All categories

3 years ago

_____ is defined as the process a company employs to externally search for and source research, new technologies, and products.

Business

1 answer:

stepladder [879]3 years ago

5 0

Answer:

Open innovation.

Explanation:

Open innovation can be defined as the process a company employs to externally search for and source research, new technologies, and products.

This ultimately implies that, open innovation avails business firms or companies that ability to make use of inflow and outflow of knowledge, ideas and skills to help facilitate or enhance innovation within the company, as well as expand or increase the global market for external applications of innovative technologies or knowledge.

You might be interested in

At market equilibrium, Group of answer choices quantity demanded equals quantity supplied. surpluses are greater than shortages.

Tom [10]

Answer:

quantity demanded equals quantity supplied

Explanation:

The market equilibrium is the price at which the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied cross each other. The intersection could be made by supply and demand curves.

Therefore, there is a direct relationship between the price and the quantity supplied, while the price and quantity demanded have an inverse relationship.

When the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied are intersect at the price so we called market equilibrium

6 0

3 years ago

Two towns, each with three members, are deciding whether to put on a fireworks display to celebrate the new year. fireworks cost

Burka [1]

1) Town of Bayport:
We have that the residents value the fireworks at a total of 50+100+300=450$. That is the utility they gain. But they would also have to pay 360$ for the fireworks. The total outcome is 450$+(-360$)=90$. Hence, the outcome is positive and the fireworks pass the cost benefit analysis.

If the fireworks' cost is to be split equally, we have that each of the 3 residents has to pay 360/3=120$. Let us now do the cost-benefit analysis for everyone.
Jacques stands to gain 50$ from the fireworks but would have to pay 120$. He will vote against it.
Also, Kyoko will gain 100$ but would have to pay 120$. He will lose utility/money from this so he will vote against.
Musashi on the other hand, would gain 300$ and only pay 120$. He is largely benefitted by this measure. Only he would

We have that 2 out of the 3 would vote against the fireworks, so that the fireworks will not be bought. The vote does not yield the same answer as the benefit-cost analysis.

2) Town of River Heights:

We have that the total value of the fireworks to the community is 20+140+160=320$. The total value of the fireworks is lower than their cost so their cost benefit analysis yields that they should not be bought.

However, let's see what each resident says. The cost to each resident is 360/3=120$. Rina is against the fireworks since she will only gain 20$. Sean and Yvette are for the fireworks since they gain 140$ and 160$ respectively, which are larger than the cost of the fireworks to each of them (120$). Hence, 2 will vote for the fireworks and one will vote against and fireworks will be bought.

Again, the vote clashes with the cost-benefit analysis.

3) The first choice is wrong. It is very difficult for a government to provide the exact types of public goods that everyone wants because that would be too costly; one cannot have a public good that everyone pays for so that only a couple of people enjoy it. In our example, we saw that in every case, a public good and its production would have sime supporters and some adversaries.

Majority rule is not always the most efficient way to decide public goods; as we have seen in the second case, the cost-benefit analysis yields that the fireworks are not worth it but they are approved by the majority nonetheless.

The final sentence is correct. The differing preferences of the people make a clearcut choice impossible and the government has to take into account various tradeoffs and compromises in order to determine which public goods to provide.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

50 points to whoever can write me a song about a girl names kaitlin make it a love song and a rap at the same time please need i

trapecia [35]

I have a question is it like can I describe her any way I want?

4 0

3 years ago

The standard cost of product 777 includes 2.9 units of direct materials at $6.8 per unit. During August, the company bought 29,2

Olegator [25]

Answer:

Total Material Variance = $1,636 Favorable

Material Price Variance = $2,920 Unfavorable

Material Quantity Variance = $4,556 Favorable

Explanation:

Total Material Variance = Standard Cost - Actual Cost

Standard Cost = Standard units $\times$ Standard Price

Standard Units = 10,300 $\times$ 2.9 = 29,870 units

Standard cost = 29,870 $\times$ $6.8 = $203,116

Actual Cost = 29,200 $\times$ $6.90 = $201,480

Total Material Variance = $203,116 - $201,480 = $1,636 Favorable

Material Price Variance = (Standard Rate - Actual Rate) $\times$ Actual Units

= ($6.8 - $6.9) $\times$ 29,200 = - $2,920 Unfavorable

Material Quantity Variance = ( Standard Units - Actual Units) $\times$ Standard Price

= (29,870 - 29,200) $\times$ $6.8

= $4,556 Favorable

Final Answer

Total Material Variance = $1,636 Favorable

Material Price Variance = $2,920 Unfavorable

Material Quantity Variance = $4,556 Favorable

8 0

2 years ago

Explain why taking a monotonic transformation of a utility function does not change the marginal rate of substitution (MRS).

fredd [130]

Explanation:

Monotonic transformation refers to changing the quantity of both the variables in a way that their ranking or order is preserved. Monotonic transformation of a utility function does not change the marginal rate of substitution as the order of preferences remains intact with the monotonic transformation. It's just the level of utility that either increases or decreases with such a transformation. The indifference curve shape remains the same. With monotonic transformation, consumer moves from a lower to higher or higher to lower indifference curve.

7 0

3 years ago