OpenIDEO is an open innovation platform. Join our global community to solve big challenges for social good. Sign up, Login or Learn more

Profile

Recent contributions

(18)

Contribution list

Teams

(13) View all

Recent comments

(3) View all

From the PepsiCo perspective...
The real question is 'is it cheaper'. They spend cents per bottle and justifying an increase is hard. In reality these companies that market 'eco friendly' packaging with thinner bottles and less cardboard - they are on board because it means less money to produce - the positive press is a bonus.

On the concept: If the bottles mostly end up in the giant triangle in the ocean - does having the cap stuck to it really change the game? I think its a cool idea, but may be incremental more than revolutionary. Just an opinion - I would be wrong - rather be super honest and provoke thought than think it, be polite, and not let you wrestle with a something that may be critical .

On the engineering: What kind of tolerances does the bottle need to have for the cap to always slip in? This is more on the engineer side of making these bottles at scale and seeing if they perform in manufacturing at the same level as the regular bottles - because if the production yield is lower that means a higher cost per bottle - higher cost per bottle means harder adoption.

Thanks for the tag. I worked in a PepsiCo facility years ago across from a bottling plant. Maybe I can be helpful. What questions would be useful for me to dive in on?

link

Sergio commented on Anyone's Learning Experience (ALEX)

Hello Kaitlyn !

Thank you for the comments. I will give some insights from our numerous conversations.
First, the concern by "staff and students". Yes, some staff express concern, but students have not and in our cases were we observed a student taking a class the other students did not even notice they were not a 'full-time' student, so while it is a 'worry' in reality, from what we see there is no/limited impact. Actually when we speaking to people taking courses we have heard cases of the opposite result, where the individual - who works and is bringing outside experience into the classroom is actually enriching the conversation and adding more value than a student full-time who does not bring that experience (feedback from continuing professional education classes).

Second concern: "Students may also think it unfair that people who did not go through the same application process" For advanced courses there is still a 'filter'. The school has to agree based on the transcript and/or they have to complete an 'open enrollment' course first to demonstrate they are ready. We have not seen this as an issue, but we would argue, it creates a more transparent process to get to the class and learning you want. When you apply it is often a black box, where you get a decision without feedback, making it clear that if a student successfully completes certain classes before the advanced class creates a clear pathway for progress. We hope that it will help streamline the traditional process.


On class quality - the school is in full control, they determine the number of seats we post and manager there own quality.

For advanced courses they can review a 'blind' transcript and say yes/no and share what they have to complete prior, but the school in the end is making the decision.