George P. Burdell
Great read, thanks for sharing these initiatives. I agree with the recommendations you outline – to make these initiatives more impactful, and to have suggestions be representative of the community as a whole, rather than a select few individuals, I think municipalities should use the data more for idea generation rather than idea selection. Governments need to be cognizant of the issues that are impacting citizens, though without a proper weighing mechanism in these applications, cities will have a hard time assigning priority. I think by thoroughly evaluating data, and by enabling citizens through initiatives such as ioby, governments can more effectively make use of its own resources and drill down on critical issues within communities.
Great report. With the risks you outline, Bechtel has an interesting conflict of interest as early adopter of this technology in construction. Through its partnerships, Bechtel is investing heavily in developing the capabilities of 3D printing, though ultimately they are taking a big bet that the technology will be safe and economical. I think once the tech is proven, people will adapt, however until that point it seems that Bechtel is bearing much of the risk – I wonder how much of their investment will translate into proprietary technology, and what other construction firms are investing in similar research.
Thanks for the article – great read. I think another area that open innovation can be used would be to understand how to cut down e-cigarette usage in minors. This would help not only in transitioning users from traditional combustible cigarettes, but also in preventing minors from picking up the habit.
That being said, I agree that Juul should find alternative methods for using their vapor delivery technology. I think that Juul would stand to benefit by creating a sub-brand for these other offerings – I’m not sure it’s worthwhile for the company to build up the Juul brand name since the product is already so closely associated with e-cigarettes. Traditional tobacco companies like RJR/Phillip Morris have previously diversified their holdings with a similar mindset.
I wonder what type of forward-looking capabilities the algorithms have. QuDian may maximize current profits by reducing loan/bad debt costs, however the risk and expected returns change as the competitive landscape evolves. As more competitors emerge and create similar offerings, QuDian and other lenders need to generate greater differentiation, rather than iterate and evolve in the same manner. Perhaps Phase Five of consumer lending takes supervised learning and lender feedback into greater consideration.
Kate, thank you for sharing this topic, as John Deere does not typically get due recognition for its technological innovation in both software and mechanization. Advances in precision agriculture will help tremendously in meeting the growing needs of our expanding population. I think the recent moves by Deere, as you outline, show a commitment of the organization towards that advancement.
I think the “right to repair” for farm equipment is not a trivial issue – there are key factors that make agricultural equipment different than other products, like cell phones or cars, that are also going through right to repair discussions. One issue is the complexity of the machinery – combines and other farm equipment have intricate hydraulic and electrical systems, tens of thousands of parts (many more than passenger vehicles, for example), and are put through extremely difficult conditions. The low volume production of agriculture equipment can make repairs especially difficult to diagnose as an independent mechanic. The answer to right to repair is not binary, and the issues outlined here are only a few factors to consider. Agriculture equipment manufacturers, dealers, and consumers are working through to develop a solution with more consensus and understanding.
I found the CAD file perspective very interesting as well. I wonder to what degree Porsche would be willing to release its proprietary information due to the high costs of R&D. I think in practice, Porsche would be hesitant in allowing 3D-printing for parts critical to the function of the car, and steer towards design/auxiliary parts such as customized dashboard or interior features. If they are willing to release these CAD files, Porsche may be able to incorporate user input into the design of future cars (as an “open innovation” of sorts).