-
Jesse Worek wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
United Launch Alliance (ULA), who makes rockets for NASA and the Air Force, is planning to 3D print 100 parts for the next-gen model of its Vulcan rocket, which is expected to launch in 2019. Rockets cost […]
-
John B Illuminati wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
Earlier in the semester when I gave a presentation on 3D printing, I suggested that Consumer 3D Printing won’t be mainstream for another 5-10 years. Well, it looks like it may […]
-
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.
-
-
Jesse Worek wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
Enterprise collaboration is a concept that almost everyone supports, but is rarely implemented correctly and fully accepted. This is because businesses do not know what they are aiming to achieve, and end up […]
-
At my internship I work for the corporate marketing operations team, and we work with the regional marketing operations teams across the country. There has been a serious lack of communication lately and emails have been getting lost in the shuffle so my team is trying to implement an enterprise collaboration tool. I think our biggest hurdle will be getting the regional marketing teams to use the collaboration tool rather than continue to bombard us with emails because the collaboration tool will require more information and steps than they are used to. We will have to ensure that we properly convey the benefits of this tool for them so they are more willing to use it.
-
I worked a lot with sharepoint at my internship,and I found it so useful for people who were knowledgeable of the app, and very complicated and pointless for people who didn’t know how to use it. In my opinion, there are far too many capabilities on sharepoint, and if Microsoft reduced some of the functionalities on it and made the more useful ones better and simpler while eliminating some of the less used capabilities it would be much more efficient and beneficial for companies.
-
-
Jesse Worek wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
NCR, the leader in ATM technology, introduced new software that will allow ATMs to use the cloud in order to improve security and lower costs. About 75% of ATMs run Windows XP, which Microsoft suspended […]
-
I feel that it was important for them to take the time to ensure that this cloud based solution was fully functional without flaw before they introduced it. If they introduced it, changing the way that the ATM machine works, and have it not be successful, it would have been very costly. Not to mention the ramifications of customer dissatisfaction if they couldn’t perform transactions via ATM. Although, they could have been a little faster introducing this software considering security issues since it has been over a year since Microsoft stopped supporting XP.
-
-
Jesse Worek wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
IT security experts are struggling to compete with cloud computing. Because of the low cost and expertise received from vendors like Google and Amazon, security professionals are failing in determining configuration management processes. Configuration management means recording and updating data for software and hardware to know which applications are used on computers. This is difficult because it requires understanding what employees do in an organization, and why certain technologies are used to operate in the business. Since this is a difficult process and not all IT departments are aligned with the business, enterprises are turning to cloud providers who have a better understand for a lower price. Security professionals need to create a business case to gain support on using in-house employees instead of a vendor to combat this threat. The article recommends talking about how much money can be saved from removing software that is not part the configuration plan. If this trend continues, IT and enterprise computing could turn into a commodity and simply outsourced, which means less control and less peace of mind for the business.
How else do you think security professionals can compete against these vendors? Do you think that IT has a threat to be turned into a commodity?
-
Jesse Worek wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
IBM will invest $3 billion over four years to create an Internet of Things business unit. The focus of the unit will be on travel, logistics, insurance, public utilities, transportation, and retail. IBM plans on partnering with other companies for this project, such as AT&T and semiconductor companies. IBM also started that they are going to work with engine manufacturer, Cummins, to collect real time data on products. Whirlpool is also working with IBM to better predict when appliances need servicing. Additionally, police departments in Durham, NC and Memphis, TN use IBM products to target crime hotspots. The IDC estimates that there will be 28 billion IoT devices by 2021.
Do you agree that IBM should partner with other companies?Do you think that IBM is too late, or are they entering the market at the right time?
