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!!