Blog Entry #3

Summary / Overview

Today’s lesson covered two main topics, Industrial Development and Innovation Management. For the first half of the lesson, we discussed issues such as the aspects of Industrial Development. Is Industrial Development always a trade-off with sustainability? Could we possibly adopt a different economic model that would give us both?  Who plays the biggest role in the sustainability of the environment?

The second half of the lesson began with a very interesting video clip. We witnessed what technology has evolved to today, how a person can interact with a computer and feel that she is in another world completely due to realistic nature of that world.  We talked about Prof’s landscape model for technology and the RDA process. We discussed whether innovation should be market driven or technology, and Prof used another interesting video (Andes Tele-transporter) to illustrate how market demand drives certain innovations.

Interesting Ideas / Observations

Linear VS Cyclical Models – Traditional linear models, that we have used previously, brought a trade-off between economic well-being and environmental well-being. But a cyclical approach promises to bring us both. I feel, however, that adopting a cyclical approach is easier said than done.  The government will need to internalize all externalities. This entails, among other measures, imposing taxes on non-environmentally friendly goods and services and subsidizing environmentally friendly ones. Would society, as a whole be welcome to these measures? Would we be alright with paying more for our furniture because of taxes imposed on non-green timber companies? On the company level, the reading “Sustainability for Tomorrow’s Consumer” brought forward several interesting observations. Based on assessments, it was found that resource views of consumption do not align with economic views. In other words, many critical resources are significantly underpriced. If governments were to raise the price of, say water, the effect on society and standards of living would be tremendous. This change may be too great, especially for the poor. On the subject of change, Prof mentioned that during any change process, people would lose power. The fear of losing power hence contributes to the reluctance to change and thus this cyclical model may be difficult to implement in reality.

If it is difficult for governments to intervene, it boils down to…

After the presentation on “Is development and sustainability always a trade off?”, we discussed how much a role should a government play in the sustainability issue. Yes, I agree that taxes and subsidies (the carrot and stick) approach may help alleviate the problem. Firms can strive to innovate in environmentally friendly production techniques, but it all boils down to the consumer. As the consumer, we control the demand and the market for ‘green products’.  The government can only do so much to promote these products and services, if we do not buy these goods and services, the green firms will suffer a loss and eventually perish.

 Measuring our Ecological Footprint – I feel that this is a good idea to put pressure on firms and companies to be environmentally friendly, however I feel that it may be quite impractical. Measuring a product’s ecological footprint would constitute tracking the product’s impact on the environment throughout its entire lifecycle, from production, to utilization, to disposal. It may be difficult to track these products once they have left the four walls of the store. Furthermore, who would enforce such a monitoring system? Having an Environmental Management System can solve this problem, but the EMS, or systems as a whole, suit larger organizations, as it is likely that organization has already developed a similar systemic approach to management processes. It may not be cost efficient for SMEs to start an EMS.

“The trick is doing something else” (Tom Peters) – In conjunction with Prof’s landscape model for technology, I definitely agree with this quote. With the rapid advancement in information technology, for example the internet, we are much closer to having ‘perfect information’ in global industries than before. How then can we save our products from being commoditized and effectively stay at the summit in the long run? From the model, we can either translate cutting edge new technology into reality (cloud to summit) or improve upon and rethink our existing technologies (valley to summit). In other words, keep innovating to maintain an advantage over competitors! In my opinion, translating cloud opportunities into summit opportunities would be more difficult than the latter, but would give you the advantage for a longer period of time. This is because once your firm puts these technologies into the market, other firms would need to develop these technologies from scratch. As opposed to if your firm comes up with a minor improvement of a product, it would not take much for other firms to follow in your footsteps. Hence, we should always strive for completely new and “out-of-the-norm” ideas. In my previous blog entry, I gave the example of Apple as a company that successfully does this. 

