Monthly Archives: November 2015

Roll out driverless vehicles or put on the brakes?

In “Transformation for Transit”, Ingrid explains the future of transit in Switzerland.  In 2016, Switzerland will begin using driverless transit buses to reach regions previously not serviced.  As Ingrid expresses, “the public will have mixed reviews towards this project” and I am one of the citizens against the idea of driverless buses.

Interior of a Driverless bus being tested in Trikala, Greece.

Ignoring the safety concerns, Ingrid indicates that the new project will allow the government to “save money on wages”.  Although the article states that the innovation is “not meant to replace drivers entirely”, the project will decrease the jobs available.  An example of technology increasing unemployment is the self-serve pay station at the grocery store.  In recent years, grocery stores have decreased the number of cashier positions and replaced them with self-serve pay stations.  Although the stations still have cashiers on hand, there is only one cashier for about eight registers.  While cashiers are still needed, the innovation has eliminated jobs from many others.  The implementation of the new technology parallels the roll out of driverless buses in Switzerland.  Although the driverless buses may be able to reach regions previously not serviced by public transportation, I don’t believe that the economic cost of buying the new technology and eliminating jobs is a beneficial venture.

I am also against the project for a variety of safety concerns.  As Google continues to test its driverless car in California, many inquiries have been made and one particular article stuck with me, “Computers could decide who lives and dies in a car crash.”  Unlike people who must make quick and instinctual decisions in a “do-or-die” situation, a computer controlled car must be programmed to make the difficult decisions beforehand.  Driverless vehicles are faced with the “driver vs. pedestrian dilemma”.  In the event of an unavoidable accident, the computer must be pre-programmed to decide whether to severely injure the pedestrians or perhaps attempt to avoid them while putting its passengers’ safety at risk.  This ethical question becomes even more challenging when children and seniors are added to the equation.  I am personally uncomfortable knowing the outcome prior to being faced with the unfortunate situation and am unsure of how the programmers will be able to reach a conclusion.  Should driverless vehicles be programmed to at all times protect its passengers, or should the idea of saving the greater good persist in all cases?

Referred to:

Photo:

Further Reading:

Venti Starbucks App with a shot of Added Feature

As summed up in Kexin’s post “Technology is the Future of Retail Stores”, Starbucks is adding a feature to their popular app that will allow users to pre-order and pre-pay for their drink.  I understand that there are many concerns with the added feature; however, by developing adequate accompanying systems and procedures, the added feature will positively impact Starbucks’ brand.

The innnovative Starbucks app allows users to connect their rewards to their phone and use it to pay in stores. The added feature to the app will allow users to pre-pay and pre-order their drinks.

Starbucks has demonstrated its differentiation by allowing users to connect their Starbucks cards to their phones and pay with them in-store.  By adding the feature of pre-ordering and pre-paying, Starbucks further differentiates by increasing the speed of service and allowing their customers to skip the long and dreaded line.  Although customers ordering through the app may receive their orders quicker, Kexin states that there are concerns over the product’s quality.  A part of the Starbucks’ value proposition is the timely preparation of customized specialty drinks; however, with customers ordering through the app, baristas may be unable to accurately prepare the pre-ordered drink in time for the customer.  Rather than serving a hot drink, the customer’s drink may be cold and as an effect, the barista may have to remake the drink, leading to an inefficient system.  If Starbucks develops efficient in-store systems and procedures, this obstacle may be overcome and the pre-order feature will enhance the customer’s experience.   Kexin also expressed how Starbucks may not need to hire as many baristas to take orders; however, I disagree.  Although the physical line at Starbucks may be shorter, through the app, Starbucks should receive an equal number of orders, if not more.  To maintain Starbucks’ valued service, stores must ensure that both the in-store customers and the pre-order customers are both efficiently served high quality drinks.  Starbucks demonstrates the value of technology to improve customer service and differentiate itself from its competitors.

Referred to:

Photo:

 

One for One or One for None?

Toms’ One for One Business Model has been widely criticized for its “unintended consequences”.  As advertised on Toms’ website, “with every product you purchase, Toms will help a person in need.  One for One.”  I support the ‘one for one’ business model as a starting point for a socially responsible model which can be further innovated and improved.

Blake Mycoskie is the founder of Toms Shoes and the creator of the ‘one for one’ business model.

Critics have argued that the ‘one for one’ eradicates the demand for local businesses by providing a product for free rather than having the citizens buy it from their local provider.  I believe that although local businesses may be hurt, in the short run, the ‘one for one’ model offers an easy remedy for a complex problem.  By giving a pair of shoes to someone who may not have the opportunity to buy it themselves, Toms improves the individual’s quality of life.  That individual is now less likely to succumb to diseases or easily-prevented injuries and infections by simply having shoes on their feet and may now be able to walk further to provide for their family.  While critics explain that by providing products for free, Toms is “foster[ing] poor self-image”, I believe that by helping those in need, the recipients may feel the kind wishes and intentions of the consumers (donors) and the subsequently Toms.  Often, individuals only need to know that someone cares enough to help them and in return, it may boost their morale and lead to further positive changes in their life.  Although many have criticized the ‘one for one’ model, I believe it is an effective short-term attempt to improve a society.  Adopting the ‘one for one’ model is a great plan to begin to “treat symptoms”; however, it can be further improved by adopting models that provide long-term remedies to problems societies face.  Toms has already begun to innovate and improve their model by providing safe water, “the gift of safe birth” and “the gift of kindness”, all of which do not detract from local businesses and lead to per

Referred to article:

Photo:

BlackBerry, where are they now?

Canadian company BlackBerry was once one of the most popular smart phones with their qwerty keyboard; however, in 2007, it lost its position as number one to Apple’s touch screen phone.  In the rapidly changing industry of technology, companies need to constantly innovate and invest into research and development.  Apple exemplifies the success attached to investing in research and development, with their increasing number of patents and continuing release of new devices.  In an attempt to maintain competition and revive its sales, BlackBerry has released several new phones in the past two years; however, none have been successful.  In a final attempt to maintain its position in the hardware industry, BlackBerry will be releasing the BlackBerry Priv.  Although sales in the hardware business have proven to be challenging, the multi-billion dollar company still has $3-billion in cash to invest.

Prior to losing its number one position in 2007, the BlackBerry Curve and the BlackBerry Pearl were among the most frequented smartphones 

Rather than having the cash remain static, BlackBerry “has made five acquisitions” hoping to “diversify into enterprise software“.  Through the acquisitions, BlackBerry is exploring an opportunity to abandon its low position in the hardware business and investing into the innovation of software.  The newly acquired companies expand and shift BlackBerry’s value proposition and key activities from the once loved qwerty keyboards; however, using its brand name, BlackBerry hopes to grow from their failing phone sales and become number one in the enterprise software industry.  Although BlackBerry was once positioned at the top of the smartphone industry, its decision to shift its focus to a new industry after witnessing continuous failings is a strong strategic decision.  The company’s acquisitions demonstrates how companies turn a threat into a partner, in addition to the value of acquisitions and research and development.

Referred to article:

Photo:

Further Readings:

Blog Post Title taken from Oprah’s series Where are they now?