Post-Industrial Concepts and Possibilities: An Argumentative ReportEdneil Jocusol
In this presentation, we'll discuss the points elaborated by Mark Poster (1990) and Fred Block (1990) in their books about Post-Industrial Society. This period of time tackles the generation and working environment after the Industrial Age. There are numerous misinterpretations and gray areas, both economic and social in nature, that need to be addressed and contextualized in the Modern Era such as the concepts of liberalism, free-market, metatheory, Neo-classical economics, and the Information Age. This presentation was discussed during one of the discourses in UP-Diliman Technology Management Center's subject TM281, otherwise known as Strategic Technology Planning.
Tesla Motors
In 2015, Tesla Motors was a $3.2 billion company on track to set history. It had created two cars that most people agreed were remarkable. Consumer reports had rated Tesla’s Model S the best car it had ever reviewed. Though it was not yet posting profits, sales were growing rapidly and analysts were hopeful that profits would soon follow. It had repaid its government loans ahead of the major auto conglomerates. Most importantly, it looked like it might survive. Perhaps even thrive. This was astonishing as there had been no other successful auto manufacturing start-up in the United States since the 1920s. The road leading up to Tesla’s position in 2015 had not always been smooth, and there were many doubts that still lingered. Tesla had benefited from the enthusiasm of the “eco-wealthy”—a rather narrow portion of the market. How would Tesla fare when it was in direct competition with General Motors, Ford, and Nissan for the mass market? Would it be able to turn a sustainable profit on its auto-making operations? Furthermore, some questioned whether Tesla’s goals to sell to the mass market even made sense. In the niche market, it had a privileged position with customers that were relatively price-insensitive and were seeking a stylish, high-performance car that made an environmental statement. To compete for the mass market, the car would have to provide good value for the money (involving trade-offs that might conflict with Chairman Elon Musk’s ideals), and the obstacles to charging would have to be overcome.
Tesla Motors
In 2015, Tesla Motors was a $3.2 billion company on track to set history. It had created two cars that most people agreed were remarkable. Consumer reports had rated Tesla’s Model S the best car it had ever reviewed. Though it was not yet posting profits, sales were growing rapidly and analysts were hopeful that profits would soon follow. It had repaid its government loans ahead of the major auto conglomerates. Most importantly, it looked like it might survive. Perhaps even thrive. This was astonishing as there had been no other successful auto manufacturing start-up in the United States since the 1920s. The road leading up to Tesla’s position in 2015 had not always been smooth, and there were many doubts that still lingered. Tesla had benefited from the enthusiasm of the “eco-wealthy”—a rather narrow portion of the market. How would Tesla fare when it was in direct competition with General Motors, Ford, and Nissan for the mass market? Would it be able to turn a sustainable profit on its auto-making operations? Furthermore, some questioned whether Tesla’s goals to sell to the mass market even made sense. In the niche market, it had a privileged position with customers that were relatively price-insensitive and were seeking a stylish, high-performance car that made an environmental statement. To compete for the mass market, the car would have to provide good value for the money (involving trade-offs that might conflict with Chairman Elon Musk’s ideals), and the obstacles to charging would have to be overcome.
Post-Industrial Concepts and Possibilities: An Argumentative ReportEdneil Jocusol
In this presentation, we'll discuss the points elaborated by Mark Poster (1990) and Fred Block (1990) in their books about Post-Industrial Society. This period of time tackles the generation and working environment after the Industrial Age. There are numerous misinterpretations and gray areas, both economic and social in nature, that need to be addressed and contextualized in the Modern Era such as the concepts of liberalism, free-market, metatheory, Neo-classical economics, and the Information Age. This presentation was discussed during one of the discourses in UP-Diliman Technology Management Center's subject TM281, otherwise known as Strategic Technology Planning.
