Need a New Heart? Let Me Print One for You

It is amazing to live in a generation where technology is advancing because we get to witness life-changing events right before our eyes. Recently, there has been a substantial amount of conversation about three-dimensional printing and how it will change the future because we will be able to print objects instead of psychically manufacturing them. Lately, scientists have been experimenting on printing out anything they could think of, ranging from things such as adjustable wrenches to human organs. Yes that ‘s right, a human organ. You are probably wondering how that is possible. Well you are not alone because when I first heard about 3D printing, I thought to myself, “How in the world is that possible? I can’t even imagine that.”  Then I heard about how 3-D printing had saved a baby’s life and I thought to myself, “Okay, now this is a joke.” Well, it’s not.

3D Printed Wrench

At six weeks old, a baby boy named Kaiba had stopped breathing because of a rare obstruction in his lungs called bronchial malacia; this is a condition where the cartilage in the walls of the bronchial tubes are weakened. After being revived and taken home, Kaiba’s breathing had failed on him day after day causing his parents to constantly perform CPR on him. With the hopes of Kiaba’s survival diminishing, doctors didn’t know what else to do except perform a medical experimental technique equivalent of a “Hail Mary” pass, 3-D Printing.


I can see 3-D printing becoming a process strategy within the mere future because it will be a production process that meets customer requirements and product specifications within a certain cost. In Kaiba’s case, it already has saved his life. Doctor’s had taken an x-ray of his lungs and transferred the picture to a 3-D printer to successfully duplicate a splint measuring “a few centimeters by eight millimeters.” Specifically, this would be considered a process focus strategy because creating one customized, artificial support to be surgically attached into a human requires the ability to be able to produce in low volume. Because of the low volume, doctors can then focus on producing a high variety of customized products for their customers.


Having a high degree of product flexibility and a team of experts to meet your specifications and produce your product sounds like an excellent strategy for any ordinary individual; however, one thing some people might not realize are the costs associated with it all. Creating an object that saved Kiaba’s life is a phenomenal occurrence; however, the bill following the surgery is probably not.


Do you think 3-D printing will one day become a Repetitive Focus strategy, or maybe even Product Focus Strategy?

Is this a product that meets and exceeds customer requirements, costs and managerial goals?

What do you think are the long term effects 3D printing has on efficiency, production flexibility and quality?

Grubhub Grabs Profit by the Seams

GrubHub and Seamless have now merged into one company. Last year alone they collectively earned over $870 Million dollars in profit. GrubHub has Chicago origins while Seamless started in New York.  Mike Evans the co-founder of GrubHub and the newly combined companies COO said, “I’m excited about the expanded restaurant network that our diners will be able to use.”

The merge initially has many benefits, but over time there are very important executive decisions to make in order to optimize all dimensions of a quality service. One benefit is that combined they will operate in over 500 cities in the United States. They also decided to keep all 650 full-time employees. The former CEO of GrubHub Matt Maloney will remain CEO while the former CEO of Seamless Jonathan Zabusky will be president.  Both former companies have merged with much smaller organizations in the past. For example in 2011 GrubHub bought Dotmenu which gave them an extra 250,000 menu listings at different restaurants around the nation.

The company still has many decisions to make. One decision the company has yet to make is the name of the new brand. Perception is reality, and they should take very careful consideration of how to name the new brand. They have been heavy competitors in cities like Chicago for many years, and they have both built their own brands into what they are today. GrubHub did have more profit, and therefore it would be advantageous to keep that name over Seamless. Changing the name entirely is also an option. Since there whole process is derived from online use it is unlikely they will create a new name. For example if a family uses GrubHub or Seamless on a nightly basis, they will likely have the URL memorized or saved in their favorites. This means the new company needs to be very transparent and loud with their changes in order to retain the brand loyal consumers from both companies.  I have one recommendation if they decide to change the name of the company, and that is to buy a new website with the company name. Then link both former websites to the new website which on the surface seems like it would satisfice all the consumers. From there the new company needs to internally improve their servicing process.

After the merged company has chosen a conforming brand they should also merge the processes to optimize reliability. They can assume they will have a large impact in the market for online food ordering because separately they held large portions of the market share. It is likely that both former organizations had their own unique processes, but one standardized process would be most financially beneficial.

Do you think the new company should change their name? Or should they use GrubHub or Seamless as the new company name? Do you think they should standardize their processing systems? Overall do you think this merge is beneficial to the owners?


Youtube Vs. Cable TV

A recent report suggests that YouTube will begin charging viewers for subscriptions to certain channels. It is rumor that has been circulating in the past week that YouTube will allow certain channels the opportunity to charge subscribers or viewers of their channels a small monthly fee. If YouTube indeed enters this market, they will be joining Netflix, Hulu, and as companies that provide content that would otherwise be found on cable television.

YouTube already has partnerships with certain companies such as Disney, Viacom and Paramount and offers a rental service but the content is not as vast as other similar services. With this deal, YouTube is expected to announce anywhere from 25 to 50 premium channels that will charge viewers for their content. Some of the expected channels include content aimed at children such as a Sesame Street channel to channels for sports such as one featuring the UFC.

This seems to be a process management utilizing incremental changes since YouTube will reportedly test out the paid subscription service with only a few partners at first. YouTube is stated to be exploring this approach to see if there is other methods to generate revenue other than the heavy reliability they have from advertisements. It will be interesting to see the reaction of people that use YouTube. It will be interesting to see if people who utilize the site for its free content will subscribe to the premium channels to view content they would have generally only been able to see on TV package they already pay for.

Do you think YouTube, with over a billion monthly viewers, could potentially have an impact on the way cable providers offer their services to their customers? When it comes to a service, quality is very important because every customer wants to be satisfied. With only a few major cable companies, do you think customer loyalty is only due to the fact that there only a limited number of providers from customers to choose from?

It is interesting to note that in class it was mentioned that in regards to service quality “giving customers some extra value will delight them by exceeding their expectations and insure their return.” I believe this could ring true for YouTube is they offer premium channels that offer popular content that could otherwise only be viewed if your a cable subscriber. By charging a small fee to view these premium channels, YouTube could challenge the cable market and force the large cable companies to reconsider their business models and offer packages that customers truly want instead of forcing them to sign up to bundle packages like many companies do. With the YouTube service, you would be able to pick and choose what content you would like to subscribe and pay for.

Would you consider testing out a premium content channel from YouTube if it offered content you already watch on cable television?