Hitachi Unveils Security Robot on Wheels - Yahoo! News

Current Robot designs may not be pretty, and may not be terribly functional but they seem to be improving. Designers and engineers and scientists are working to make use of the concept of a robot for the masses. Hitachi’s effort is aimed towards business applications, specifically a type of unarmed security guard with a red button nose. Picture a roaming video camera on wheels (or just click on the hyperlink).

What will it take for people to ad a robot to their gadget collection? Roomba was a start, maybe security is next.

When appliances were still relatively a new concept a Sears washing machine was a big deal. Today, I’d personally kill for a robot that could separate my dirty laundry, wash and dry it, fold it and put it away.

I’d settle for a robot that folds laundry however.

Everyone has a chore that gets on their nerves, what would you like to alleviate from your life and have a robot step in and take over?
Robots
Robot Design
Robot Security

Page Popularity for Site: 3% [?]

Huge solar storms could zap Earth, scientists warn / Next sunspot cycle may disrupt power, communications

So in our modern day and age, the question becomes what type of preparation is practical for potential natural disasters or serious hiccups. Is it wise or paranoid to buy extra gallons of bottled water before a hurricane, snow storm, ice storm, solar storm???

What about investing in lead shielding to protect those all important gadgets, hard drives, discs and other storage media? Or for that matter the computer chip in your car?

In the modern era we rely very heavily on technology, and even more heavily on the government and big business to prepare for us in case of an emergency. If you’ve ever worked on a backup and recovery audit or review for the company you work for, maybe you have some insight into just how prepared or unprepared some companies and government agencies can be. I know it sounds crazy but maybe even the government might not be ready for the next natural disaster that comes around.

FEMA does have a spotless track record in saving all of us from our selves and from mother nature. FEMA has never ever made a mistake in its entire existence, let alone a mistake that might have put a community, family, person, pet dog or snake in jeopardy. They can save us all, don’t you think?

Well if you disagree, I ask again. What is practical for preparation in this modern day and age and what is paranoid?

Is it practical to store an extra 10 gallons of water?

How about $300 in canned goods? (last about 100 days)

A case of assorted batteries?

A generator? (even if you don’t live in hurricane alley or lose power for a week at a time every January?)

A wind up powered radio?

Walkie Talkies?

A weather radio?

A tent & camping gear?

Seeds for a garden?

Buy a mountains with some livestock and a few plowed acres to escape to in case the North and South Pole really do melt and we all find ourselves flooded out and moving to higher ground?

How large, small or existent should your personal arsenal be?

Does Brinks respond to walkie talkie calls if the power grid is knocked out during a solar storm? Will the police?
Solar Storm
Disaster Preparation

Page Popularity for Site: 3% [?]

Complexity causes 50% of product returns: scientist - Yahoo! News

Define your Product or your customer will Return it!

Product returns is a very expensive process for manufacturers. A product returned in large volumes can lead to a products demise due to unprofitability. Its important to understand that retailers today do everything in their power to avoid the cost of dealing with returns. After all, they have to pay employees to staff a customer service department to handle returns, not to mention, dealing with the inventory of returned goods, that must be either properly disposed of or packaged, scheduled & shipped back to the manufacturer. The process has an accounting cost as well, as the manufacturer has to be ‘debited’ - (reversed invoicing) for the value of the returned item.

So retailers have gotten smart and started charging manufacturer’s for the cost of freight and very often for the handling of the product, which can be billed at a flat rate or as a percentage of the value of the item.

So picture a $200 widget returned to your local retailer.

The retailer pays a clerk $6 / hour(not making a value judgement about living wages or benefits in this dialogue) to cut you a receipt and take the product back. Each return takes 4 minutes ($0.40). Plus, an inventory clerk has to hall it from the front of the store to the back and drop the widget in a return bin to route it to the distribution center (6 minutes or $.60) UPS shows up to pick up the box of widgets for the month, halls them off to a distribution center where they are consolidated with widgets from 2,000 other stores. Lets assume 20 widgets per store over 2000 stores, is $40,000 in labor. Does not include storage or boxes or time scheduling freight pickups, so lets add another $1 per widget in overhead. Total cost to get to Distribution center $80,000.

The distribution Center pays again to hold the goods and consolidate them and schedule freight. So lets add another $2 per widget. $80,000.

