2/10

I think the argument about the enterprise application is a little more nuanced than was presented in class. I think that there are problems at both extremes and the best value for a company is how to balance those extremes and fit exactly what the needs of the company are. I think that having one enterprise-wide system can be very efficient and good if the different groups within the company work together. On the other hand, there can be situations where the groups within a company should not be integrated and the independence creates benefits in that business mode. Said in another way, centralized systems work well for some, but decentralized systems work well for others. I think the same is true for technology solutions. We talked about intimacy and knowing the customer in class and I think that whether the technology is an enterprise-wide integration or buying the “best of breed” for each function, it really depends on the needs of the company. I think that when applications fail, it is really about culture. However, it is not always about an inability to adopt the technology. A new technology could cause a company to have to change its culture and that culture might be the source of their competitive advantage.

Another aspect of the technology that was briefly mentioned is the inability of many works to actually use the technology available to them. Technology has increased the capacity beyond the practical business application because many workers cannot use the technology. Also, the computing capacity of most computers is way beyond what most people would do in a given day, even if they know how to use it. Yet, computer companies are constantly upgrading and making new features. Granted, there are people that might need this increase, but for the most part, our tools greatly exceed our needs. I think that much of this innovation is because of matching the business needs, but the technology is only as good as the person who uses it. The theme of the class is that the intersection of business and technology drives innovation. It’s interesting because I would perceive almost all of the innovation being made only at the margin or the high-intensity users of technology.

2/05

It was very interesting how the concern of theft had very little to do with the actual assets that would be taken, but rather concentrated on the IP contained within. This makes sense when we discussed the effect of globalization and increases in technology where basically the aspects of a business that would make it profitable were human capital and technology. Basically, as long as the people are not hurt and the IP is not compromised, the core strengths of the business are still in tact.

The mention of perpetuity and long-term multi generational growth of a company was also interesting . I think that our culture has developed a very short-term outlook on many aspects of life, which has certain consequences. This has had an effect on long-term investments in property and in sustainability projects. For example, a hundred years ago, a person might plant a tree that would take thirty or forty years to grow, but they knew their children or grandchildren would receive the benefits. However, it is a very low chance now that someone will be living on the same property for the rest of their lives, not even thinking about children. Therefore, people choose not to invest in long term projects. I think that there is a basic problem that people do not look into the future while making decisions, such as the level of waste that is produced by an average household. We need to start thinking in terms of multiple generations ahead of us or else those generations may not be able to exist.

1/29

One aspect of future business where our class clearly disagreed was whether business will become more or less integrated. My original opinion was that business would be more integrated because we’ve seen shifts towards the one-stop-shop box stores of Walmart and Target away from purchasing our goods separately from the butcher, veggie stand, and other “specialty” stores. However, as I thought more, many modern companies and organizations have also become less integrated and rely on a network of extremely specialized entities. The example in class was Eli Lilly, where people who are not part of the regular R&D team are provided incentives to innovate, but are not integrated into the entire organization. The company, who specializes in manufacturing, basically outsources the research process to those who specialize in research. This is specialization at its best. In conclusion, I think that there might be a polarization. I see a trend in integration of networks (distribution markets, corporate conglomerates, social behavior, etc.), but specialization in specific skills (research and design firms, outsourcing non-core functions, etc.).

One thing that will shape our future is personal choice. Our class discussion revolved mostly around how technology will improve business or standard of life in the future, but did not address how people will choose to embrace the technologies. The economist in me wants to say that everyone makes the “correct” decision by balancing short-term interests and long-term interests. However, I believe that after the fact, most people would not have made the same decisions if given a second chance after the fact. For example, we are, supposedly, more “sophisticated” now than at any other time in history in food and nutrition. However, this generation is the first in history that has a life expectancy lower than the previous generation, due primarily to obesity. The increased knowledge helps us understand what can help the body, but it also provides the ability to consume much more fat, salt and sugar than previously available. I would argue that the shorter life span is because of personal choice and preferring the short-term enjoyment of the fat, salt, and sugar over the long-term interest of living a long and healthy life. I would think that people at the end of their life would prefer to live longer years rather than eat the fat, salt, and sugar (this can be debated). My point is that advances in technology or knowledge are only good if they help humans achieve what we really think is worth achieving. This opens up an entirely different debate, which I will not continue today.

