The validity of the reasoning for each reason from each separate enterprise seemed logical and positive from both, but as much as it was good to focus on how they could benefit there didn’t seem to be much consideration of other factors. These factors being risk, consideration and alignment of goals, overall business plan, how each operates, or additional research of each’s separate market and how it will affect the other (tying again into risk). The perspective appears to focus on separate positives versus overall collaborative entrepreneurship, just how they can use the other to their benefit, which seems naïve and not well thought through (Carayannis, Samara, & Bakouros, 2015).
They were surprised to learn that developing a successful drug and bringing it to market, after its potential was identified, could cost up to $500 million because they did not do their research or consult Sterling regarding this process. They didn’t make an informed, evidence and research
…show more content…
George Fisher’s reasoning behind this key trade-off decision was the focus on efficiency by balancing out the pains and gains for the over health of EKC. This meant that he was trying to take into account the risk-return factors for the most optimal decision based within the time dimension of current information and forecasting. He was trying to be innovative by shifting resources to areas of higher yield (Carayannis et al., 2015) through focusing on the imaging strengths. Additionally, improving EKC’s leverage position and lowering their debt from the sale of non-imaging assets (Maital & Seshadri, 2012). Though of course this return would come at a cost of reducing access to a talent pool, disruptions affecting employee livelihoods, and the loss of a profitable growth business (Maital & Seshadri,