Suchergebnisse

The openness movement that started in the 1940's with the invention of the T-group has lost much of its momentum. The movement's excesses and abuses have discredited openness in its pure form to the point where anything resembling a T-group is verboten in many organizations, and many of its original champions have become disenchanted with it. What of the original form of openness can be or should be salvaged?

WHO COULD OBJECT to 'open innovation'? The term, which has migrated from software development to become a staple of business-management strategy, seems to conjure the most desirable aspects of contemporary American capitalism: freedom, creativity, democratic accessibility, the possibility of new frontiers. The 'openness' paradigm promises to combine new production systems, made possible by the technologies of Web 2.0 and the shrunken space of globalization, with novel forms of business organization and value extraction; it offers a powerful weapon in inter-firm competition and a new regime of labour. The paradigm has been promoted by a torrent of books and articles from us business schools over the past decade. In 2003 a Google search for 'open innovation' brought up 200 results, according to Henry Chesbrough, one of the gurus of the field and Director of the Centre for Open Innovation at Berkeley's Hass Business School. By 2013, the figure was 672,000,000. Adapted from the source document.