Awesome article! While I understand the more immediate concerns around regulation, thinking more long term I am super excited for organizations like Habitat for Humanity to get a hold of this technology. Habitat for Humanity is a global non-profit that provides housing to individuals/families who demonstrate a need for safe, affordable housing. By contributing sweat equity, i.e. helping in the construction of their homes, new homeowners help the organization cut down on construction costs. Employing the technology mentioned above, there is potential for the organization to provide homes to a much larger audience considering the significant reduction in costs.
Nice article! While the potential for declining revenues due to a declining need for spares is a valid risk, I believe this presents an excellent opportunity for GE to get ahead of future demand by communicating how diverse its 3D printing capabilities are. I see this as an opportunity to develop additional revenue streams as it explores who it wants to be to players at different positions in the aerospace value chain.
Interestingly enough this article reminded me of Watson’s ‘Toronto’ faux pas on Jeopardy. In the spirit of freedom of expression, I’d be concerned that YouTube’s AI would extrapolate its understanding of language to a point that it interprets mere discussion of a controversial topic as a showcase of support for indecent content. As an avid consumer of YouTube videos, I’ve already seen instances in which content creators have had their videos de-monetized simply by sharing their opinions on pop-culture. For this reason, I believe that there should always be a human element to AI so as not to inhibit creators when expressing their views.
Great article! I share the concern that brick and mortar may lose its significance in Sephora’s omni-channel strategy – foot traffic will likely decline as the in-app technology becomes more sophisticated. One suggestion for Sephora is to link the in-app technology with an experiential in-store offering. For example, brides (more broadly, women heading to a cocktail event) can design their wedding makeup at home, testing out the right foundations and lip colors in the app, and once they’ve settled on a look, they can visit the store for the makeup artist to execute. Essentially the road to sustained/growing foot traffic will be to play up a more high touch in store experience.
Nice article! I’d like to explore the argument you bring up about fostering intrinsic values among this community of innovators. Unlike Pfizer, whose attraction to open-innovation via contests among researchers is ultimately driven by its desire to solve issues/create efficiencies within the healthcare space, the lack of intrinsic motivators among innovators in the automotive space may stem from a lack of a broader societal issue to solve. Given this gap, I’d want to understand more about the broader sweeping impacts that these innovators can have and potentially build from here in terms of how I’d market these contests to innovators so that they are compelled to share knowledge and build a stronger sense of community.
Nice article! I actually love the idea of continuing with competitions. One idea from a competitive advantage and sustainability standpoint is to onboard the innovators (competition winners) into a sort of ‘master class of pacesetters.’ The program can be structured in a way that pacesetters receive funding for their research over, for example, a 2 year time frame, with all related research being property of Pfizer. By bringing the talent in house you create an even bigger buzz among the community of researchers who would love to be backed by a large organization like Pfizer while simultaneously building up Pfizer’s bank of intellectual property.