Tesla Motors
In 2015, Tesla Motors was a $3.2 billion company on track to set history. It had created two cars that most people agreed were remarkable. Consumer reports had rated Tesla’s Model S the best car it had ever reviewed. Though it was not yet posting profits, sales were growing rapidly and analysts were hopeful that profits would soon follow. It had repaid its government loans ahead of the major auto conglomerates. Most importantly, it looked like it might survive. Perhaps even thrive. This was astonishing as there had been no other successful auto manufacturing start-up in the United States since the 1920s. The road leading up to Tesla’s position in 2015 had not always been smooth, and there were many doubts that still lingered. Tesla had benefited from the enthusiasm of the “eco-wealthy”—a rather narrow portion of the market. How would Tesla fare when it was in direct competition with General Motors, Ford, and Nissan for the mass market? Would it be able to turn a sustainable profit on its auto-making operations? Furthermore, some questioned whether Tesla’s goals to sell to the mass market even made sense. In the niche market, it had a privileged position with customers that were relatively price-insensitive and were seeking a stylish, high-performance car that made an environmental statement. To compete for the mass market, the car would have to provide good value for the money (involving trade-offs that might conflict with Chairman Elon Musk’s ideals), and the obstacles to charging would have to be overcome.
Tesla Motors
In 2015, Tesla Motors was a $3.2 billion company on track to set history. It had created two cars that most people agreed were remarkable. Consumer reports had rated Tesla’s Model S the best car it had ever reviewed. Though it was not yet posting profits, sales were growing rapidly and analysts were hopeful that profits would soon follow. It had repaid its government loans ahead of the major auto conglomerates. Most importantly, it looked like it might survive. Perhaps even thrive. This was astonishing as there had been no other successful auto manufacturing start-up in the United States since the 1920s. The road leading up to Tesla’s position in 2015 had not always been smooth, and there were many doubts that still lingered. Tesla had benefited from the enthusiasm of the “eco-wealthy”—a rather narrow portion of the market. How would Tesla fare when it was in direct competition with General Motors, Ford, and Nissan for the mass market? Would it be able to turn a sustainable profit on its auto-making operations? Furthermore, some questioned whether Tesla’s goals to sell to the mass market even made sense. In the niche market, it had a privileged position with customers that were relatively price-insensitive and were seeking a stylish, high-performance car that made an environmental statement. To compete for the mass market, the car would have to provide good value for the money (involving trade-offs that might conflict with Chairman Elon Musk’s ideals), and the obstacles to charging would have to be overcome.
Different dimensions have been used to distinguish types of innovation. Some of the most widely used dimensions include product versus process innovation, radical versus incremental innovation, competence-enhancing versus competence destroying innovation, and architectural versus component innovation.
A graph of technology performance over cumulative effort invested often exhibits an s-shape curve. This suggests that performance improvement in a new technology is initially difficult and costly, but, as the fundamental principles of the technology are worked out, it then begins to accelerate as the technology becomes better understood, and finally diminishing returns set in as the technology approaches its inherent limits.
The previous chapters pointed out that technological innovation can come from many sources and take many forms. Different types of technological innovations offer different opportunities for organizations and society, and they pose different demands upon producers, users, and regulators. While there is no single agreed-upon taxonomy to describe different kinds of technological innovations, in this chapter we will review several dimensions that are often used to categorize technologies. These dimensions are useful for understanding some key ways that one innovation may differ from another. The path a technology follows through time is termed its technology trajectory. Technology trajectories are most often used to represent the technology’s rate of performance improvement or its rate of adoption in the marketplace. Though many factors can influence these technology trajectories (as discussed in both this chapter and the following chapters), some patterns have been consistently identified in technology trajectories across many industry contexts and over many periods. Understanding these patterns of technological innovation provides a useful foundation that we will build upon in the later chapters on formulating technology strategy. The chapter begins by reviewing the dimensions used to distinguish types of innovations. It then describes the s-curve patterns so often observed in both the rate of technology improvement and the rate of technology diffusion to the market. In the last section, the chapter describes research suggesting that technological innovation follows a cyclical pattern composed of distinct and reliably occurring phases.
.
Technological innovations are often described using dimensions such as “radical” versus “incremental.” Different types of innovation require different kinds of underlying knowledge and have different impacts on the industry’s competitors and customers. Four of the dimensions most commonly used to categorize innovations are described here: product versus process innovation, radical versus incremental, competence enhancing versus competence destroying, and architectural versus component.
