blg.png

24/7 Software Blog

“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You want to create an ever-lasting legacy, not depart as a legacy leader known for complacency and out-of-date methods.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Did you just select your next out-of-date software solution?!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?