Content uploaded by Manuel Moritz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Manuel Moritz on Nov 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tesla Motors, Inc.: Pioneer towards a New Strategic Approach
in the Automobile Industry along the Open Source Movement?
Manuel Moritz, Tobias Redlich, Pascal Krenz, Sonja Buxbaum-Conradi, Jens P. Wulfsberg
Helmut-Schmidt-University, Institute of Production Engineering (LaFT), Hamburg, Germany
Abstract--In many industries, we observe a paradigm shift
from traditional value creation towards co-creation and open
production approaches. The boundaries of companies dissolve
and many more players (suppliers, customers, community
members, etc.) are integrated into the value creation process.
This also implies the share of knowledge to set industry-wide
standards and to advance new technologies.
Tesla Motors, Inc. recently announced that it would give
away all their patents to anyone who in good faith wants to use
them. They say their aim was to foster the advancement of
electric vehicles to compete with conventional vehicles and give
the zero-emission mobility a push. Nevertheless, what about the
traditional automobile industry with its big players where even
the slightest growth in market share is crucial and the
intellectual property (IP) of a company is kept secret like the
Holy Grail as it ensures competitive advantages? Based on a
Tesla case study our research focusses on product-, company- ,
market- and industry-specific factors that might enable even
small players to start an industry-wide revolution by applying
strategic aspects of openness in their business model.
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 12th 2014, a blog entry of the CEO of Tesla
Motors, Inc. (henceforth “Tesla”) with the title “All our
patent are belong to you” [4] was released on the company’s
website. Tesla announced that “in the spirit of the open
source movement” and “for the advancement of electric
vehicle technology” it would “not initiate patent lawsuits
against anyone who, in good faith, wants to you use [their]
technology”. By opening their IP portfolio, they want to
invite other car makers to jointly tackle the carbon crisis by
enhancing the technology and develop the market for electric
vehicles which compared to the gasoline powered cars is
minimal these days. Within the rather traditional automotive
industry, this decision caused an industry-wide stir as
innovation and IP are recognized as crucial competitive
factors for a company to survive.
So, why would a young and still small company
(compared to the big carmakers) like Tesla take such a
revolutionary step and give away all their technological
know-how for free? What are the strategic implications of
that decision? Could a strategy based on openness in the end
turn out to be a key advantage in an industry that with the
breakthrough of the electric cars will have to be completely
restructured? What corporate environment is suitable to a
strategy of openness? Are the principles of the open source
movement also applicable on physical goods? What would be
the opportunities and risks by doing so?
Based on the theory of a distributed production and on the
Tesla case study these questions shall be addressed.
II. OPENNESS AS A CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR
A. The evolution of success factors
The ability to create and keep competitive advantages is
crucial for a company to make profits and survive in the long
term. Besides traditional factors like time, cost, quality, etc.,
in recent years secondary factors have evolved that enable
companies to hold their position while market conditions or
the industry environment are rapidly changing. Flexibility
and adaptability, for example, have become as important as
the primary success factors these days [17, 10a]. In addition
to that, there are many examples of highly competitive
companies (e.g. Local Motors, Wikipedia, Quirky,
InnoCentive, etc.) whose success cannot be described with
the traditional view on corporate competitiveness as they
follow another paradigm of value creation. The borders of
companies are more and more dissolving towards (open)
production or value co-creation systems [17, 10a].
Beyond that, meanwhile the most companies act in a
highly dynamic business environment with decreasing time-
to-market and ever-shorter product lifecycles where the
ability to constantly innovate is equally important [20].
Considering scarce budgets for internal R&D has put even
more pressure on the companies. The search for new ideas
and innovative technologies beyond the company’s walls has
led to the idea of open innovation where also external sources
may be utilized [3]. Production systems that are based on
participation, cooperation and interaction with several
external stakeholders (e.g. customers, competitors, suppliers,
scientists, communities, etc.) to boost innovations are also
referred to as “Bottom-up economics” [17, 10a].
B. Theory of a distributed production
To explain the idea of a distributed production, we will
discuss two contrary perspectives on market and competition.
