blg.png

24/7 Software Blog

“Nuclear power plants are so big, complicated and expensive to build that more are shutting down than opening up. An Oregon company, NuScale Power, wants to change that trend by building nuclear plants that are the opposite of existing ones: smaller, simpler and cheaper,” writes Jeff Brady in their recent NPR article entitled “This Company Says The Future Of Nuclear Energy Is Smaller, Cheaper And Safer.”

According to the article, “The company says its plant design using small modular reactors also could work well with renewable energy, such as wind and solar, by providing backup electricity when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.”

“The 98 nuclear reactors operating in the country now are large because they were designed to take advantage of economies of scale. Many are at risk of closing in the next decade, largely because they can't compete with less expensive natural gas and renewable energy,” Brady continues.

“To respond to this dilemma, ‘we've developed economies of small,” says Jose Reyes, chief technology officer and co-founder of NuScale, in the NPR piece.

“Instead of one big nuclear reactor, Reyes says his company will string together a series of up to 12 much smaller reactors. They would be built in a factory and transported by truck to a site that would be being prepared at the same time,” writes Brady.

"You're making your [reactor] pool and all that stuff on-site. In parallel, you're manufacturing the modules, and then that cuts the construction schedule to about half,” Reyes explains in Brady’s article.

Brady shares that “NuScale says it also has simplified how the plants are operated in ways that make them safer.”

Now, you’re probably wondering what this has to do with property operations.

The progressive approach is where we're going with this.

NuScale is looking at an existing industry and turning it on its head, shaking it up quite a bit, and working to innovate exponentially.

We like this mindset.

It’s what we practice here at 24/7 Software.

What do we say we apply this smart, efficient, and safe strategy to your operation?

“Finally, we can say ‘farewell’ to our legacy system,” you exclaim.

Your supervisors seated around the conference table smile and nod.

Today’s a big day for your team.

You’ve been using the same systems on your property since its opening in 2007.

Every piece of technology used for your property’s operation is a legacy system.

From your maintenance software to the spreadsheet used for managing operational incidents.

You knew it was time to advance your operation.

But, your biggest fear was being replaced.

You’ve been running this property since it opened, and if nothing changed – you were next in line for ‘replacement.’

You want to create an ever-lasting legacy, not depart as a legacy leader known for complacency and out-of-date methods.

Nowadays, there are a plethora of progressive software solutions available.

Many surpass the functionality of your current “solutions.”

  • Real-time communications for world-class execution
  • Web-based is a requirement for global operations
  • Digital documentation to reduce risk
  • Reporting for analysis to continuously improve the experience

To compete in this landscape, they must fulfill the needs of your property.

You know this more than ever now.

But, as you started your implementation process did you stop to review one critical characteristic of your solutions provider, that you might’ve missed?

We’re sure it met all your internal needs.

But, did you ever review the track record of your solutions provider?

We’re not talking about credibility nor are we referring to their customer listing.

While these are essential qualities, we’re referring to long-term innovation.

Yes, they’re not a legacy system now.

The question is, where will your new solution be in two years, five years, or ten years?

Did you just select your next out-of-date software solution?!

How innovative is your solutions provider?

"Early leaks of new designs had stirred anticipation for Apple's new smartphone — and on Tuesday Apple delivered on all the predictions with a $699 iPhone 8 and a $999 special-edition iPhone X (as in '10')," writes Alina Selyukh in their recent NPR article entitled "Apple Unveils Three New iPhones, But The Watch Sends Shares Up."

Selyukh continues that "The 10th-anniversary iPhone is the biggest redesign in years, with an all-screen front that eliminates the home button and can use facial recognition to unlock the display."

That's not all either.

According to the NPR article, "CEO Tim Cook says that the Apple Watch has now become 'the No. 1' watch in the world — beating even traditional watchmakers like Rolex."

iPhone X.

No. 1 watch in the world.

Apple doesn't rest on its laurels, does it? Then, why should you?

Question: Do you believe your operation has made its latest iteration to "Operation X?"

If not, what's inhibiting you? We think we know.

“A big waste of money or the engine of marketplace innovation? That's how some people see basic scientific research. Now a new study shows how basic research and inventions are connected,” according to Joe Palca’s recent All Things Considered podcast on NPR entitled “New Study Highlights Strong Link Between Basic Research And Inventions.”

All Things Considered host, Robert Siegel, explains in the opening comments of the report that “Scientific research can seem abstract or esoteric. But with time, it may turn out to have practical value. A recent study has uncovered a strong link between basic research and inventions that can be brought to the market.”

Palca first asks in the article, “What does the rideshare company Uber have to do with the research of a 19th-century German mathematician named Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann?”

He continues that “Benjamin Jones can tell you. Jones is an economist at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.”

According to Palca, Jones “and a colleague decided to make a more systematic study of how connected basic research was to future patented inventions. They looked at 4.8 million patents issued by the U.S. Patent Office and 32 million scientific papers. They focused on papers that had been cited by at least one other scientist.”

What do you think their findings told them? Would you say that even some basic research could lead to innovation?