1. Innovation & Adaptability
Nick Wist
B00684499
“I hereby certify that I am the author of this document and that any assistance I received in its
preparation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in the document. I have also cited all sources
from which I obtained data, ideas, or words that are copied directly or paraphrased in the
document. Sources are properly credited according to accepted standards for professional
publications. I also certify that this paper was prepared by me for this purpose.”
Component Value Score
Certification of authorship (deduction if not present) -.5
Describe the different challenges that managers face 10
Justify which management issue is the most challenging and why 60
Discuss ways in which managers can address this challenge 10
Cite at least ten sources that support your thinking 10
Presentation – Grammar, spelling, layout 10
Total 100

2. Innovation & Adaptability 2
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Innovation 3
What is it? 3
Effects on Organizations 4
Benefits 4
Drawbacks 5
Kodak 6
History 6
Failure to Adapt 6
Bankruptcy 7
Tesla 8
History 8
Partnerships 8
Innovations 9
Synthesis 10
Conclusion 11
Works Cited 12

3. Innovation & Adaptability 3
Introduction
Managing innovation and adaptability has become critically important in the
business sphere as technology rapidly advances. The growth of technology continues to
accelerate, forcing managers to adapt to new situations which have not existed
previously (Garleanu 2012). In order to remain innovative and adaptable to the
demands of customers, a manager cannot become complacent. The theory of
innovation “is about creating economic and social prosperity, and leadership and
management are essential to the process as science and technology”( S. P. Robbins et
al. 2015). These two concepts can lead to the success or failure of a corporation
regardless of its size.
Thesis statement: A manager must be able to integrate and consistently provide
innovation for both internal and external environments. Innovation leads to the
advancement of not only technology but also society as a consequence. Without
innovation and adaptability, the market would become static causing customers to
become uninterested.
Innovation
What is it?
There are two types of innovation that are relevant to technology: product and
process innovation. The first is “the introduction of a good [or] service that is new or
significantly improved regarding its characteristics or intended uses” and may improve
upon facets such as design, technical specifications, and user friendliness. The second
is “utiliz[ing] new knowledge or technologies, or can be based on new uses or
combinations of existing technologies” which involves learning how to improve existing
technology as well as gathering ideas for the future (Gunday 2011). Innovation has two
required elements: exploration, and exploitation. Exploration is the process of inventing
the product, including research and development, experimentation, and flexibility. This
process must come first before the corporation is able to exploit its product or service.
Exploitation is the implementation and execution of the firm's product. As societies
become more educated, especially at the post secondary level “innovative knowledge is
first generated by academics, and then transferred to the marketplace in the form of a
new company”. Meaning that innovation occurs directly from learning the skills needed
to create a potentially successful venture. The three concepts of scope/specificity,
newness/cumulativeness, and tacitness contribute to innovation. The scope is the ability
to apply “the same core knowledge/technology in different applications”. Managers of all
levels must be aware of the scope of their product in order to remain adaptable to their
environments. Newness is how a product or service differs from the existing market.
Customers are constantly searching for a product or idea that has not been seen
before, forcing managers to adapt to their customers wants. Tacitness or “[t]he
knowledge underlying skillful performance” is hard for a manager to communicate,
however, it creates value for the customer (Clarysse 2011). These factors of innovation
create change in organizations, causing them to strive for constant advancement.

