This is a very neat idea from Lego to reverse the typical product design process and to have partial market testing/data before it moves into the production phase. If Lego leans into this open innovation concept even further, I wonder what sort of organizational or cultural changes the company will need to make in order to fully support this process? One area of concern that I have is the ability for the company to manage the strategic partnerships while simultaneously progressing the design, which may not even be validated at all. How can the company balance between starting the conversation early with partners to minimize lead time versus starting conversations too early for products that end up failing?
While the benefits from AM appears to be promising, the current financial state of the company makes me wonder whether they are well-suited to heavily invest in AM given the cash-intensive nature of the investment as well as the uncertainty around the profitability for these types of projects. I would be curious if GE has a “payback period” in mind when it rolls out these investments. Given the company is more focused on growth as opposed to cost targets, I would be worried if the expenses around funding such growth are being understated. With that, GE could consider creating clear ROI objectives for these AM investments in order to better allocate its capital.
While I can understand the hesitancy to fully jump into the 3D printing space given a number of uncertainties remain, the ability to significantly reduce the risks related to construction is highly compelling and is one that I believe AECON should pursue more aggressively. With that, the company can consider alternative ways to speed up the process, including considering whether to go beyond partnerships and instead acquire some of these 3D printing companies, or perhaps fund an open innovation program that pools in 3D printing expertise given the industry appears to be largely collaborative in nature.
The applications for AI in oil and gas operations seem very compelling, particularly with regards to predictive maintenance and the potential for a horizonatal drilling program to be fully automated. As Shell continues to automate its operations and free up staff time, I believe it will be important for the company to decide how it plans to deal with headcount. Specifically, how will the company measure the pros and cons of adding new productive activities to an employee versus simply letting them go?
I can see this being a step in the right direction from the government’s perspective in terms of reducing the cost of entry for new participants in order to generate greater exploration activity, especially around underexplored basins. However, I wonder if a £20 million program is a large enough signal for the industry given that many of the oil & gas companies already have their own acquisition expenditures that go up to billions of dollars? It makes me wonder whether there are any additional levers that the government can pull to really bring in open innovation to this industry.
This online platform is an innovative way to leverage machine learning in order to improve both the quality and accessibility of education for students. I believe one of the key advantages here is the immediacy of feedback for students on their progress. Rather than wait for intermittent report cards, they can see real-time improvement in their results. There is also a time savings component for teachers or tutors to reduce the need to mark or grade assignments or tests. That being said, I am curious how Toppr thinks about its target market for this product, which although used by students, is paid for by parents. As such, in order to successfully transition into the paid model, I believe the company should communicate the value of the platform in a way that strongly resonates with parents.