An open innovation platform, a big company leader

Will our world be better if there is innovation, no patent protection, and no property rights protection in the world?

In the list of speakers on the big talk of Baidu baijia today, Chris Anderson, former editor of Wired magazine, is also the creator and practitioner of the concept of makers, the answer is yes.

Of course, from the perspective of business and business, open innovation has abandoned the demand for property rights. Anderson does not think it is a good thing, but he still insists that, this will make the whole world better.

Don't use Anderson as an example of Linux's open-source systems and applications, so he said that although he is a fan of apple, he prefers android.

In the eyes of this old man, only an ecosystem built on an open platform can defeat large companies and big companies.

One of the most important propositions is that top smart people will no longer work for big companies. In Anderson's view, it is far more important to let some people do something different, so as to realize their own ideas and get happiness in their work.

Of course, it is even more important than obtaining a reward for money.

In his own sharing, Yu Kai, vice president of Baidu Research Institute, also expressed the same view on Anderson's point of view. He said that during recruitment, some people do not start to consider the salary and benefits they can give to their positions, but whether they are more interesting and interesting.

This is not good news for large companies, because it may mean that the smartest people may be hired by them.

The bureaucracy and suffocating office politics of large companies are a huge disaster for those who are creative and interesting to pursue.

Therefore, in Anderson's view, open innovation not only provides a platform for "smart people" to do something different, but also needs to help them grow, and give play to their value in a larger scope.

In his speech, Anderson provided a Reward Structure pyramid to protect the five levels, from the bottom of a T-shirt to the top of the equity and employment relationship incentives, we can also see that, even if we are open to innovation, we must solve the problem of continuous incentives.

However, unlike the corporate system of a fixed contract relationship, the open cooperation mechanism starts and maintains cooperation based on interests and hobbies.

Less command and administrative intervention, and no frustration caused by inappropriate comparisons within the company, more importantly, A high degree of consistency between personal value pursuit and the goals that can be achieved by the work object will be the motive force behind the "smart person" to escape from a large company.

Another dangerous trend is that even a fixed employment relationship with smart people provides stable income and reliable social security for these smart people, it is no longer possible for a large company to have all its employees, either intellectual or time resources, in a complete sense.

In Anderson's view, for startups or small companies, the value of open innovation lies in that open platforms can attract smart people around the world to meet two requirements, it can also avoid risks: Get the right "participation architecture" and the shift from volunteers to employees that passion contributes.

My understanding is that we need to find the smart people who have been hired by big companies and take advantage of their time so that their professional passion can be re-activated.

Charles Handi, the father of management philosophy, argues that the era of free exchange of security has gradually passed in his famous book "Beyond uncertainty.

In his philosophy, every company is like a brokerage company. All you need to do is to link the technologies and products of others together.

Such a company is more like a monastery or community, said Professor handi.

This can be understood as a reflection on existing big companies and a solution to the creative release of smart people.

The concept of open innovation proposed by Anderson is in the same line with handi.

Big companies will face nightmares as smart people gradually leave.

However, the good news is that if Anderson's dream comes true, an open and innovative platform does not require property rights or patent protection, they will also benefit from this process of sharing technology and knowledge.

This time, however, is not the result of "Independent Innovation" by smart people they hire.

An open innovation platform, a big company leader