Chapter 3 Micro Foundations of Firm’s Advantage – Dynamic Capabil.docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 3: Micro Foundations of Firm’s Advantage – Dynamic Capabilities View
In a previous chapter, we learnt about resource-based view (RBV), knowledge-based view (KBV) and core competence view (CCV) hypotheses. A major limitation of these hypotheses is that they are not designed for the VUCA world – the world that is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Therefore, they do not consider the entropy factors – the factors that act as disruptive forces in highly dynamic markets. In this chapter, we will examine three of the most important entry factors:
· mainstreaming of non-consumers, i.e. the rise of new groups of customers served using alternative sets of resources, knowledge and/or core competencies.
· political power play, i.e. the role of non-market – often government-supported - factors in enabling competing firms to develop alternative sets of resources, knowledge and/or core competencies.
· globalization games, i.e. the shifts in the advantages of different national markets, and as a consequence of the firms having investments in those markets.
Micro foundations of firm’s advantage refer to the structures, processes and behaviors that help firms navigate the VUCA world. Development of appropriate structures, processes and behaviors that are in tune with the VUCA world allows firms to be dynamic in their capability. Dynamic capability is the capability for recognizing and responding or adapting to significant market change. Dynamic capability view (DCV) hypothesis of strategic action is intended to help firms stay relevant and is of strategic advantage for larger corporates and their stakeholders.
In this chapter, we will also learn about different types of marketplaces, and how to classify these marketplaces using the niche density (number of firms in a marketplace) and carrying capacity (size of the market) approaches. It is important to recognize the link between the concept of dynamic capability and the type of marketplaces. By operating in different types of marketplaces across different business divisions or regional geographies, the firms may be able to gain experience and develop structures, processes, and behaviors to not only survive but also thrive in a VUCA world.
Exhibit 3.x illustrates the evolution of DCV, based on the refinements of RBV, KBV and CCV. KBV distinguishes capabilities (and knowledge-base of the capabilities) from resources. CCV distinguishes core competencies (creative integration and innovative combination of knowledge) from ordinary capabilities (articulation and replication of knowledge). DCV distinguishes transforming capabilities, from core competencies.
Exhibit 3.x: Refinements in RBV, KBV and CCV Bring DCV in Perspective
Entropy Mechanisms under Dynamic Environments
We need a significant revision in the original elitist assumptions of the RBV, KBV and CCV, to account for the success of firms in face of the environmental crisis and dynamism in the 21st century. R ...
SMAC : social mobile analytics and Cloud is today disrupting markets in a big way. Today smaller business and the giants both can use SMAC as an enabler to innovate and create product differentiation.
How Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud Technologies are Reshaping the Enterprise : By Malcolm Frank, Cognizant Executive Vice President, Strategy & Marketing
http://www.cognizant.com/smac
Innovation technology questions1 Explain how computer-aided de.docxjaggernaoma
Innovation technology questions
1 Explain how computer-aided design and flexible manufacturing technologies help create small niches in the market place. Provide an example to illustrate your answer
Answer: Computer-aided design and flexible manufacturing help create small niches in the marketplace by allowing firms to develop and produce a greater number of versions of their products. This means that companies can now tailor their offerings to small niches in the marketplace. For example, in 2012, Toyota offered 16 different passenger vehicle lines under the Toyota brand (e.g., Camry, Prius, Highlander, and Tundra). Within each of the vehicle lines, Toyota also offered several different models (e.g., Camry L, Camry LE, Camry SE) with different features and at different price points. Students’ answers will vary.
Page: 1
2At a retreat by the Cleveland City Council, community leaders held a discussion on attracting and developing new businesses and increasing employment rates in the city. One leader suggested that the city should consider sponsoring a business incubator. Explain what an incubator is and how this might help the city meet its goals. What other ideas should be considered
Answer: An incubator is an institution designed to nurture the development of new businesses that might otherwise lack access to funding or advice. It allows companies to share costs and resources until they can stand on their own. If an incubator were started in Salisbury, it would help new businesses to grow and prosper. These businesses could then move out to locations of their own and hire local residents as employees. The city would not have to offer tax breaks or compete with other cities for the location of existing companies, but would be growing their own businesses.
