Also, its profit as a % of sales is better.
Pepsi is better than Coke in terms of its return on equity. Also, its profit as a % of sales is better.
I believe that there are some scientists who would just do the research just for the kick of it and they don't care about the money or the patents, This is where the bigger companies come into play and take advantage of this situation.
Tina I cannot agree more on the issue of innovation. The situation right now is You either Innovate or Perish.
That's interesting that they must hand over the rights. In Das's blog , he questioned what would happen if the company didn't pay the innovator. This is especially true if he must hand over the rights first. I guess the use of going through an ad can help to cut down on this. After Dr. Wasko showed us this website inc lass though I thought it was pretty cool. Also, the site with all kinds of different jobs. I thought they'd be good for kids that had a hard time finding jobs after graduating. Something to do while still searching.
Post a Comment