Calculating penalties for component design IP infringement

An article in the Wall Street Journal  (August, 4 2016) titled “Apple wins famed designer support in battle vs Samsung” describes the challenge of determining penalties for Samsung ‘ s violation of  Apple’s patents for display of apps and the smartphone front face. Samsung argues that “violating a cup holder patent should not entitle one to profits for the car”. But other designers argue that the components of the design should not be separated from the final product. Will upholding Apple’s contention that it is entitled to all smartphone profits diminish product innovation by increasing IP risk? How should courts assess the contribution of a component to the market size of an end product? Should the ease of component redesign be considered when determining penalties?

Posted in intellectual property, Liability, product, technology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Should food delivery focused restaurants be structured differently ?

An article in Forbes (July 1, 2016) titled “How Food Delivery startup Maple Moves Fast by starting from Scratch” describes production choices made by Maple, a company focused on food delivery. The article claims that focusing on delivery and using artificial intelligence tools has enabled the company to ship 1200 meals per hour from one kitchen. By grouping meals based on promised delivery time, efficiency across the supply chain is optimized.  A focus on sales velocity of the dishes produced and consumer ratings of the dish influences service tracking and improvement. How should food production be designed to enable delivery responsiveness ? Will Maple’s start from scratch kitchen and menu design that is adaptive to consumer ratings enable long term survival or should the focus be on a chef’s meal design that attracts customers and gets them to adapt to longer waits ?

Posted in consumer, Operations Management, ordering, Prices, product, productivity, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Even faster fashion and its impact

An article in BBC.com (September 8, 2016) titled “Designers aim for even faster fashion” describes the option of ordering items shown on the runway as a new fashion trend offered by Burberry, Tom Ford and Tommy Hilfiger. This approach drops the role of fashion magazines and trend forecasters and rushes product directly to the customers. But other industry observers claim that this is the result of competitive pressure on fashion designers caused by H&M and Zara and online fashion companies like boohoo.com. Is there a downside to this rush to get the runway apparel to the customer without the discussion that might cause an adjustment to the fashion?  Will the feedback from the early adopters impact overall sales significantly, and, if so, might there be a benefit to delay satisfaction of their demand ?

Posted in competitiveness, consumer, delivery, Global Contexts, logistics, ordering, Service Operations, ship, Supply Chain Issues, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 69 Comments

Trans-Arctic Shipping routes and transport lead times

An article in BBC News (September 6, 2016) titled “Arctic Ocean Shipping routes to open for months” describes the melting arctic sea ice and new shipping routes. The article estimates if there is no dramatic reduction of Co2, these arctic routes may be open for 10 to 12 months of the year.  These arctic routes can decrease travel from East Asia to Rotterdam that takes 30 days through the Suez Canal to 20 days by 2050. However, a more aggressive low emissions scenario would keep arctic routes open for fewer months in the year and thus not impact travel time much. Most of these scenarios did not generate much benefits to shipping to the US from East Asia. How might manufacturers plan the impact of these routes on their global supply chains ? If these arctic routes open up, is it optimal to take advantage of them or refuse to use them ? How might global trade be impacted as the sea travel times decrease, thus decreasing transport costs ?

Posted in Capacity, logistics, manufacturer, ship, Supply Chain Issues, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 102 Comments

Choosing queues to minimize wait time

An article in the New York Times (September 7,2016) titled “How to pick the Fastest Line at the Supermarket” describes how choosing a line with one person with 100 items may be faster than a line with four people with 20 items each, with the former taking six minutes and the later taking seven minutes on average. The main issue, the article claims, is the setup time per customer – the time to say hello, pay for the purchase and say goodbye.  Given the estimated 37 billion hours spent by US customers in line each year, these details can improve service time.  But the article also claims that estimation of waiting time is a mental calculation with customers overestimating their wait times by 36%. How should service times design their architecture to influence both the actual time and perceived time ? How can service systems decrease setup time for queues, thus increasing productivity, while maintaining customer service perceptions ?

Posted in Capacity, emb2019, imm2018, Operations Management, productivity, retailers, Service Operations, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 24 Comments

The productivity benefit of tiny wireless in TSA queues

An article in the Wall Street Journal (August 16, 2016) titled “How Tiny Wireless Tech Makes Workers More Productive” describes use of wireless tracking in a test in Atlanta to speed up security screening by Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Passengers place their articles in a bin with a transponder, then go to a separate line to be screened. After completing screening, they pick up their items from a bin identified using the transponder. The article claims that separating the passenger from their bin reduces queue bottlenecks and decreases the queue length by 30%. Do these results suggest a mechanism by which real time tracking can increase productivity by decreasing queue bottlenecks ? Does the separation of customers from their bags create other service issues, such as the need to have customers monitor baggage examination ? Might there be other service architectures that deliver the same productivity without the technology?