On the one hand, there is a classical market with fixed
boundaries and a near-constant size where different players
act in a highly competitive environment. The companies are
focused on the differentiation from their competitors and thus
try to gain additional market shares up to the production-
related (local) maximum (Fig. 1, left part). A different
approach is to consider the companies as players within value
creation systems. Their aim in contrast is not to split the
market, but to widen the overall market jointly (Fig. 1, right
part). In this constellation, openness is an essential
requirement for success. Cooperation and value co-creation
lead to a network of production systems that also fosters the
occurrence of emergence effects.
85
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age
Figure 1 - Two perspectives on the strategy of a company
Considering changing characteristics of a market (e.g.
maturity, size, industry, etc.) might cause its players to adapt
their strategic approaches to one or the other direction. The
authors claim that these days more markets require a strategy
of openness in order to remain innovative and thus
competitive. In this case, the ability for cooperation and
collaboration turns out to be a critical success factor.
III. OPENNESS AS A NEW STRATEGIC APPROACH
A. From closeness to openness
The strategic approaches just mentioned before represent
two contrary perspectives on a value creation system:
Closeness and openness as opposing extremes in a wide
spectrum. Fig. 2 shows a classification system that clusters
success factors for each characteristic with regard to
architecture of the value creation artifact, the value creation
process as well as the value system structure. [17, 17a]
Figure 2 – Cluster of value creation characteristics [17]
In this paper, we focus on the value creation artifact and
in particular on the organization and management of IP as the
technological know-how of a company is represented by its
patents. With Tesla, the IP rights were drastically affected by
the announcement of the CEO as this top-down initiative can
be interpreted as a quasi-free license to use their technology.
B. The new age of (open) innovation
So far, we have seen that the traditional understanding of
innovation and innovation processes has changed over time.
SCHUMPETER argued that innovative companies are
(internally) able to generate competitive advantages that leads
to a temporary monopoly with monopoly profits [12].
CHESBROUGH defines this process as closed innovation:
The value creation process takes place within a company’s
sphere and thus range of control (Fig. 3, left side) [3].
However, innovation pressure has forced companies to also
search for new ideas beyond their spheres. This concept is
referred to as open innovation (OI). External ideas may enter
the innovation process of a company, but also internally
sourced ideas may be harnessed outside the firm’s walls (Fig.
3, right side). REICHWALD and PILLER understand the
open innovation concept as a complement to the traditional
innovation process that may enhance the competitiveness of a
company [18].
C. Open source as part of an open innovation strategy
Open source is one of many feasible models that enable
companies to harness their technology in the spirit of open
innovation. The basic idea is to jointly develop new
technologies and share the rights to make use of it.
Essentially, there are four open source strategies that can be
differentiated with respect to company’s situation and aims:
Pooled R&D, spinouts, selling complements, donated
complements [2]. In the software industry, many cases have
proven how the spirit of the open source philosophy was able
to influence an entire industry and create profitable business
models. The question would be then whether this approach is
also successfully applicable to an industry patenting their
technological know-how and producing physical goods.
D. The implementation of openness
The implementation of open source strategies in a
traditional tech-industry where patents guarantee competitive
advantages and add to the intangible assets, but are also
essential for defensive IP-strategy purposes requires a
different approach. On the one hand, long-term strategic
planning, high R&D costs, but also legal and shareholder
related and other issues hamper a radical change in the IP
strategy. On the other hand, changes in the industry or market
environment might force a company to change it in one or the
other direction. Thus, the proper degree of openness has to be
adjustable. We propose a gradual opening structure (Fig. 4)
from completely closed to very open. A company therefore
has to constantly revise its IP strategy and adjust it if
required.
Modular ity
Type of service
Property rights
§
Architecture
of the value
creation
artifact
Function
Structure
Granularity Coarse Fine
Low High
Private goods Public good s
Product or
service
Co-creation
experience
Product-serv ice
Syste ms
Value
creation
process
„Width“ of
Co-activi ty
Business model
Value
creation
strategy
Value
creation
activitiy
Competitive
strategy
Competitive
advantage
„Depth “ of
Co-activi ty
Low (bilater al) High (mass... )
Coordination
(integration )
Cooperation
( participat ion)
Collaboration
(interaction)
Comptetition Coopeti tion Cooperation
Unique Hybrid
Closed
source
Partial de-
commercializ ation Open Source
Intra-
organi-
zational
Inter-
organi-
zational
Value
system
structure
Changeability
Configuration
Organizational
structure
Interorgan.
