It is very interesting to see how the culture of secrecy was previously perceived as a source of competitive advantage and how there is a drastic shift towards more transparency and openness. While Lego’s design are known, there is something about the company that creates customers’ loyalty. I actually believe that crowdsourcing is one of the root cause to that success because it has a double benefit: (1) by essence the designs and the products will be relevant and will meet market success because they answer to customer needs (because co-produced with customers) (2) it creates a sense of community where customers feel connected to the brand and share the brand’s success when one of there product is launched. In an era of gadgets and tablets, it is very impressive to see an iconic company that was founded in 1932 still be relevant and appealing!
I enjoyed reading on how our city is actually actively involving the citizens through crowdsourcing!! I actually think this approach has a double benefit: not only does the city benefit from talents that would otherwise be unreach but it is also a great way to solve relevant pain points. Because the people that are helping to solve the problem are the user of the service, I believe that the output will be relevant and user-centric!
This is fascinating topic! I completely agree that Modern Meadow should not produce a finished good but that they should rather position themselves as a supplier for luxury brands. In addition, I think that the focus should be on high end luxury leathers that are currently very controversial. For instance, many luxury brands are being very careful with the use of crocodile leather and are promoting ostriches leather as an alternative.
On the other hand, I am skeptical when it comes to biofrabricated food.In an era where customers are looking for more natural foods (e.g. with the boom of organic produces, the surge in demand for non processed food), I am convinced that this technology would be massively criticized and that people would be very reluctant to use it. I believe that this is the type of technology that needs a couple of generations before being adopted!
It is very interesting to see how Additive Manufacturing can actually help overcome the spare part challenge for old jets. I can be very costly to keep stock of spare parts of an old plan without knowing precisely If those spare parts will ever be needed. Most of the time, some piece of equipment that could still have a useful life are replaced just because manufacturers are no longer producing the spare parts. I actually think that AM can change the economics of some industries such as aerospace for that reason: massive equipments such as trains or plans could be kept for longer time if maintained properly.
In addition, I also really liked how you highlighted the challenges that AM could address for the military on the field. When on a mission it is essentially impossible to carry all the specific spare parts and components that could potentially be needed during the mission. it is very exciting to see that AM reshapes the way planning could done for a mission: in the future, all engineers will need is a computer with the design of all the components and a 3D printer!
Very interesting article!! I love what Microsoft is doing by trying to democratize technology to people living disabilities. But most of all, it is very inspiring to see how technology can actually solve daily issues that people with disabilities are facing (such as being able to understand your environment and read people’s expression). While I think these technologies are still at their early stages, I feel that it is the role of society as a whole to make a progress in that field and not only the role of a single company. Maybe one idea could be to create a think-thank that bring all stakeholders and players working on these issues together to help innovation and research go even further. This think thank would also involve the government to ensure that the technology canoe democratized (at a fair price or even covered by insurance companies). My hope is that technology could drastically improve people with disabilities’ lives but also that it could be affordable by as many people as possible!
Very interesting article,I really enjoyed reading it!! I really think that the question you raise is at the heart of the current debate on autonomous driving.
While I acknowledge that putting all the burden and the responsibility on the manufacturers will slow the development and the adoption of the technology, I still think that it the manufacturers role to ensure drivers’ full safety. From the moment Tesla has started marketing its cars as autonomous, I believe it is Tesla’s responsibility to ensure that the cars are fully autonomous and not partially autonomous (otherwise they should have marketed them as partially autonomous cars).
I also think that as long as technology is not fully mastered, regulators should force drivers to stay behind the wheel because manufacturers have failed to report the reality of the maturity of the technology to customers. Ultimatly it is regulators role to help customers understand the reality of the technology that they are using and to ensure that they adopt a safe behavior.