Week Three

Overview

I thought today’s topic was pretty dry and self-explanatory but I gained a lot of new insights once again. The topic is similar to what I learnt in human geography during my sec and JC days. Moving towards sustainable development is simply a tough goal that I foresee will not massively happen soon. I just learnt a useful way to classify this whole phenomenon; moving from traditional linear models for industrialisation to cyclical business and industrial models that are driven by sustainability. This concept will spur people on to be innovative and seek ways to improve the environmental well-being with incentives to stay in business (economic). This brings us to the next topic which was technology and innovation management. Shahi’s model “innovation-based technology/enterprise value creation pipeline” explained the steps needed to turn cloud opportunities to summit opportunities. To sum it all up, we need to question the technology validity on whether the idea is feasible, business validation on ways to sell the product to the masses. Of course it would be easier if it’s market-driven since demand = less risk of making a loss while technology-driven ideas require the acceptance of the masses which may not be so easy and incurs more risk of failures.

Interesting ideas

1. Ecological footprint does not equal to carbon footprint. Ecological footprint is the resources demanded by and individual and the waste that they produce. From the class discussion and presentations, many believe to like the idea of how starbucks and body shop are doing their part for sustainability of resources. However, I do not believe that such produce will have massive impact in helping to save the earth and provide more for the next generation. I mean you feel like you’re doing your part by buying their products and these companies function by the high demands. The packaging, transport cost etc all contribute to pollution or increase in energy usage etc. But wouldn’t it be better if we essentially cut down on buying unnecessary stuff? After all, buying more stuff leads to increasing our ecological footprint. Thus, I believe that the only way is to cut down on mass production and control the marketing gimmicks that companies use to entice buyers.

2. Should we allow free innovation? My take on this question is that we should but we can’t. In this fast paced world like Singapore, managers and CEOs are all caught up with earning more profits for their company so as not to submit to the next global recession. Thus, employees who have ideas on ways to improve the system or environment will be shot down by their upper management. As we have discussed in class, giving free time to employees will result in no work done. Thus, I just came up with a suggestion which is to send them for creative workshops and ideas developed from there can be used and not at the expense of working time. Like for example, Standard Chartered has always sent their employees for upgrading training once in awhile which I feel will equip individuals with the skills to want to innovate and improve.

Key takeaways

Could the world be a better place if companies focused more on innovation and making the world a better place as opposed to being concerned with profits?

Innovative ideas are always there but there are many factors (cost, time, feasibility, demand) that hinder its development. Some inventions are simply seen as useless but think about the invention of cars. It all started out moving at a speed that was almost comparable to walking. If we would have thrown the idea away, we would not have transport system now! So I guess the masses need to be more open to innovation.

Issues for further discussion

I would love to hear more options on ways to spur innovation such as whether SMU creative thinking classes were useful in cultivating young entrepreneurs.

Personal Ratings

10/10! I love this particular aspect of technology and the presentations and prof’s knowledge just made it all the more interesting!!

Week Two

Overview



Today’s lesson focused on technology in accordance with society and global dominance (economic, military, and cultural) and technology with respect to human development. What I vividly remembered from the lesson was the theory of rising star, dominant player and falling star as shown in the diagram above. It enabled me to easily classify countries into such categories. So basically, the level of innovation leadership affects the operational attitudes of certain countries. As for the second part of the lesson, it talks about the dimensions of development, how technology sustains and prolongs human lifespan and the inclusion of certain measurement tools such as the HDI to account for the quantitative improvement that technology brings.

Interesting observation

I like the article “a stagnant and meaningless popular culture is a big problem for society” by Peter McMahon, which talks about increasingly global popular culture. I believe that the rise in this exchange of technology has slowly changed each of us into similar beings with no true cultural background in that we do mostly the same things such as watching relatively the same kind of “lowest-quality television”. I guess there is not much we can do to stop this cultural change but to try and preserve what’s left, since technology seem to be linked to countries of the rising star. I think this clearly explains prof’s quote of the week, “change is inevitable and often necessary; the transition process can often be difficult or painful (for some)”. In today’s globalised culture, each country is dependent on the other for some thing or another. We are interlinked and connected which means when one country improves; the other will be affected (be it good or bad).