coordination
Networking
Role dynamics
Hierarchic H eterarchical;
Adhocratic
Monoli thic Modu lar,
fractal
Low High
Hierarchic Mar ketHybrid
Virtual netw ork
Bilateral
cooperation
Static DynamicFlexible
Communication
culture Partici patory Reflexive
Closeness
Low
Openness
Indicator
86
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age
Figure 3 - Closed vs. Open innovation [3]
Figure 4 - Gradual opening of IP
IV. TESLA AND ITS BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT
A. Company profile
Tesla is a Silicon Valley-based pioneer company in the
electric vehicle sector that develops, designs, produces and
sells battery electric vehicles (BEV) as well as components
for BEVs (battery, charging and powertrain technology). Its
unconventional strategic and marketing approach could rather
be referred to a high-tech company than to a traditional
manufacturer. Although rapidly growing, Tesla still is a small
but highly innovative company (6.000 employees) compared
to other players in the car industry. Tesla is the first car
maker to produce high performance BEVs in serial
production. A broad network of company owned retail and
service stores are located all over the world to work the most
important car markets (ca. 30 countries in North America,
Europe and Asia).
The company’s goal is to “drive the world’s transition to
electric mobility by bringing a full range of increasingly
affordable electric cars to market” [19]. To reach that goal, a
3-step-strategic approach was developed. First, a low volume
and high-price super sports car (Roadster, ca. 2.500 sold, out
of stock) should attract attention and demonstrate the
technological achievements and capabilities of both Tesla and
EVs in common. Then, mid-volume and mid-price models for
the premium sedan market (Model S, Model X) should follow
to increase the production capacities and gather as many early
adopters as possible. Finally, an affordable model suitable for
mass production (Model 3) shall drive the transition from
gasoline-powered cars to EVs and establish Tesla as a leader
in a mature EV market [20].
Right now, the premium sedan Model S and the Model X
are for sale. With this car, Tesla has impressively proven
what they are capable of (e.g. Motor Trend’s “Car of the year
2013”, Consumer Reports’ “top-scoring car ever”, “World
Green Car of the Year 2013”). In 2015, the delivery of the
new SUV Model X is expected. From 2017 on, the Model 3
shall be produced.
B. Financial situation and sales figures
From its first days up to the present, Tesla has financially
struggled many times, but with the help of investors like
Daimler, Toyota and their CEO Elon Musk insolvency could
be averted. With its IPO in June 2010 Tesla was able to
collect over $200 million at $17 a share. Since then, the share
price has risen to more than $200. Meanwhile, the losses have
accumulated to more than $1 billion that is more than
reasonable with regard to a capital-intensive industry like the
car sector. However, things start getting better these days:
The revenues are climbing exponentially (Fig. 5) as the
production volume increases, respectively. On the market
side, despite an already long waiting list the demand exceeds
the supply capacity. In addition, a DOE loan of $500 million
as part of the Advanced Technology Manufacturing Loan
Program could be prematurely redeemed. Nevertheless, due
to the ongoing necessary investments, Tesla expects to run a
profitable business not before 2020.
87
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age
Figure 5 - Development of revenue and net result [20]
In 2013, just half a year after its initial delivery more than
25.000 Model S (BMW 7 Series: 56.000) could be sold, in
2014 this figure is expected to exceed 33.000. The delivery of
the third model, a SUV called Model X, will start delivery in
2015. From 2016 on, Tesla wants to produce 50.000 cars per
year und for 2020 they plan a volume of 500.000
(Volkswagen Golf: 824.000) [QUE]. With more than $1.5
billion in revenues and in 2013 by far the leading premium
seller, the USA are the most important and rapidly growing
market for Tesla followed by Europe ($467 million) and Asia
($1 million) [20].
C. Technology and IP portfolio
Right from the beginning, Tesla has been a highly
innovative company with a skilled engineering workforce.
The technological know-how, however, was not only used for
their own cars, but was also offered to other car makers
(Daimler, Toyota) that wanted to electrify their models in
terms of engineering services and component supply.
Meanwhile, Tesla is the leading EV car maker concerning
performance (0-60 mph in under 4 seconds) and efficiency
(range of nearly 300 miles). Their lithium-ion battery packs
have an energy density that is 3 times higher than the ones of
competitors, the battery costs per kWh are half as high.