Page: 29-31
3 How can the s-curves be used as a prescriptive tool? What would be the limitations of this approach?
Answer: Managers can use the s-curve model as a tool for predicting when a technology will reach its limits and as a prescriptive guide for whether and when the firm should move to a new, more radical technology. Firms can use data on the investment and performance of their own technologies, or data on the overall industry investment in a technology and the average performance achieved by multiple producers. Managers could then use these curves to assess whether a technology appears to be approaching its limits or to identify new technologies that might be emerging on s-curves that will intersect the firm’s technology s-curve. Managers could then switch s-curves by acquiring or developing the new technology.
However, there are many limitations to doing this. First, it is rare that the true limits of a technology are known in advance, and there is often considerable disagreement among firms about what a technology’s limits will be. Second, the shape of a technology’s s-curve is not set in stone. Unexpected changes in the market, component technologies, or complementary techno.
When deciding how to respond to a threatening new entrant, companies often assume that they are facing a disruption, that is, an innovation that allows upstarts to build a new market from the bottom up. But new products and services can enter your market from other directions, each distinct in terms of how, where, and when it affects your business. They are all market dislocations -- radical breakaways that create new markets and make old markets obsolete. Instead of acting rashly, incumbents should take a step back, diagnose the type of dislocation they are facing, and respond with the appropriate tools and strategies.
Different dimensions have been used to distinguish types of innovation. Some of the most widely used dimensions include product versus process innovation, radical versus incremental innovation, competence-enhancing versus competence destroying innovation, and architectural versus component innovation.
A graph of technology performance over cumulative effort invested often exhibits an s-shape curve. This suggests that performance improvement in a new technology is initially difficult and costly, but, as the fundamental principles of the technology are worked out, it then begins to accelerate as the technology becomes better understood, and finally diminishing returns set in as the technology approaches its inherent limits.
The previous chapters pointed out that technological innovation can come from many sources and take many forms. Different types of technological innovations offer different opportunities for organizations and society, and they pose different demands upon producers, users, and regulators. While there is no single agreed-upon taxonomy to describe different kinds of technological innovations, in this chapter we will review several dimensions that are often used to categorize technologies. These dimensions are useful for understanding some key ways that one innovation may differ from another. The path a technology follows through time is termed its technology trajectory. Technology trajectories are most often used to represent the technology’s rate of performance improvement or its rate of adoption in the marketplace. Though many factors can influence these technology trajectories (as discussed in both this chapter and the following chapters), some patterns have been consistently identified in technology trajectories across many industry contexts and over many periods. Understanding these patterns of technological innovation provides a useful foundation that we will build upon in the later chapters on formulating technology strategy. The chapter begins by reviewing the dimensions used to distinguish types of innovations. It then describes the s-curve patterns so often observed in both the rate of technology improvement and the rate of technology diffusion to the market. In the last section, the chapter describes research suggesting that technological innovation follows a cyclical pattern composed of distinct and reliably occurring phases.
.
Technological innovations are often described using dimensions such as “radical” versus “incremental.” Different types of innovation require different kinds of underlying knowledge and have different impacts on the industry’s competitors and customers. Four of the dimensions most commonly used to categorize innovations are described here: product versus process innovation, radical versus incremental, competence enhancing versus competence destroying, and architectural versus component.
Chapter 3 Micro Foundations of Firm’s Advantage – Dynamic Capabil.docxchristinemaritza
Chapter 3: Micro Foundations of Firm’s Advantage – Dynamic Capabilities View
In a previous chapter, we learnt about resource-based view (RBV), knowledge-based view (KBV) and core competence view (CCV) hypotheses. A major limitation of these hypotheses is that they are not designed for the VUCA world – the world that is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Therefore, they do not consider the entropy factors – the factors that act as disruptive forces in highly dynamic markets. In this chapter, we will examine three of the most important entry factors:
· mainstreaming of non-consumers, i.e. the rise of new groups of customers served using alternative sets of resources, knowledge and/or core competencies.
· political power play, i.e. the role of non-market – often government-supported - factors in enabling competing firms to develop alternative sets of resources, knowledge and/or core competencies.
· globalization games, i.e. the shifts in the advantages of different national markets, and as a consequence of the firms having investments in those markets.
