Really interesting article!
On your question related to which techniques can managers at Rolls-Royce use to combat the inertia of 75 years of ingrained habits to extract the most creativity out of their human resources, I would recommend to:
* Communicate the importance of additive manufacturing at the organizational level and the intentions of the company to actively migrate towards a full additive manufacturing enterprise in “x” years. Employees must understand the “why” and the “how” of that decision in order to even consider modifying their behaviors
* Incentivize change at the lower ranks. By creating opportunities within the organization and providing the tools to deliver (e.g. online courses on simulation of 3D pieces), the most supportive employees will feel empowered and push others toward the strategic goal
* Renovate talent. I agree with TheHen that, ultimately, new talent must be employed and old talent let go
Very interesting article!
On your second question, I definitely see a future where people would buy purely the design of their shoes or clothing to later print them anywhere. In that scenario, big players such as Adidas or Nike would only be relevant if they focus on the design of their products and the strength of their brand. Moreover, I think the margins for those players will diminish over time. Therefore, I think the decision of moving into the development of 3D printing technology looks like an obliged bet by Nike and Adidas if they aspire to maintain their relevance.
I truly believe it is in the intersection of the private and public sectors that lies the solution to most of the current urban design issues. Therefore, I think the alliance between Sidewalk and the Toronto government is so relevant.
I agree with your recommendation that Sidewalk should be more transparent about how citizens’ ideas lead to concrete changes, but I would also be careful not to take it too far. Taking it to the extreme, crowdsourcing an infrastructure project is risky because it gives the power to take technical decisions to a group of non-technical people. This decision-making process is currently being tested in Mexico with catastrophic consequences .
 Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-29/mexico-votes-to-scrap-13-billion-airport-in-amlo-s-first-test
Very interesting article!
I see this government initiative as a great first step to create more value for the UK as a whole. By lowering the costs of acquisition of seismic data, the UK is basically creating a bigger market for the bidding of O&G blocks. Ultimately, this will lead to more bids and a higher return for the UK taxpayers. Therefore, I don’t agree with the comment from Jeff Dean about “making the rich richer”; this initiative will give the chance to any capitalist around the world to invest in this opportunity and to hire a service company (e.g. Schlumberger) to do the exploratory well.
On your question of whether open innovation incentives are high enough to encourage companies to give the public access to their info., I would say this does not change their incentives of not sharing. One of the initiatives the government could implement is actually to pay for the seismic data already acquired from those companies and propose to analyze it for free (leveraging their public universities) only if they concede to share it with other players.
Really interesting application of ML, thanks!
I found particularly clever that they would match players with low trust scores against each other, while players with high trust scores would only play against other high trust players. I can see how that translated in a reduction in cheating complaints; nevertheless, I’m not sure that will reduce cheating in the long run. Wouldn’t the cheaters have the incentive to escalate their cheating techniques more rapidly given their new environment in which they are placed? As Der Biez mentioned, I would like to see an initiative from Valve that incentivizes the current users to spot cheating in order to feed the algorithm (maybe give them a monetary benefit everytime they identify and prove someone was cheating?)
Thanks for your article, William!
You raised an interesting point related to the unintended consequences of personalized pricing at the customer level. From a purely economic perspective, price discrimination is “efficient” in the way that maximizes the total surplus in the economy. Nevertheless, in reality, if you find out you are being price discriminated people usually get mad at the company and probably end-up losing brand loyalty.
Just to add on your question on regulatory issues. Charging different prices to different customers is generally legal. “The practice could be illegal, however, if the reason for the difference were reliance on a “suspect category” such as race, religion, national origin or gender” . Therefore, Jetblue would have to be extremely cautious to make sure the relevant variables to the price discrimination relate only to the customer’s willingness to buy and not with any racial or religion variable (or perfectly correlated variables).
 CNN Law Center, http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/ramasastry.website.prices/