Additionally, they developed the fastest DC rapid-charging
station (Supercharger) available on the market (50%
recharged after 20 minutes). They also run their own rapidly
growing network (+200% in 2014) of charging stations all
over the world (more than 350 stations, e.g. coast-to-coast in
the USA). The stations are compatible to other automobile
manufacturers’ models as well, but only Tesla drivers may
enjoy the rapid charging feature. [20]
Fig. 6 gives a categorized overview of Tesla’s broad IP
Portfolio. The patents add up to nearly 250 mainly US patents
and it is obvious that they put their emphasis on the battery
and charging technologies.
Figure 6 - Tesla patents by category [11]
D. Strategic partnerships
While building up its production capacities und processes,
Tesla has always been strongly dependent on strategic
partnerships not for economic reasons only, but also in terms
of knowledge and know-how sharing. Since 2008, they
cooperate with Daimler where Tesla developed a battery and
powertrain system for their electric fleet that is produced and
delivered by Tesla as well. The same type of cooperation
exists with Toyota since 2010. Another cooperation
agreement was concluded with Panasonic. The Japanese
cooperation is not only the long-term main supplier of the
battery packs, but also a project partner in the jointly planned
Gigafactory project (a huge battery research and production
site in Nevada, USA). [20]
E. Electric vehicles market
Different, but interconnected trends have been reviving
the overall demand for electric mobility and the third age of
EVs [14]. A PESTEL analysis gives a brief overview of the
most important drivers:
88
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age
Figure 7 – PESTEL analysis of global trends for electric mobility
Chances for the final breakthrough of EVs have never
been better: There is political will paired with social demand
and corresponding economic, ecological and technological
basic conditions. The group of EVs comprises of Range
Extender (REEV), Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV), Battery (BEV)
and Fuel Cell (FCEV) electric vehicles [16]. In this case, we
mainly concentrate on BEVs.
According to PORTER, the EV market can be
characterized as immature. As such newly formed markets
are emerging (e.g. because innovation, changing consumer
behavior or socio-cultural changes) they are accompanied by
a high degree of technological and strategic uncertainty [15].
Only few rules have established throughout the industry,
neither has the most promising business model. Time
pressure, governmental grants and high initial investments are
business possible constraints at this stage, too. The focus,
however, is on the customer side: Marketers need to convince
potential customers either to use a new product or to switch
from a substitute. Thus, a company has to try to beneficially
position itself within that immature market in a way that
enable it to influence the rule setting phase.
Because of its immaturity, a low degree of standardization
and political and technological uncertainty, the market
environment in the EV sector is highly dynamic. Neither has
a predominant propulsion technology settled the race, nor
have established market players marked their territory and
thus a new industry sector is about to rise. On the other hand,
worldwide demand for green technology and EVs in
particular is growing rapidly (Fig. 8). So are the sales figures
of green cars: From 2010-2012 the number of global EV sales
has increased tenfold. Nevertheless, with a global stock of
about 180,000 cars in 2012 the EV’s share of the global fleet
is minimal with 0.04% [14]. Anyways, the annual growth
rates indicate a huge growth potential (e.g. in 2014: Norway
+310%, the Netherlands + 240%, China +113%, Germany +
78%, USA +34%) [13].
Although the outlook for the next decades has a broad
range, an ongoing strong growth of EVs seems very likely.
The overall car market is expected to grow from 63 million
cars in 2012 to 86 million in 2020 and 99 million in 2030
[16]. The corresponding share of EVs is 9% in 2020 and 30%
in 2030 [16]. With respect to Tesla, the share of BEVs shall
be 0.8% and 8.8%, respectively [16]. However, these days
there are many challenges to face in order to foster the major
breakthrough. The prices for EVs are still way above
conventional cars (ca. 200%) and will remain expensive in
the near future (ca. 60% in 2025) despite expected cost
reductions through breakthroughs battery research [10].
Another problem is the slow expansion of area-wide charging
infrastructures that along the price is a crucial precondition
for potential EV drivers [10]. Finally, for further cost
reductions and technological interoperability there is an
industry-wide demand for standardization of vehicle
communication interfaces and charging systems. To address
these issues, new business models and rearranged
comprehensive value creation models have to be developed
[10].