-
Jesse Worek wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
Atish Banerjea, CIO at NBCUniversal, talks about his experience in improving IT’s image and performance at NBCUniversal. Banerjea states that IT just played a back office role at NBCUniversal. His goal was to move IT from the back office into business unit leadership. The first hurdle was the lack of investment for IT. Banerjea was able to gain support from Comcast, who recently acquired NBCU. Comcast gave capital to allow IT to invest in infrastructure and IT talent. He decided to make improvements where employees would notice changes. This included increasing email capacity, upgrading mobile and desktop devices, and improving the help desk. The most important move that Banerjea did was embedding CIO’s into the business units. This has allowed IT to create support for business units, and offer value from a business perspective.
Do you think embedding CIOs into business units is a good model or do you think they should be a separate entity?
What else do you think Banerja could do to improve IT at NBCUniversal?
-
John B Illuminati wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
-
Thomas F. Huang wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
As our presentations draw closer, I did some research on how best to present ideas to the panel of judges who would be considered angel investors.
I found a nice Forbes article by Carmine Gallo with five […]
-
I think most of the advice in common knowledge because its expected that when you present you should be engaging and that the product should solve a problem. I think tip number 3, “the presenters should be passionate about their product during their pitch” and tip number 4, “if the product does not solve a problem, investors will likely not care about it are tips that will help our presentations because its important to be passionate and enjoy the product/app you are creating. If you believe in your product and you know it will solve a problem, the investors will be more likely to invest in your product.
-
-
Thomas F. Huang wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
In our first meeting with our mentor, he expressed serious concerns regarding our marketing strategy. This was because we didn’t have one. Each of us may have had some sense of how we wanted to market the application, but there wasn’t a clear direction.
This Entrepreneur article provides five marketing tips for a startup.
1. Focus on customer experience
This means designing a simple application that is easy to use. No matter how good an application is, if people have difficulty using it, they won’t.
2. Cross promotions/exposure
Know your target demographic. Where do they usually hang out (online or offline)? Promote your products at these places.
3. Content strategies
“Establish your brand as a subject-matter expert.”
4. Build virality into your product/experience
How can you get people to share your startup naturally?
5. Media exposure
If you can’t get top-tier media exposure, getting blogs to write about you is a good start.
This is in no way a comprehensive list. Do you agree or disagree with these points? Are there tips that you would consider more valuable than the ones listed above?
-
I think it’s a good list, though the 4th point is a bit odd. If you strive to be “viral,” you may lose sight of creating quality content because you’re focusing so much on being popular. I think that something else that isn’t really mentioned is outreach/back-links and general SEO things. In the online space especially, connecting with experts who can push your content or provide content for you is essential to being successful.
-
-
Thomas F. Huang wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 4 months ago
This article regarding performance reviews says that reviews a few times a year are meaningless. It states that company performance reviews should be like that of sports teams, immediate feedback as opposed to […]
-
I believe that informal and formal reviews are the best way for employees to grow and add value in an organization. Informal feedback sessions can help keep employees on task, as well as keeping them motivated to continue different projects in the short run. This can also help keep employees excited about the work that they are doing. More formal feedback sessions should be kept for career mobility, compensation discussions, and larger, longer term projects. These are different motivation factors that need to be addressed, and are more appropriate in a formal, documented session.
-
-
John B Illuminati wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 5 months ago
http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/17/your-windows-10-password-will-be-your-face/#9tKYA4:KAm2
With Windows 10 right around the corner, Microsoft just Windows Hello. If your computer has the right hardware (being Intel’s RealSense camera), your login password can be your face. It will also be used to unlock a number of online services and applications that are linked to your account. It’s not clear as to how accurate or secure this will be (i.e. What if I just print a picture of a person’s face? Would that allow me to sign in?). If done right, though, then this will probably be a popular and secure feature.
While this in particular may not be disrupting any markets (it’s just a password), it gives a glimpse into how this sort of technology will change the way we access hardware and software, and has great implications for the security industry. For example, imagine if this technology were used in order to gain access to your home. There would be a camera at your door, and the door would unlock only if it recognized your face as being a resident of the house. By bring Microsoft Hello to computers, it will help spread awareness of autonomous technology and the benefits of it.
