Introduction
Firms usually have to make difficult choices regarding the range of in-house activities to carry out, as well as whether to carry them out independently as a solo endeavor or in collaboration with one or more partners. Innovation is the result of the cooperative efforts of numerous individuals or organizations rather than the work of any one person or group. Collaboration may frequently help businesses accomplish more, faster, cheaper, and risk-free than they could on their own. Some have claimed that there should not be any socio-technical security cooperation due to the risk of co-optation and reproduction of hegemonic narratives (Neocleous, 2018, p. 138). Companies frequently have to decide whether to execute innovative initiatives alone or in collaboration. They may accomplish more with less effort and danger if they work together. Sharing control and benefits comes with a risk of relationship dishonesty, however. Collaboration can expose the company to the threat of partner misbehavior. Still, it also frequently requires giving up some control over development and a portion of the projected innovation gains. The factors influencing a firm’s decision to participate in collaborative development or to refrain from it will be discussed below.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Collaboration
For various reasons, a company could decide to pursue a project independently. First, the company can believe there is no need to work with other companies because it already has all the resources and competencies required for a specific development project. As an alternative, the company would work with a partner with comparable resources or capabilities, but a suitable or cooperative partner might need to be available. If a company is worried that working together may endanger its proprietary technology or if it wants complete control over the project’s growth and profits, it may decide to develop the project as a solo venture. Furthermore, a company may have more options to expand and upgrade its skills if it grows a technical invention independently.
Sometimes businesses will only collaborate if willing to give up their exclusive technologies. Working closely with a partner could make the company’s current proprietary technologies visible to a potential rival. According to Evans et al., collaboration requires proximity, which has long been a worry for organizations (2020). Additionally, the company could want to maintain sole ownership of any proprietary technology produced during the development effort. An example could be Zeta Energy’s decision to work with it on creating a lithium-sulfur battery. Collaboration may provide Zeta with the funding, testing, manufacturing, and marketing capabilities it needs. Still, it would also require Zeta to share profits and control, which could endanger its patented technology.
A company may benefit from working together on development projects in many ways, such as accelerating time to market, increasing flexibility, gaining knowledge from other companies, and forging alliances around standards. It is common for a business to need more complementary resources to turn a body of technological knowledge into a marketable product. With enough time, the corporation can generate such complementary assets. But doing so lengthens the cycle time. Instead, by forming strategic partnerships or licensing agreements, a corporation may be able to access crucial complementary assets quickly. A company’s asset commitment can be reduced and its flexibility increased by partnering with another company to acquire essential skills or resources rather than developing them internally. Product marketplaces quickly shift as a result of rapid technological change. When technology grows swiftly, businesses may want to avoid investing in fixed assets that could be rapidly rendered outdated. To gain access to resources they do not already have, they may become more narrowly specialized and exploit connections with other specialized businesses.
For the company, working with partners can be a valuable learning opportunity. The generation of new information that individual enterprises could not have produced can be facilitated by close contact with other businesses. Companies may be able to increase their knowledge bases and do so more quickly than they might without cooperation by combining their technological resources and expertise. Sharing the project’s costs and risks is one of the main reasons businesses work together on development projects. This can be especially crucial when a project’s high price or outcome is highly speculative.
Resource and Strategic cooperation that fit Zeta Energy
The degree to which a potential partner’s resources complement or enhance the project’s demands is referred to as resource fit. Strategic fit is the degree to which partners’ goals and personalities mesh. With cutting-edge new digitalization tactics, Zeta is embracing the digital shift. According to Zeta Energy, the company’s batteries are recyclable and made from sustainable materials (2020). Industrial development for the creation of active substances is highly complex. Pharmaceutical product development takes extensive planning, from laboratory research to large-scale industrial production. These procedures must be open and utterly trackable in the highly regulated pharmaceutical industry. In project engineering, enormous amounts of data are produced and need to be logically organized. To achieve this, a rigid software environment is required that unifies all operations, from the design of industrial processes through their mechanical implementation, automation, and validation, to their delivery.
Maslin provided early finance for Zeta Energy, along with contributions from friends, family, and investors. However, it would cost around $100 million to develop the necessary facilities and machinery to demonstrate the potential of Zeta’s battery on a commercial scale. Although preliminary testing had indicated that Zeta’s technology was up-and-coming, alternative battery technologies, such as lithium silicon, solid-state, and other lithium-sulfur batteries, were also beginning to emerge on the market. The future of battery technology appeared to be quite unpredictable, which made it challenging to attract substantial investments.
Conclusion
Maslin was hesitant to approach venture capitalists (VC) since he knew VC firms would insist on gaining primary ownership of the firm, which further muddled the situation. According to Shilling, early in 2021, Zeta’s group—now numbering twelve—felt a sense of urgency (2022). The business was swiftly exhausting its initial capital while promising to produce demonstration units for some potential clients. It also understood that the longer it delayed launching its goods, the more likely it was that other battery firms would make advancements that would make it tougher to gain traction with investors and clients.
References
Evans, S. W., Leese, M., & Rychnovská, D. (2020). Science, technology, security: Towards critical collaboration. Social Studies of Science. Web.
Neocleous, M. (2018). The bleak rituals of progress; Or, if somebody offers you a socially responsible innovation in security, just say no. Burgess, J. P., Reniers, G., Ponnet, K., et al. (Ed.) Socially Responsible Innovation in Security: Critical Reflections. Routledge, pp. 129–140.
Shilling, M. (2022). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation (7th Ed.) McGraw Hill LLC.
Zeta Energy – Leading the charge. (2020). Leading the charge. Web.