Figure 8 - Sales targets of the most important EV countries [14]
89
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age
Figure 9 - SWOT analysis of Tesla's situation
F. Industry situation
With the upcoming age of EVs, the over 150-years-old car
and car supplying industry is facing a disruptive restructuring
phase. Traditional value creation processes and global supply
chains that have evolved and were improved over years are
undergoing a massive change. New disciplines (e.g. software,
chemical science, battery technology, etc.) and materials as
well as production processes are going to replace existing
technologies (e.g. combustion engine, transmission, exhaust
system, lubricants, etc.) thus major investments in production
technology and R&D are necessary. Unfortunately, most of
the big car makers are focusing their business activities on
developing markets where they sell huge volumes of
conventional cars rather than developing large-scale EV
programs. [10]
However, the emergence of a new market offers a wide
range of business opportunities not only for existing market
players, but especially for start-ups and industry pioneers.
New players with innovative ideas and new concepts may
shape the immature industry’s structures and position
themselves in an early stage as technology leaders. [6]
In doing so, quickly building up new basic knowledge and
competencies is crucial. External sourcing of knowledge for
innovation by means of strategic partnerships/alliances, joint
ventures or acquisitions, etc. is an efficient way to grow the
know-how of a corporation. These strategies imply a certain
degree of opening and thus foster economy of scale effects
and reduce business risks as well as developing costs.
Actually, KAMPKER claims that the ability to manage those
relationships effectively and efficiently would lead to major
competitive advantages in the EV business environment [10].
G. Initial strategic position
To sum up, the EV market though still a niche is very
attractive as exploding growth rates are very likely. The
industry is not well developed either. Within this
environment, Tesla has positioned itself as technology leader
and manufacturer and seller of high-performance BEVs. The
production volume is increasing more and more, so is the
demand for Tesla’s models. By means of a SWOT analysis,
the overall strategic situation of Tesla before the patent
announcement is presented as in Figure 9.
Keeping these aspects in mind, Tesla’s strategic
objectives for long-term success would be to boost electric
mobility and develop the market for EVs by any means, to
foster standardization with their technology and to encourage
other car makers to jointly invest in EV research and
technology to enable profitable mass production and thus
being able to offer affordable electric cars. With respect to
section II. b), by widening the overall market via cooperation
and collaboration all market players would benefit.
V. IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT
A. Receptions and reactions
Tesla’s patent announcement caused a huge (social) media
coverage with a broad spectrum of opinions, but mainly
positive tenor (from “only a PR stunt”1 over “risky bet2” to
“What Tesla knows that other patent-holders don’t”3, “makes
sense”4 and “clever move”5). On the industry side, however,
1 Inside EVs, 07/14/14
2 Manager Magazin, 06/13/14
3 Harvard Business Review, 06/12/14
4 Forbes, 06/13/14
90
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age
the news did not arouse great interest. Daimler claims the
patent approach a “PR move”6, BMW meanwhile has its own
strong technology base with the “project i” and the big US
car makers are not interested in Tesla’s technology either.
Toyota, on the other hand, impressively reacted by
announcing to grant a free license7 to 5,700 patents until 2020
in order to boost the advance of their favored fuel cell
technology.
Furthermore, US patent experts mostly are also critical of
the patent announcement with regard to the legal force, the
terms and conditions as well as the duration of the offer. The
supplement "in good faith" would be vague and leaves space
for interpretation (on Tesla's side), too. No competitor could
seriously utilize Tesla's technology without further
clarification of the offer and the conclusion of a contract. In
fact, nothing would have changed as Tesla still holds the
patents and the announcement could only be seen as a kind of
"free" license that should rather be interpreted as an offer for
cooperation towards the big car makers. [5, 7, 8, 9]
Despite the criticism, the quasi offer of the complete IP
portfolio within an industry like the automobile is a
courageous approach and one has to consider that a high-tech
company is highly dependent on its technology base in terms
of competitive advantages especially if your resources are
rather small compared to your competitors. The necessity of
the EV market development and the business opportunities
arising with it, in Tesla's view, seem to outweigh the risks of
the opening.
