Session 10 – Technology Assessment and Forecasting

Drivers for Technology Assessment and Forecasting

How do you differentiate between them and their potential impact?

Every dollar spent on research on environment is a dollar wasted? The realisation now that you can’t escape green technology – Singapore is finally beginning to start research on environmental issues again.

Where should you put your resources? The focus has always been on the biomedical sciences, but Prof said better to put resources on environmental technology.

The further you look, the greater amount the uncertainty.

Commonly used foresight methodologies:

Backcasting – look to future then cast backwards

Delphi – Consulting leading experts on different issues, e.g. on Aids. Take 2 extreme values, then take average.

I presented on technology trends affecting businesses. There are three major trends:

Number one, the prevalence of mobile phones and devices. Smartphones and tablets are fast becoming our primary computers, and therefore websites need to be maximised for mobile devices.

Number 2 the app revolution. There is an endless number of applications that can be created quickly and cheaply, such as sales apps, logistics apps, purchasing apps and supply chain management apps. These apps give companies new capabilities to reach employees, business partners and consumers.

Number 3, cloud computing and virtualisation. Businesses are virtualising their desktops, servers and storage systems. Data is now stored on remote servers and are accessed wirelessly. The cloud can be a multimedia data centre which is certain to grow, and can be expected to have more in it next year than this year.

Staying on top of these 3 trends will allow a business to innovate faster and be more agile. The author also states that things are going to shift much faster within the next five years than they did in the past five.

Branding is a very important part of setting up a business. It is the name, term, sign, symbol or design or a combination of ALLLL of them used to identify the goods and services of a seller and to DIFFERENTIATE them from other sellers. It is like having Kids Central, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, Okto Channel, Cartoon Network all jammed up in your tv screen. And within Disney Channel, we have Miley Cyrus and her Hannah Montana, Selena Gomez and her Wizards of Waverly Place, the Jonas Brothers, The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, High school musical and Zac Efron…To rise above all the other brands, the author suggested that companies need to touch both the left brain and right brain of the consumers. Left brain being the consumer’s rational, money saving and value added side, and the right brain being the emotional side, the side that causes you to ignore how much something costs and buy it anyway.

The author draws examples to Apple. Now Apple doesn’t compete on price. They compete on design, user experience, technology, loyalty and other areas which keep them from having to compete on price.

So to rise above all the other brands, the author suggested that companies need to touch both the left brain and right brain of the consumers.

Left brain being the consumer’s rational, money saving and value added side, and the right brain being the emotional side, the side that causes you to ignore how much something costs and buy it anyway.

The author draws examples to Apple. Now Apple doesn’t compete on price. They compete on design, user experience, technology, loyalty and other areas which keep them from having to compete on price. We are in the process of constantly changing how we buy, sell, market, communicate, collaborate, innovate, train and educate. Therefore, one should always ask: How can I become more relevant in a world of transformational change? In addition, making use of social media and viral marketing are very crucial. The keyword here is not media, but social. When you market your product, grab your consumer’s attention so that they’ll want to share it with other people.

This last conclusive lesson has been very interesting. In the past 10 weeks of TWC, I’ve learned at least 3 years worth of GP stuff. I’m really glad Prof doesn’t follow a cookbook learning style with a textbook, because just by learning what I learn, I constantly have this nigging feeling that my information is slowly becoming outdated. I would give this lesson a perfect 10 out of 10! 🙂

Session 9 – Emerging and Future technology

This lesson was an interesting one, a perfect penultimate ending to our technology and world change module. I’ve learned so much, and the way how people keep coming up with new inventions constantly amazes me. If you restrict yourself to everything you know, you’ll forever stay in the same circle. Whereas if you let imagination take over, endless possibilities could happen, which is a rising star mentality.

Some interesting emerging inventions showed in the class videos were about:

Electronic plastic – Flexible plastic displays – food packaging, medicine, on clothes, or even contact lenses!

Newspaper – all on a single sheet – can save the environment!

My key takeaways from the lesson are:

1) Supply can sometimes create demand -> You don’t realise what you need until you’ve experience it! I believe this is an important theory in creating new future technology. Do we honestly need an iPhone? Do we really need text messages for that matter? The people  in the 40s-50s probably didn’t rely on text messaging as much as we did, but now it’s a vital part of our life. To me, we have already gone past the brim of creating what we need, most of the inventions now are based on what we want, and simply making our lives either more complicated or making us lazier. To come up with new technology that will be well-received, we ought to create new wants and not focus on what we currently lack or need.

2) Market-driven opportunities

3) Mass media and advertising  – shaping the consumer’s perceptions

4) Creative Technology Company -> Very innovation-drived, but had poor marketing strategies. Marketing builds desire, and requires adequate amount of investment too! Is this characteristic of Spore companies or linked to Spore’s education? Marketing strategies are important because they influence the way how people think of your products.

5) Japanese using robotics to boost economy and labour force instead of bringing in foreigners who don’t understand the Japanese culture. I have never really went to think about why the Japanese excel in creating robots, until Prof mentioned this in class. The Japanese culture is a unique one, and is rather hard to fit in if you come from somewhere like America.

Drawing parallels from this to Singapore, I doubt Singapore will ever stop the influx of foreigners coming in because Singapore’s culture is basically a “chapalang” one, there is no distinct and unique factor that sets us apart. For one, we don’t speak a single language. Most of us speak English, but relate better to Singlish, which is a mix of dialects and different languages. Therefore the market for robotics to combat foreigners in Singapore remains small.

