Search results

In a dynamic environment where underlying competition is “for the market,” this chapter examines what happens when entrants and incumbents can instead negotiate for the market. For instance, this might arise when an entrant innovator can choose to license to or be acquired by an incumbent firm (i.e., engage in cooperative commercialization). It is demonstrated that, depending upon the level of firms’ potential dynamic capabilities, there may or may not be gains to trade between incumbents and entrants in a cumulative innovation environment; that is, entrants may not be adequately compensated for losses in future innovative potential. This stands in contrast to static analyses that overwhelmingly identify positive gains to trade from such cooperation.

The contingent valuation method (CVM) for assessing non‐use values has undergone significant criticism recently on various fronts. In this paper, the author analyses the notion that imposing reasonable bounds on the rationality of agents might undermine the basis for any method that attempts to elicit non‐use values on environmental goods from individuals, including CVM. The model of bounded rationality applied is that of Gans (1996). On the basis of that model, it is argued that in complex and unfamiliar situations one would not expect individuals to be able to express their true preferences. Following this line, the author discusses the possibilities for using experts for valuation as well as for providing information for decision making on the preservation of public resources.

Under the co-direction of John Hagel, Deloitte’s Center for the Edge has been publishing important new studies of disruption with an ‘outcome-based approach to disruption.’ This research is discovering patterns that may help leaders institute defenses against threats and identify opportunities for innovators

Deloitte research is focusing on patterns of disruption that hit more than one market, but not all markets. It is examining: what are the characteristics of markets that would make them vulnerable to a particular pattern?

After six months of research, Deloitte has identified nine patterns that meet its outcome-based criteria. A number of the patterns are based on creating network effects that grow so quickly they become hard to compete with if the rival firm does not already have an established market position. Another set of the patterns identifies ways to fundamentally transform the value-cost equation, but without network effects.

More patterns may be discerned as the research proceeds.

For example, if incumbents and innovators just think about driverless cars as the auto industry, they are never going to fully see the disruption that is coming. By contrast, by thinking about it as a mobility ecosystem, then many other key players, risks and opportunities become apparent

The patterns identified by Deloitte research may provide leaders with insights into how to defend against specific disruptions and also offer innovators inspiration for new opportunities in established markets and Blue Ocean ventures.

The American culture is at risk because digital communication technologies insidiously undermine the concept of American individualism. As explained by Herbert J. Gans (1988),At its most basic, individualism is the pursuit of personal freedom and of personal control over the social and natural environment. It is also an ideology – a set of beliefs, values, and goals – and probably the most widely shared ideology in the U.S. (p. 1).

Globalization should provide firms with an opportunity to leverage their know-how and reputation across countries to create value. However, it remains challenging for them to actually capture that value using traditional Intellectual Property (IP) tools. In this paper, we document the strong growth in patents, trademarks, and industrial designs used by firms to protect their IP globally. We then show that IP protection remains fragmented; the quality of IP applications might be questionable; and developing a comprehensive IP footprint worldwide is very costly. Growing numbers of applications are causing backlogs and delays in numerous Patent and Trademarks Offices and litigation over IP rights is expensive, with an uncertain outcome. Moreover, local governments can succeed in transferring value to local firms and influencing global market positions by using IP laws and other regulations. In essence, the analysis shows a global IP environment that leaves much to be desired. Despite these challenges, there are successful strategies to capture value from know-how and reputation by leveraging an array of IP tools. These strategies have important implications for management practice, as we discuss in our concluding section. Global companies will need to organize cross-functional value capture teams focused on appropriating value from their know-how and reputation by combining different institutional, market, and nonmarket tools, depending on the institutional and business environment in a particular region.