This is a fun use-case of 3D printing! It’s exciting that PepsiCo is looking to challenge their own status quo through the creation of their SoHo Design & Innovation Center and through The Hive incubator and the Shark Tank style program, however it seems that there may be a need to tie this “innovation mindset” more deeply into the established product development processes. As you raise above, their organization seems to be a bit disjointed and nascent in its use of the technology, and it seems that there is a huge opportunity that still exists to leverage the technology to (hopefully) create a sustainable advantage in this hyper-competitive space. I would be interested to see how (and if) PepsiCo can take this one step further – from rapid prototyping, to more permanent integration into production and design processes.
As reflected in a number of the comments made above, I think that this is a great topic and a well-written article! I think that disaster relief is an area with a huge potential for positive impact. The need for localized response and streamlined logistics that you identify line up very nicely with the value proposition that 3D printing can provide. It seems that one of the biggest barriers here would be ensuring the availability of expertise when needed. It seems that if a database of data files for commonly needed goods was created, you would only need a small team to run the 3D printer(s) required to provide sufficient response.
This article has inspired me to look more into Field Ready and their plans moving forward – thank you for sharing!
I appreciate the perspective you have shared here. I am fascinated by how quickly the consumer goods space is evolving. Behemoths in the space like Unilever and Procter & Gamble have been faced with new brands attacking from all angles – its a true test of agility and poise to see how these companies are reacting to these threats.
I find The Foundry to be a great concept. It seems that Unilever has created a program that has benefits for both sides of the platform – which, as we have learned in TOM, is critical for sustainability! Given this, I find the program itself to be positive. Given that, I do think your follow-up question is very important: Can external sources truly drive business transformation or should this only be fostered from within? It seems to me that unless Unilever finds a way to “infuse” the spirit and freshness of the start-ups deeply into their own innovation processes, it may be hard for them to garner any tangible competitive advantage that can’t just be copied by competitors.
Great point, Lindsey! You may find this article interesting in relation to your comments and questions: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1537&context=jbl
The challenges that you point out are very relevant. I think that Lilly’s OIDD platform is a great step forward to try and counter some of the decline they have been seeing in their R&D, however there are many hurdles left to overcome on this journey. The biggest challenge that stood out to me has to do with the sensitivities around IP. To build on what @Lindsey Macleod has posed in her comment – what would be “fair” in terms of monetizing any drug discoveries that occur as a result of the OIDD platform? I found this article to provide an interesting discourse on the push-and-pull that has been described: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1537&context=jbl
I enjoyed reading this article. I think that they way that ASOS has been integrating machine learning is a useful application, and seems that it would generally yield positive results. However, I do find merit in the comment made by @Greg Andrews above regarding possible unseen impact of “firing” customers that may in fact be loyal to the ASOS brand. A related concern that I have with this is the ability (or likely inability) for the machine learning system to be able to capture intangible benefits of customers that are in fact “negative value” from a dollar perspective, but may be net “positive value” if benefits such as positive word-of-mouth, brand championing, and referrals exist with that same customer. Do you think this is something ASOS should be worried about?
Super fascinating article! I am very interested in the retail and consumer products industries so it is exciting to read about companies testing boundaries in those spaces.
I think that your short- and long-term suggestions for ZOZO are very insightful. I find it pretty humorous how the need for actual human insight and actual physical space makes sense in this super advanced technological context. I feel that all too commonly people are quick to want to “replace” physical things and actual human input and in so many examples I have seen that in the end, tangibility and human-touch are immensely valuable.
You may find the following article to be an interesting read – it touches on the concept of how technology can’t replace the “human touch”… at least not yet!: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/15/technology-cant-replace-the-human-touch/