B. Opportunities
Tesla's knows that its technology leadership and the good
strategic position is nothing worth, if in the long run the EV
market won't be big enough to sell high-volume affordable
cars as this is the precondition to run a profitable business in
this sector. Therefore, any measure that could possibly
stimulate the market growth has to be considered. On
condition that the market would grow, Tesla's revenues
would increase as well, even if its market share would
stagnate which is not very likely because of Tesla's superior
market position. Furthermore, giving free its battery
technology might lead to a comprehensive industrial
engagement that would decide the race for the predominant
propulsion technology for Tesla's benefit. This would not
only boost the sales of vehicles, but also the demand for
battery related components such as charging stations and
lithium-ion battery packs. Additionally, the open source
approach boosts the reputation of the company as highly
innovative also in terms of employer attractiveness and brand
awareness. It might even encourage other marketers or even
industries to open up as well. A comprehensive approach of
cooperation and collaboration would also cause network
effects that would advance the restructuring of the industry
5 Manager Magazin, 06/20/14
6 CEO Zetsche on an interview at the CES 2015
7 Senior VP automotive operation Carter at the CES 2015
for both market players and customers benefit [1]. Given the
fact that even a big player like Toyota does same thing
indicates Tesla's strategy as a promising one.
Another rather important consequence of the
announcement could be to strengthen Tesla's position in
terms of industry-wide standard setting. The offer might
attract not only car producing competitors to use Tesla's
technology, but also the public sector or cross-industrial
players and suppliers with regard to charging infrastructure or
the propulsion of other transportation related means. Minor
but still interesting aspects to consider are: Additional
revenues via complementary sales or the increase of know-
how for Tesla if a cooperation partner would share
knowledge in return.
C. Risks
A courageous and unconventional strategic approach is
accompanied by risks and threats to a company. In this case,
one of them is the loss of revenues via licensing of
technology. The holder of a patent may temporarily preserve
a monopoly on the protected invention and therefore generate
a competitive advantage as well as higher rents or additional
income through licensing in order to compensate the R&D
costs. With the patent release, these advantages are obsolete.
In Tesla's case, this also might apply and result in lost sales in
the short term. In the long term, however, the revenues in a
then developed mass market would be much higher.
Another threat is the free rider problem and a crowding
out effect for Tesla in the aftermath. A big player with high
resource base could utilize the technology and compete with
Tesla. Theoretically, he could beat Tesla because of economy
of scale advantages. However, this risk seems very unlikely
as Tesla would have an ongoing technological advance and at
this early stage of the market, any competition would be good
for Tesla, too. With respect to PR, if for any reason Tesla
would have to reverse the IP opening in the near future, this
would have a tremendous negative impact on the reputation.
There is also a possible threat of patent litigations. However,
Tesla still is capable of using its patents for defensive
purposes as it allowed the use of its patents without releasing
the rights of them.
VI. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
The aim of the paper was to present a new strategic
approach for organizations based on the theory openness
where collaboration leads to a widening of the overall market
and, thus, to a benefit for all players. Unlike traditional
competitive strategies that are focused on closeness, we
suggest an adaptable gradual opening and thus collaboration
throughout all value creation processes as this behavior
stimulates advanced market growth and innovativeness. We
present a case study, where a company adjusted its business
strategy towards a more open approach and therefore, in the
end, might be more successful.
91
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age
Tesla’s strategic approach along the open source
movement (although it is rather a light version of it) and the
application of aspects of openness are revolutionary for a
(small) corporation in the highly competitive car industry.
There are some risks related to it, but they are clearly
outweighed by the business opportunities. The strategic
situation of Tesla and the special environment of the EV
market right now seem to offer the perfect conditions to a
strategic turn around. However, we cannot yet assess whether
Tesla will be successful in the end and whether surrounding
challenges (beyond Tesla’s sphere of influence) regarding the
shift towards electric mobility will be met.
According to its specific situation within a certain market,
an organization should check whether a more open and
collaborative approach might, in the long term, enhance the
company’s overall situation in terms of innovativeness and
market position.
However, further research and study is necessary to
analyze under which circumstances business strategies based
on openness are superior to traditional competitive strategies.
What are the characteristics a corporation has to feature and
what are industry and market conditions under which
openness leads to competitive advantages rather than lost
revenues. Since digitalization and globalization revolutionize
the world’s economies traditional economic views on markets
and marketers, their behavior will constantly have to be
checked against validity.
REFERENCES
[1] Bessen J.: “History Backs Up Tesla’s Patent Sharing” on HBR.com
06/13/14, Retrieved 1/30/15 World Wide Web,
https://hbr.org/2014/06/history-backs-up-teslas-patent-
sharing/?utm_source=Socialflow&utm_medium=Tweet&utm_campaig
n=Socialflow.
