Great post, Masato!! I agree that not only MC but also Japanese “established” corporations in general have two problems you mentioned, which are 1) strong vertical organization structure where horizontal/cross-functional interaction is rare and 2) lacking of agility (too big to move quick!). And I like the idea of MC having JV with Venture Capital. I believe how MC should pitch to VC is definitely MC’s 1)vast business network and 2)abundant money. Instead, VC can bring to MC the agility and open innovation. I can imagine win-win relationship, but at the same time, I know it is also difficult to ‘move’ Mitsubishi Corporation, the biggest conglomerate in Japan. I suppose the “key” to make it happen will be “talents” or “leaders” who can make the change. — I hope you can be one of them, after learning here at HBS!!
Thank you for sharing an interesting article! One thing comes to mind, as an advertising person, was the survey method called “Social Listening”.
Basically Social Listening is the process of tracking the conversations around some topic or brand or product in the internet, and utilize it for assessing brand health check or for developing new product idea.
(This article talks about what Social Listening is: https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-listening/ )
I suppose when it comes to open innovation, it is very important to watch what consumers are actually thinking and to proactively analyze what they are talking so that companies can find not only “unmet” needs but also “unfelt” needs from the consumers. In my view, counter-intuitively, Open innovation cannot happen passively or automatically but happens with proactive effort to actively interact and find some “clue/seed” of innovation from the consumers. Said that, I felt SoundCloud could have invested more in doing so, such as Social Listening.
Great article, Nikhil!! Well analyzing what Additive Manufacturing is bringing to each aspect of airplane manufacturing. Especially interesting was the contrast between Traditional Manufacturing and Additive Manufacturing. I suppose it is as important as developing AM technology to IDENTIFY which element can be bettered by Additive Manufacturing and which element should stay with Traditional Manufacturing, in terms of the trade-off between potential benefit and potential cost. If I may try to generalize, especially for tremendously complex, “safety-first” product like airplane, it is up to humans’ wisdom how we can identify what to change/what not to change.
Thank you for an interesting post!! This was inspiring to me in terms of how the advanced/new technology can make social impact. I definitely agree that VICIS is innovative and impactful, and it is a matter of “support” from organizations, consumers, governments, etc., who feel sympathy with this product and who try to change the situation by advocating this. Once PR activity did its job and more and more people get to know about it, I think VICIS will have a future where they can price it lower and spread the product across, by achieving the volume target to do so.
Thank you for your great post! It was really inspiring and I enjoyed it a lot.
The biggest takeaway from your analysis on “AI vs Toy” is that technology itself won’t be always valuable; it will become valuable only when it is put into proper application. The current talks around AI are more lauding the potential benefit of AI than gauging the potential risk of AI. This particular example of Barbie is exactly the case where we are reminded that we should have “ownership” on the technology. At the same time, I also believe that unless we try it, we never learn or notice the risk. So it is good to consider actively what AI can do not only in typical AI-friendly industry but also some AI-new industry such as toy; The important thing is we humans keep having the “ownership” of the technology.
Thank you for sharing a great article! It is always very intriguing to think about how far AI can replace traditionally “human” work, such as HR management, advertising, etc. I agree with your questioning in the last; We also really have to consider not only what AI can do but also what AI can NOT do. I suppose that with this algorithm they may be able to capture and predict “capability/skill sets” of applicants but may be unable to capture “true motivation” or “interpersonal skills”, which are also essential factors when it comes to identify the best potential talents. So I think that the companies should make it clear what they should benefit from this service and what they should still keep doing in recruiting, then they should combine both the ways to avoid missing out good talents. End of the day, “judgement” or “final decision-making” is still left to humans, I believe.