No ratings yet.

In the past years, UiPath has been able to achieve a leading position in the robotic process automation industry. Their offerings help organizations not worry about the repetitive and rule based tasks within the company. The organization’s software programmes recreate human actions, but reducing the margin of error and increasing productivity. Nevertheless the interesting part comes into play when artificial intelligence is able to integrate in these workflows and turn an isolated automation process into a collective intelligence.

It is normal for companies to spend a lot of resources in all the coordination required across multiple departments. This is what we call transaction costs. These include communication issues which result in delays or even manual data entry steps. These services provided by UiPath drastically reduce all of these inefficiencies: Fewer mistakes and faster decisions.

Just think and visualize an institution making use of these kinds of offerings. Instead of thousands of employees manually retrieving loan applications. The AI algorithm extracts the information and sends only the most complex issues for human review. There is of course other aspects of this future scenario which can remind us of a dystopian world, but only time will tell.

In my opinion, the opportunity does not lie in just automating boring workflows, but in being able to think about reshaping business processes. As these technologies continue evolving, companies will start thinking more and more about what machines do best, and processes will be designed around that.

What do you think? Is the world ready for a workplace where artificial intelligence handles most transactions and humans just think about innovation and strategy?

No ratings yet.

Digital disruption remains reshaping industries by remaking the way we understand traditional business models. One of the most striking examples is the streaming industry, where platforms like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Primer have radically shifted the way in which humans around the world consume entertainment. Instead of having the necessity to buy physical DVDs or watching satellite TV programs, users now pay for access to incredibly vast content within libraries.

What makes this case a classical example of digital disruption is its big effect on value creation. These platforms not only possess an incredible advantage in regards to the value they give with the variety of content they have, but at the same time they make use of data analytics to personalize recommendations. As a result of their nature they can also benefit from network effects: The more subscribers they attract, the more resources they can invest in exclusive content, which in turn can lead to attracting even more users. The result is a winner-takes-most market dynamic, where a few platforms dominate global distribution.

Although this remains true, I believe we are entering a second wave of disruption. The streaming market is becoming extremely saturated. High demand leads to indiscriminate rise of prices, at the same time, platforms start realising how valuable their services are and as a result decide to start changing terms. An example of this action would be the platform HBO, which doesn’t eliminate ads in their base price. Nowadays we are seeing new players challenging the paid model by bringing back ad-supported television but in a digital format (Pluto TV, Tubi…). In some ways this feels like a full circle; digital disruption created the streaming revolution, and now it may disrupt itself by reviving ads as a revenue model.

This begs the crucial question: will free ad-supported services overtake the disruptors, or will a smaller number of consolidated subscription platforms dominate the streaming market in the future? Part subscription, part ad-supported, hybrid models, in my opinion, might take over.

In your opinion, will consumers pay more to avoid advertisements entirely or will they tolerate more if doing so keeps streaming reasonably priced?