Posted in consumer, emb2019, imm2018, productivity, technology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 22 Comments

The GM vs Tesla Supply Chain competition for EVs

A New York Times article (September 15, 2016) titled “Upstart car, unexpectedly, from an old-line carmaker” describes the launch by General Motors of the Bolt, with a range of over 200 miles. The article claims that GM outsourced battery production to LG Chem, and leveraged the shared production facilities with other cars it produces to create a competitive offering. In contrast, Tesla is integrating vertically by producing its own batteries to lower costs, but has to develop its manufacturing scale up to make the close to 500,000 cars it has promised by 2018. Will GM or Tesla win this battle for electric vehicle production or will we have a split market that is expanded to increase the fraction of EVs overall ? Since GM can subsidize prices for the Bolt because it can increase its fleet miles per gallon (with a Federal target of 54.5 by 2025) and thus sell larger lower mileage cars with greater margins ? Is vertical integration or scale benefits more important ? Finally, will it be optimal for Tesla to sell batteries to GM to go down the learning curve for batteries faster?

Posted in Capacity, Collaboration, competitiveness, Cost, disruption, manufacturer, Supply Chain Issues, Sustainability | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Will a van and delivery robots combination be competitive as a logistics solution?

An article in CNN money titled “This Mercedes Benz van will carry a fleet of delivery robots” (http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/07/technology/starship-robot-mercedes-benz/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool) describes a Mercedes van and a fleet of robots from Starship technologies that will combine the speed of travel of the van and the flexibility of delivery for the robots. As robots deliver and return to the vehicle, new loads will be put on them for the next delivery. Will such a combined solution improve the economics of last mile delivery as against using human delivery personnel ? Would delivery robots or delivery drones be more competitive for the delivery to the customer doorstep ? Is this the next step to further automation with a driverless truck combined with robot or drone local deliveries ?

Posted in Capacity, competitiveness, consumer, Cost, delivery, truck | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How will blockchains impact supply chains ?

An article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Toyota Unit Joins R3 Blockchain group” (June 23, 2016) describes Toyota’s plan for use of blockchain, an online distributed ledger technology, for non-monetary transactions. The article claims that blockchains can track auto parts across the supply chain, and, potentially, connect with customer smart phones or vehicle sensors.  The potential to react to disruptions either on the supply side or demand side through automatic signal updates suggests potential value across the supply chain. How should supply chain entities, from Tier 4 suppliers up to the OEM, plan their adoption of this technology ? Will independent platforms, such as R3, set the ledger standards, or will the final solution be a multitude of possible formats for distributed data tracking ? How will the benefits from such solutions be distributed across the supply chain so that participating entities realize a portion of the savings across the system ?

Posted in Collaboration, consumer, Cost, disruption, emb2021, Global Contexts, logistics, manufacturer, Supply Chain Issues, technology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Alternate Future Scenarios for US trucking

An article in FleetOwner.com by Sean Kilcarr titled “Logistics outlook:last mile a major Choke Point” on June 22, 2016 describes four technology adoption scenarios outlined in the State of the Logistics report for 2016.  The technologies listed include the internet of things, self-driving trucks and 3D printing. The scenarios include 1) Cruisin’ Down the Highway: In this scenario, regulators work to ease constraints technology adoption that improves efficiency for all, 2) Stop Signs and Red Lights: In this scenario, only the easily adoptable technologies are used and that too only by the strongest companies, 3) Middle of the Road: In this scenario, there is limited automation and incremental change and 4) Dead End Street: In this scenario, costs increase due to regulatory inflexibility and thus limited technology adoption.  Which of these scenarios is likely to emerge as the outcome and how will will impact supply chains ?  How should regulators balance the risk associated with approvals with the entrepreneurial benefit to learning by doing ? What is the opportunity cost of not being proactive with technology adoption in terms of loss of competitiveness for US supply chains ?

Posted in Capacity, competitiveness, Cost, delivery, logistics, Prices, productivity, technology, truck, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 24 Comments