Micro foundations of firm’s advantage refer to the structures, processes and behaviors that help firms navigate the VUCA world. Development of appropriate structures, processes and behaviors that are in tune with the VUCA world allows firms to be dynamic in their capability. Dynamic capability is the capability for recognizing and responding or adapting to significant market change. Dynamic capability view (DCV) hypothesis of strategic action is intended to help firms stay relevant and is of strategic advantage for larger corporates and their stakeholders.
In this chapter, we will also learn about different types of marketplaces, and how to classify these marketplaces using the niche density (number of firms in a marketplace) and carrying capacity (size of the market) approaches. It is important to recognize the link between the concept of dynamic capability and the type of marketplaces. By operating in different types of marketplaces across different business divisions or regional geographies, the firms may be able to gain experience and develop structures, processes, and behaviors to not only survive but also thrive in a VUCA world.
Exhibit 3.x illustrates the evolution of DCV, based on the refinements of RBV, KBV and CCV. KBV distinguishes capabilities (and knowledge-base of the capabilities) from resources. CCV distinguishes core competencies (creative integration and innovative combination of knowledge) from ordinary capabilities (articulation and replication of knowledge). DCV distinguishes transforming capabilities, from core competencies.
Exhibit 3.x: Refinements in RBV, KBV and CCV Bring DCV in Perspective
Entropy Mechanisms under Dynamic Environments
We need a significant revision in the original elitist assumptions of the RBV, KBV and CCV, to account for the success of firms in face of the environmental crisis and dynamism in the 21st century. R ...
SMAC : social mobile analytics and Cloud is today disrupting markets in a big way. Today smaller business and the giants both can use SMAC as an enabler to innovate and create product differentiation.
How Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud Technologies are Reshaping the Enterprise : By Malcolm Frank, Cognizant Executive Vice President, Strategy & Marketing
http://www.cognizant.com/smac
Innovation technology questions1 Explain how computer-aided de.docxjaggernaoma
Innovation technology questions
1 Explain how computer-aided design and flexible manufacturing technologies help create small niches in the market place. Provide an example to illustrate your answer
Answer: Computer-aided design and flexible manufacturing help create small niches in the marketplace by allowing firms to develop and produce a greater number of versions of their products. This means that companies can now tailor their offerings to small niches in the marketplace. For example, in 2012, Toyota offered 16 different passenger vehicle lines under the Toyota brand (e.g., Camry, Prius, Highlander, and Tundra). Within each of the vehicle lines, Toyota also offered several different models (e.g., Camry L, Camry LE, Camry SE) with different features and at different price points. Students’ answers will vary.
Page: 1
2At a retreat by the Cleveland City Council, community leaders held a discussion on attracting and developing new businesses and increasing employment rates in the city. One leader suggested that the city should consider sponsoring a business incubator. Explain what an incubator is and how this might help the city meet its goals. What other ideas should be considered
Answer: An incubator is an institution designed to nurture the development of new businesses that might otherwise lack access to funding or advice. It allows companies to share costs and resources until they can stand on their own. If an incubator were started in Salisbury, it would help new businesses to grow and prosper. These businesses could then move out to locations of their own and hire local residents as employees. The city would not have to offer tax breaks or compete with other cities for the location of existing companies, but would be growing their own businesses.
Page: 29-31
3 How can the s-curves be used as a prescriptive tool? What would be the limitations of this approach?
Answer: Managers can use the s-curve model as a tool for predicting when a technology will reach its limits and as a prescriptive guide for whether and when the firm should move to a new, more radical technology. Firms can use data on the investment and performance of their own technologies, or data on the overall industry investment in a technology and the average performance achieved by multiple producers. Managers could then use these curves to assess whether a technology appears to be approaching its limits or to identify new technologies that might be emerging on s-curves that will intersect the firm’s technology s-curve. Managers could then switch s-curves by acquiring or developing the new technology.
However, there are many limitations to doing this. First, it is rare that the true limits of a technology are known in advance, and there is often considerable disagreement among firms about what a technology’s limits will be. Second, the shape of a technology’s s-curve is not set in stone. Unexpected changes in the market, component technologies, or complementary techno.
