John B Illuminati

I think it will definitely impact the consumer industry. Even if it’s fairly expensive, it makes sense to pay a bunch for a 3D printer and print whatever you want, rather than buying individual items every so often. I also think that it won’t become fully mainstream until some celebrities/high-profile people start using them, then it will trickle down.

3D printing to me is a concept that is truly remarkable and will be a very very big market in the future. However, the key word here is future. Right now, like most newer technologies, it is very expensive and not attainable by most consumers. I like to think of it similarly to how the iPhone came about. It started out very expensive, but as time went on it became more simple and cheaper, and that is when it became popular. I can see something like this happening to 3d printing in the near future.

I believe that this will impact the consumer industry greatly in the future. I do not think that 3D printers are going to be affordable for the general population for a VERY long time, so for the LEGO example, I feel that this would only make an impact once the price of 3D printers dramatically fall. I feel if they were affordable that everyone would be purchasing them and that the market would be huge for 3D printers. If 3D printers were affordable they would be the most convenient thing to have in the house.

I think Tiko is awesome and is really going to make a significant impact on the consumer industry. If the price of $179 hold true throughout development and deployment–I think the pricing is perfect to reach a really wide audience. I’d definitely buy one. If they execute this right and offer easy-to-use companion software that anybody could learn to use, they could have a major hit on their hands with Tiko.

I think that there’s a negative stigma with consumers about facial recognition software. I know there was a lot of backlash when Facebook introduced it for pictures, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing happened with Windows 10. Regardless of whether this is able to increase security, I think consumers will think that this type of technology is intrusive. However, since you’d have to purchase hardware for this anyway (the camera), another idea could be to sell a sensor that can read your fingerprint to sign in. The fingerprint reader on my iPhone is by far my favorite feature, and I think that’s a good way to increase security without overstepping on consumer’s privacy.

I think it’s a pretty cool idea but Microsoft would have to make sure its very safe and secure because that could have a negative impact. I also agree with that you said in your post about making your face the username and not the password. I don’t think it is a good idea for your face to be the password unless it’s extremely secure and safe. In order for this to be safe I think it has to know your face realtime and not just a print out of your face because anyone can just go on one of your social media sites and print out a page with your face on it.

I think Project Ara definitely has the potential to be a disruptive innovation for smartphones. I think after 6 generations of iPhones, some of the common issues, such as the planned obsolesce of operating systems and hardware malfunctions (cracking the screen), are starting wear on dedicated iPhone customers. Project Ara offers a solution for the frustrations that iPhone customers are having, and I can see some people looking outside of Apple because of it, within the next couple generations of iPhones. And if it’s brand recognition of innovative companies that appeals to Apple’s customers, I think Google will be just as successful.

I personally do not think that Ohmconnect could have a better business model. A lot of people nowadays are looking for ways to cut back on their bills already as it is due to the economy. The fact that people get paid to cut back is going to have people signing up for Ohmconnect once they find out about it. The only problems that I can forsee is the fact that people will believe Ohmconnect is too good to be true which will have people question whether Ohmconnect is legitmate or not and privacy concerns since Ohmconnect has the ability to monitor their energy usage from an internet-connected device.

The one downside about Ohmconnect that I see is that the company will only pay you during “volatile times for the power grid.” Volatile times for power grids typically occur when generators are shutdown because electricity demand is too high, or because of weather conditions. These are times when people need electricity to most, and it might detour them from actually using the service. For peak hours, however, I think this is a create idea and can really pay off for the user and reduce emissions. This could also be extended to water usage to incentivize people to use less water during drought periods or dry seasons.

I agree that people are the most important (and weakest) component of information security measures; the other components are processes and technology. As we’ve discussed many times in MIS3535, and more recently in MIS4596 during our exploration of the value if IT investment, even the most sophisticated technology is useless (or burdensome) if employees are insufficiently trained to utilize it. In companies for which we’ve worked, nearly all of us know of an instance in which a new technology was imposed on an unprepared workforce, resulting in hampered productivity.
IT security is no different. A company cannot simply make a hardware, software, or networking investment and expect it to make information assets more secure. A company must foster an employee mentality that promotes security, regardless of an employee’s role or rank. It is a cliché to say that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, but the saying certainly applies to information security. Your statement “everyone needs to know how to keep their devices secure” is absolutely true, and no amount of technology investment can compensate for it.

I think that this type of organizational structure has to match the company’s culture. For the Valve Corporation, I think it’s a perfect fit because they are innovative and working on different aspects of the project helps spark a lot of creativity for them. I would be interested to see if Valve employees tend to chose the same/very similar aspects of the project every time or if they mix it up.
I also think this would be a good organizational structure for very small companies, because when a company is less that 30 people, organizational structure isn’t really important or necessary. But for very large firms, I can see this structure becoming a disaster. All projects would probably revolve around the politics of who is going to do what, and the intention of creating innovation would be lost.

I agree with Erin in that the size of a company determines the viability of a flat organizational structure; a large company needs more structure to operate, whereas a small company does not require as much. In a small company, employees are also generally more knowledgeable about the skill sets of other employees (simply because there are fewer employees in total). This is advantageous when projects initiated because employees know which coworkers should be sought out to assist with tasks with which they have previous experience. Even though Valve shirks job titles, it is no stretch of the imagination that their roughly 100 employees (from a count of employee bios at http://www.valvesoftware.com/company/people.html) are familiar with each other’s skills.

I agree with Erin and Travis that this type of structure depends on the size of the company. This structure working also depends on the job that a company is trying to do. If a company is trying to spark creativity and innovation, this structure would be most beneficial. Although this structure allows people to try new things and participate in new ways, people will most likely gravitate to what they’re good at. Going off John’s example, an animator who specializes in mouth animation they will most likely stick with that since that’s what they are good at. This animator might attempt eye animation but if they realize someone else is better at it they will most likely revert back to mouth animation so that they can best showcase their abilities. Maybe one of the best things that comes out of this structure is the freedom it offers. A lot of people don’t like to be pigeonholed in a position. So by allowing employees the option to move around, employees may feel more comfortable or more willing to work at that company.

This minimalist architecture seem to be ideal for encouraging creativity and keeping the workplace interesting and stimulating. I personally would enjoy working in such an organization. Performing the same tasks over and over makes employees too comfortable with the status quo which is part of why they become resistant to innovation later on in their careers.

However, I have to agree that this model wouldn’t just magically work for all organizations. Such a level of autonomy only suits highly skilled employees and the organization seeking to embrace such a flat architecture needs to hire only highly responsible employees with very specific traits that would enable them to fit into that culture.

The idea has possibilities, but HIPPA needs to always be considered.

As a parent, keep in mind schools also require doctor’s notes when students are out sick. Companies can also require notes after a certain number of days.

Doctors might not be thrilled because the current system is a revenue stream for them. Think about the Minute-Clinic and Emergent-Care or nurse practitioners as possible sources of the notes. I also like the proactive approach as well.

You will need to do research with HR people, the care providers and probably insurance companies as well.