Total cost to Retailer $160,000

They get reimbursed for freight at actual cost + 3% as their local carrier contract does not allow them to share pricing information. So wash on freight and pick up profit of 3% on cost of freight. Let’s say freight cost $4k to ship truck load of widgets across US. So the retailer flips this cost center into a minor revenue stream and makes 3% of $4k = $120.

The show is not over yet. They then turn around and charge a 8% handling fee on the cost of the product to the manufacturer. (20 units per store x 2000 stores = 40,000 widgets x $200 / widget = $8,000,000). This $8m is also what the retailer paid for the widget in the first place, assuming they have cut a check already. So they return the product and deduct $8,000,000 for the value of the returned goods & they add a deduction of 8% on $8,000,000 for fees for handling the returned goods (8,000,000 x .08 = $640,000).

So if you’re following along they just charged $640k for services which they have $160k in costs built up. That’s a SUPER flip of a cost center into a Revenue stream even a profit stream. They just made $480k!

Now, I’m not saying this is a great deal for the retailer. They just made 8% on a product when their goal or intent was probably to make 35-50% in margin marking it up and selling it to the customer.

However, they do benefit from the customer paying that markup, the retailer sitting on the cash till the product is returned, and then from the foot traffic of getting the customer back into the store when they return the item. Potentially, they will buy other products, so now the return becomes and up sell for them to boot.

So this the retailer is flipping a bad situation and making it as good as possible. The manufacturer however is getting a big ‘chargeback’ for the return and this hits the bottom line in a negative manner. In addition to paying the retailer, they have to inventory this returned product and ‘disposition’ or figure out what to do with it.

Ergo refurb, resell, destroy, play with a magic 8 ball and hope for some good advice . . .

All of these things can be expensive and do not benefit the manufacturer. So if Manufacturer’s can take the information from the findings from the original link, and take this lesson to heart they can make a better product, suffer fewer returns, reduce a significant amount of costs, and have happier customers!

All they need to do is figure out how to do this while shaving a month off of the product development life cycle that they employed last year when they couldn’t figure this out.

They need better information, better processes, and better communication.
Product Returns
Reverse Logistics
Product Definition

Page Popularity for Site: 3% [?]

RadioShack, three other phone sellers join forces: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

RadioShack announced on March 6 that they have team up with Dangaard, Brightstar & Axiom for the purpose of purchasing cell phones to be targeted at their combined 70,000 points of sale in 52 countries.

This is an amazing example of leveraging buying power. Consider the ‘voice’ that RadioShack would have on its own as a buyer representing approximately 7,000 points of sale and has now combined to increase that voice by a factor of 10.

This is positive news for RadioShack following a month that has seen the announcement of closure of some of those points of sale along with departure of RadioShack’s CEO.

The linked article describes that the new group will benefit itself and its customers by leveraging information learned during the retail experience from one country or region to the next throughout the group.

Potentially more important for the bottom line, is the benefit that all will yield if they are truly able to consolidate the disposal of ‘end of life’ product. Consolidation will decrease ‘fire sales’ within stores or in secondary markets, which detract from new models hitting the shelves.

Good for the company not so good for consumers.

This means that consumers will not see in-store discounts to clear the shelves of these same ‘end of life’ products. Instead they’ll be boxed up, shipped, and possibly sold to a consolidated source, that will either destroy or refurb the product. It is not uncommon for the manufacturer to bear bear the brunt of the cost of destruction. Similarly, refurbed products can often be offered for over the counter replacement of defective phones, sold to carriers for the same purpose or sold in other channels.

The primary goal of consolidation is to remove it from the channel and remove it from the target of the consumer’s purchasing dollars. If its gone then the group would earn higher margins on current year products that have not been discounted through the year yet.

Ex.
Margin 30% on Last years phone discounted for fire sale
$25 x .3 = $7.5 Margin

v.
30% on newly introduced product
$150 x .3 = $45 Margin

If there are only a few tens of thousands of old product left and millions of new on the shelves and on order, its not hard to see the benefit.

However, If consumers have the choice of a phone for next to nothing v. a phone for $200 they might vote with their wallets and skip the latest, greatest technology until its discounted next year. Eliminate the discount and everyone is happy except the frugal consumer.
leveraged buying power
Radio Shack
Brightstar
Axiom
Dangaard
end of life products

Page Popularity for Site: 3% [?]