Robert Blume's Profile
Good analysis on an interesting issue. As a meat lover myself, I am hopeful that companies like Memphis Meat will be successful in convincing the public to switch over to lab meat. As far as how to communicate the benefits and long-term necessity of lab meat, I think Memphis Meat should work with other lab meat companies to convince consumers that this product is the way of the future. When people realize all of the benefits of lab meat and when the product is similar to current meat offerings, companies like Memphis Meat will be able to experience significant growth.
I found this article fascinating because I had no idea such a huge percentage of Raytheon’s costs came from supplies. It is very easy for companies to say that they will use big data to improve efficiencies, but pcoats does a good job giving concrete examples of how Raytheon can actually do this. Companies must be strategic in creating clear objectives with their big data initiatives, and I especially liked the author’s suggestion to use this data to improve communication between Raytheon and its suppliers. Strong communication flow through the supply chain is the key to decreasing costs between suppliers and their customers. I would also suggest that they can use the insights from their data analytics technology to improve other aspects of their business, like production processes or customer demand.
I found this essay enlightening because I had no idea information transparency was such an issue as it relates to land assets in the US. Like the author states, I think it is crucial for Oseberg to continue to hone their product so that they can dominate the US market in this category. If this problem exists in the US, I think it is highly likely it exists in other countries as well. I expect that Oseberg has an opportunity to grow beyond the US and introduce their product to foreign markets.
This essay makes some great suggestions for UTX in the context of increasing isolationism in the US. Not only can the company work with the government in order to increase training of low-skill manufacturers, but I believe they could also use this opportunity to coerce the US government into providing even more incentives for the company to keep manufacturing sites in the US. For instance, they can use the threat of moving factories overseas to get more tax benefits when they build sites in the US.
Good work on this! I agree with the other commenters that the US leaving the Paris Climate Agreement should not discourage Hyundai from continuing their efforts to combat climate change. Even if this impacts them negatively in the short term, investing in green initiatives is a smart bet in the long run. With regard to the second question, governments must continue to actively reward companies that make investments in reducing pollution and waste in their supply chains. Companies will only make these investments when the penalties for not doing so are cost prohibitive. I agree with the author that Hyundai has a great opportunity to advertise their investments in reducing pollution. There is even an opportunity for them to highlight how these efforts are even more important given that the US government is taking a back seat in the global battle against climate change.