A section of Case Study Analysis

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on A section of Case Study Analysis  completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW

Do my paper

Times New Roman 12 points, double-spaced. Not allowed to use AI. Only Grammar checks allowed.

You are asked to provide a section of an analysis of the Harvard Business School case Houston, We Have a Problem: NASA and Open Innovation (A) and Houston We Have a Solution (B). Carefully read through these two articles. Write a section of an analysis report, and a section of the presentation.

For the report part: Write an outline (Quote, cite and refer to where you find these contents in the article in the outline), and write the report(as detailed and comprehensive as possible)! Then, write a presentation outline to put on powerpoint and give me a script present it.

Please do the Analysis through the political lens.

Please read the three lenses pdf, and the political lens pdf to know what perspectives and contents would you include. Please do the Analysis through the political lens.

1. First, finish the report. Here’s a preliminary drafted outline for the final report. You can see it as a note, but don’t rely on and follow it strictly, make sure to have your own contents and thoughts!

Political

What are the key political factors at play in this case? (KAT)

• Who are the stakeholders?
  • Jeff Davis (Director of SLSD): Championing open innovation trying to integrate it into day-to-day projects and research.
  • Elizabeth Richard (Senior Strategist): Partnering with Davis in driving open innovation, working to overcome resistance.
  • SLSD Researchers and Scientists: The core members of the organization who are directly impacted by the introduction of open innovation.
  • NASA Leadership: Including CTO, CIO, and other decision-makers who approve and support new initiatives.
  • Open Innovation Vendors (NASA@work, InnoCentive, yet2.com): Key partners providing platforms and challenges for open innovation initiatives.
  • Katherine Keeton: project lead in SLSD, a specialist in innovation and strategy at Wyle
• What are the coalitions?
  • Pro-Open Innovation Coalition: Jeff Davis, Elizabeth Richard, and those who believe in the benefits of open innovation. This coalition aims to drive change and integration of open innovation into day-to-day projects.
  • Anti-Open Innovation Coalition: Members who resist open innovation due to concerns about loss of control, confidentiality, and perceived threats to their expertise.
• What are the power distributions?
  • Jeff Davis & Elizabeth Richard – positional sources, formal power
  • Engineering Group – personal sources, informal power
  • Scientists – personal sources, informal power
  • Open Innovation Winners – received monetary prizes for completing/winning posted competitions
  • Add something about who cut the funding, they had more power than anyone in SLSD
  • Funding Decision Makers: Those who have the authority to allocate or cut funding hold considerable power. Cutting funding for a particular initiative can greatly impact its viability and potential for success. In this case, individuals or groups with the authority to allocate resources had substantial power over the direction of projects, potentially influencing the adoption of open innovation.
  • Pro-Open Innovation Coalition: This coalition wields power regarding vision and advocacy. They are pushing for a change in the established problem-solving approach and are backed by the evidence of successful pilot projects.
  • Anti-Open Innovation Coalition: This coalition holds power in terms of resistance. They have the advantage of familiarity with the existing processes and are hesitant about adopting a new approach.
  • NASA Leadership: They hold significant power in approving and funding initiatives. Their support or resistance to open innovation can heavily influence its adoption.
  • Overall, the power dynamics are characterized by a struggle between those advocating for open innovation as a new problem-solving tool and those who resist change due to concerns about control, confidentiality, and a belief in the efficacy of traditional methods. The challenge lies in convincing the skeptics, aligning interests, and ensuring that open innovation complements rather than replaces existing processes.
• Key political factors at play:
  • 1. Resistance to Change: One major political factor is the resistance to change within the organization. Many members of the SLSD were entrenched in traditional problem-solving approaches and were skeptical about adopting open innovation. This resistance stemmed from concerns about losing control, potential impacts on job roles, and a belief in the uniqueness and effectiveness of NASA’s existing methods.
  • 2. Not-Invented-Here Syndrome: The “Not-Invented-Here” syndrome is another political factor. Some organization members hesitated to consider solutions from external sources, preferring to rely on internal expertise. This attitude reflected a sense of ownership and pride in NASA’s capabilities.
  • 3. Confidentiality Concerns: There were concerns about the confidentiality of research and a reluctance to expose problems that researchers couldn’t solve on their own. Some saw this as potentially exposing their own inadequacies.
  • 4. Budget Constraints: The organization was operating under budget constraints, which added an element of competition for resources. Researchers were protective of their allocated budgets and were wary of diverting time and resources towards articulating and posting challenges.
  • 5. Perceived Threat to Expertise: Open innovation introduced the notion that external contributors might provide solutions to problems that NASA scientists and engineers couldn’t solve themselves. This challenged the traditional perception of in-house expertise.
    Give me a Presentation Outline and presentation script

  2. Give me a Presentation Outline and presentation script on this political lens analysis.