4. Innovation & Adaptability 4
Effects on Organizations
The newness of technology is a component of innovation which is a crucial factor
to the success of an organization. The size of technology could be confined to a sector
or globally widespread. Corporations that are “at the forefront of innovation can
guarantee long-term success as a high level of the newness of technology can allow a
company to fulfill a unique place in the technology and market needs of certain
customers” (Clarysse 2011), leading to future prosperity and growth of the business. An
example of “forefront innovation” is Apple which is widely regarded as a leader in
technology, and continues to be creative due to the merchandise that is produced from
its staff. Adaptability is “[o]rganizing to anticipate new problems, trends, and
opportunities” (S. P. Robbins et al. 2015) which are a prerequisite for innovation.
Managers need the ability to be adaptable because innovation involves “changing
technologies and severe global competition rapidly erod[ing] the value added of existing
products and services” (Gunday 2011) and having “[a] long development time will have
a negative influence on company growth”. For example Firm 1 plans on developing a
new hard drive; they take one year to do Research and Development (R&D) because
they want to ensure they create a valuable product. Firm 2 does R&D for six months
and releases their new product. Although Firm 2 spent less time on R&D, their product
was first to market enabling them to make a profit on their product causing corporate
growth. The ability to quickly develop a product or service is critical for an organization
to be relevant in its external environment. Managers of innovative corporations need to
find “market niches” where competitors might lack “core competencies” or are
“uninterested” (Clarysse 2011). Once they have created a product or service,the firm
needs to respond to its external influences to ensure that it remains a competitor in the
market. In terms of product and process innovation “developing formal implementation
processes [are] necessary to pursue incremental product or service innovations”, as
they become more practiced, they contribute to the innovation of the organization
allowing them to better satisfy customers. The technology industry is propelled by
customers whose needs are constantly evolving, driving continued technological growth
and forcing managers to adapt in order to gain a competitive advantage in their
environment. Logically making a product better improves the growth of the firm,
providing the opportunity for future innovations (Gunday 2011). The effects of innovation
on corporations are widespread. Innovation can greatly benefit a business by creating a
diverse existence in its environment.
Benefits
Increased growth is the primary benefit of innovation. In order to maintain this
growth “firms place more emphasis on management techniques and reach sustainable
levels of higher performance” leading to higher customer satisfaction in the long run.
Organizational change helps employees “cope with environmental challenges by
successfully integrating technical or administrative changes into their organizational
structure that improve the level of achievement of their goals”. Being satisfied with
internal environmental conditions enables staff to become more creative, leading to the
possibility of developing new products. Developing valuable products requires
managers to know their customers intimately; this relationship is enhanced by

5. Innovation & Adaptability 5
innovation as it provides “an increase in sales and market shares since it contributes
considerably to the satisfaction of existing customers and gaining new customers”.
Once a business has achieved a greater level of innovation, it becomes much easier to
for them to react and adapt to the needs of their external forces (Gunday 2011). Another
unique situation that arises from technological innovation is “co-opetition" which is a mix
between cooperation and competition. There are many different ways that firms could
go about conducting this idea, they might co-operate internally but compete when they
are in directly involved with mutual customers. This companionship leads to an
innovative drive which is beneficial to both organizations. The collaboration between two
firms gives both the opportunity to gain “timely access to knowledge and resources that
are otherwise unavailable” which gives managers the opportunity to implement team
building techniques between the two businesses. Technology is a rapidly expanding
field which can be difficult for a firm to be competitive in. Convergence enables
organizations “to share the risk and to access and combine a variety of sophisticated
technologies” creating a better overall product for consumers as knowledge from both
firms can be applied. R&D is expensive and often can drain a company’s resources.
When two entities collaborate together on one innovative product they are able to share
resources and make the process more efficient. In general, “leading firms aspire to lead
their industry and constantly pursue technological innovations to establish industry
standards and gain competitive advantages”. This drive benefits the consumer as they
are receiving a product from an organization that is striving to meet exact customer
demands. Co-opetition allows the firms to set the values of the industry because they
influence the direction it takes. The relationship between the organizations must be
equal so that one party does not have more control over the market than the other
(Gnyawali 2011). While there are many benefits of innovation that allow firms to
contribute to the overall health of the market, there are drawbacks.
Drawbacks
A large drawback to innovation is the difficulty empirically tracking its progress.
Most innovation is conceptual and then refined so that it can be developed into a
product. The most accurate way to measure innovation is through the growth of the
organization that is creating it. However measuring growth is not actually measuring
innovation, rather it is one of the ways that innovation is perceived. Many studies have
attempted to quantify technological change on a “macro” scale which creates a broad
conclusion. There are many different markets that technology encompasses, and the
speed at which it progresses means that in order to gain an accurate depiction it must
be examined on a smaller scale (Lee 2011). The size of an organization can often
decrease creativity which decreases the innovation that a firm can produce. Large
corporations focus on “efficiency and cost reduction and the minimization of change and
uncertainty” which are structures that are not conducive to innovation. When a
corporation is primarily concerned with being profitable by volume of product, innovation
is less likely to be achieved as efficiency overrides it (Beaver 2004). Failure to innovate
leads to disaster in any corporation. A famous example of a firm that went bankrupt due
to this problem is Kodak.

