Dominic P Lyate

I feel as though it could disrupt both. k-12 education needs a disruption like this, catering to individual children’s needs and learning abilities so they do not get pushed through school without really learning the fundamentals of early education. A child does need to socialize however so combining a mix of online education and physical education would be a perfect fit for youth education.
When it comes to higher education, a disruption is already happening quickly. Some of the most talented people in the technology industry are self taught. In year to come, a degree may not be needed if a person can learn how any type of information they desire through the internet.

I think that it is more disruptive towards k-12 learning. I do agree with Angela on a child needing to socialize, especially at a young age. That’s why I would wait and offer students online classes when they reach middle school. In addition, I would make the online classes completely optional allowing for both traditional and online classes. I would make it optional because some students might have a hard time adapting to online classes, which could potentially lower their grades. Online education is already a part of higher education and there are students who incorporate that into their schedules and others who only take online classes. I think it would bring more awareness to other online learning websites like Blackboard or Lynda.com. This could potentially harm the textbook publishers because students would use e-books instead.

Interesting, collaboration is key for growing business!

Interesting, collaboration is key for growing business!

I work for Dorma Door Controls and our main location in Germany has recently implemented a collaboration tool that is new to our business, and it is called Yammer. Yammer is essentially Facebook for organizations, but it is owned by Microsoft. Since it is relatively new to the company, the entire business hasn’t really adopted it and has been using it to its full potential yet, but it allows for employees all over the globe to communicate and share documents privately or publicly and it has sort of been successful so far, but it is still too early to measure its effectiveness.

I think that the easier the training for a collaboration tool the better. Most employees tend to freak out when there is a new technology tool presented to them. As we learned in 3535, some employees don’t adapt to change so easily. So the easier the process or the more they understand the collaboration tool, the more comfortable they are with adopting a new tool. Making this new collaboration tool successful in the end. The company that I’m interning now is big on collaboration and have devoted several SharePoint sites to collaboration tools. Prior to launching these sites, they sent out emails with training material and had presentations on how to use these tools. They wanted to make sure they provided enough information, before launching these sites.

This is a really fascinating article, considering the technological advancements that have already come before us and have enhanced the working world so tremendously. A technology that I think has a lot of potential to be disruptive would have to be the smart watch coming through by storm. Apple just released their first version of it, and it will only be a matter of time before other companies release their own version with more and more capabilities to enhance the corporate world.

As a good amount of our class will be entering the working world very soon, there is a really good chance that at some point we will be making presentations to our colleagues. These tips are very useful in that sometimes I feel as if I have been to,d hundreds of different ways to present, and this really sums it up well for me. Another technique I have in mind would be in terms of the slide deck itself, and to keep it interesting and short.

One technique that I like is using some type of “grabber” in the beginning of the presentation to grab the audiences attention. Whether it be getting the audience involved or showing something shocking, this gets the audience engaged immediately, and can make the presentation more interesting. My favorite way to do this is to use impressive numbers that people are unaware of. For example, “The market for commerce is $X billion dollars.” This is particularly applicable in business presentations. I think this ties well with Rosenthal’s first point of making an emotional connection with the audience.

I feel that the three components discussed definitely go hand in hand with a successful presentation. We all have a very important presentation coming up soon. We should look at these 3 things in our groups, so that we can incorporate them into our overall presentations and it’s not just one person in the group doing this. That way it will give the presentation an overall benefit rather than having one person in the group present a fraction of what can be accomplished if the whole team emotionally connects with the audience, presents with energy, and demonstrates the payoff.

This app sounds pretty fun and interesting although as a Facebook user, I have never heard of Riff. I do think the app is similar to Vine and Snapchat stories but it may not last long. Riff may be a fun app for a year or so but I think eventually people will stop using it. It also depends how frequently you go on Facebook. I rarely go on Facebook or social media so I would probably use the app once to test it out but that’s about it. I do see many people using the app as it is similar to Vine and that was a huge success.

I think this is another attempt at Facebook capitalizing on other successful apps. Facebook is slowly declining in popularity and trying to regain its market share through other ideas that have already been created. I don’t believe that it will be able to retain users, considering Snapchat and Vine’s popularity. I believe that facebook has shifted to an older segmentation and new add-ons such as these are not appealing to that market.

I am not so sure that this app will be successful on facebook’s part. I think it might be a bit too complicated in comparison to snapchat and vine, and that people will want to stick to what they already have and are used to. However, if Facebook were to buy out these companies and then add in this feature as a bonus to what the people already know, I could see it working out.

I do think that the watch industry is underestimating the apple watch a bit. I don’t think that it can compete with true luxury watches (Cartier, Rolex, etc), because if someone wants a watch covered in diamonds that they saw someone famous wearing, they aren’t gonna go for the Apple Watch. However, there is a bit of a cult surrounding Apple and everything they produce, so I think that a lot of people will buy an Apple Watch just because it’s an Apple product. I absolutely think the fitness wearables industry should be worried, as the Apple Watch Sport, if priced competitively, far outranks the competition in terms of functionality.

I agree with Dan. I don’t believe Apple can disrupt the luxury watch market. A smartwatch has a life cycle, a watch by Rolex or Omega does not. You are expected to purchase a new smartwatch when the next iteration comes around, while the value of the luxury watch increases as it ages. Apple watches may be more functional, but no one buys a mechanical watch for it’s functionality.
As for the fitness wearable angle? I agree, Apple’s brand name in technology products can move mountains and this is one of them.

I do not think Apple will disrupt the luxury watch industry because they are different customer segments. When I think of a luxury watch I think of high end classy watch that you would wear to work or if you are going somewhere nice. For Apple to create a luxury watch, thats more technologically based. The apple watch has a lot more functions and you can do a lot more. I think Apple will take away the meaning of a luxury watch. Its more for a fashion statement rather than a watch that does everything from a touch of a finger.

I don’t think the luxury watch industry should feel threatened by Apple’s new watch. People who buy luxury watches, like Rolex, are going for a particular look or style, which Apple’s smart watch will not be able to compete with. Some luxury watches also appreciate in value over time while an Apple smart watch will only depreciate over time as its technology and capabilities become obsolete. Wearing this smart watch would also convey the wrong message over time. People wear luxury watches as a status symbol, a nice Rolex 20 years ago will most likely still be looked at as a fine watch now. Where as a first generation smart watch would be looked at as a low end watch.

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”.

Though not as noble as the minute clinic, I think that personal health trackers (Nike+ FuelBand, FitBit, etc) are an example of disruptive innovation working to make things more accessible. Before these personal health trackers, people had to see dieticians and sleep specialists to learn if they were eating and sleeping well. Now, these trackers, which are conveniently worn on the wrist as a small bracelet, allow people to take control of their own health by tracking food intake, exercise, and sleep patterns for under $200, which is a one time cost just to buy the band. Everything else is conveniently linked up through a free app, thus making these health trackers a disruptive innovation that’s inciting some positive social change.

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 that these are all great ways of expressing the value of data to a CEO. I think that the non-financial measures will be harder to communicate, however. In IT we tend to understand the value of data and what would happen without it better than other areas of the business. Trying to communicate the intrinsic value or business value, however, is difficult if the person does not already know that data is important. I think that the cost value and market value will be much better because you can show some hard numbers as to why data is important. I think the most effective measure that Laney states is the Economic value of information. This is a hard thing to measure but trying the data directly to the company’s bottom line will be very persuasive.

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.