Comments on: Innovation Capitalists http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:50:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Dave Bayless http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-77202 Dave Bayless Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:04:52 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-77202 DC's observations are apt, in my firm's experience to-date as a pioneering IC. The logic of collaboration between a large firm and a small firm is compelling: Small firms offer access to prospective innovation; and large firms offer established manufacturing, distribution, and marketing capacities. Nevertheless, asymmetric collaborations are very difficult due to sharp differences in strategic intent and pacing. It does take time to cultivate the requisite level of mutual trust. DC’s observations are apt, in my firm’s experience to-date as a pioneering IC. The logic of collaboration between a large firm and a small firm is compelling: Small firms offer access to prospective innovation; and large firms offer established manufacturing, distribution, and marketing capacities. Nevertheless, asymmetric collaborations are very difficult due to sharp differences in strategic intent and pacing. It does take time to cultivate the requisite level of mutual trust.

]]> By: Dave Bayless http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-100938 Dave Bayless Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:04:52 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-100938 DC's observations are apt, in my firm's experience to-date as a pioneering IC. The logic of collaboration between a large firm and a small firm is compelling: Small firms offer access to prospective innovation; and large firms offer established manufacturing, distribution, and marketing capacities. Nevertheless, asymmetric collaborations are very difficult due to sharp differences in strategic intent and pacing. It does take time to cultivate the requisite level of mutual trust. DC’s observations are apt, in my firm’s experience to-date as a pioneering IC. The logic of collaboration between a large firm and a small firm is compelling: Small firms offer access to prospective innovation; and large firms offer established manufacturing, distribution, and marketing capacities. Nevertheless, asymmetric collaborations are very difficult due to sharp differences in strategic intent and pacing. It does take time to cultivate the requisite level of mutual trust.

]]> By: DC http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-46516 DC Sun, 27 May 2007 21:58:23 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-46516 I love the concept! One-to-one it may have a chance, one-to-many is problematic. For the model to be financially viable the IC firm must be able to market their concepts to multiple companies to create a demand market for their supply. This allows for market driven pricing and counters the all eggs in one basket dilemma. Unfortunately, that is a challenge. For the IC to partner with an interested company they must have a substantial amount of visibility into strategic agenda and branding areas that most companies aren't willing to part with without a tight non-compete, non-disclosure. The IP issues are pervasive with an open market approach. If I'm Microsoft Games (XBOX 360-people) why should I give you insight into my strategic development goals and then have you go out and develop a product that you can sell to Sony (Playstation 3-people) or Nintendo (wii-people)? What if that product is a huge success and I Microsoft with deeeeep pockets pursue legal actions against the IC firm? A consortium approach to an open IC market may work - over tiiiimmeeee - only if there is a market generated price and not collusion. I love the concept! One-to-one it may have a chance, one-to-many is problematic.

For the model to be financially viable the IC firm must be able to market their concepts to multiple companies to create a demand market for their supply. This allows for market driven pricing and counters the all eggs in one basket dilemma. Unfortunately, that is a challenge. For the IC to partner with an interested company they must have a substantial amount of visibility into strategic agenda and branding areas that most companies aren’t willing to part with without a tight non-compete, non-disclosure. The IP issues are pervasive with an open market approach.

If I’m Microsoft Games (XBOX 360-people) why should I give you insight into my strategic development goals and then have you go out and develop a product that you can sell to Sony (Playstation 3-people) or Nintendo (wii-people)? What if that product is a huge success and I Microsoft with deeeeep pockets pursue legal actions against the IC firm?

A consortium approach to an open IC market may work - over tiiiimmeeee - only if there is a market generated price and not collusion.

]]> By: DC http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-100937 DC Sun, 27 May 2007 20:58:23 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-100937 I love the concept! One-to-one it may have a chance, one-to-many is problematic. For the model to be financially viable the IC firm must be able to market their concepts to multiple companies to create a demand market for their supply. This allows for market driven pricing and counters the all eggs in one basket dilemma. Unfortunately, that is a challenge. For the IC to partner with an interested company they must have a substantial amount of visibility into strategic agenda and branding areas that most companies aren't willing to part with without a tight non-compete, non-disclosure. The IP issues are pervasive with an open market approach. If I'm Microsoft Games (XBOX 360-people) why should I give you insight into my strategic development goals and then have you go out and develop a product that you can sell to Sony (Playstation 3-people) or Nintendo (wii-people)? What if that product is a huge success and I Microsoft with deeeeep pockets pursue legal actions against the IC firm? A consortium approach to an open IC market may work - over tiiiimmeeee - only if there is a market generated price and not collusion. I love the concept! One-to-one it may have a chance, one-to-many is problematic. For the model to be financially viable the IC firm must be able to market their concepts to multiple companies to create a demand market for their supply. This allows for market driven pricing and counters the all eggs in one basket dilemma. Unfortunately, that is a challenge. For the IC to partner with an interested company they must have a substantial amount of visibility into strategic agenda and branding areas that most companies aren’t willing to part with without a tight non-compete, non-disclosure. The IP issues are pervasive with an open market approach. If I’m Microsoft Games (XBOX 360-people) why should I give you insight into my strategic development goals and then have you go out and develop a product that you can sell to Sony (Playstation 3-people) or Nintendo (wii-people)? What if that product is a huge success and I Microsoft with deeeeep pockets pursue legal actions against the IC firm? A consortium approach to an open IC market may work - over tiiiimmeeee - only if there is a market generated price and not collusion.

]]> By: Ashish http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-23666 Ashish Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:21:53 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-23666 Quite rightly stated...Innovative capitalist it seems will be a major impetus towards value creation in future...<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/leadership/vgct/091304.html" rel="nofollow">These people</a> have aptly put that Innovation is the product of Creativity and Execution, and with the help of the Innovation Capitalist, the execution part will be more streamlined in the industry. P.S.: Am following ur posts for quite sometime...seems slick & profound. Best. Quite rightly stated…Innovative capitalist it seems will be a major impetus towards value creation in future…These people have aptly put that Innovation is the product of Creativity and Execution, and with the help of the Innovation Capitalist, the execution part will be more streamlined in the industry.

P.S.: Am following ur posts for quite sometime…seems slick & profound.

Best.

]]> By: Ashish http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-100936 Ashish Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:21:53 +0000 http://disruptivethoughts.com/2007/03/24/innovation-capitalists/#comment-100936 Quite rightly stated...Innovative capitalist it seems will be a major impetus towards value creation in future...<a href="<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/leadership/vgct/091304.html"" rel="nofollow">http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/leadership/v...</a>rel="nofollow">These people have aptly put that Innovation is the product of Creativity and Execution, and with the help of the Innovation Capitalist, the execution part will be more streamlined in the industry. P.S.: Am following ur posts for quite sometime...seems slick & profound. Best. Quite rightly stated…Innovative capitalist it seems will be a major impetus towards value creation in future…http://www.fastcompany.com/resources/leadership/v…rel=”nofollow”>These people have aptly put that Innovation is the product of Creativity and Execution, and with the help of the Innovation Capitalist, the execution part will be more streamlined in the industry. P.S.: Am following ur posts for quite sometime…seems slick & profound. Best.

]]>