In the effort to revolutionize the retail sector, DigiPoS faced a number computing problems when upgrading the system. According to Debra (2008), DigiPoS was led by the desire to meet customers’ need and maximize on their investments while maintaining its competitive advantage being a leading provider of strong POS software and other technologies. This could be achieved by ensuring that the system was upgraded to make sure that the organization was able to reach their customers in time with the right quality. In the opinion of Shinder (2008), this led to a number of problems; DigiPoS being a large organization, used a large sum of money to carry out research on the best system to invest in, which organization gives the most affordable and good quality. This would be a great challenge whenever there was even the slightest need for deviation at the end of the research. It would be expensive to change, as it would need more or equal finance and time. The duration of time taken for research and finances used would be wasted should the upgrade fail. There were also chances of getting incompatible components or those that may cause the system to crash. That would lead to loss of very important information about customers. It would also be costly, as the organization will have to organize finances to purchase another one (Debra, 2008). When this happens, the organization would lose their reputations and lose customer loyalty that they have since enjoyed. Upgrading a system involves closure of the whole or larger part of the system. This can result in loss of returns to the business, as transaction could not go on as usual. It may also damage the reputation, as most customers could not get their regular services. Therefore, it can be concluded that before anyone takes the initiative to carry out system upgrade, there is a need to understand possible problems that the project is likely to attract (Shinder, 2008).
With the computing problems, DigiPoS had to find the best solution to these problems to maintain the competitive advantage (Shinder, 2008). High cost of research on software and the best firm to provide a reliable road map was the key concern by DigiPoS. Since this would lead to huge finances DigiPoS carefully chose to, exclusively run its in-store system with Intel, it went for Intel which was considered the most reliable and preferably the most performing technologies all over the market (Debra, 2008). Using Intel, built credibility of the firm, especially, when dealing with potential customers and the existing ones. When countering the problem of maximizing investments and possible losses in case of system failure, DigiPoS decided to diversify investments. With a broad portfolio such as Intel Core i7 processor, Intel Atom, Intel Q67 Express Chipset, the risk was highly diversified. This was to guarantee success, as others would be there for customers in case of failure of one. Moreover, broader portfolio encourages economies of scale and improved DigiPoS’s innovativeness. In as much as those solutions led to DigiPoS innovativeness and enabled organization maintain their competitive advantage, there were other possible solution to the mentioned problems (Debra, 2008). Instead of diversifying by using all products from Intel, there was an option of using Intel among other companies as using a single firm to broaden the portfolio is equally risky venture. There was also an option of training their employees or hire trained personnel. This would have enabled in-house built processors to reduce on cost of incorporating Intel for almost 12 years. These alternatives would have solved the problem in a better way could they be chosen.
DigiPoS launched Quantum Blade at the end 2009. It offered all the benefits by Retail Blade with various improvements (Siltala, 2010). The direct similarity of the two blades is that they all offer similar benefits. The benefits offered by retail blade is the same to those offered by Quantum. Both retail blade and Quantum blade are designed for maintenance and upgrade. They all ensure configuration compatibility and installations (Siltala, 2010). Both are design in such a way that they eliminate ‘Rip and Replace’ and ensure that redundancy level. Even with those similarities, there are so many differences. Quantum Blade unlike Retail Blade uses the latest process called Intel Atom. Its energy efficiency is 60% compared to Retail Blade with 30% performance increase. Quantum Blade also runs on Intel SSD, which is considered reliable, as it does not have movable parts; this is different from the Retail Blade (Siltala, 2010). Unlike Retail Blade, Quantum Blade lowers total cost of ownership (TCO) and improves system responsiveness leading to high productivity. The cost of owning Quantum blade was highly reduced compared to Retail Blade. Mean time for failure of any Retail blade is 40000 – 60000 hours whereas the meantime for the Quantum is relatively longer. Among other features, that Quantum Blade has over Retail Blade includes additional data storage of a solid disk (DOM) flash. Added 2 years warranty on the existing Retail Blade System for upgrade, carbon footprint reduction and its heat dissipation highly improved (Siltala, 2010).
DigiPoS had an award winning Blade. Their blades are designed to fit the needs of the customers, therefore, enable customer satisfaction (Siltala, 2010). They continuously improve their products to remain relevant in the dynamic market. Retailed blade, which also had the best features, was improved to a much better blade, Quantum Blade, which became more efficient and economical to both customers and the DigiPoS.
Different methods mentioned in the study that was used to reduce the total cost of ownership (TCO) (Tanaka, 2010). First, the blade grew thinner reducing the amount of spaced covered by the blade, therefore, the cost of owning the blade equivalently reduced. The introduction of remote management through Intel active management technology (Intel AMT) has also been to lower Total Cost Management. Intel AMT helps in remote management. It also maintains capability that enables retailers to fix or protect embedded networked device even when there is a power off. Another cost reduction method was the introduction of the motherboard with touch screen and inbuilt drives that reduced maintenance and upgrading cost. Flexibility was enhanced and that the retail can put where it would earn optimum value to the business (Tanaka, 2010). With the new methods, there was a significant reduction in energy consumption up to 80 percent. Retailers are able to identify weak points in the retail system, track, and resolve possible failures before they became a problem. The other method used is to design products that were environmental friendly (Tanaka, 2010).They were easy and cheap to dispose of unlike some products that would require additional cost on their disposal. Reducing blades’ size would indeed reduce the cost of ownership as it reduces the space occupied by the blade. The space that would otherwise be occupied would be used for other economical purposes (Tanaka, 2010). The introduction of remote management would reduce time used to handle the device and would make it easier for the retailers operate the blade even when there is no energy (Tanaka, 2010). The flexibility of the blade would make it easier to reduce cost of ownership as it gives the retailer the opportunity to fix it on a wall, a poll or any appropriate place that would earn the retailer optimum value.
In summary, the effort to revolutionize the retail earned DigiPoS a number of computing problems. Maximizing investment and getting reliable organization to help was the key. Even with all the problems, the organization was able to find a working solution, getting the right institution and choosing to broaden the portfolio. The implications of all these lead to DigiPoS being more innovative and maintain its competitive advantage even after system upgrade. The award winning Retail Blade by DigiPoS was improved, and Quantum Blade that was reliable, cost effect was introduced in the market in 2009. Quantum Blade had improved features compared to features of Retail Blade. It was cost effective and reduced total cost of ownership. Through the study, a number of methods meant to reduce cost of ownership were discussed. Quantum Blade was able to reduce cost of energy to about eighty percent (8%). Therefore, the owner would save eighty percent unlike in the case of Retail Blade.
References
Debra S. (2008). Computer Forensics Handbook. Syngress Press.
Siltala, R. (2010). Innovativity in business life. Turku University
Tanaka, M. (2010). Cost planning and control on New Product. Harvard University Press