How can Singapore do better to be a more innovative nation? – In the light of the ‘3M’ presentation, this question was raised for discussion. I liked the point of lowering the price of failure in Singapore. Yes, I feel that in everything we do, people calculate the cost of failure and analyze if it is worth it to take the risk. I feel that the government can play a big role in this. They could subsidize or invest in more ‘risky’ innovative projects.  Of course, this can go two ways. It may result in more ‘flops’. This raises the need for a proper innovation management system. Secondly, I feel that the government, or organizations, can provide incentives for useful innovations. For example, in the Singapore Armed Forces, people that come up with ideas that can improve the camp facilities are rewarded with a sum of money. Of course, the quality of our ideas boils down to our education and I feel that Singapore is taking a good stand in making primary education compulsory for all Singaporean children.

Market-driven innovations VS Technology driven – As Prof used the video of tele-transporters to illustrate, market-driven innovations are probably more successful due to the fact that there is already a need for the product, which would result in faster revenue.  Spencer reinforced this concept in his presentation when he talked about knowing the consumer, how engineers met the consumers to get to know their needs.

Key Takeaways

1)   In terms of environmental sustainability, we, as the consumers, play a big role. We control the demand for ‘green’ products, so we should all ‘go green’ and switch to more environmentally friendly alternatives today.

2)   We need to look at the big picture. After reading the article “Sustainability for tomorrow’s consumer”, I realized that one mere product, in its lifecycle, may have a bigger detrimental effect on the environment than we realize.  Producing a shirt, for example, may not have a direct impact on the environment. But growing the cotton needed for the shirt uses 6,500 litres of water, and the regular washing of the shirt uses 2,700 litres. According to this same article, if present trends continue, by 2025, 1/3 of the world’s population will be affected by water scarcity.

3)   Keep innovating! – The trick IS doing something else. We should stop doing the norm, start thinking out of the box. If organizations keep differentiating their products, it will be difficult for other organizations to commoditize their products, hence putting them at the ‘summit’ permanently.

4)   From the RDA process, we can see that different people play different roles for the innovation development process. For the dream to become a reality, we all need to master each of our expertise and work together.

Issues for further discussion

1)   Does green technology have any detrimental side effects? It is assumed that green technology will only benefit the environment. In one of the readings, it was mentioned that a dam being built with the intention of harnessing energy from water as a ‘green’ alternative to burning fossil fuels was in turn destroying the natural habitat of many fishes and water animals living there.

2)   How can we promote greater innovation in Singapore – I feel that we could have discussed this question further!

Personal Ratings

8/10. There was more room for discussion, which was really good.

Blog Entry #2

Summary Overview

Today for TWC class, one of the topics we focused on was technology and global dominance. We were introduced to the different dimensions of global dominance. Prof showed us his organizational model for identifying dominant players & innovation leaders, and how societies / corporations / organizations at different stages of technology dominance display very different attitudes. I found his ideas very interesting and will touch on it in greater depth later. From the individual presentation by Ellen, I managed to learn more about the rise in American culture in our society.

For the 2^nd half of the session, we focused on the topic of technology and human development. Prof kick-started the session with a video depicting the globalization in Indonesia and how it has led to the poor becoming poorer and the rich becoming staggeringly richer. We then discussed a bit about development and the various aspects of development. We concluded with a brief discussion on the introduction of the MDGs. For this topic, I found the individual presentations really thought provoking! Especially the presentations on Internet addiction and the capability approach, which I will also touch on later.

Observation & Ideas

1)   China > USA? – A sweeping statement. I agree that China will overtake the US in terms of global dominance in the future, but I disagree that they are already more dominant. Firstly, this statement is going by the assumption that the largest industrial production rules the globe. But this is not true. Through the course of this lesson, we learnt that dominant players need to be able to lead the change process.  But post-globalization, China did not create its own modern industries, but instead received them from the west.  China is effectively functioning as a factory to the world. MNCs from all over the world set up production plants in China to take advantage of its cheap labour and big domestic market. So I guess I would rate China as a rapidly rising star, but to reach the top, they will need to adopt a more open perspective and take the role of innovator. Has China sent people to the moon like US has? No. Furthermore, the large income gap between the rich and the poor has yet to be fully rectified in China.  On the per capita GDP basis, China is still way behind US and Japan and even Singapore.

2)   Prof’s Organizational Pyramid – A majority of the class agreed with this model. It would be difficult to deny that societies or even companies that have adopted a more open, optimistic perspective and that have been keen to learn and invest in new ideas have been rising stars in the past and present. Just look at Singapore, or in terms of companies, APPLE.

