The investor and the entrepreneur both need each other, so there is a basis for a deal. Investors often take the approach that an idea (usually technology) is not worth much without the money to make it successful.

I ask the rhetorical question – "if the idea is of so little value, why do the investors want the entrepreneur's idea?" Because their money will not grow by itself.

Not much to add right now except that I find Russ Conser's comments quite relevant. This is a two-way situation and being a gold-digger is no better than being a bully. Hopefully, the focus on building solid relationships will continue to grow as open innovation matures.

I believe as long as the focus is on the IDEA (content) and not IDEALS (innovation and process), any open source or collaborative relationship will be flawed from the start.

Many open source initiatives with communities are fraught with disappointment on the community side. Working in an open source collaborative way requires a transformational change in relation to how the brand essence is delivered (the one thought which governs all actions) through its people.

By sharing experiences about open innovation, as you do through this blog, we gain a better understanding of what is 'normal' and what is 'possible'. Open Innovation is a comparatively young discipline, and each experience helps define the industry. The more reference points we can refer to, the easier it is for us to learn and grow.

We are fortunate that partners who collaborate in open innovation never have far to look in order to see their common interests. They share a common goal of creating progress in their markets and technology. Focusing on our common interests and higher principles, as Janine mentioned, allows us to find strength for the empathy needed to accept our differences and move forward.

As Russ eloquently stated, relationships will triumph over individual deals. By learning from each other, we can ensure that open innovation evolves as a discipline where quality relationships become the currency by which we measure ourselves.

I think this is starting to change – I see more servant leaders as presidents and CEOs, even of large corporations, I see more innovative management styles and cultures all of which should make open innovation more 'equal' (tho not absolutely equal) over time (and generational shifts). If you look at P&G (a classic open innovation company), Lafley was a distinctly different type of leader and the reason it worked there was because of his leadership and how he used his leadership to transform the culture which enabled a more positive relationship with partners in open innovation.

I wonder if those companies that are led by people that were entrepreneurs themselves (and still are) tend to be more fair in their dealings with smaller companies. A few of my clients, who are large, are very fair in their partnerships with smaller companies and even take on a mentoring role for them to help them grow. They see the value the smaller partner brings in terms of some technology, methodology, process, solution, IP etc. but also see it in their best interest to help that small company grow and succeed so they can stay around to be a continual partner and provide value. Now, that's not the norm yet in my experience but it is out there and I'm slowly starting to see it more and more.

That said – I think to some degree 'bullying' is part of human nature – not from a 'mean/evil' standpoint but because I think all humans are basically insecure – we're born that way…and a means to overcome that is to make you feel better about yourself and one way to do that is to stress your gifts and talents that are unique or of high impact (positively) or, the more common, is to put others down in order to elevate yourself. Of course this can get into a philosophical and theological discussion as well, but suffice it to say that we all need to feel important and worthy and there are both positive and negative ways to make that happen.

Great discussion – deb

There are no rules governing open innovation partnerships and smaller participants are just USED by the big bullies

Margaret correctly states "open innovation is for equals"…if not in size, then certainly in terms of sophistication.

Her observation is probably fairly common. I feel it is helpful to consider the scenario she described from both the perspective of the "technology provider" as well as the "technology seeker".

The technology provider invariably has their own innovation as their sole frame of reference (and interest). They are also very likely looking to the technology seeker as a major investor to complete their development.

In contrast, the technology seeker has access to, and likely has knowledge of a great many solutions in the space that the technology provider is seeking to fill. Therefore, the value of the provider's innovation to the seeker must be weighed against these available alternatives. The degree to which a technology seeker will be willing to invest in completing the development is going to be dictated by the suitability of the alternatives available to them and the likelihood that the investment is going to generate a meaningful return.

Of course, a technology seeker's strong and stated preference is to push the cost and resource investment decisions back onto the provider. Realistically speaking, these larger companies can't afford to invest in every potentially attractive opportunity to validate it. That said, a technology provider should decide at what point they feel they have the right to push back and say that in order to conduct addtiional work to satisfy the seeker's questions, that certain investment on the seeker's part is necessary. If the seeker is unwilling to make an investment, then you know that the interest isn't that pressing.

Conversely, the more finished an innovation is, the greater the value it should command in the market with a technology seeker. The point at which the technology provider feels that they have sufficient leverage, they will be able to court multiple customers and likely multiple offers. And large companies can be pretty nimble if they feel that they risk an attractive opportunity getting away from them.

Best regards,

Michael

Although your insight is often true, my experience is that 'bullying' is amateurish and simply symptomatic of the immaturity of the field of Open Innovation.

My own 10+ yrs experience has led me to a point where I totally agree with something proposed at another recent conference – Open Innovation is all about the relationship, not the deal. Focussing on 'the deal' is what newbies in the space do to their own detriment, but they do learn to change (or fail).

Borrowing from the popular book, perhaps a better parallel for Open Innovation is 'Corporations are from Mars – Entrepreneurs are from Venus.' Although different, as they gain experience, mature and succeed, they come to learn they need each other – especially for the purpose of creating something new. Bad behaviors like 'Bullying' (or 'gold digging' on the part of the entrepreneur) are then replaced by new philosophies about clarifying roles, responsibilities, obligations, etc. wherein all parties see, understand and believe in a relationship of mutual benefit.

So although I agree with the seed of the intitial insight, I propose that 'bullying' may simply be a common stage in early and inexperienced OI relationships – and is most certainly *not* the natural end-state of successful open innovation.

Russ