Points mentioned are well taken. It seems though the focus is more on the marketing and earning aspects of it, and undermining the market competition in lieu of collaboration.
Inter company collaboration is a good idea - but it is not panacea for all inefficiencies. When companies work together in a fair market, they need to make sure they are getting their fair share of their efforts. Legal contracts in a collaborative setting is difficult to carve out and manage. Some partnerships may also work sometimes. In the absence of a stronger player, like federal government, they generally fall apart. Transaction costs involved in maintaining partnerships are much higher. Companies in strategic tie-ups or legal contracts cannot move faster to the changing world demands, decision making is often delayed.
Wall street analysts reward companies who perform or gather resources which will help them perform in future and penalizes companies who do not. Having such free markets and market participants encourages competition and keep the CEO's on their toes. Market competition and fairness is essential to motivate companies to move for the (long term) problems. I view the government / world policies play a much larger role compared to market’s role in nurturing collaboration.
Generally, partnerships / collaborations make sense while treading an uncharted territories - when finding a radical cure or a space exploration. Often, research begins with collaboration - and collaboration projects between industry and universities are very much still in place.
I think you have the right idea. However, I am not sure about its practicality. The idea of cooperate while compete has been the trend among the Fortune 100 companies in recent years. Many companies call it “coopetition”. Companies such as IBM, Cisco, Microsoft and Oracle on many fronts are competing directly against each other; however, they do still collaborate to ensure what each company produces serves the needs of the end user. I don’t agree with you, however, that the earlier innovators did not mind about making money when they set out to invent something. Similar to what I don’t believe that Steve Jobs did not think about making money when he envisioned the future of entertainment and music in early 2000's. In a market economy, competition offers choices to consumers. The process of finding a cure for certain disease might be lengthy when companies compete, however the end result is 5 different drugs that cure the same disease and 1 of which I am not allergic to. It’s tough luck if all the best and brightest from all the big pharmas came together and found one cure for cancer when its active ingredient will kill me.
This is a very valid point considering the push towards open innovation and transparency; however this does not fully accept the reality of competition or probabilities in problem solving. There are many situations where open collaboration helps fuel and improve the process; but it is not wise to discount the strength of individual teams competing. As the example pointed towards pharma in this hack, we should not that not all people are receptive to the same drugs. I support open collaboration because it invites public discussion and think melt but can also lead to certain ideas being squashed or discarded. There should be approach that could involve both.
If this were possible greater things would occur. So many people in this world that have insight, knowledge and the know how to create or develop life changing products if given the opportunity. If there were cross collaboration amongst companies, there would be greater return on their investments and more economic resources for humanitarian efforts. However, you point out key challenges that have been instilled since a very young age that will be difficult to change, since monetary rewards is what a majority of the world seeks for themselves not for the world.
There is a vast array of information out there but gathering and sharing information with the right people can be a challenge. Not everyone has access to the same information. In the end one cannot simply do it alone, there needs to be some form of collaboration. But competition and money are barriers of entry into information collaboration. In order for us to be able to innovate on larger scales teams should be formed. However, collaboration will take a long time to occur and this probably won’t happen till a crisis occurs and egos are set aside.
It is said that rubbing the belly of the 'Laughing Buddha' brings in wealth. Buddha is laughing because he is thinking, " silly it's not competition but co-operation which will bring in health, wealth and happiness". Unfortunately it's our conditioning which doesn't allow us to collaborate. Until the realization comes that it's no longer a pyramid and that there is enough room at the top, change is difficult to come by. Good post, Steve
You need to register in order to submit a comment.