6. Innovation & Adaptability 6
Kodak
History
Kodak was founded in 1884 by George Eastman. He created the ability to store
camera film in a roll which was a revolutionary innovation. In 1900, Kodak created the
first consumer camera called the Brownie. The device was sold for one dollar and a roll
of film could be bought for 15 cents, making it easily accessible to their market (Elliot
2012). Kodak became a public corporation in 1930 when it was launched in New York
on the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index. In 1935, Kodak invented Kodachrome
which was the first colour film available to consumers, which came in diverse sizes
allowing widespread usage (Anthony 2011). After successfully building the first digital
camera, Kodak had a “90 percent market share of photographic film” in 1976. Until the
year, 2005 Kodak was the largest seller of digital cameras in the United States, after this
time the corporations market share declined more than 80 percent (Sparks 2012).
Failure to Adapt
Kodak was once a highly innovative company, however, they failed to adapt to
their changing market and developing creative innovations, causing the business to file
for bankruptcy. Disruptive innovations are a key factor in the adaptability of a firm, they
are “new products based on new technologies and which provide different attributes or
product characteristics than what the company’s mainstream or established customer
segments … while at the same time bringing new performance attributes to the market.”
They are something that a manager in any organization must be aware of, as ignoring
them can initiate the economic downturn of a firm. When managers create a product
that is a disruptive innovation they “do not initially address the needs of the… best
customers or new customer value and often promise lower profit margin” (Gebremeskel
2012) which decreases consumers want for the company’s product, directly affecting
profit. A difficult component of innovation for managers is being “contented, yet
unconcerned, and uneager to improve or change”(Business Dictionary n.d.) more
commonly known as complacency. This situation occurs when employees lose
motivation and creativity, constructing an internal environment that is unable to compete
with external competitors. For managers of all levels complacency is difficult because it
involves ensuring that employees remain motivated over long periods of time.
Employees display greater creativity if they are motivated, therefore they are a critical
factor that can also cause complacency. This perception and “inability to commercialize
products based on new technologies in a profitable way” can “render the established
technological capabilities of firms obsolete” (Gebremeskel 2012) resulting in the inability
to create profit causing an initial decline in market share. In order to combat these
effects managers must use the calm waters method, consisting of three states:
unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Unfreezing requires finding areas that need to
change, then ensuring that the innovative culture strives. The second step, change, can
then be introduced, this is the actual structure or idea that needs to be implemented by
management. This alteration of the organization is not guaranteed to take hold and
needs to undergo the third process in the method. Refreezing is ensuring that the
change takes hold and that employees adapt to the new practices of the corporation.

7. Innovation & Adaptability 7
Between these years Fuji gained a 17.37% market share; a study found that market
share had “a positive and significant impact on the trade balance…especially [in] high
technology sectors” (Laursen 2002) which display that even this relatively small
decrease in market share had a major effect on Kodak as a profitable corporation. In
response to this decrease in market share, the organization laid off thousands of
employees. In 1983 and 1993 they attempted to diversify by investing in digital imaging
and data storage products. The CEO during this period, Colby Chandler recognized that
the organization needed to “access new technology through cooperative arrangements
with other major companies” rather than the firm's traditional practice of “do[ing]
everything itself”. With film becoming obsolete and Kodaks market share rapidly falling,
CEO and Chairman George Fisher was hired in 1993 to focus specifically on
transitioning the corporation from film to digital, and was in control of this strategy until
2003. Kodak chose an “incremental and hybrid strategy” which under control of Fisher
benefited the corporation. Kodak was able to produce the first megapixel electronic
image system making digital cameras widely available in 1994, which created a market
for accessory products that were needed in order to further develop the product into the
state that it is today. In 2002, analog and film still accounted for 64% of the global sales,
and to help consumers make the transition Kodak decided that the organization’s
“approach to digital photography is about providing customers simplicity in taking and
doing anything else with pictures” (Gebremeskel 2012). Kodak created a number of
products which made picture processing and transferring (from film to digital) simple
and accessible to consumers. George Fisher made acquisitions and partnerships with
many key competitors in the industry in an attempt to regain the firm's former power. He
appeared to succeed for some time until Kodak changed the corporate strategy in 2004
(Gebremeskel 2012).
Bankruptcy
Kodak adopted a “complete digital transformation strategy” in 2004 when they
realized that the film market was declining by 25% a year. This plan required: a number
Figure 1: Film Market Shares
(Gebremeskel 2012)

