| Course | MT451 Managing Technological Innovation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Collaboration strategy brief |
| Length | About 750 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT451 Unit 9
License the Brain, Keep the Deck: An MT451 Unit 9 Collaboration Strategy Brief for a Robotic Mower
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT451: Managing Technological Innovation
Unit 9 Collaboration Strategy Brief
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Harlan Turf Equipment, the navigation startup, the university lab and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.
Recommendation
To: Executive Team, Harlan Turf Equipment. Harlan should license navigation software for its solar-farm robotic mower from a startup, Ferrous Labs, under a contract with source-code escrow, an option to buy the software outright and a change-of-control clause. It should fund a narrow research partnership with a university robotics lab on positioning under tree canopy, the problem that sent the campus version back to Stage 2. It should keep deck design, manufacturing and dealer service in-house.
Core or Not
The choice starts with which capabilities are core. Chesbrough (2003) argued that firms should bring in outside knowledge where it is not a source of their advantage and build or protect what is. Harlan wins on deck durability, cut quality and a dealer network of about 400 locations with trained technicians. It has never written navigation software and employs no robotics engineers. Navigation is necessary for the robot but is not where Harlan competes, and rivals could license similar software. That judgment tilts the choice toward bringing navigation in from outside.
Three Routes
Each route was scored on time to market, three-year cost, control of the capability and dependence risk.
Licensing Ferrous Labs' navigation stack costs $1,100 a robot in royalties and lets Harlan launch about 12 months sooner than building its own. Harlan would control how the software is used on its machines but not the software itself, and it would depend on a young company.
A joint program with a satellite-correction provider and a university lab would share development cost and produce software tailored to Harlan's machines, but ownership would be split three ways and the program would take at least as long as building in-house.
Building in-house would need about 11 engineers and roughly $3.1 million over three years, about $1.03 million a year. Harlan would own the result outright, but it would launch a year later and would be hiring in a field where it has no reputation.
Where Royalties Overtake a Team
The break-even was computed rather than asserted. An in-house team costs about $1.03 million a year to run. At $1,100 a robot, royalties reach that figure at about 940 robots a year, roughly 900. Harlan's business case forecasts 400 robots in the fifth year. The license therefore stays cheaper than an in-house team for the length of the plan, by a wide margin.
Royalties would cost more than an in-house team only at sales more than twice the plan's fifth-year forecast.
If the Startup Fails or Sells
Licensing from a young firm concentrates risk. Ferrous Labs could fail, or be bought by a Harlan competitor. Three contract terms answer that risk. Source-code escrow places the code with a third party, released to Harlan if the startup stops supporting the software. An option to buy the software outright at a pre-agreed price lets Harlan take ownership if robot volumes justify it. A change-of-control clause lets Harlan end the license, with a perpetual right to the version it has, if the startup is acquired by a rival. Dyer and Singh (1998) argue that partnerships create value when partners invest in relation-specific assets and govern them carefully, and these terms are the governance that makes the dependence acceptable.
The University Partnership
The university partnership is scoped narrowly to canopy positioning. The lab would test visual and inertial methods that supplement satellite positioning under trees, funded at roughly $360,000 across two academic years, with Harlan holding an exclusive license to results in mowing equipment. If it succeeds, the campus version could return to development; if it does not, Harlan has spent a modest sum to learn that campuses must wait.
Knowledge Flowing Out
Chesbrough's argument cuts both ways: internal knowledge can go out where it earns more licensed than held. Harlan's quick-swap tray, on which counsel is evaluating a patent, could be licensed to snow-equipment makers in markets where Harlan does not sell. Their customers would gain a faster pack change, Harlan would earn royalties and none of those licensees would compete with Harlan's mowers. Schilling (2020) notes that licensing out is most attractive when the licensee's market does not overlap the licensor's, which is the case here.
References
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255632
Schilling, M. A. (2020). Strategic management of technological innovation (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Reading the MT 451 Unit 9 instructions
MT451 Unit 9 asks for a brief recommending how a firm should obtain a capability it lacks: build it, license it or develop it with partners. Start by deciding whether the capability is core to the firm's advantage, because that judgment shapes everything else. Compare the routes on the same criteria, commonly time to market, cost, control and dependence. Compute any break-even rather than asserting it. Dependence on a partner deserves its own section, with contract terms that answer the specific risks. Any research partnership should be scoped narrowly to a defined problem. Chesbrough's open innovation also suggests asking whether the firm holds knowledge it could license out. Write for an executive team, with the recommendation first. About four pages, including a recommendation paragraph, an options table and a risk section, is the usual length for this brief.
