Search results

For all the rhetoric – and hype – about open innovation, the reality is that few corporations have institutionalized open innovation practices in ways that have enabled substantial growth or industry leadership. This paper aims to explain how open innovation can achieve its potential in most companies.

Three cases of companies that practice various types of open innovation are discussed. The principles of establishing an organizational environment for open innovation are outlined.

The ability to move into and out of different industries by capitalizing on ideas and concepts from inside and outside the organization – open innovation – has tremendous value.

Without the appropriate mindset and, ultimately, operational structure in place, the promise of open innovation cannot be realized.

For corporate leaders, the paper identifies a key first step – to deliver on the promise of open innovation an organization must start by making the change from a competition‐focused, market‐share mindset to a competence‐based mindset.

Property valuers are often asked to allocate portions of the market value of a property to parts of the subject property. This paper aims to illustrate that the market value of a property cannot be divided into a market value for the land and a market value for the improvement.

Apportionment methods that exist in practice are briefly addressed and shortcomings are identified. Also theory that was developed for valuation and apportionment purposes is discussed and evaluated. From a combination of theory and practice conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made.

The combination of theory and practice show that the existing apportionment methods are unreliable tools for property analysis. Some suggestions are made concerning tools that might replace apportionment in property analysis.

Apportionment plays an important role in property investment and finance decisions. Due to the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) apportionment will have a strong role to play in financial reporting and through this it will influence management and investment decisions indirectly. This paper shows that apportionment methods are not reliable and that important decisions should not be based on results from apportionment methods. Valuers should no longer supply these apportionments unless the client fully understands the shortcomings of the method used. On the other hand, clients, their advisors and auditors should no longer ask for value apportionments, as there are far more reliable alternatives.

The property profession has been struggling with apportionment theory for years. At this time IFRS introduces a strong need for value apportionment. Therefore, this is the time for the property profession to thoroughly investigate the shortcomings of existing apportionment methods and to come up with alternatives. This paper is an attempt to do just that.

I argue that the official story about the collapses of the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center, according to which the collapses were caused by fire – combined, in the case of the Twin Towers, with the effects of the airplane impacts – cannot be true, for two major reasons. One reason is that fire has never, except allegedly three times on 9/11, caused the total collapse of steel-frame high-rise buildings. All (other) such collapses have been produced by the use of explosives in the procedure known as “controlled demolition.” The other major problem is that the collapses of all three buildings had at least 11 features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives had been used.

I also show the importance of the recently released of 9/11 Oral Histories recorded by the New York Fire Department. With regard to the Twin Towers, many of the firefighters and medical workers said they observed multiple explosions and other phenomena indicative of controlled demolition. With regard to building 7, many testimonies point to widespread foreknowledge that the building was going to collapse, and some of the testimonies contradict the official story that this anticipation of the building's collapse was based on objective indications. These testimonies further strengthen the already virtually conclusive case that all three buildings were brought down by explosives.

I conclude by calling on the New York Times, which got the 9/11 Oral Histories released, now to complete the task of revealing the truth about 9/11.