Thomson Reuters Case Study Question
Summer School 2012 Ruhr-University Bochum
Word Count: 795
RUB - Service Innovation
Thomson Reuters was exposed to several external influences in the past, which led to the cognition that its former business model “TR 1.0” is not suitable for the changed market of financial information services. This new market situation caused by several factors like the rise of the internet, new specialised competitors or the increasing speed of globalisation (Gassmann 2006 & “VUCA” factors by TR). Within TR 1.0 TR generated its value by providing and controlling an information platform and providing the whole supply chain acting as an intermediary between buyside and sell-side (value proposition). Therefore it had to rely on its internal key resources and few strategic partners (Osterwalder and Pugneur 2010). Facing the VUCA-Scenario and because of trying to remain competitive especially the three factors of the business model mentioned above had to be adapted and lead to TR 2.0 ensuring the long term competiveness of TR in the new market situation. With the change from TR 1.0 to 2.0 the collaboration with new and a greater number of key partners was intensified. TR had to open up its collaboration level from the former hub-and-spoke model (Model 2) to a more open and less controlled approach (Appendix 1 Dash, Velu, Barret 2009). Model 2 is characterized by the firm as the controlling point in the middle of a small and loose array of firms. Tasks are assigned to the partners on a transaction-by-transaction basis and there is no collaboration between these third parties. As the old business model worked well in the past this small level of collaboration and openness was adequate for a successful business where information and research stayed and innovations were created inside the firm (Chesbrough 2003). Nevertheless, as mentioned above there are several factors that started to endanger...
References: Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., Salter, A. (2009): Does IP Strategy Have to Cripple Open Innovation?, MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall 2009, 51(1), pp. 71-77. Barrett, M., Velu, C., Kohli, R., Salge, T., Simon-Brown, D. (2011): Making the transition to collaborative innovation: Issues of readiness, trust and governance. Business Briefing in cooperation with NESTA. 08.09.2012: http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/Collaborative_Innovation_Briefing.pdf Chesbrough, H.W. (2003): Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.’ Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gassman, O. (2006): ‘Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda‘, R&D Management, 36(3), pp. 223-228. Hussinger, K. and Wastyn, A. (2011): In Search for the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome: The Role of Knowledge Sources and Firm Success; Discussion Paper No. 11-048 Osterwalder, A. and Pugneur, Y. (2010): Business Model Generation, John Wiley & Sons. Katz, R. and Allen, J. A. (1982): ‘Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D Project Groups, R&D Management, 12(1), pp. 7-20. Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. (2006): Attitudes to externally organizing knowledge management tasks: a Review, Reconsideration and Extension of the NIH Syndrome, in R&D Management 36-4, 2006, p. 367-386.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document