Information Systems Integration

Department of Management Information Systems, Temple University

INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

MIS 4596.002 ■ SPRING 2019 ■ MARIE-CHRISTINE MARTIN

Student

4 Ways Chatbots Will Revolutionize the Automotive Industry

7 Comments

4 Ways Chatbots Will Revolutionize the Automotive Industry

As we just did a case analysis on Tesla and the innovation it brought to the automative industry. Chatbots a computer program designed to simulate conversation with human users, especially over the Internet. In this article They talked about 4 different innovative ideas that could change the industry. The first is Taxi booking, as we use Uber and Lyft more and more this technology can become very reliable on chatbots. With chatbots we would no longer need to use the apps to reroute trips or contact the driver that may not speak the same language as you. These two problems addressed are the exact problems I run into every time I use these apps. Another application chatbots could be used for is, car diagnosis. The article stated that the car would now communicate with you if there is anything wrong with the car, not matter how small it is. I see this as the biggest upside to this technology. No more looking at those lights on your dashboard and having no idea what that means. The last application chatbots would be useful for is autonomous cars (self-driving cars). These applications would include choosing better traffic routes and ensuring safety routes.

Do you guys think this technology could change the automative industry or could be a safety concern?

Facial recognition

5 Comments

Lee Chan

 

Facial recognition is a method used to identify a human face using biometrics to map facial features through technology imaging and compares it to the database of known faces. This technology is widely used in identification verification as a security measures and in social media such as snapchat filters. In order to use this technology, the algorithms must be fed with hundred of thousand of images, mostly from the internet, and categorized them by age, gender, skin tone, and other metrics for AI to better identify and improve. Million of people pictures are used without consent to power this technology. In January, IBM released a collection of photos taken from Flickr with annotated details including facial geometry and skin tone to researchers as a training set for further improvement towards reducing biases in facial recognition algorithms. Yet, none of the people had any idea of their images being used. Greg Peverill-Conti, a Boston-based public relations executive claims that it’s a little sketchy that IBM can use these pictures without any consent. IBM claims that its dataset is designed to help academic researchers improve on the technology so it can develop a “fairer” facial recognition systems accurately identifying people of all races, ages, and genders. Yet, legal experts and civil rights advocates are concern about such AI training and facial recognition improvement, particularity for minorities who could be profiled and targeted, such as immigrants or participants in political protest if used by government or law enforcement agency. Thus, is facial recognition in the hand of law enforcement good or bad?

Source 1: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facial-recognition-s-dirty-little-secret-millions-online-photos-scraped-n981921

Is Tesla overhyped and overvalued?

3 Comments

Tesla has been a poster child of disruptive innovation when the company is the only automotive company that successfully entered the auto industry after WWII. There hasn’t been a brand that excites and inspires people so much since Apple. However, is Tesla overhyped and overvalued?

Recently, Tesla’s valuation surpassed both Ford’s and General Motors’. BMW is among the other major carmakers in the rearview mirror. The logic of this is intriguing, given that Ford, for example, is coming off its second-best year in its 112-year history, earning $4.6 billion while selling more than 5.5 million cars worldwide. General Motors earned $9.4 billion selling 9.8 million vehicles. Tesla, meanwhile, sold 76,000 cars while losing near $1 billion.

For Tesla to disrupt via the EV bet — for it to sell enough electric vehicles to justify its optimistic valuation — it will have to sell a car in the sweet spot – the middle class. However, for the disruption theory to play out correctly, incumbents have to ignore the EV space; however, this is not true.   Ford invested $5 billion in EV technology last year alone, it offers several EVs already, and the recent firing of Ford CEO Mark Fields suggests that its board is interested in moving even faster on this front.GM is not asleep, either: Its Bolt is available with a 238-mile range. Nissan is expected to offer a similar product in the 2018 model year, and the plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt is selling very well.

It will be interesting to see how the EV space plays out and who will be the ultimate winners of this new market.

Source: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/26/15872468/tesla-gm-ford-valuation-justifying-disruption

Do You Fear Artificial Intelligence?

4 Comments

Image result for artificial intelligence

Michael Sorokach IV

A new study from the University of Oxford finds that Americans favor artificial intelligence more than they oppose it, however there is no strong consensus. According to the survey, 41% of respondents said they somewhat or strongly support the development of AI, 22% somewhat or strongly oppose it, and 28% said they have no strong feelings whatsoever. In the survey, AI was defined as “computer systems that perform tasks or make decisions that usually require human intelligence.”

Artificial intelligence is a divisive topic in the developed world, even among some of the most famous people within the technology sphere. Bill Gates is a strong supporter of AI development, stating that it can be used to further improve the quality of life for everyone. In a Q&A, he was quoted as saying “AI is just the latest in technologies that allow us to produce a lot more goods and services with less labor. And overwhelmingly, over the last several hundred years, that has been great for society.” Meanwhile, some other individuals seem to be less trusting of its benefits. Elon Musk is an outspoken critic of continual AI development, calling it humanity’s “biggest existential threat” and compared it to “summoning the demon.”