What do you guys think about this? Is this a good or bad idea? Can you think of any other autonomous technologies could be effectively implemented on personal computers? I personally think this can be a good thing if Microsoft is able to make the software really smart at detecting actual faces from fake ones. However, I don’t think it makes sense to make your face the password. It would make more sense to have your face be the username, or at least a security measure to gaining access to your username.
-
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 this could definitely be implemented in addition to fingerprint recognition, but as a standalone service I doubt it will be successful. Erin has said it well, earlier versions of windows have adopted it and it was also not very stable.
-
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.
-
-
Thomas F. Huang wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 5 months ago
http://www.theverge.com/transportation/2015/3/17/8232187/elon-musk-human-drivers-are-dangerous
We discussed heavily in class the disruptive innovation of autonomous vehicles. What I found most interesting […]
-
I think once autonomous car adoption reaches a critical mass, autonomous cars will be required to drive on the road. However, like the article you posted said, it will take about 20 years before autonomous cars enter the mainstream. Therefore, that leaves a lot of time for the general public to fully realize the benefits of autonomous cars. Once people see the time and money that could be saved as well as the increased safety, the public will be looking toward autonomous cars and so a government mandate won’t face too much backlash. I also don’t believe the government would need a cash for clunkers program or 0% interest loans because in 20 years the technology will get cheaper and auto manufacturers will be able to make more affordable models of autonomous cars.
-
I also saw many regulations while doing my research, and also read about the fact that one day people will no longer be able to drive themselves around. My first thought was that it would be impossible to accomplish that goal. But after thinking it over, I realized that these laws are almost 10-20 years away. If autonomous cars begin to sell in 5 years, in another 20 years they will be the only cars available. In 20 years, it will be mostly autonomous cars on the market, even used ones. An example would be Blackberry, that was at one point the world’s most popular phone. Today how many people in our class alone have a blackberry? None.
Ford has also said they want to make their autonomous car affordable for their customers. One article I read, a Ford representative said what’s the point in making this amazing technology if not everyone can use it.
-
I think that were the government to adopt an “autonomous cars only” policy, it would have to prepare the public for the policy over an extended period of time. First, legislation would be introduced that would force automakers to gradually decrease the proportion of new non-autonomous vehicles they manufacture, and the government would announce the impending “autonomous cars only” policy’s date of effectiveness several years in advance. Next, the government would most likely offer the equivalent of a Cash-for-Clunkers incentive (as you mentioned) to encourage consumers to upgrade to autonomous vehicles. Lastly, it would begin enforcing the “autonomous cars only” policy, meaning that drivers of traditional vehicles (police officers and other emergency services personnel, perhaps?) would have to hold special licenses.
-
I think the most interesting part about this is how the insurance companies will regulate it. I also do not think the government will absolutely ban regular cars because as we said for stick shift, driving could become a hobby. How the insurance companies will deal with accidents caused by self driving cars will be pretty interesting to analyze in the long run.
-
-
Thomas F. Huang wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 5 months ago
We discussed extensively in class about what disruptive innovation is and provided examples of disruptive innovation. We did not cover as much on how to survive disruptive innovation.
In the article that I’ve linked, Wessel and Christensen suggest that incumbents assess three factors to determine if they can survive the disruptive innovation:
1. Identify the strengths of your disrupter’s business model
Are there disadvantages in the disrupter’s business model that offsets their advantage? This will help determine the types of customers the disrupter will and won’t attract so the incumbent can figure if those customers are worth retaining.
2. Identify your own relative advantages
An incumbent must know its own business when a disrupter begins to disrupt so that it can determine how best to compete with them.
3. Evaluate the conditions that would help or hinder the disrupter from co-opting your current advantages in the future
So how can the incumbent better serve its customers to make the disrupter less attractive, thereby creating barriers for the customer to switch.
Do you think these three are the best factors to determine how an incumbent may be able to survive a disrupter? Do you think there are other factors that the article does not cover?
