Jacklin Altman

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.

I think the super obvious industry to be disrupted is the automotive industry. Manufacturers will have to alter the way they build cars to support this new autonomous concept. Also, I think that car services such as taxis, Uber, Lyft, etc. will feel the waves of this disruption, because if cars can drive themselves, then all of those drivers will be out of a job. This also has the potential to disrupt public transportation, as people may now find it more convenient to ride in an autonomous car which is private, but still allows them to multitask, since they aren’t actually driving the vehicle.

I find the most interesting industry that autonomous vehicles will disrupt is the emergency services industry (police, emt, firefighters). When and if autonomous vehicles reach a critical mass, emergency services will be able to communicate with the cars on the road to tell them to get out of the way in order for them to travel as quickly as possible to the emergency sites. This will result in faster response times to criminal activities and medical emergencies as vehicles will part before the emergency vehicles get into close enough proximity that they need to slow down.

There is no doubt that the arrival of autonomous vehicles will disrupt a wide array of industries, such as all of the ones mentioned so far. Another industry that comes to mind is the car maintenance (I can’t think of a better term for it) industry. For example, if your autonomous car breaks down or needs to be repaired, then who will fix it? Since these cars who a completely different build architecture and require different parts than regular cars, then car mechanics will not know how to work on these cars. There will need to be additional training for mechanics. Either that, or new companies will arise that focus on repairing autonomous cars. Additionally, if these cars will be like the Tesla Model S, then improvements and adjustments to autonomous cars can be done, well, autonomously. If cars can do this on their own rather than through the use of a mechanic, then that will further hurt the car maintenance industry.

On a side note, I don’t see autonomous vehicles becoming mainstream for a long time. First, they will be far too expensive for most people to afford. Also, a most importantly, a lot of people truly enjoy driving and won’t want to give up driving for themselves. Autonomous vehicles will no doubt have some great uses for now (such as allowing disabled people to get around and, as Tom mentioned, possibly being used as emergency vehicles), but I think it will be a long time before they leave its small niche market and enter into the mainstream.

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 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 genuinly do not think that the Apple watch will disrupt the watch industry. Even though they are trying to with the Gold Apple Watch, I feel that they are two different customer bases. There is an art to a mechanical watch which a lot of customers see as value. I think if Apple is trying to disrupt the watch industry, then Tesla trying to attract customers who drive manual cars is a good analogy. Even though it is possible, I think we are very far from that occurring.

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.

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 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 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.