Interesting read! Awesome that they’ve taken to using open innovation to design new products. I’m wondering how this move could be combined with machine learning down the road, to mitigate some of those risks of open innovation. For example, can Lego use data about the commonalities of the top-voted products over the years to be able to design new winners of its own again? I think those two tactics in combination could give Lego the advantage its again seeking. Thanks for sharing!
Interesting concept and article. I love that it touches on both open innovation and machine learning. I think the last question you posed about digital vs. brick-and-mortar retail is really relevant – especially as it pertains to fashion. I think part of the beauty of Choosy’s model though, is how well it integrates with our digital lives. I love the concept of scrolling through Instagram, adding a hashtag on a cool outfit, and having a company then mass-produce it. I think it would be hard to translate that model into brick-and-mortar. Cool what they’re doing, hope they keep it up!
Cool article. Thanks for your insights! I’d be intrigued to learn more about the accuracy of Tala’s algorithm, and how they made the choice to use certain data as predictive of creditworthiness. In particular, data such as “whether a user reads the terms & conditions” seems to me like it would be unrelated to and un-predictive of someone’s ability to repay. So I’d want to learn more on how they chose to use that metric, and what the outcome has been.
Interesting article! I think the last point you mentioned on using this tool for good, not evil, is a really pertinent one. I’d like to believe that the solution is transparency. I think Descartes should make a choice to disclose what companies/governments/organizations are using their findings. If the goal of their company is truly to make this data available to improve societal issues, ideally management will want to ensure that their customers (whoever purchases their data/findings) are operating in line with that. To that end, I think making it publicly known who has access to this information will incentivize those customers to use it wisely and ethically.
Really insightful article, thank you! I can see potential uses of this method from an entrepreneurial perspective. OxFam should explore the possibility of setting up small shops – managed and operated by local employees – who can 3D print tools and materials on demand for local customers. This would reduce the number of people who’d need to be trained to use the printers to just a small group of staff. Additionally, it would provide an income source for those people. OxFam could continue its social enterprise model by fully or partially subsidizing the price of the good to the end customer. I’m hesitant to believe that 3D printers should be set up and ready to be used by locals in time of disaster. I can see that causing more chaos than solutions. I think OxFam needs to maintain a level of control over their use overall.
Very interesting article! I knew little about the lack of innovation in the construction industry, so thank you for bringing that insight to light. I think what we may see is construction companies testing 3D printing as a proof-of-concept in countries with more lax regulations. If AECOM is able to successfully and safely build in countries in Asia or Africa where there may be more freedom to innovate – due to minimal regulations – they can later translate that work to more developed nations with stricter laws. Interested to see how this all moves forward! Particularly on the cost front. Infrastructure development, particularly in developing countries, is incredibly dependent on financing. If 3D printing can reduce costs, I think the implications could be huge for those countries.