1/27

The discussion about whether outsourcing business is a national security risk was interesting because one's opinion is closely tied to their ideas about what a nation-state is. One could argue, as I do here, that at a society, in the very basic sense, is merely a collection of business transactions. Business transactions are merely a way of the market distributing resources. Also, a society is merely a collection of people that use resources in a way that everyone is better off than each individual trying to go out and find resources on their own. Out of a society, a nation will be formed to protect the production and use of these resources from other groups of people. Therefore, in a way, the only threat to national security that exists is outsourcing business processes. Granted, it really depends on how one defines everything that goes into these thoughts. This is not to say that I disagree with outsourcing. In fact, under this line of thought, outsourcing actually combines both "societies" into one. However, the problem is with how the nations have formed because the national interests may conflict with how the resources move between the citizens of differing nations. I could go on forever with some of these topics.

The next topic is the online law services. I am obviously bias to this issue as I will soon become a lawyer and charge for my services. However, this raises some points that I think are related to outsourcing and the use of technology to solve business issues. I think that the professor was probably fine in setting up his LLC with the online service because it did not seem to be a very complicated or extensive business. However, the thought purchasing legal services online seems like an extremely risky thing to do because things can be so much more complicated than most people think. My point is not about law, but more about how people need to be conscious about what the consequences are when they use technology or outsource. There are certain things that should never be outsourced because the consequences of getting something wrong is too great.

1/22

In my study of law, I find the study of enforcement mechanisms very interesting. There are three levels of enforcement: first person, second person, and third person. There have been studies in law and economics that certain behaviors can change based on what kind of enforcement mechanism is in place. A few comments in class were made about the "creepy" aspects of online behavior and this made me think of what exists to enforce either the societal norms or legal norms online. For example, people do and say things online that they would never do or say directly to other people and the third party enforcement is not very established online. Therefore, the only enforcement is through the first person or relying on each individual to just decide what to do themselves. I don't really know where to go with this other than saying I think it would be interesting to study enforcement mechanisms and behavior online as compared to the studies that have already been done.

The second thought is that trust will become more important as technology allows more "trickery" against other players in the economy. I think that trust has always been important, but with very simple business transactions the possibility of tricking the other person is limited certain factors. For example, the simplest transaction trading one apple for one banana only requires that each party has quality fruit. There is not much more uncertainty. However, as the business transactions involve larger time components (buying stock) or greater level of complexity (buying a super computer), the parties need to have more trust between them in order to complete the business. In other words, as the amount of information increases in the world, the asymmetry of that information makes it much easier for people to commit fraud and then walk away. Therefore, trusting that the other party will not try to take advantage is the key to a continuing business relationship.

1/20

I know this was not the point of the class ,but the first thought I had while the class was answering the quesiton "why are you cool" was that we are becoming less "cool" individually because of the availability of a worldwide labor supply. Before technology allowed a company from Minnesota to reach talent in China, India, or anywhere that has electricity, the company would hire based on the limited skill sets available to it within a limited geographic area. Now, a company can basically hire any skill set they need, regardless of geography. For example, if a company in Minnesota needed someone who spoke Chinese a hundred years ago for some reason, they would probably have a hard time finding someone locally and that person could require a higher wage. Now, the Minnesota company would have billions of people as possible applicants, which means that skill sets become more of a commodity as more people around the world are "the competition."

The second thought was regarding the economic cycle changing as a result of technological innovation. I have heard of a generational phenomenon that the economic cycle works in a series of three generations. (Though I do not remember where I read this and cannot name a source) However, the two ideas greatly coincide. The idea is that generation one comes up with an idea or innovation in either product or process and then grows very quickly in developing the business or economy as a whole. The second generation has grown up with the innovation making it efficient in use or implementation and has been able to learn from their parents how to conduct the business activity effectively. However, the third generation actually decreases productivity because of a "spoiled child" behavior by riding off the previous accomplishments and also finds the innovation old or outdated to their needs. I believe this phenomenon can be seen at a family business level as well as a macroeconomic level. I think that this and the innovation cycle we talked about in class might be very similar ideas.