Great article, Carlos! In thinking about the trade-offs between additive manufacturing and alternatives (specifically traditional injection molding), GE needs to remember to take into account the structural as well as financial differences. Given that injection molded parts typically have to be pieced together in post-processing, I doubt that they will be able to hold up structurally when going head-to-head with 3D printed alternatives. Additionally, injection molding and casting do not have the advantage of having the latticed internal structures that 3D parts do. This gives 3D parts both a weight and strength advantage.
Great read! I feel like one way that HHS can hack into the opinions and ideas of those “on the ground” is through hosting hack-a-thons around the country (especially in the towns most affected by opioid abuse). For me, the efficacy of the winning product is almost irrelevant. Yes, it would be amazing to create the perfect program to curb opioid abuse, but for the time being, the hack-a-thon is a means of getting communities talking. It stimulates ideas for how to solve the crisis which inherently reframes the issue as being solvable.
Very interesting and informative read! Presumably, as policies change, the clustering technique may interpret new payments as being fraudulent since they may appear as outliers relative to its previously amassed information. Therefore, I agree that when a new insurance policy is rolled out, the insurance companies should rely less heavily on AI. That being said, as you mentioned, with the evolution of technology, the time required to recognize fraudulent charges is expected to decrease.
What a great, haute article. I agree that if Chanel is not methodical in their incorporation of additive manufacturing into the production of their line that their timeless brand could be at risk. One way they could address this concern is by creating brand policies. For example, they should never create or reproduce any of their iconic pieces via additive manufacturing. That way, they can evolve to have a separate, futuristic line while maintaining their timeless allure.
Very interesting (and relevant) read! Although I see the concern about open innovation not necessarily being a good thing in the case of ES&S, the fact of the matter is that the machines are already available via third-party sources. As the executive director of NASS noted, “anybody can break into anything if you put it in the middle of a floor and gave them unlimited access and unlimited time.” I may be being pessimistic, but if people are not trying to break into the voting machines in Voter Village, they will be doing so in the privacy of their own homes as a challenge. I think that ES&S should capitalize on this opportunity to learn about the shortcomings of their product and innovate.innovate.innovate.
Extremely interesting company! As a hardware engineer, this product definitely would have been a time-saver when I was designing prototypes and test racks. That being said, I would market the company as a resource for prototyping designs and keep their products simple. The advantage of doing this is two-fold:
1) Vention will not have to worry about having to provide complex structure, keeping costs down.
2) Vention can mitigate the risk of additive manufacturing imposing on their customer segment. In developing large prototypes and test racks, companies are really looking for a product that is cheap, fast, and gets the job done. I do not think that they would be willing to pay the funds required to create similar products via additive manufacturing.
Great read! Although I see your point about potentially losing connection with customers, I wonder if Glossier could mitigate this risk by having more of an interactive online presence. By having “customizable” colors, for example, Glossier can both get users involved on a deeper level and also gather valuable data that could benefit the evolution of their products.