8. Innovation & Adaptability 8
of portfolio and operational changes; more acquisitions and integration with other
organizations, and exiting some major existing businesses. Kodak stopped making film
cameras in the Americas and Europe in 2004 stating that “the move marks a milestone
in the history of Kodak… it reflects a recent surge in demand for filminess digital
cameras, which now outsell traditional models” (Gebremeskel 2012). The corporation
found that it was isolated as it had always adopted the attitude of developing its own
technology, building its own products, and supplying them. In 2006 Kodak made may
poor strategic decisions; due to competition and falling prices digital cameras were
advancing rapidly. Innovation expanded even further and the decline of digital cameras
would fall even more as firms began to integrate cameras into mobile devices. Kodak
announced that they would stop selling digital cameras in this year, focusing on photo
printers instead and one year later would be the last time that the corporation was
profitable. In 2008, Kodak held a 1% market share of inkjet printers, which was
supposed to be the organization's main focus. In 2011, the corporation’s stock price fell
to $1.77 and Kodak began to sell patents and non-core assets in an attempt to gain
capital. Finally in 2012, the firm filed chapter 11, ending a 128-year history
(Gebremeskel 2012). The failure of a historic corporation demonstrates that the inability
to adapt and create innovative products can and will destroy the founding technological
firm.
Tesla
History
Tesla motors was incorporated in 2003 and aimed to make fully electric sports
cars. It was founded by Elon Musk, Mark Tarpenning, and Martin Eberhard. Musk was
founder of PayPal previously while the rest of the founders were Silicon Valley
Engineers (Karamitsios 2013). Musk provided capital for the corporation in first round
financing contributing $7.5 million in 2004 and $13 million in the second round, one year
later. In 2005, Tesla signed a contract with Lotus who would build complete vehicles for
them without the traditional powertrain. Their first model was revealed in 2006 and was
called the Tesla Roadster, officially making Tesla a car company. The third round of
financing in 2007 called Series C raised an additional $40 million for the organization,
one year later Elon Musk became CEO as he had personally invested $70 million into
the firm. In 2010, Tesla Motors went public and was the first automotive company to
achieve this status since Ford in 1956 (Kumparak 2015).
Partnerships
Tesla was able to create the first electric car that consumers were interested in by
changing the view that electric vehicles were slow and provided a keystone for this type
of vehicle. With the introduction of the model S, a family oriented sedan, Tesla is
currently providing quality to its market because the firm is able to provide the only
electric vehicle that has a long driving range, sporty, and appealing in design. Tesla is

9. Innovation & Adaptability 9
diverse and has partnerships with companies such as Panasonic, Daimler, and Toyota
who contribute different aspects of the corporation. Panasonic and Tesla collaborate on
R&D (Research and Development) of Lithium Ion batteries, which power the Model S.
Panasonic manufactures the batteries specifically for Tesla, creating an innovative
partnership and developing Lithium Ion battery technology. Elon Musk said:
“Incorporating Panasonic’s next-generation cells into Model S batteries will ensure
unrivalled range and performance. We are very grateful for our great partnership with
Panasonic”. An executive at Panasonic, Mr. Ito responded that “it is our pleasure to start
supplying cells for Tesla’s Model S and promote sustainable mobility” displaying the
mutually beneficial relationship that Tesla has with its suppliers. Tesla’s collaboration
with Toyota is also extremely beneficial to both firms. Toyota invested $50 million in
2010 so that the organization could help Toyota create an electric version of their
popular small SUV the RAV-4. The benefit to Tesla comes from Toyota providing
engineering and production experience and applying this knowledge to the Model S.
Tesla was also able to purchase its first manufacturing facility in 2010 after a joint
venture between Toyota and GM ended (Karamitsios 2013). This partnership diversifies
and creates new products in already existing markets, providing opportunity for
widespread growth. The partnerships that Tesla has developed can be considered
inputs in the system’s view of innovation and adaptability, and provides them with easy
access to resources from corporations that have high reputations in their respective
markets. Although the managers at Tesla have made many strategic decisions which
have allowed this innovation to take place, sustaining this expansion is the most
complicated part for managers because they must be acutely aware of the people they
hire, and the partnerships they create. Most people are largely resistant to change
which is a major barrier to innovation, therefore choosing employees who can accept
change is crucial to Tesla’s expansion. It can also be difficult for managers to identify the
strategies that are necessary in order to drive innovation in their corporation. Tesla
demonstrates the ability to make this kind of decision as they have technological
collaborative networks and R&D alliances (Karamitsios 2013).
Innovations
By 2020, an analysis reports that BEVs (Battery Electric Vehicle) could have a
total of 53% of the electric vehicle market share. It is important to note that there are
other types of electric vehicles, but solely electric plug-in models are the positive trend
(Mangram 2012). Tesla is able to dominate this area of the market because, although
the price point of their vehicles is higher, they are able to intrigue people with the
capability and design features. The current price for a model S ranges from $70,000 to
over $100,000, however, a quarter of this expense is due to the large Lithium Ion
batteries. While this price does not make the vehicle widely available, the firm has
recognized this and will adapt by creating more affordable vehicles ranging from
$30,000 to $35,000 once progress on battery technology has occurred. The corporation
also plans to keep the current range of the Model S (265 miles) the same in the new
economical versions. Managers at Tesla have created innovative solutions for many
obstacles that they face as they are one of the first firms to market. Although there are
other manufacturers that make BEVs, Tesla has earned prestige over them. Tesla’s
primary innovation is their battery technology, which powers the entire vehicle and has