One more interesting observation was the last presenter who touched on agriculture being the most important factor that led to technology improvement and change. He states that technology allows food to be massed produced and less people are needed in the production factor which allows the rest to focus on other issues. Humans are able to make use of their time to think about ways to improve the human life as their basic needs are all fulfilled. This theory makes full sense but I was wondering what will happen if the MDG(Millennium developmental goals) were to succeed. It is generally true that the poor are the ones providing the rich basic food and needs and if the MDG succeeds, there will be more people above the poverty level. As the poor gain more education etc, who will still want to be a farmer since everyone is now on an equal playing field and humans naturally want to improve. However, I predict that farming may become a whole new occupation where high level skills and equipment are required, making it a profession. This was just something that pops up my mind during the class.

Key takeaways

So my key takeaways is that technology is the main factor that contribute to human development but it also slowly takes away the different cultures , creating a one globalised culture.

Further discussion

I hope there will be more time for the presentation discussion and the issue about the human development in accordance to technology.

Personal rating

I will rate today’s class as 9/10 as it really sets me thinking once again and some of the presentations was really excellent.

Week One

Overview

I asked myself, what exactly is technology and world change? Are they positively related in the sense that technology is the key factor that distinguishes the us and them, the haves and the haves-not? Life was progressing at a relatively slow pace until the rapid use of technology doubled our pace of life and essentially changes how we live our life.

Today's lesson was like digging back to the good old days where we compare the past to the present and eventually to the future. What do we want to see in the future? Think back and imagine days without the invention of computer, were we happier back then? This evolution of technology with respect to the way civilisation progresses was the main overview of today’s lesson.

Interesting observations

What vividly left an impression on me was the diagram on the evolution of mankind as shown in the diagram above (I’m a visual person). Ever since the movie “Wall-E” came about, I have been thinking if humans would really become reliant on technology so much that we would end up not needing to move our muscles at all. To me, I do not think that the scenario will ever be real since humans are rational beings who want the best for themselves but are never satisfied. Prof’s quote on the whiteboard clearly says it all, "Technology is easy, People are hard”. Technology is ever changing but it takes time and effort for people to fully embrace it. This is evident when prof showed us the video with the main point being “data set does not equal to mindset”. This simply means that technology is moving faster than the speed that humans could embrace them. I believe this simple research portrays the fact that time lag do exist which may be good since it will display the pros and cons of that technology whereby humans can then make a rational decision. Therefore, I believe the last scenario will not occur. The next stage would probably be back to the stage where technology has not been invented as I believe like the end of the world theory, a massive clash of system will occur.

The thing that got me thinking was Yali’s thoughts, “Why you white men have so much cargo, and we New Guineans have so little?"I guess there were many factors that contributed to this divide, mainly the time of change, the geographic, and the absence of a dictator/leader. I believe one must always have a leader to exhibit change since humans are known to resist change and prefer to live life the way it is. Maybe New Guineans just do not have a leader and before they knew they were losing out to other countries, it was already too late. It somewhat represents stocks and shares. It’s about predicting the future and having essential start up capital which probably New Guineans did not.

Key takeaways

"Technology is easy, People are hard”. It would be interesting to see how each of us embraces or distant away from technology. Apart from that, I think technologies were created with the mere objective of helping humans and easing the tensions in life but when it results in the wrong hands; technology can easily tweak itself and do more bad than good. Thus, how technology will help us in the future is entirely based on how we use it.

"Solving problems that never existed".This statement that prof said was really intriguing yet simple. It makes you wonder if humans are trying to be God by predicting the future or are we simply too free? Moreover, we are learning things that would have been obsolete by the time we go into the workforce!!

Further discussion

I wish that we could watch more of Yali’s account of life in Papua New Guinea and discuss more on that divide. We could do a prediction of New Guineans life if they were provided with certain technology. Could they actually catch up with the other wealthier countries? Would they have invented their own technology? Could they be the next China? I guess it will always be interesting to think about the “what if analysis”.

Personal Rating

Lastly, I rate this class as 8/10 for I gained a whole lot of new insights in just one lesson. Moreover, so far this was the first Prof who assigned individual assignment with a twist!! I’m sure all of you know what I’m talking about! I’m all set to come for the next TWC lesson with an open mind. :)