Brett Justin Leftwich

I feel that for a “killer app” to be implemented it needs to be a super simple interface. The target market for users will be 30-45 years old, considering young home owners will most likely not be able to afford the restructuring of their home to install such technology. That being said, the innovations still need to be “killer”. Drastic technology will be something that can catch the consumers eye and create a convenience for them. Some features that the app could include is: Knowing if the oven/stove is on,
checking the levels of energy, and turning off any electronics in the home.

When I first read that the projection would be 15 million households, I was shocked. The projection is too high for only 5 years. However, I think the article talks about having a “connected system” in the home period, regardless if it is the only “connected system”. I’m not sure of a particular system or company that may dominate but I think if it is a recognized brand like Apple or Samsung, it will be adopted quickly. I have to disagree with Angela when it comes to the target market. I think the early adopters will be first time home buyers. But, I think the home they purchase will only have one “connected system”. What would be interesting to see is if houses are built to be a connected as the homeowner wanted. For example, it would be easy to add or subtract connected systems (maybe the homeowner is paranoid about a particular system and wants to get rid of it).

Great article. Has some interesting perspective on performance reviews and I do indeed think it is a viable alternative.

I agree with you in that I think employees should also evaluate themselves. My only concern with this system is that the employee will evaluate themselves and then the manager will simply submit the employees evaluation as their own, meaning the employee doesn’t receive any feedback. My manager told me about her performance review experience and she said that both she and her manager fill out a performance review for her. However her manager cannot view her employee’s responses until she has submitted her own review. They are then able to compare and see if they are on the same page. I think this method could be very effective because it forces both parties to do an evaluation and it generates more talking points for the review.

I have never heard of an employee evaluating themselves in the real world but I do think it can be a good idea for our class. I think we should have peer evaluations and then evaluations where we evaluate ourselves. I think this method would work because the professor would see students contributions from two different view points. Of course, if you evaluate yourself it would not be all positive.

I think the best way is to hold workshops that encourage “deeper” thinking. The workshop should have examples that combat narrow minded thinking. For example, many people consider the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit to be frivolous. The workshop can begin with getting everyone’s opinion on this topic. When most people agree with this assertion (which is usually the case), the workshop presenter will counter this point with the fact that the old woman had only asked McDonald’s to pay for her medical fees and nothing else. When McDonald’s refused, the lawsuit was initiated. The presenter will also include the fact that the woman required skin grafts for the damage the coffee caused. The workshop will have several examples like this to drill the point home and will then relate it to narrow minded thinking in the organization, thereby encouraging integrative thinking.

In the end, I think it boils down to if the topic is interesting enough for any one person to be engaged. To encourage integrative thinking, everyone must be ignored in a way that is interesting to them so they can contribute creatively. Additionally, I also agree in Thomas’s suggestion with the workshops that encourage deeper thinking.