How this MT451 Unit 9 example is built
The brief opens with its recommendation addressed to the executive team. A core-or-not section uses Chesbrough to classify navigation as necessary but non-core, since Harlan competes on decks and dealers. Three routes are then described on the same four criteria. The break-even section computes royalties against an in-house team's yearly cost, under a highlighted line comparing the crossover with the forecast. Dependence follows, with escrow, a buyout option and a change-of-control clause, and Dyer and Singh on governing partnerships. The university partnership is scoped to canopy positioning with a fixed budget and an exclusive license to results. The last section turns Chesbrough's argument outward, proposing to license the swap tray to snow-equipment makers, with Schilling on licensing into non-overlapping markets.
Where the points sit in the MT451 Unit 9 rubric
Collaboration briefs are marked on whether the recommendation follows from a judgment about core capabilities. Instructors reward a clear core-or-not argument made before options are compared. Scoring every route on the same criteria shows method, and a computed break-even earns more credit than an asserted cost advantage. Dependence on a partner is a frequent marking point; contract terms matched to specific risks show practical understanding. A narrowly scoped research partnership signals discipline. Considering outbound licensing shows the student understands open innovation as a two-way flow. Putting the decision in the brief's opening lines, and the options in one compact table, earns the communication marks. Figures should be consistent with earlier units where the course builds on one case. Chesbrough's work is the reference most sections expect for open innovation.
Common MT451 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The commonest Unit 9 weakness is recommending a partnership because collaboration sounds modern, without asking whether the capability is core. Another is comparing options on cost alone, ignoring time, control and dependence. Break-even claims often appear without arithmetic. Dependence risk is frequently mentioned in a sentence and never answered with contract terms. University partnerships tend to be scoped broadly, which makes them hard to evaluate. Outbound licensing is rarely considered. Before submitting, write one sentence explaining why the capability is or is not a source of advantage for this firm. If that sentence could apply to any company, it needs evidence from the case. Then compute the volume at which your recommended route stops being cheaper, and compare it with the forecast.
Get an MT451 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Share the technology and the firm your Unit 9 brief concerns, any partner candidates named in the prompt, and the rubric. A brief comparing a license, an alliance and an in-house build on stated criteria, with dependence risk answered and Chesbrough applied in both directions, comes back in 24-48h. First custom samples are free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT451 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT451 Unit 1: Innovation Adoption Board Post
- MT451 Unit 2: Battery Mowing Life Cycle Analysis
- MT451 Unit 3: Battery Mower Adoption Analysis
- MT451 Unit 4: Blu-ray Standards Battle Case
- MT451 Unit 5: Mower Disruption Case Analysis
- MT451 Unit 6: Electric Pickup Seminar Reflection
- MT451 Unit 7: Battery Pack IP Strategy Memo
- MT451 Unit 8: Robotic Mower Gate Review
- MT451 Unit 10: Innovation Strategy Report
- MT450 Unit 9: Pen Brand Revitalization Strategy
- MT438 Unit 9: Late Load Model Evaluation
- MT437 Unit 9: Automation Business Case
MT451 Unit 9 questions, answered
What does Chesbrough mean by open innovation?
Henry Chesbrough, in his 2003 book Open Innovation, argued that firms should use outside ideas as well as internal ones, and should let internal ideas reach the market through other firms when that creates more value. Knowledge flows both ways: outside-in, through licensing, partnerships and acquisition, and inside-out, through licensing or spinning off technology the firm will not use itself.
How do I decide whether a capability is core?
Ask whether it is a source of the firm's competitive advantage, hard for rivals to copy and valued by customers. Capabilities that are necessary but widely available can often be sourced from partners. Base the judgment on evidence about what customers choose the firm for, not on how impressive the technology sounds in a pitch.
Should the brief include contract terms?
Only the terms that address strategic risk, such as exclusivity, escrow, change of control or exit rights. Detailed drafting belongs to lawyers, but naming the protections a partnership needs shows the brief has considered what could go wrong. Graders tend to value a short list tied to specific risks over a long generic one.
Where can I find a free MT451 Unit 9 sample paper?
The whole MT451 Unit 9 brief appears on this page, recommending a navigation software license with protections, a university partnership and outbound licensing for a mower maker.
When would building in-house beat licensing in the MT451 Unit 9 sample?
Only above about 900 robots a year, when $1,100 royalties would exceed an in-house team's cost of about $1.03 million a year; the fifth-year forecast is 400.