Interestingly, the study from the University of Oxford shows some strong correlation between demographics and responses. 57% of college graduates were in favor of developing AI as opposed to only 29% of individuals with an education level of high school or less. One area where there was strong consensus was regulation. 82 percent of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement “robots and artificial intelligence are technologies that require careful management.”

What is your opinion of artificial intelligence? Do you believe development should be “limited” to more mundane tasks such as those performed by Apple’s Siri or Google’s search engine, or should development of “smart” AI (with the common sense intelligence of a human)  continue unrestrained? Or somewhere in between?

 

Sources:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/10/18176645/ai-robot-survey-america-public-opinion-future-of-humanity-institute

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/2/18053418/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-google-deepmind-openai

Remote Surgery with 5G Technology

2 Comments

China conducts world's 1st remote surgery using 5G

Vincent Ronzano

This article that I found is quite groundbreaking. A doctor in China was able to perform surgery on patient without actually being in the same room. This was the first surgery done on a human using this technology, as before it had only been tested on a pig. The surgery was conducted in Beijing, while the surgeon was physically located in the “Hainan Province” in South China. The surgeon was able to operate medical equipment “through transmitted images supported by 5G technology”. The surgery lasted 3 hours, which is how long any normal surgery would usually take. After the successful surgery was over the doctor said that this felt like a real-time operation and it didn’t feel like the patient was miles away.

This is a very interesting concept and there is two ways that I think about this new technology. On one hand, I’m not sure I would sign anything to allow a surgery to be conducted on me where the doctor was not in the room and technically the surgery is being done by robots. I would definitely feel more comfortable having the doctor there. What if something goes wrong during the surgery? I feel as though the surgeon could definitely do more if he or she were actually in the room. Also, it is relying on internet and we have all had problems at some point or another with the internet on our phones; so, what if this happens during the surgery? If the surgeon somehow loses connection, things could go wrong.

On the other hand, This does sort of give doctors the ability to be in two places at once. For example, if one surgeon needs to perform an emergency surgery, but he/she already went home, the patient won’t have to wait for the surgeon to drive all the way back to the hospital; he can perform this surgery remotely. Also, for particularly good surgeons, this technology will be able to let them help more people around the world, since it will be less difficult for patients to see this surgeon if they don’t have to travel.

This new technology could be helpful and could potentially save more lives in emergency situations; however, it could also be dangerous in my opinion. What do you think? Would you accept a remote surgery?

Link to article: https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/amp/news/health-it/china-conducts-worlds-1st-remote-surgery-using-5g/68483535

Merging E-Commerce and Traditional Retail

4 Comments

ecommerce-in-china-promo.jpg Zois Bouikidis

The rise of Amazon and other e-commerce companies has lead to a decline in traditional brick and mortar companies. Walmart has even changed many parts of its business and has increasingly started focusing on its online business in spite of the fact that it rose to dominance with its warehouse-like retail locations. However, we are seeing tech giants around the world start re-embracing brick and mortar retail with their own Silicon Valley twist. For example, in the United States we have seen Amazon introduce their Amazon Go stores, where consumers just walk into the store, grab what they need, and walk out. No register is involved in the process and the consumer’s balance is just added to their Amazon account and taken out of their credit card.

Across the world, China has seen a rise in these marriages between e-commerce and traditional retail as well. In fact, it can be argued that China is 2 or 3 years ahead of the United States in bringing e-commerce to tradition retail. Alibaba – Amazon’s Chinese counterpart – operates a Chinese grocery store called Hema which allows consumers to engage with the food they are buying, giving them the capability to scan food items to get information on it like recipes that include the item, or when the item was shipped to the grocery store. We also have seen an emergence of robot-restaurants that deliver food to tables using robots rather than servers.

The reemergence of traditional retail with an e-commerce twist is an exciting turn of events with a lot to offer. It will be interesting to see how this business model grows in the US. In China, there have been questions about the quality of the food in these places. Is this an issue that will arise in the US as well, or do our consumers have enough safeguards in place to assure this does not happen? I personally would be excited to see an Amazon Go, or a grocery store similar to Hema, start operations here in Philadelphia, and think it is a great way of engaging with your consumer during the shopping experience. As a business idea, it gives them a significant edge over their competition.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/from-robot-restaurants-to-automobile-vending-machines-the-e-commerce-revolution-in-china/

