Hello class,
Professor Darwin would like you to really push your business models forward by thinking about what examples (i.e. flounder vs. sharks) truly relate to your specific businesses and how the concept applies.
Best,
Dan
Hello class,
Professor Darwin would like you to really push your business models forward by thinking about what examples (i.e. flounder vs. sharks) truly relate to your specific businesses and how the concept applies.
Best,
Dan
Our solution is a shark. We are asset light and viciously attacking the profit margins. We are turning a lose lose situation for United and its customers, into a win win situation. The current business model does not have Uniteds customers engaging in their rewards program. This is a lose for United because they’re customers are not engaging in preventive measures which can substantially bring their bottom dollar down and customers are leaving money on the table, plus are not encouraged to live healthy lifestyles. Our solution will tackle both those issues, plus add further engagement and perks like analytics, positive association/customer retention, partnerships with other health related companies, and social media marketing. As a social media platform we aim to launch and obtain engagement is a fast manner, unlike the flounder.
Going off what Nicole said, our social media application is associated more with the Shark model opposed to the Flounder model. Our app is asset light and will drive up profit margins. The low cost development of the app coupled with the opportunity for customers to gain money/rewards for doing preventative health activities will also increase United’s bottom line. More healthy customers means United can take on more policies to increase their profits. This is a customer focused model because if the customer wins by collecting money/rewards for doing preventative health activities then United also benefits by having lower healthcare costs spent on preventable diseases.
The platform we are developing will incur an initial capital expenditure for Wipro that will cause the costs to rise. Some of this expenditure will be covered by the payment from the first customer, (the first government that implements the platform), but not all of it. During this developement procedure the costs will exceed the revenues but as soon as the city is starting the building process the platform will generate revenue. The best part is that developing the platform is a one-time cost and when it is created it can be implemented to other cities to boost the revenue growth.
I agree with Gustav. Our asset light strategy and one time development fee for the smart city platform means that our Business Model is more shark than flounder, with fairly low upfront cost. Our open business model means that we can expanded our customer based very rapidly when adoption rate of our platform increases. Due to its scalability and low barriers to entry, Cities officials as well as construction/utilities companies will be able to easily partner and use the platform to build their own smart city, resulting in fast growth in revenue.
The internal innovation platform we are developing for Coca-Cola aims to reduce unnecessary costs/investments and accelerate the growth of revenues. By streamlining the tech development and adoption process, we can accelerate the introduction of technology that will drive greater revenues for Coca-Cola (via improved product or processes); at the same time, the platform will reduce unnecessary spending on the research & development of technologies that present little value to stakeholders.
In the short-term, however, we realize that the development and implementation of this digital platform will incur an initial capital expenditure for Coca-Cola. As a result, our recommendation must center in on how we plan to ensure the platform’s success – how we will guarantee a shark model.
I think Jacqui really hit upon Coke’s situation and the goal of our business model. To further delve into the topic, since our digital platform will be a large capital expenditure, we hope that with the integration of our proposal Coke will become a shark. Through the digital platform and innovation forum Coke will be able to efficiently utilize all of its resources in order to expedite its processes. As a result of constant technological innovation Coke’s revenues will increase tremendously and its processes (e.g. water usage) will decrease in costs. At the end of the day this will slightly change its values – from being a legacy company to a company that is receptive to open innovation.
Our proposed business model is a shark. However, as with any new proposal, this will cause Coca Cola to take on some initial costs. For example, we are recommending that Coca Cola create a digital platform through which to adopt external technologies. This platform will require software engineers to build it, training sessions to onboard employees, etc. Afterwards, the costs will drop dramatically and we will have a more accurate shark model.
I found the two types of business model is really forward thinking. And applying to our current business on building higher education platform, I think we are a shark-type model. Even though the new business model has leveraged a lot of resources from Fujitsu, we are in a way brand new and takes heavy investment and human resource to get the things start. In this way our cost tent to increase initially, but soon we’ll have a lower and lower marginal cost, and the “belly” of the shark is converging to the revenues. Also, in terms of the revenue, we are growing exponentially as we target into more universities, which might require input, but we’ll have an even higher marginal revenue, which shapes the straight line from shark’s “back”.
Adding to Nan’s comment the goal of our new business model is to make it as close as possible to a shark model. We want to reduce costs by making the right partners who would be willing to offer their services or products for free (in exchange for free publicity and marketing). In addition we want to increase revenue by expanding to more and more universities which will build our brand name while also increasing our profits. Eventually after a projected 3 years we should be able to make ends meet and from that point on it will be a steady increase of revenue and decrease of expenses (the tail of the shark).
The tele health business model we are proposing through the Indian Railway System will require a significant amount of upfront investments. Because our idea is so innovative, it may take time for rural Indian patients to “trust” our health clinic services at train stations. Until we see a steady stream of patients coming into our GE Health Diagnostic Centers and our GE machines are constantly being used, GE will lose money until then. However, although our current business model as it stands might represent more of a flounder, we will turn it into a shark by partnering with a financial partner (e.g. Indian government), who will sponsor our program to drive down costs.
I agree with Epiphany , that our Business Model is going to transform GE into a shark. It is true that at the beginning it is difficult but we have to overcome the obstacles through tenacity and innovation. Starting with the customers, we need to implement incentives for them to come to our clinics. And afterwards to offer them a good service .We want them to be satisfied and to be willing to come back. As my peer group said , it is essential for our success to collaborate with powerful and local partners .I believe that our project will make GE prevent from declining as Kodak but resurrecting as Apple. We want to achieve “value for many”.
Our business model centers around patients. We hope that our social-media based platform would enhance patient experience. In terms of cost and revenue streams, our platform will only generate captured revenue for J&J in the long-run, after customers, major key players, and ads start to come it. Only after the patients are engaged can revenue streams be realized. In terms of cost, the start-up cost of building the platform, massive marketing, and partnering up with companies to create the platform. In the first few years, cost trend may look like a flounder; however, we hope that once patients start to feed into the platform system and revenue from ads start to flow, we can achieve the shark model.
Without repeating too much of what Nicole and Alex have already pointed out, I identify Healthy Rewards, a giving network that uses rewards to engage users in a healthier lifestyle, with the Shark model more than the Flounder model.
The cost for development is becoming cheaper than ever today. We envision that the development of our app will be contracted out to a dev shop because United Health is not a fundamentally a tech company. This may raise some misalignment issues because businesses work when there is a strong sense of alignment among those who built the product. The business model is asset light, giving Healthy Rewards the space it needs to build a brand focused on our customers needs, and other activities.