10. Innovation & Adaptability 10
nearly triple the range of its competitors. This is achieved by using large quantities of
small cylindrical cells, saving on manufacturing costs as well as creating extremely
dense energy cells. The density and size of these cells mean that they are safer in
collisions, and satisfy all safety standards in the US. There are also plans to create a
nationwide charging network, which would be able to provide nearly a full charge in 30
minutes. Competitor’s vehicles currently require several hours to charge (Bullis 2013).
This innovation appeals to Tesla customers as it not only saves them time but makes
charging stations easily accessible. One of Tesla’s major innovations is the ability to
convert any outlet into one of its charging ports. This means that if you have a port at
home and one at work that your commute to work would become much more efficient
as stopping at a gas station is not necessary. However, due to the fact that the vehicle is
electric should there be a power outage you would not be able to charge it. While there
are some drawbacks, there are many more innovations that display Tesla’s monopoly.
For example in the original Roadster the battery took up the rear third of the car, in their
new Model S the batteries are flat and integrated into the frame of the car. This method
displays the advances that Tesla is able to make in short periods of time (Bullis 2013).
Another innovation that Tesla created is called the Powerwall which is an electric
storage unit for residences. There are two versions one which is capable of 7kWh and
the other 10kWh so in Ontario the Ministry of Energy estimates that a family of four
would use 27kWh per day. Although this is above the capabilities of the system, it is not
designed to run all day. Solar panels are placed on the roof which collect energy where
it is transformed into electricity and stored in the Powerwall. Peak hours for energy
corporations are in the morning and at night, this invention circumvents traditional peak
hours as the house would use its own power in the darkness, costing the consumer
less. The battery could also be used for a limited time period in the case of a power
outage to run necessary devices (CBC 2015). Tesla has many new innovations and will
continue to diversify into new areas. However, the firm is still very young and there is
not enough information to make an accurate prediction of their future. Should they
continue to innovate in the way that they have been technological advancement of
vehicles will expand globally.
Synthesis
Both Kodak and Tesla are innovative corporations, so what caused one to fail
and the other to be the unquestioned leader in its field? The choices that managers
have made throughout both companie’s histories affect the outcomes in performance of
each firm respectively. Kodak and Tesla are similar in that they both created a single,
significant, large-scale innovation that revolutionized a market. Kodak was the first to
invent the consumer camera as well as supplied film. Tesla was able to create a fully
electric vehicle that is fast and capable of much longer ranges than any of its
competitors giving them a competitive advantage. The external and internal
environments were right in these corporations in order for their managers to be
influential and create a team of people that built products which captivated their
markets. Kodak’s ultimate failure came from the firm’s historical attitude of “doing
everything itself," managers at the corporation did not facilitate the continual change
that was necessary to develop critical partnerships and R&D collaborations to make the