3)   “Change is inevitable and often necessary, the transition process can often be difficult and painful (for some)” – Yes, as mentioned in my previous blog entry, I feel that, sometimes, the process of always having to learn new skills to keep up to date with technology can be time-consuming and ‘painful’. Prof also added a good point that whenever there is change, some people will lose power / influence, which is why some people are more reluctant to accept change into their societies or organizations.

4)   The Colonial Holocaust and its Legacy – I found this reading the most intriguing among all the other readings this week. The proposition that the actual motivation behind Christopher Columbus’ so-called ‘exploration’ was to expand the European Empire to Latin America, by exploiting their wealth, land and cheap labor, I would admit, would be difficult to deny looking at the evidence given in this article. Furthermore, the atrocities and the genocide that they committed while colonizing Latin America do not help the Europeans’ case for colonization. However, I feel that we do need to take into account a possibility of biasness in this article, as some of the claimed ‘acts of atrocities’ may have just been myths.

5)    Is Corporation the new ruler of the world? – Yes, I believe that this will happen in the future. With the rapid growth of MNCs, the revenue generated by them is already even higher than the GDP of many countries. Examples are Citibank and Google. The aggressive marketing strategies and greed of some big international banks caused the global financial crisis in 2008/9.  Such is the power and influence of big corporations on the state of the world economy. In the aftermath of the crisis, the American and European governments are implementing laws to curb their power.  So I feel that governments should take responsibility and intervene when corporations grow too powerful, to curb their dominance, to prevent the repeat of such a negative global event.

6)   We, as developed countries, have an obligation to help third world countries progress – I feel that setting of the 1^st MDG (to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) has emphasized the importance of this. We need to improve the standard of living in these countries. I disagree with the Darwinist point of view (survival of the fittest). Let us not forget that in the past, the first world has always exploited the resources of the third world to get to where they are today. It’s time we give back and adopt a humanitarian approach to help these countries progress.

7)   Capability Approach – How do we go about categorizing which technology would be related to human capabilities? This was the most interesting presentation for me, and it didn’t disappoint in sparking off some thought-provoking discussions. I must admit that I have always had the perspective that humans in less-developed countries will not be able to effectively make use of our advanced technology if we were to give it to them today. I have always seen technological advancement as a progressive phenomenon, one that needs to be taken step by step. But Prof introduced the concept of leap-frogging.  I think that the class agreed that the level of infrastructure would be a constraint for this concept. For example, computers and laptops are not of much use without a reliable electrical supply. But what about the quality of the people? I think given the proper education, this would not be an issue. They can be innovative, but just lack the premise to do so due to lack of educational background.

Key Takeaways

1)   First and foremost, we know the general trend for characteristics of dominant players - open, optimistic perspective & keen to learn and invest in new ideas. The 2^nd part to the model is that the dominant players can either continue to be competitive or grow complacent and fall. We should, hence, always strive to take on these characteristics, but after becoming the dominant player, we should not grow complacent, but continue to strive to improve and innovate.

2)   My second takeaway would be that we are obligated to help the third world progress, as emphasized by the introduction of the 1^st MDG!

3)   Lastly, to argue that people of the third world would not know how to use our advanced technology because they are not as open / innovative is not valid. So we should not take this into account when deciding what technologies to share with the third world in the ‘capability approach’, but rather whether their level of infrastructure can handle such advanced technologies.

Issues for further discussion

1)   Has convenience instead of necessity become the motivational force of invention of technology? – From the presentation of Internet addiction, I feel that this question is extremely relevant especially to last week’s discussion (Is technology leading us to become a lazy and obese generation) and could have been discussed in greater detail.

2)   I was also wondering if the concept of leapfrogging technology could be applicable for green tech in the near future. Since global warming is becoming such a big issue, and the earth is dying at a rapid rate, I was wondering if it was feasible for countries with advanced green tech to share their technologies with the rest of the world and how long it would take to get these technologies up and running, so as to fight global warming as one world. Eg. Decreasing CO2 emissions produced by one country would not be as effective as decreasing CO2 emissions by every country in the whole world!