A Phygital World

Leave a Comment

As we discuss and read about disruptive innovation in the course, I find myself wondering what sort of technologies will be the new industry innovators in the future. A concept that has grown increasingly popular in recent years is the idea of phygital, or a cross between physical and digital technology. More and more frequently, stores are mixing the traditional brick-and-motor experience with a piece of technology to optimize the experience. If you have attended a newly built McDonald’s or Wawa recently, you surely noticed that even though you’re in the physical store, you have the option to place your order through a touchscreen computer. Another example is jewelry leveraging augmented reality to allow customers to ‘try on’ rings before spending a ton of money on them. As we saw with Tesla, the technology doesn’t have to necessarily be groundbreaking, just the way it is implemented to enhance the user experience compared to the competitors needs to be. Technology enables companies to innovate and try new things without taking a tremendous risk. When a new company innovates in this manner and enhances the user experience, all of the other market players are obligated to do the same in fear of getting left behind in the eyes of consumers. The idea of ‘phygital’ is essentially taking the best aspects one receives from a digital experience and using them to supplement the physical experience by replacing the worst parts.

photo

Slow and steady – Learning from IT transformation failures

Leave a Comment

By Linh Dang

The world of disruption, where you either disrupt or be disrupted (at least, that what many leaders seem to believe), it is tempting to bring about transformations quickly and forcefully. However, failures in change efforts by many organizations suggest that transformation is less like a sprint and more like a relay marathon: without good preparation, collaboration, and proper strategy, it is likely to fail.

Summarizing the diverse set of examples from the CIO, I’d like to present the following pitfalls of change:

  • Many CIOs are resisting the “Big Bang” approach to digital transformation. This is a top-down, “aspirational”, but in many ways short-sighted and unnecessary style of enacting change. Examples can include a novel solution whose intended result can be achieved by upgrading existing technologies and system.
  • Successful change require several components to be in place: such as planning, strategic alignment, governance, and change communications. This relates to the concept of systems thinking; without change in the underlying subsystems within the company, aiming for large-scale results over a short time will be difficult, if not damaging. 
  • The decision maker’s failure to consider the effect of See-Feel-Change can also lead to the failure of the transformation effort. Common examples include the neglect of data sharing on the change effort, the use of mandate instead of buy-in, and confusing sets of initiatives.

This subject caught my attention as this is intimately connected to innovation. This is a great quote from one of the executives interviewed by the CIO: “The whole concept of innovation is really an exercise in change.” IT is integral to one’s business, and sometimes it is the business, so getting change management the right will allow companies to innovate and create a competitive advantage through IT, not a liability.

Source: 

Lessons learned from business transformations that fail to start

https://www.cio.com/article/3341308/lessons-learned-from-business-transformations-that-fail-to-start.html?nsdr=true#tk.rss_all

IT shifts away from ‘Big Bang’ digital transformations

https://www.cio.com/article/3340051/it-shifts-away-from-big-bang-digital-transformations.html

Disruptive Innovation – Climate Change

3 Comments

 

Disruptive Innovation - Climate Change

Climate change in the world is causing companies to create new business opportunities due to constraints of climate change. Constraints have always been a driver for disruptive innovation. Whether the business is electric vehicles (EV), pollution, or clean energy, climate change has been disruptive in how these businesses operate. The European Union this month ring-fenced 35% of the research budget for clean technology. Targeting climate, businesses may gain value instead of minimizing risk with disruptive innovation. While targeting problems such as emissions, it allows businesses new opportunities. 

If Climate Change was not as serious as it is, do you think businesses would innovate on their own? What if conventional vehicles did not pollute as much, would companies like Tesla work so hard to produce an EV that is environmentally safe? I think climate change is the disruptor for electric vehicles, and beneficially forcing companies to find a way to innovate and create a product that is not as harmful. To be fair, electric cars have been around since the 1800s, if climate change wasn’t the disrupter would the push to EV’s be as big? 

 

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/these-companies-are-embracing-disruptive-innovation-climate-action

Europe ringfences 35% of research budget for clean tech

 

Tech Giants vs. Anti-Vaxxers

5 Comments

vaccine photo

Nik Fuchs

Amid the Armageddon-like Mumps outbreak currently wreaking havoc on Temple’s main campus, comes the discussion of the anti-vaccine movement. More specifically, the extent to which disinformation on the internet is spread.

According to a Vox article from March 7, technology media platforms, such as Facebook, YouTube, and Pinterest, are taking steps to limit the spread of anti-vax content on their sites. Many believe that this is a step in the right direction as this will minimize the spread of misinformation to the platforms’ millions of users and potentially save lives. Others, however, argue that this move, although a step in the right direction, will not be effective in stopping the movement since believers will obtain alternate means of reference. For example, there are numerous documentaries and books about the subject that are easily accessible to interested individuals. 

Facebook, YouTube, and Pinterest are making these changes as a response to public backlash against the movement. Do you believe these companies have an ethical obligation to minimize disinformation for their users? From a business perspective, is this a smart decision? Why or why not?