When deciding how to respond to a threatening new entrant, companies often assume that they are facing a disruption, that is, an innovation that allows upstarts to build a new market from the bottom up. But new products and services can enter your market from other directions, each distinct in terms of how, where, and when it affects your business. They are all market dislocations -- radical breakaways that create new markets and make old markets obsolete. Instead of acting rashly, incumbents should take a step back, diagnose the type of dislocation they are facing, and respond with the appropriate tools and strategies.
Public Speaking Tips to Help You Be A Strong Leader.pdfPinta Partners
In the realm of effective leadership, a multitude of skills come into play, but one stands out as both crucial and challenging: public speaking.
Public speaking transcends mere eloquence; it serves as the medium through which leaders articulate their vision, inspire action, and foster engagement. For leaders, refining public speaking skills is essential, elevating their ability to influence, persuade, and lead with resolute conviction. Here are some key tips to consider: https://joellandau.com/the-public-speaking-tips-to-help-you-be-a-stronger-leader/
The case study discusses the potential of drone delivery and the challenges that need to be addressed before it becomes widespread.
Key takeaways:
Drone delivery is in its early stages: Amazon's trial in the UK demonstrates the potential for faster deliveries, but it's still limited by regulations and technology.
Regulations are a major hurdle: Safety concerns around drone collisions with airplanes and people have led to restrictions on flight height and location.
Other challenges exist: Who will use drone delivery the most? Is it cost-effective compared to traditional delivery trucks?
Discussion questions:
Managerial challenges: Integrating drones requires planning for new infrastructure, training staff, and navigating regulations. There are also marketing and recruitment considerations specific to this technology.
External forces vary by country: Regulations, consumer acceptance, and infrastructure all differ between countries.
Demographics matter: Younger generations might be more receptive to drone delivery, while older populations might have concerns.
Stakeholders for Amazon: Customers, regulators, aviation authorities, and competitors are all stakeholders. Regulators likely hold the greatest influence as they determine the feasibility of drone delivery.
The Team Member and Guest Experience - Lead and Take Care of your restaurant team. They are the people closest to and delivering Hospitality to your paying Guests!
Make the call, and we can assist you.
408-784-7371
Foodservice Consulting + Design
Comparing Stability and Sustainability in Agile SystemsRob Healy
Copy of the presentation given at XP2024 based on a research paper.
In this paper we explain wat overwork is and the physical and mental health risks associated with it.
We then explore how overwork relates to system stability and inventory.
Finally there is a call to action for Team Leads / Scrum Masters / Managers to measure and monitor excess work for individual teams.
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers new opportunities to radically reinvent the way we do business. This study explores how CEOs and top decision makers around the world are responding to the transformative potential of AI.
Specific ServPoints should be tailored for restaurants in all food service segments. Your ServPoints should be the centerpiece of brand delivery training (guest service) and align with your brand position and marketing initiatives, especially in high-labor-cost conditions.
408-784-7371
Foodservice Consulting + Design
Senior Project and Engineering Leader Jim Smith.pdfJim Smith
I am a Project and Engineering Leader with extensive experience as a Business Operations Leader, Technical Project Manager, Engineering Manager and Operations Experience for Domestic and International companies such as Electrolux, Carrier, and Deutz. I have developed new products using Stage Gate development/MS Project/JIRA, for the pro-duction of Medical Equipment, Large Commercial Refrigeration Systems, Appliances, HVAC, and Diesel engines.
My experience includes:
Managed customized engineered refrigeration system projects with high voltage power panels from quote to ship, coordinating actions between electrical engineering, mechanical design and application engineering, purchasing, production, test, quality assurance and field installation. Managed projects $25k to $1M per project; 4-8 per month. (Hussmann refrigeration)
Successfully developed the $15-20M yearly corporate capital strategy for manufacturing, with the Executive Team and key stakeholders. Created project scope and specifications, business case, ROI, managed project plans with key personnel for nine consumer product manufacturing and distribution sites; to support the company’s strategic sales plan.
Over 15 years of experience managing and developing cost improvement projects with key Stakeholders, site Manufacturing Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Maintenance, and facility support personnel to optimize pro-duction operations, safety, EHS, and new product development. (BioLab, Deutz, Caire)
Experience working as a Technical Manager developing new products with chemical engineers and packaging engineers to enhance and reduce the cost of retail products. I have led the activities of multiple engineering groups with diverse backgrounds.
