Translation of Concept into Value Proposition
I would assume most researchers are working within complex organizational environments as this illustration relates where a lack of clear consensus on the topic of methodology or agreed business models to promote their concepts could create a situation such as is described by this brief article on consumer options. Australia as is Canada represents a socio-economic environment which may be described as risk averse. The result of too many options further increases aversion to risk as described by Barry Schwartz in "The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less" (Ecco, 2004). Similarly a tendency towards making decisions without fully investigating alternatives or choices may then be imposed upon research projects themselves as a reaction to an incapacity to adequately address a diversity of opinions and alternatives which turns the collaboration into a series of power and position-based struggles as in Flyvbjerg’s, “Bringing Power to Planning Research: One Researcher’s Praxis Story” (2002)
It appears many research oriented business plans rely upon Michael Porter’s value chain approach in determining their business models and companies like Dell Computers further demonstrate the extensive differentiating strategic development which is required to produce a plan structurally and competitively different from perhaps every other plan also based on the same thirty year old book “Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors.” (The Free Press, 1980) Morris, Schindehutte and Allen (2003) describe a few of the most common value drivers essential to a functional business model again demonstrating a lack of progressive and agreed development of business modeling research itself since Porter. These most common components consist of:
1.A value offering: Listed as the basis of Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction which is at odds with the theory of competitive advantage nevertheless, a combination of resources which uniquely result in innovations.
2. A sound economic model: These must include reasonable expectations for growth, profit and value creation. A return on investment must appear attractive enough to develop the product value.
3.Customer relationship: Internally and externally the value proposition must meet needs and satisfy downstream customers. For example, if the researchers provide a value proposition which does not integrate with other already functioning propositions in design or parts assembly at a factory the newly acquired product will not fit current needs. The same for knowledge based propositions. If for example I need a recipe for a Boston Crème Donut giving me Coconut Crème will not do it.
4.Partnerships Network: This would be reflexively informative as partners may easily and quickly be able to provide information regarding current customer-based needs however the larger the network conversely perhaps the more risk-averse to value proposition development may occur. The same kind of indecisiveness and challenges may perhaps be observed in large networks as in consumer selection.
5.Internal infrastructure: Korean academics for example represent a large level of variation in exposure to and acceptance of global business management processes which filters into their applied research and thus in the business environment of the nation. A book like Strategy Safari by Henry Mintzberg (1998) demonstrates that various institutions continue to operate in various historical methods of organizational management. Perhaps even in Australia. Recognition of perhaps disparate methods of decision making must be applied to internal infrastructural co-development of knowledge value drivers. Researchers Beim and Caswell first suggest in “A value network model for strategic analysis” (2008) that many organizations are mismatching knowledge value first-tier or immediate customers rather than end consumers or the overall market segment perhaps out of a lack of agreed evaluation models.
6.Well targeted markets: Beim and Caswell’s second suggestion relates directly to commercialization principles themselves with regard to financing. They recommend a focus on separating the knowledge valuation and the financing of the project which supports open source and web- based network assimilations rather than immediate profits. This would suggest that research business planning should focus on first developing co-research collaborations as the target market however often perceived as oriented to the first-tier consumer rather than the end. A metaphorical approach would suggest that the research business planning model would attempt to localize independent researchers into nodes or proverbial “electrons around a nucleic and agreed” end consumer product. This would then implicate higher rates of co-patents and/or co-authored research. Co-evolutionary research suggests that this would lead to higher levels of successful innovation as in Baba’s, Shichijo’s and Sedita’s Pasteur Scientists approach in “How do collaborations with universities affect firms’ innovative performance?”
Mintzberg, H. (1998) Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through The Wilds of Strategic Management
Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. (The Free Press)
No comments:
Post a Comment