Tech News

New types of businesses, great opportunities: Technology / manufacturing

According to a 297 Executive survey conducted by MIT Technology Review Insights, in collaboration with Oracle, 80% feel dissatisfied with their corporate ambitions by 2021, expecting to do better – for example, sell more goods and services – or change — change business types, marketing strategies, or do things differently.

An agricultural and construction equipment manufacturer is building a new way to work for the company using expertise such as central, Raj said. For example, tractors on sale today collect more information about how they work and help farmers complete tasks such as planting correctly. It is one of the major issues – new types of businesses, integration and acquisition, as well as technological changes such as the distribution of machinery that organizations are developing or preparing in epidemics.

The story of two industries

Each company has its own unique design. Obviously this is true of technology companies, which naturally change rapidly. The companies are the first to adopt the new technology, says Mike Saslavsky, director of senior technology at Oracle. Most electronics come to life quickly and simply: “You have to have the next generation of technology,” he adds. “If you don’t change your business, then you probably don’t have a market.” The same principle applies to various industries known as “tech,” from electronics manufacturers to consumer goods to office equipment such as copywriters.

Manufacturing has long been a very difficult relationship with technology. On the one hand, the companies are striving to be resilient and flexible in spite of their instability, says John Barcus, vice-president of Oracle. Political issues such as security make it difficult to find products to sell, and the closure that has taken place during the epidemic has caused many more problems. This has enabled manufacturers to use cloud technology to connect with their peers, track inventory, and streamline processes.

On the other hand, these companies have a history of short-term thinking— “If it goes well today, I can wait until tomorrow to fix it,” says Barcus. Such foresight occurs, in most cases, due to financial constraints and the risks associated with technical foreclosure. “And, suddenly, something new seems unplanned and they have to take action.”

There are clear examples of what manufacturers may be doing. For example, global automotive manufacturer Aptiv left its electronics business in 2017 to focus on more advanced areas such as advanced security technology, connected operations, and autonomous driving, says David Liu, who arrived until January 2020 director of technical strategy. (Now with director of development development at General Motors.) In 2019, Aptiv created Motional, a $ 4 billion self-driving partnership with Hyundai to promote the development and marketing of autonomous vehicles. The epidemic forced the company to undergo financial training to cope with the unexpected “black swan” events as well as ideas and manage big things, says Liu. For example, in June 2020, the company provided $ 4 billion to support future growth through sales and acquisitions. “The key for us is to think positively about performance and short-term thinking.”

Drive behind the plans

Of all the respondents, the main experiments were the most advanced technical (60%) and cloud migration (46%), more than one-third of business integration elements.

In the professional and manufacturing industries, there is a strong commitment to business transformation, and the organizations that did this before the epidemic were well prepared to deal with it. For example, he had expertise in using it to allow co-workers to work from home, Barcus says. On the contrary, the crisis accelerated the work. No matter how far they have progressed, they say, “Many of them, like most of them, are now looking at, ‘How can I prepare and grow in this new environment?’”

Download the full report.

This was created by Insights, the hand of material contained in the MIT Technology Review. It was not written by the authors of the MIT Technology Review.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button