Thanks David. I found it really interesting that GE wants to be the go to additive manufacturer in advanced manufacturing. My guess is at this time time it is not the best use of capital at GE. Instead I would think they would want to truly understand what the customer values more about additive manufactuing, is it the lead time or the cost? I wonder if GE should differentiate themselves from their competitors by leveraging their name brand and QA/QC process to sell additive manufacuting products to industries where delivery time and reliability higare valued the most (within a reasonable cost difference), such as in short cycle higher risk industries?
Great article! GE definitely has a first mover advantage on Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce. While competing on cost could seem beneficial, I would think that they would want to focus on delivery time and QA/QC for B2B. The benefits of this type of manufacturing is the ability to customize without a massive cost. Aviation products need to be 100% reliable and developing a proven technology and robust QA/QC system I suspect will be what their customers care the most about.
One of the benefits of Amazon over stich fix is the ability to order pieces at a time. However, stich fix may currently have better algorithms to suggest clothes to customers. One of the hassles I see with stich fix is the reoccuring shipments and returns. I would suggest stich fix open pop-up stores where they have a heavy customer base and have current clients create appointments in advance to try out a multitude of clothing all at once. There are some inherent issues with this: if customers use stich fix so that they don’t have to go to the store (convience) then this is not a good idea. However, if the reason customers value stich fix is their ability to accurately predict what they like so that they don’t have to go through as many pieces, then this could add real value to customers. Also, having new customer’s walking and tell them brands and sizes they like and having an alogorithm decide what clothes a stylist picks out (updated in real time as the customer tries on clothes) would be a big differentiator.
Great article. The general public generally does not understand the level of big data and tech that is going into O&G. As far as culture, I think Anadarko needs to take an index of what they really value as a company. Do their core values really shift with the make-up of their workforce? I would think values such as operating safely etc. would remain. Potentially geophysicists will have to start learning how to analyze big data themselves similar to engineers starting to use computer software versus hand calculations for their designs. Is a larger issue actually getting the Silicon Valley engineers to join Anadarko rather than a Google type company? How can Anadarko brand themselves as a cool “tech company?” Do they need to adjust pay structure to compete for talent? Also how do you make the larger corporation value their contributions instead of regulating them to the IT bucket?
Masato Nakamura- great insights into how start-ups are disrupting major corporations due to their agile nature. I think VC can work within MC if it has the buy in of upper level management and there is a clear idea of how the VC arm will be judged (against other MC employees) and staffed. One of the issues if potentially the amount of ideas that need to be evaluated before a good idea can be found that may or may not work. Typical metrics such as P/L cannot be used to judge employee’s performance, so another form of evaluation must be considered when ranking employees. IF they are not adequately rewarded or valued within the orgnaization (i.e. can someone in VC become a MC executive one day?) then you may have high attrition rates to traditional VC companies. Do you see MC employees moving in and out of the arm as they switch jobs? How do you ensure an innovative culture that is still aligned with MC’s values?