This is a really interesting topic, and one that has potential to impact us all. I am no tech guru, but I wonder how technology and digital innovation can continually foster the government to “empower the supply chain to create value” by working together with businesses and delegating some of the governments current functions to them. I know of companies, like IBM, who are dedicating efforts to improve how cities can become “smarter” and leverage digital technology partnering with governments to enhance a range of services such as: emergency management, law enforcement, city planning and operations, transportation, among others. 
While I certainly believe that TIME is commited to succesfull transitioning in the digital age, I concur with DK that there seems to me a more fundamental shift in the industry due to the disruptive nature of digital innovations in this space. I wonder whether this industry, similar to the music industry, has experience such a tectonic change that will require companies like TIME to not only transform, but to completely reinvent themselves. “How?” is the more challenging question, as I can’t think of concrete ways that they should consider to change their business model.
Great post, very intersting read! I find it amazing that so much criticism followed this type of innovation as I find it fascinating, but I had not heard the arguments presented in your post. I find it valid to question the actual “value add” provided by tools like the da Vinci Surgical System and whether the cost is warranted, but with to the extent that we can continue innovation in using technology to improve surgical procedures, I believe this is a great starting point and we should be celebrating these innovations. Moreover, I understand the delicate nature of using technology for remote surgical procedures, and agree with the fact that we need to be exigent on the levels of safety, but I think we need to embrace this type of inventions and give it time for them to become better and less costly so that they have the ability to truly change the way this segment the health industry works, for the better.
Great post Edmundo, very interesting read – this reminds me a bit to Stickk. I believe this is a great idea with a very noble intention, and if used properly, Omaha has the ability to have a significant impact on users. However, I struggle with the results of the study, and consequently of the application, given that although there was improvement, I wonder how effective the results were overall to reduce health issues (in this case diabetes). Reduction in the metrics mentioned by those amounts do not necessarily mean that people went from “unhealthy to healthy”. Moreover, I wonder if there is a way to not only measure results differently to truly understand its prevention impact, but also mitigate users from not completing the program. It makes me think about the ways Stickk used psychology to ensure that users remain loyal to their goals, and if there is away to adopt some of those approaches to make Omaha more effective.
Great post! This is one of the less obvious situations in where a company’s objectives as a business might not be entirely aligned with the overall sentitiment around climate change. Oil companies are the usual suspects of this. What should these companies do? I believe it is great that B&J is campaining for more sustainable practice and creating awareness on the issue, as it shows where their priorities lie. But the situation can become much more blurry for other types of companies, such as oil producers. I believe that unfortunately these companies won’t change their modus operandi until there is a fundamental shift in the market that adds competitive pressure to change. B&J’s does not seem to be exposed to these type of situations.
Great write up! As I read many other posts for consumer product companies, I realize they all face a similar issue in that a big part of their impact on climate change is indirect, as a result of their supply chain. In this case, sugar is one of those key ingredients that is affected at an upstream step in the supply chain. Most companies have found ways of assisting their supply chain partners in order to find more sustainable ways of managing resources, both with the intent of coping with direct effects of climate change but also for mitigating them by adopting sustainable practices. It would be great if Coca Cola could expand its efforts by creating parternerships with other consumer product companies that depend on the same raw materials to share best practices and find ways to scale up the impact of such inititives; just as AB InBev has done.
Interesting write up Ahmad; this is one of the companies that I am curious as to how they will react to climate change regulations and realities. The sequence of threats makes complete sense to me, however I wonder how much of the ways they hope to address the issue of climate change they are actually pursuing given the current context of the global conversation around the topic. Given that Aramco stands most to gain out of possibly anyone in the world when it comes to oil, I question to what extent they are willing to pursue any initiatives that push towards renewables and alternative sources of energy. I certainly do not judge them, given that the entire reason of existence of the company is to extract and produce oil, but I believe there is an interesting dynamic at play here.
Great write up! As many have mentioned, this is an unexpected and interesting topic regarding climate change. I had never really thought about the Catholic Church’s public stance (or the Pope’s public endorsement) on climate change. Although I do find it somewhat clever, I wonder if it is an effective tactic from a perspective of making an impact and strategically gaining popularity. From the perspective of making an impact, I wonder: does the Pope’s involvement and push for multilateral agreements actually make a difference? Will it produce results to the point of actually moving the balance and permitting this to become an actual Catholic movement? From the perspective of gaining popularity: will this help the Church to strategically gain more followers or awaken loyalty from their current base given their beliefs about climate change?
Great write up! Many cool insights that I did not know or think about that are impacting brewers. From a high-level view, this reminds me of Starbucks and how a big part of the impact on climate change happens in the step of the supply that is not directly controlled by them. In Starbuck’s case it is in the coffee farmers (their suppliers), in AB’s it is in the barley growers. This provides a challenge in that both AB is not in direct control of what happens in other stages of the supply chain and also that water is a key ingredient in beer, that is not likely to go away. So I believe that it is great that they are directly engaging their suppliers to assist them in finding ways to be more water efficient. Furthermore, their mechanism of fostering an environment of best-practice sharing, using this common practices platform is very innovative and something to takeaway for other industries in hopes of improving their supply chain; very admirable.