Arren Soroko

I think that PECO and other companies will not see Tesla as a threat until it is too late. This would be like Comcast teaming up with Google and the Chromecast. If they do see it as a threat, they will try to compete on their own.

I really like the idea of Youtube releasing the option to post 360 degree videos because its different compared to the ordinary flat videos. I do think people will use it with the python script if they are truly interested in post 360 degree videos. Once one person posts a video everyone is going to start doing it.

I like the idea as well, because it does show sustaining innovation, and I think there are plenty of people who will find it interesting and use it. However, I think that having to use Python might be a turn off for people. Once they make it so that anyone can use the 360 feature any time, then I think it will catch on much faster.

I like the idea of detailing all of my accomplishments throughout the year and listing them out because I would be better prepared for my performance review and it is easier to keep track all of the accomplishments. Sometimes its hard to sit and think everything you have accomplished and of course your boss won’t remember everything you have accomplished because you are not the only one on the team.

I like the idea of the self evaluation. It provides a back and forth conversation that allows you to counter negative aspects of your review. However, I can see it backfiring if your reviewer does not agree with your points and they may view it as you questioning their authority. In addition, when most people talk about their achievements, they blow them out of proportion resulting in less objectivity when it comes to self evaluations. What I think might be better for larger organizations is having several reviewers. More times than not, a person will work with a number of managers in a given year. It may be more objective to average the reviews of a number of managers so if a person is a consistently poor performer, there is verification from multiple sources.

You’ve raised a great point. I found the evaluation of information in real-time other than historically to be the most interesting and eye-opening; that is definitely beneficial to businesses. To answer your question (which actually prompted me to write my post on artificial intelligence), I have an answer that goes along with real-time monitoring. This article here (http://blog.xively.com/xively-infographic-future-of-the-iot/) provides an infographic on the future of IoT, and one key benefit for businesses (or, “doing good”) will be that “organizations will predictively meet business needs through intelligent, automated action driven by previously inaccessible insights from the physical world”. The example given was a refrigerator that has sensors in it connected to a scientific lab that is able to dispense enzymes for the purpose of accelerating experiments. The interconnectivity of devices allows the business to automatically recognize when revenue is created and restocking is needed, with the process ultimately allowing the devices to automatically predict upcoming experiments and alert scientists to new enzyme lines. This is just one of many examples of potential benefits (which would save money on operating expenses), and would also be an example of an application for a smart grid in a “smaller sense”.

I agree with the idea. Although it is possible to create a culture of innovation and creativity, it is flawed logic to assume that an organization can plan on disrupting markets on call. What can be done is to cultivate the employees mindsets and approaches and provide them with the resources and empowerment necessary to create new things. Those creations, even if they take place, aren’t guaranteed to be monetized. In plain terms, you can only lead a horse to the water.

I agree with Mohamed that some companies will be more innovative than others, and that directly depends on their culture. However, even though Steve Jobs didn’t intend to redefine the music industry, that’s because it’s really difficult to determine if a product is going to be successful when the general public doesn’t even know they need it. He knew the iPod’s design, bundling package (software with hardware), music store and business model were unique and extremely innovative, but other than making predictions based on some preliminary research, you will never know a products’ success until you launch it. I don’t think that disruptive innovation is a sustainable business model because that would require predicting the future. However, I think you can strive for sustaining extreme innovation, which will most likely disrupt a market eventually if it is successful in creating that culture.

I agree with the author’s three-point structure for status reports. All status reports should include the overall project health so that others can get a sense of whether the project is going well or not, right away. Major accomplishments should be tracked to assure stakeholders that the work is being done in a timely fashion and can be very encouraging. Issues should definitely be communicated because if the issues are unknown to others, there is no way they will know if there is something that they can help with.

A good status report should definitely use the green, yellow, red approach to illustrate the health of the project so that it draws attention to what needs to be focused on and less attention to what doesn’t. A good status report should also be written concisely. After taking MIS 3535, I’ve gotten better at writing status reports. I am briefer in the details of what is happening throughout the various phases of the project and am elaborating on details that may be unclear.

I agree with Ennico in that a good elevator pitch needs to get the other person interested, needs to convey the main point of the idea being pitched, and should absolutely start with an intro. I think that a good elevator pitch should be short and sweet, spoken clearly and with a confident voice, and it should have anywhere from 1 to 3 “big things” that you want the reader to remember. As we saw in class, some applications lend themselves well to a 3-point presentation, whereas some could be explained in one or two points. I think that some common mistakes that people make when giving elevator pitches is rushing through them because they’re nervous, trying to regurgitate memorized information, and trying to cram too many details into what should be a quick presentation.