Ratings

9/10: Definitely more thought provoking and interesting than the first lesson. Some of the presentations were extremely creative and informative.

Blog Entry #1

Brief Overview and Summary

For our first TWC session, we had the opportunity to discuss how technology has played an integral part in the progress of most civilizations. Watching an extract of the show “Guns, Germs and Steel” then led us to question why certain civilizations were able to dominate the world with technology while others failed to do so (case-in-point is the people of Papua New Guinea). We then proceeded to ponder if technology was leading us to become a lazy, obese generation. Finally, we discussed whether embracing technology is a choice and if so, how can we strike a balance in order to avoid this tragic fate!

Observation and Ideas

Probably what captured my attention most was Yali’s ominous question, “Why did the white men have more cargo than the New Guineans?” In other words, why are some civilizations able to dominate the world with technology and others not?

It boils down to the resources that a country possesses and the quality of its people. From the video “Guns, Germs and Steel”, we can see that the New Guineans were not blessed with many edible fruit-bearing plants in their jungles. Even farming did not reap the same benefits as it did for other civilizations because their crops were different and generally more difficult to plant. Furthermore, they lacked farm animals to domesticate. Hence without a proper productive food supply, it was difficult for them to progress beyond the hunter-gatherer way of life because they could not support a large population.

In addition to this, I believe that a civilization also requires the people to have the ability to manipulate these resources and find new ways to improve technology. It is not a question of race or genetics, but of education. There were no schools or universities to develop a good mathematical, scientific or engineering foundation for the people so that they could later develop or discover new technologies for their civilization.

I also agree with Jared Diamond (in the video Guns, Germs and Steel) that the advancement of technology is based on a series of developments. In a modern context, without the Internet, we would not have Internet banking. And without the computer, we would not have the Internet. In the same way, while the rest of the world was progressing upon their existing technologies, civilizations like Papua New Guinea were left behind because they lacked the adequate resources and people to take the first few steps in modernization.  For example, when the rest of the world started using metal tools, the New Guineans were still using stone tools because they lacked metal specialists. Why? This required farmers to generate food surpluses to feed the metal workers and their agriculture was simply not productive enough!

I would agree to a certain extent that technology is leading us to become a lazy and obese generation. Like Karl Marx once said, “The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.” It is obvious that people started spending more time at home, on their couches after Mcdonald’s started their Mcdelivery service.  Are our bodies made to be served by technology? I believe not, and this is probably why more people are growing obese in modern times. But let us not forget about the people who remain fit and healthy despite the rapid advancement of technology around them. Hence, I feel that it boils down to a question of discipline in the way one lives.  Technology is just a tool. It is up to us to decide whether or how to use it.

Key Takeaways

This leads me to my first takeaway. Technology is a choice and we have to strike the ideal balance.  We should use technology to improve our productivity but at the same time remain cautious of its negativities.  Secondly, it is quite obvious that civilizations that prosper are the leaders of the change process. Hence, we should always try and think outside of the box when facing problems and come up with something new. Innovation comes down to our creativity and imagination!

Issues for Further Discussion

I would have loved to hear more of my classmates’ opinions and theories on the roots of inequality between poorer civilizations and richer ones. I realized that the factor ‘availability of resources’ is just one of the many reasons why certain civilizations manage to dominate with technology, but others are not able to. Other factors such as geographical location and religion may have played a bigger part in hampering their modernization process.

“Technology is easy, but people are hard.” - This could have been discussed further! People, I feel, are generally resistant to change. Learning new skills and how to use new services is troublesome and time-consuming. Just ask my grandfather whom my mum tried to set up a ‘facebook’ account for. However I feel that our present generation is being brought up to be more open-minded to change, which spells a bright future for our civilization.

Are we responsible for sharing our technologies with other civilizations? This probably would solve the problem of inequality to a small extent, since it still boils down to the availability of resources. But since we face the same global problems such as floods, tsunamis and global-warming, it would definitely benefit the world as a whole if we share our, for example, energy conservation technologies. Hence, my take would be ‘yes’, it is our responsibility to share our technologies with other civilizations.

Personal Ratings

8/10 – A thought-provoking session that sparked many interesting discussions.

I also enjoyed listening to my classmates’ interesting opinions.