• Alumni

Activity Feed

On December 1, 2017, CC commented on United Launch Alliance: Rocket Without an Engine :

Great post! I echo Matt’s thoughts on this industry. With revenues from space launch for the public very far from a technological and regulatory perspective, this is a tough industry to be in. The founding of Blue Origin was very interesting to me. The significant monetary backing of Bezos, Bezos’s eye for diversification within this industry, and the ability to monetize any technologies that arise from Blue Origin’s development will be key to their success in my opinion. I think ULA will only benefit from more competition. I also share Adam’s and others curiosity about the role of government in bringing forth this cutting edge technology. According to the article below, it seems that many state and federal politicians are taking notice and are considering tax credits and other incentives. I believe that this government support will be key both from a regulatory and monetary perspective in this space. Do we know of any other significant initiatives by the government to move this technology along?

[1] Alan Boyle “Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space venture has plans for big expansion of Seattle-area HQ” Geekwire February 22, 2017

Great post! I believe that I’m in agreement with C.S. on this discussion. As is expressed in the Washington Post article below, there are several factors that are in limbo with the current administration, most notably, the corporate tax policies that are currently being discussedin Washington. Trade policies are always evolving, and I worry about Ford making a knee-jerk reaction to any NAFTA changes. Ultimately, I believe Ford’s global supply chain will help them navigate this political uncertainty. As many have mentioned, I believe Ford should be focusing more on the future of demand in emerging markets and how ride-sharing may impact car-ownership in the U.S. than near term trade policy impacts from the current administration.

[1] Steven Overly, “Why Ford says Donald Trump may be good for the auto industry”, Washington Post, January 10, 2017

Great post! I tend to agree with you and HeidiRozensUncleHoward. In most cases, I believe that a closed loop system is better. Data can always be aggregated and submitted to the appropriate parties. Similar discussions are taking place with regards to cyber security and the oil and gas industry. As with aviation, the oil and gas industry is also seeking to optimize its processes through digitization. However, the industry faces similar threats as it moves in this direction. See the article below that raises some great points on this.

In my previous role, we ultimately came to the conclusion that some data was harmless and could either be aggregated or transmitted directly to collaborators. Data like pressures, temperatures, vibration, etc. are relatively harmless. As long as these systems are separate from the controls to the actual operation (as is described in the article above), I believe the benefits exceed the risks. In conclusion, I think asking what data are we sharing and is the system truly isolated from other critical controls is key.

Great article! You raise some great questions as to why the implementation of digitization in construction has been so slow. It’s confusing as to why it is so low on the priority list, but I believe that the slow pace of implementation is exasperated by the workers themselves. In my work with skilled laborers in construction in the oil and gas industry, construction workers are precise and resistant to changing the methodologies that have allowed them to be successful. I believe consistency in implementation and alignment of incentives of the ground employees will be key. As is described in one of your references [[3] Roland Berger GMBH. Digitization in the construction industry. June 2016.], very few employees have access to the tablets that they need to implement this new technology. I believe if construction companies are serious about digitization, these tablets should be required and employees should see some of the savings from the program. I feel better incentives from the employee perspective is the only way to really get digitization off the ground in construction.

On November 30, 2017, CC commented on Natural Gas: The bridge fuel to nowhere? :

Great read! I have to agree with Danny that LNG inevitably has decades of room to run as it is seen as accessible and is viewed the cleanest of the conventional. I agree with you that renewables will provide formidable headwinds to the growth of LNG. However, I would argue the greatest threat to LNG is the pressure being placed on the spread. LNG essentially makes money on the difference between market prices across the world. As more of these projects come on line to increase supply globally, this spread diminishes. See the article below:

It will be interesting to see how economic and geopolitical forces play out to determine the future of the energy mix.

On November 29, 2017, CC commented on Nike: Leading the Path to Fighting Climate Change :

I believe that the comments being made about Nike’s sustainability initiatives not being genuine and in response to consumer sentiments are very valid. However, regardless of motives, consumers are becoming more aware, and I agree with the comment made by S above that since they are so large, others will have to follow to some extent. Any progress is better than none. Also, regardless of angle, it’s important to note that sustainability efforts result in a “belt-tightening” that has positive economic benefits for a company. Most notably in the areas listed above of energy and waste reduction, Nike can see real economic returns, rather than just being forced to sell more expensive, eco-friendly products. Sustainability can increase the top line, but it’s important to remember that it can decrease the bottom line as well. I think the holistic approach will allow Nike to remain competitive and others will follow their lead.