11. Innovation & Adaptability 11
firm diverse. The White Rapids Metaphor states that managers are “facing uncertain
and dynamic environments” and must compete in a “world that’s increasingly dominated
by information, ideas, and knowledge”(S. P. Robbins et al. 2015). This metaphor can be
used to show the reason for Kodak’s eventual decline. When the corporation was
founded in 1884 the world in terms of industry was a completely different place, it had
much less competition, and many devices were still undiscovered. Once a corporation
which has been successful for a large period of time encounters the fast paced
environment of current technology, it will be unable to adapt to this new way of thinking.
The structure of the business had been the same for so long that attempting to change
it would be impossible. Inability to adapt in order to remain innovative was Kodak’s
defeat when it went bankrupt in 2012. However, Tesla exemplifies an organization that
is able to handle the pressure of the White Water Rapids Metaphor. Elon Musk, a top
level manager at Tesla is a particularly perceptive entrepreneur and is able to predict
and make strategic moves that provide his corporation with the partnerships and
diversification needed in order to remain highly innovative. Their battery technology
enables the firm to create a product which provides competitive advantage and the
possibility for diversification. The organization has already created another product
based on their technology, which is a large power reservoir. It will not only have
residential uses but also industrial uses and could be used to power large buildings. The
corporation is only 12 years old and has revolutionized the Electric Vehicle market. With
other competitors unable to create a product capable of rivalling Teslas cars, the
monopoly will continue to grow making it difficult for new firms to enter the market.
While both corporations have their strengths it is the environment at Tesla that enables
them to be highly innovative and continue to do so. If Kodak was able to adapt and
create valuable partnerships its managers may have been successful in saving the
corporation. Specifically choosing to exit the digital camera market to enter an already
flooded market was a decision that caused irreversible damage to the business. Both of
these firms display the effects that innovation can have on the technology industry and
the need for managers to be highly perceptive.
Conclusion
Innovation and adaptability are crucial to the maintenance and growth of
organizations globally. Managers face an environment which is dynamic and changing
at an exponential rate. In order to ensure that their organization does not fail, they must
be able to consistently handle the pressure of their career, especially in the technology
industry. Becoming complacent and inflexible destroys a corporation, as seen with
Kodak. A corporation which has been created and bred for innovation, such as Tesla,
has a far better chance of continually being successful as they can create products that
are tailored to consumer needs. Innovation will continue to expand rapidly as human
beings rely more on technology. Managers will need to be able to move at the same
pace as the industry in order to be successful and inspire the organization as a whole to
drive their product to its peak performance. Therefore, managers must be highly
perceptive in order to adapt and create innovation in emerging technology in order to
engage customers and facilitate change.

12. Innovation & Adaptability 12
Works Cited
Anthony, S. (2011, October 12). The history of Kodak: Pioneer of film and digital photography.
Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/99281-the-
illustrious-history-of-kodak-inventor-of-the-snapshot-digital-cameras-oled-and-more/5
Beaver, G. (2004). Editorial: Adapting culture to embrace creativity and innovation. Strategic
change, 13(7), 343-344.
Bullis, K. (2013, August 7). Tesla's Novel Battery and Charging Technology | MIT Technology
Review. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://www.technologyreview.com/news/
516961/how-tesla-is-driving-electric-car-innovation/
Elliot, A. (2012, January 5). A Brief History of Kodak, American Tech Icon. Retrieved 25, 2015,
from http://mashable.com/2012/01/05/history-kodak/#b7G39ibDb8qX
Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van de Velde, E. (2011). Entrepreneurial Origin, Technological
Knowledge, and the Growth of Spin‐Off Companies. Journal of Management Studies,
48(6), 1420-1442.
Garleanu, N., Panageas, S., & Yu, J. (2012). Technological growth and asset pricing. The Journal
of Finance, 67(4), 1265-1292.

13. Innovation & Adaptability 13
Gebremeskel Tesfaye, H., & Nguyen, T. H. N. (2012). Incumbent firms and Response to
Disruptive Innovation through Value Network Management: Lessons from Eastman
Kodak‟ s failure in the digital era.
Gunday, G., Ulusoy, G., Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm
performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(2), 662-676.
Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. R. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with
competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650-663.
Innovation & Adaptability. (2015). In S. P. Robbins, M. Coulter, E. Leach, & M. Kilfoil,
Management - Eleventh Canadian Edition (p. 207 - 226). Pearson Canada Inc.
Karamitsios, A. (2013). Open Innovation in EVs: A Case Study of Tesla Motors.
Kumparak, Greg, Matt Burns, and Anna Escher. "A Brief History Of Tesla." TechCrunch. 28 July
2015. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Laursen, K., & Meliciani, V. (2002). The relative importance of international vis‐à‐vis national
technological spillovers for market share dynamics. Industrial and Corporate Change,
11(4), 875-894.
Lee, C., Jeon, J., & Park, Y. (2011). Monitoring trends of technological changes based on the
dynamic patent lattice: A modified formal concept analysis approach. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 78(4), 690-702.
Mangram, M. E. (2012). The globalization of Tesla Motors: a strategic marketing plan analysis.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(4), 289-312.
Sparks, M. (2012). Kodak: 130 years of history. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9024539/Kodak-130-
years-of-history.html
Tesla Powerwall: 5 things you need to know. (2015, May 4). Retrieved December 3, 2015, from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-powerwall-5-things-you-need-to-know-1.3057488
What is complacent? definition and meaning. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/complacent.html