I found the point of innovation to improve worker’s safety and fatigue extremely interested. Usually, technological innovations can be met with certain skepticism by employees if they believe their jobs are in danger. However, BMW can do a unique job of bringing workers along in their journey given the inherent benefit that additive manufacturing can have for their work. In this way, they are continuously engaging their staff and using them as thought-partners, rather than enemies, in their creation of more efficient processes driven by technological changes. In this sense, one interesting focus BMW needs to have is in rolling out these solutions and policies in a way that is educational and also motivational for workers.
I think that leveraging machine learning to reduce race and social bias is a strong value-add of its implementation in Uber. One of the outstanding questions of that, however, would be to ask whether having all this information implies Airbnb should have any responsibility over ensuring the bias is actually reduced. The way I see it, it is once thing to point out that there is an issue and create a more level playing field for hosts (and bookers), and another to solve it and put programs in place to raise awareness.
One of the questions that also arises from this piece goes into the nature of US politics, where so many less visible stakeholders are involved. For front-end changes, the end consumer (or citizen) is much more aware of what changes could or should be imposed, rather than some of these back-end solutions. Therefore, the political bipartisanship that is driving much of the US politics’ direction could play a role in the type of solutions or proposals, as well as the acceptance of these changes.
This is a really interesting example of open innovation, especially given the type of product creation and how engaged it can make customers. Following from one of the previous comments, it is interesting to understand what target customers they will be engaging, especially as some of the children in that market are less able to submit proposals. However, one point for targeted open innovation could be recruiting freelance designers to lower the barriers of proposals from the market, and still keep customers who may be less likely to submit proposals. This strategy is great to foster loyalty in these customers.
I agree with how you laid out the argument for Nike’s innovation with prototyping, especially considering how additive manufacturing have impact on large scale production. I particularly enjoyed your mention of workforce skill and location, since I have been focused on that space in the past. One interesting additional question to raise is whether Nike has responsibility over training and supporting its workforce as they are introducing technological innovation, given that education is one of the strongest barriers for employment in some of the countries they operate in. Beyond their social responsibility, this can be a factor to consider from an employee motivation point.
I find this article incredibly interesting because it opens up a wide range of possibilities for what it means to change a city, and its implications. After working on a study last year on autonomous vehicles in Toronto, I realize that opening up a city to new technology does not just mean an overhaul of a city, but also an overhaul of different parts of what creates an urban environment (which leads to gradual change over time). In my opinion, this is incredibly important as we start exposing people to the positive and negative consequences of technological overhaul – especially to your question on potential negative consequences. In our study’s case, this was mainly the increase in short term unemployment and unused spaces (e.g. parking lots), which posed a difficult problem to the government of Toronto, especially in some areas which may already be struggling to improve economic mobility.