-
John B Illuminati wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 5 months ago
Project Ara’s next prototype will stand equal to a top-tier smartphone
Project Ara: Part of it (YouTube video)
The smartphone market is filled with innovation; companies are always trying to outdo themselves in order to create a superior, albeit expensive, smartphone. Google, on the other hand, is looking to alter the current cycle with Project Ara. The goal is to create a modular phone. Rather than having to constantly buy new phones, you just simply upgrade certain parts to your phone. Want a faster processor? Then buy a faster one to put in your phone. Want a longer-lasting battery? Then buy a bigger battery to put in your phone. You have complete control over how you want your phone to be. In a smartphone market where people are very picky about what they want to have in a phone, Project Ara can potentially be a game-changer.
If Project Ara is a success, then I think it would be an example of a Low-End Disruption. Although there is no idea as to what the price of the phone and individual pieces would be, I think that the fact that you only have to buy the phone once will save you money over time. Also, since this phone is being developed by Google, it’s possible that the phone would be carrier-free, which is a popular option for the low-end market. It may take a little while for this to catch on, but I’m very excited by the prospects of a modular phone.
What do you guys think about this? Do you think Project Ara has the potential to be a disruptive innovation? If not, then what might Google be able to do with this project in order to make it so? And besides for Project Ara, can you think of any other future phone technologies that could be a disruptive innovation?
-
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.
-
-
Thomas F. Huang wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 6 months ago
http://www.cio.com/article/2421759/business-analytics/new-model-reinvents-how-it-gets-funded.html
Instead of having a chargeback model for organizations with IT as Engine Room, do you think it is better for […]
-
John B Illuminati wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 6 months ago
The Internet of Anything: The System That Pays You to Use Electricity
I found this article about Ohmconnect, a sustainable energy management company. What’s interesting about this company is their business […]
-
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.
-
-
Jesse Worek wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 6 months ago
This article about managing IT projects features an interview with Joe Spagnoletti, CIO of Campbell Soup Company. Spangoletti discuses how he approaches the responsibilities of IT projects and who is accountable for the result. He states that Campbell Soup is moving from an order taking model to a demand driving model. This new model empowers business managers to have more say in IT investments and the IT project portfolio. This means that IT employees work closer with the business side of the company to have a better understanding of the business manager’s desired impact of the project. There are some negatives with this model. The first is determining who owns the decisions. It can be ambiguous who is responsible when an IT employee proposes an idea and the business employee accepts the plan. Another negative is that IT can face more scrutiny under this model. There is more transparency with IT costs and how much value is actually achieved. This puts IT under a magnifying glass and which can seem threatening to the department. Spagnoletti echoes one of the most important concepts of our class: IT decisions need to align with the business strategy. When IT works alone, the business does not get what it needs.
Where would we fall in this business/IT interaction? Would we be middlemen? How can companies face some of the downsides to this model?
-
John B Illuminati wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 6 months ago
Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO): Firms Should Also Focus On Employees For Cyber Security
Billions spent on cyber security and much of it ‘wasted’
I found this article from last month in which Terry […]
-
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.
-
-
John B Illuminati wrote a new post on the site MIS4596 – Section 3 Spring 2015 9 years, 6 months ago
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-04-27/why-there-are-no-bosses-at-valve
I’ve noticed that many of the most innovative IT companies seem to incorporate some seemingly unorthodox organization […]
-
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.
-
- Load More
Initially, not really because of the safety involved in creating a rocket. Then when you begin to think about the savings incorporated with using 3D printers. Saving $1 million a year is a lot, especially when dealing with a project that will take several years like this example. Another manufacturer that may benefit from 3D printing their parts would be any company in the automobile industry. Just like rocket production, there are many parts involved in the creation of an automobile. Having 3D printers develop thee parts may save time and money.
This is an interesting article because it is hard to believe that 3D printing has advanced to the point where it can manufacture these types of crucial parts. In reality, any company that manufactures any sort of good could benefit from this, whether it is car parts, airplane parts, firearms, any electronics, and even something as simple as manufacturing clothing. This will greatly benefit any manufacturing company by decreasing production costs and increasing quality control.