I agree with Ennico’s points. You should definitely introduce who you are so that people know who they are speaking with and it also makes it more personal. You should definitely sell what you are talking about to the other person and leave them wanting more so that it can lead to a follow-up discussion for some time in the near future. What people tend not to do well when giving elevator pitches is focus on the purpose rather than focusing on the latest and greatest features. People tend not to tell a short story that is compelling for its targeted audience. Working through nervousness is another thing that people tend to not do well. When people are nervous, they tend to talk to fast, get stumped if they stutter, fail to give eye contact, and sway back and forth excessively which negatively impacts the elevator pitch.

I agree with Ennico’s points that you should introduce yourself, talk about the most important feature of your business plan, and get the person excited and wanting to hear more from you. if you are giving a 30 second pitch, it should be interesting because you want to capture the audiences attention. I think its important to tell a brief story in the pitch and tell an anecdote because that is what captures everyones attention. Being enthusiastic also helps because if the audience sees you are excited and passionate what you are talking about then so will they. Things I think people tend not to do well is practice. It is hard delivering a 30 second pitch but, with practice I believe it can be done. When people don’t practice they usually tend to get nervous and lose their train of thought.

I do not think that a single ERP for a multi-national company is the best approach because a multi-national company has a different set of business needs for each of its locations as well as a different set of regulations. Also, I think that it is safer for a multi-national company to have multiple ERP systems because it is important for multi-national companies to have a back-up system in case one system fails. The benefits of having a single ERP system are that it is less maintenance involved, system upgrades won’t take as long, taxation is easier to deal with, and it helps the business standardize itself. The downfalls of having a single ERP system are that the company only has one system to rely on, downtime, and the potential to lose customers if the system losses important information due to a crash. I think an organization should implement a global ERP system when a company has duplicate ERP systems and resources in more than one country, the company is resorting to manually reconciling financial and accounting information, and if the company is struggling with multiple taxation and legal environments.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen this one before. You may also want to check the Play Store for similar apps.

If you go this route, you need to figure out what will differentiate your application from similar applications. Why would I pick your application?

Innovation and creativity do not necessarily need to go hand and hand. Businesses should definitely make sure that they find their proper balance of innovation and creativity because both are needed in order to be successful. However, every business has to make sure that they set themselves apart by focusing on its strengths in comparison to its competitors. Some businesses are better at being innovative than others, while some businesses are better with creativity. If a business is not great at being innovative and its competitors are and they have the same level of emphasis on innovation, the business that is not as innovative will sink. The same is true for creativity.

Creativity can definitely exist without innovation and vice versa. New ideas can be generated everyday but it does not necessarily mean that the business is going to implement it. A company can implement something new that its competitors already have implemented before them, which lacks creativity. In my experience, management focuses more on implementation than creativity because management seems to favor some people’s ideas more than others. However, management does focus on tweaking existing processes to find ways to do things better for everyone, which is the innovation piece.

I believe that creativity and innovation are two separate entities. Creativity is more of an art approach to something. It uses design to catch the eye of a consumer. Creativity makes a product beautiful or more attractive. Innovation is more developing a new method of doing something that no one has thought of yet. When I think of innovation it is simple, yet extremely useful.

Both creativity and innovation go hand in hand. Although able to stand alone, both are best used when put together. With a mix of the two, the creation of a new product or idea can far surpass any standard that already exists. For example, when designing a new car. If the engine is a new innovative idea, a consumer may not see the innovation without a creative outside design. Creativity and innovation should be intricately intertwined to create outstanding ideas.

Using the article’s definition of creativity and innovation I would say creativity can exist without innovation but innovation needs creativity. Someone can come up with many creative ideas but without action they remain that, ideas. Also, not every creative idea is innovative. I usually think of innovative ideas as not just implemented, but somewhat successful. I don’t believe people would call an idea that caused a business to go out of business innovative, but it could have been creative.

I think an issue with being innovative businesses have is trying to force it as he discusses. When you sit a group of people in a room and say, ok innovate, you get people so focused on coming up with a new, innovative solution that they do not come up with any innovations at all. I agree with Shawn Hunter that brainstorming sessions are not always the best strategy to trying to employ when trying to think of a solution. I sat in many brainstorming sessions as an intern where the person running the session did not employ the best practices we discusses in class and all they led to was awkward silence and no solutions. When you put so much pressure on people to be creative or innovative they will self edit before they say anything.

In my experience management looks for innovation because they want actionable ideas. The next question after ‘we could do ____’ is always ‘how would we do that’. They also tend to dismiss the idea if you don’t at least have a starting point.