Great experience managing the product development of products which utilize complex electrical controls, high voltage power panels, product testing, and commissioning.
Created project scope, business case, ROI for multiple capital projects to support electrotechnical assembly and CPG goods. Identified project cost, risk, success criteria, and performed equipment qualifications. (Carrier, Electrolux, Biolab, Price, Hussmann)
Created detailed projects plans using MS Project, Gant charts in excel, and updated new product development in Jira for stakeholders and project team members including critical path.
Great knowledge of ISO9001, NFPA, OSHA regulations.
User level knowledge of MRP/SAP, MS Project, Powerpoint, Visio, Mastercontrol, JIRA, Power BI and Tableau.
I appreciate your consideration, and look forward to discussing this role with you, and how I can lead your company’s growth and profitability. I can be contacted via LinkedIn via phone or E Mail.
Jim Smith
678-993-7195
jimsmith30024@gmail.com
2. ALPINE SKI HOUSEALPINE SKI HOUSE
Types and Patterns of Innovation
In 2015, Tesla Motors was a $3.2 billion company on track to set history. It had
created two cars that most people agreed were remarkable. Consumer reports
had rated Tesla’s Model S the best car it had ever reviewed. Though it was not
yet posting profits, sales were growing rapidly and analysts were hopeful that
profits would soon follow. It had repaid its government loans ahead of the major
auto conglomerates. Most importantly, it looked like it might survive. Perhaps
even thrive. This was astonishing as there had been no other successful auto
manufacturing start-up in the United States since the 1920s.
2
3. ALPINE SKI HOUSEALPINE SKI HOUSE
TYPES OF INNOVATION
Technological innovations are often described using dimensions such as “radical”
versus “incremental.” Different types of innovation require different kinds of
underlying knowledge and have different impacts on the industry’s competitors
and customers. Four of the dimensions most commonly used to categorize
innovations are described here: product versus process innovation, radical versus
incremental, competence enhancing versus competence destroying, and
architectural versus component
3
4. ALPINE SKI HOUSEALPINE SKI HOUSE
TECHNOLOGY S-CURVES
Both the rate of a technology’s performance improvement and the rate at which
the technology is adopted in the marketplace repeatedly have been shown to
conform to an s-shape curve. Though s-curves in technology performance and s-
curves in technology diffusion are related (improvements in performance may
foster faster adoption, and greater adoption may motivate further investment in
improving performance), they are
4
5. ALPINE SKI HOUSEALPINE SKI HOUSE
S-Curves in Technology Diffusion
S-curves are also often used to describe the diffusion of a technology. Unlike s-
curves in technology performance, s-curves in technology diffusion are obtained
by plotting the cumulative number of adopters of the technology against time.
This yields an s-shape curve because adoption is initially slow when an unfamiliar
technology is introduced to the market; it accelerates as the technology
becomes better understood and utilized by the mass market, and eventually the
market is saturated so the rate of new adoptions declines. For instance, when
electronic calculators were introduced to
5
6. ALPINE SKI HOUSEALPINE SKI HOUSE
TECHNOLOGY CYCLES
The s-curve model above suggests that technological change is cyclical: Each
new
s-curve ushers in an initial period of turbulence, followed by rapid improvement,
then diminishing returns, and ultimately is displaced by a new technological
discontinuity.16 The emergence of a new technological discontinuity can
overturn the existing competitive structure of an industry, creating new leaders
and new losers. Schumpeter called this process creative destruction, and argued
that it was the key driver of progress in a capitalist society.17
6
7. ALPINE SKI HOUSEALPINE SKI HOUSE
TECHNOLOGY CYCLES
The s-curve model above suggests that technological change is cyclical: Each
new
s-curve ushers in an initial period of turbulence, followed by rapid improvement,
then diminishing returns, and ultimately is displaced by a new technological
discontinuity.16 The emergence of a new technological discontinuity can
overturn the existing competitive structure of an industry, creating new leaders
and new losers. Schumpeter called this process creative destruction, and argued
that it was the key driver of progress in a capitalist society.17
7