[2] Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke W., West J,: “Open Innovation -
Researching a New Paradigm”, Oxford University Press, New York,
2006.
[3] Chesbrough, H.: „Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating
and Profiting from Technology”, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, 2003.
[4] Musk, E., CEO of Tesla Motors, Inc. blog entry from 6/12/14,
Retrieved 1/30/15 World Wide Web,
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you.
[5] Davis R.: “Devil’s in the details of Tesla’s open patent pledgee” on
Law360 06/13/14, Retrieved 1/30/15 World Wide Web,
http://www.law360.com/articles/547910/devil-s-in-the-details-of-tesla-
s-open-patent-pledge.
[6] Ebel B., Hofer M.: “Automotive management”, Springer, Heidelberg,
2014.
[7] Edgar A.: “Tesla patent pledge clears way for shared infrastructure” on
AdvocateDaily, Retrieved 1/30/15 World Wide Web,
http://www.advocatedaily.com/2014/07/tesla-patent-pledge-clears-way-
for-shared-infrastructure/.
[8] Fung B.: “How to build a Tesla according to Tesla” in Washington Post
07/23/14, Retrieved 1/30/15 World Wide Web,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/23/how-
to-build-a-tesla-according-to-tesla/.
[9] Gallegos A.: “With Open Source Patents, Risks Run High for Tesla and
Interested Automakers”on LXBN 06/23/14,Retrieved 1/30/15 World
Wide Web, http://www.lxbn.com/2014/06/23/risks-run-high-tesla-
interested-car-companies-open-source-patents/.
[10] Kampker A., Vallée D., Schnettler, A.: „Elektromobilität“, Springer
Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2013.
[10a] Krenz, P., Basmer-Birkenfeld, S., Buxbaum-Conradi S., Redlich T.,
Wulfsberg, J.P.: “Inter-organizational Knowledge Management -
Facing the Conflict of Transparency and Non-Disclosure of Knowledge
within Value Creation Networks”, eDemocracy & eGovernment
(ICEDEG), Second International Conference, IEEE, 2015.
[11] Loveday, E.: “249 Tesla Patents – 104 Related To Battery, 28 To
Charging, 13 To Motor And 10 To User Interface” on Inside EVs,
Retrieved 1/30/15 World Wide Web, http://insideevs.com/249-tesla-
patents-104-related-battery-28-charging-13-motor-10-user-interface/.
[12] Luepertz, V.: “Problemorientierte Einführung in die
Volkswirtschaftslehre”, Winklers, Darmstadt, 2003.
[13] Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität: “Fortschrittsbericht 2014”,
Berlin, 2014.
[14] OECD/IEA: “Global EV outlook”, Paris, 2013, Retrieved 1/30/15
World Wide Web,
http://www.iea.org/publications/globalevoutlook_2013.pdf.
[15] Porter M. E.: “Competitive advantage”, Free press, New York, 2004
[16] Proff H., Proff H., Sandau J., Fojcik T.: “Management des Übergangs
in die Elektromobilität“, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2014.
[17] Redlich, T.: „Wertschöpfung in der Bottom-up-Ökonomie“, Springer,
Berlin, 2011.
[17a] Wulfsberg J. P., Redlich T., Bruhns F.-L.: “Open production: scientific
foundation for co-creative product realization“, in: Production
Engineering, 5(2), 2011, pp. 127-139.
[18] Reichwald R., Piller F.: “Interaktive Wertschöpfung - Open Innovation,
Individualisierung und neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung“, Gabler,
Wiesbaden, 2006.
[19] Tesla Motors, Inc IR presentation from January 2014, Retrieved
1/30/15 World Wide Web,
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA4CW8X0/2895786596x0
x720221/5647bed2-1c27-4b40-abd3-
dd11f8bc474e/Investor%20Presentation%20-%20Jan%202014.pdf.
[20] Tesla motors, Inc. annual report filed 2/26/14, Retrieved 1/30/15 World
Wide Web, http://ir.teslamotors.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-
14-69681&CIK=1318605.
[21] Waser, B.: “Wettbewerbsvorteile durch innovative Produkte und
begleitende Dienstleistungen in Verbindung mit Prozessinnovation”,
Luzern, 2003.
92
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age