6) How leaders are distinguished from followers. Again, this is a very repeated concept from the start of the module till now. We are constantly drilled to think that we ought to be leaders, but sometimes the education system in Singapore favours the formation the followers rather than leaders, in which we are taught that conformity is best and we are exposed to cook-book learning – there is always a model answer for everything, even compositions where students are supposed to be able to use their creativity. In university however, I appreciate how courses here, especially in my course Business,  is unlike what I’ve done for the past 12 years, and I have no model answer to refer to.

There were 5 presentations:

1) Nanotechnology -> Would you willingly undergo surgery to enhance yourself beyond the limits of being “human”? What about brain implants? Using technology to enhance humans. Eg. Lasik for athletes to see beyond 15m. When do you stop being human? I think that this question is very interesting indeed, but I feel that as technology advances, the moral and ethical standards of human beings fail to advance too. We seem to always achieve new goals like creating holograms which can talk etc, but our understanding of life as it is is stagnant. As the grey area between robots and humans get bigger, I feel that there is a need to clarify this matter. Also, what do these enhancement surgeries have in difference with eating supplement pills for that matter? One could argue that the latter is temporary, but they are both used for the same purposes!

2) Surface computing -> Microsoft Surface

3) Future of airplanes

4) Robotic Technology

5) Augmented Reality -> Gaming

Session 8 – Energy and World Change

It is old news that traditional growth methods via fossil fuel and coal energy sources cannot be used anymore.

Equity is needed to ensure that developing and up-and-rising countries like China and India can achieve same rate of growth like the developed countries had using lesser amount of energy or using renewable energy sources. I find it commendable that China is the world’s largest investor in green technology, because many developing countries based their mindset on “developing first, thinking about global world crisis” later. Sure, China has had its share of pollution and harm-causing to the Earth, but stomping out that old thinking and investing in green technology sure shows her repentance in this area!

The poor also need energy sources of their own. Which led to the invention of biomass stoves, solar refrigerators.

Here are some interesting takeaways from the lesson:

1. “Below and Above” energy sources. Most energy sources above the ground are mostly renewable, whereas those below ground tend to be nonrenewable. I think it’s pretty…..symbolic? Seems to me like digging more to satisfy your own greed always lead to some sort of catastrophe consequence!

2. 200 years of coal still available at current consumption rate. 200 years is equivalent to 5 generations. This is why I’m always in awe of environmentalists. Not only do they have a strong determination to practise what they preach, they’re not doing what they do for themselves. They’re doing this for the people they won’t even get the chance to meet or know, and these people might not even be appreciative of their efforts!

3. 3850000EJ worth of Solar energy enough for all our needs, but we insist on fossil fuels for our growth. Photovoltaics – best use of land resources but only used in 0.7% of total energy consumption, among with other energy resources like thermal and wind.

Germany – invested big time in Solar energy. Government lets Germans pay for the solar panels, but for every 20cents of electricity they buy, they can sell it for 50cents. Anyone who puts up solar panels get cash incentives, will almost always get a profit by using solar panels. Farmers are turning into power producers. The hunger for electricity is now bigger than hunger for food, and these German farmers can earn so much more if they were to invest in Solar energy panels. Pretty smart idea if you ask me.

Several years ago, my mum wanted to have a solar panel installed onto the roof. We were told that it would take 20 odd years till we gain a profit from it, and the energy generated is so little it could probably only power the water heater. With technological advances these recent years, I’m sure this situation would have improved, but the mindsets of our people and the government has not changed. We are still reliant on non-renewable resources, our most famous environmental-saving attempt was the No-Plastic-Bag-Wednesday, which is honestly a pathetic attempt to make our profit-thirsty souls feel good about ourselves.

In class, I raised the issue about how Singapore’s government is improving our public transport which is a good effort in saving the environment because as more people switch from driving cars to taking public transport, our carbon footprint could be reduced immensely. However, as some of my classmates pointed out, saving the environment probably wasn’t at the top of their minds when they planned the Downtown line and increased bus lanes, but rather an effort to increase the efficiency and ease heavy traffic on the roads. I wouldn’t say Singaporeans don’t treat environment-saving seriously, but it’s just that several preconceived social norms and cultures have been so deeply ingrained into us. The 5 Cs of the Singaporean Dream is something almost every Singaporean (including me) lusts after, and these 5 Cs certainly do not encourage less consumption and caring for the environment.

Prof suggested that we could have cycling lanes in Singapore which I fully agree with, because it would make travelling to nearby places so much easier. I live at Upper Bukit Timah, and it is such a silly idea to waste $0.71 on a bus trip to Bukit Panjang! I could cycle, save money AND burn calories at the same time.

I see the potential of cycling lanes in Singapore. Cycling lanes shouldn’t be only restricted to areas near parks, they should be everywhere in Singapore! It is so inconvenient to cycle in Singapore because of how the roads are built. It is in fact, illegal to cycle cross  pedestrian crossings and from a traffic light to another. If only some land could be put aside for cycling lanes, especially around neighbourhood areas, this would aid in Singapore’s efforts to save the environment.

Besides, cycling generates kinetic energy, which could somehow, someway, probably be stored for further uses! Like powering the bicycle lights or playing music. The possibilities are endless, and I really hope to see more cycling lanes being set up in Singapore. Perhaps petitions could be held? Or we could have a Cycle Your Way Day?

I’d rate this lesson a 8/10. This is such a relevant topic in today’s society, because of the sheer truth it contains. It shook me up hard because I realised that this environmental problem thingy isn’t as far away as I thought it would be.

Session 7 – Agribiology, Environmental Life Sciences and Industrial Biotechnology

Food is always such a debatable topic. Food holds an intricate relationship with many aspects from life, from the time food is grown, to the duration when food is being packaged, to when food is sold to the masses. Today’s session focuses mainly on food security and creating sustainability so that there is enough food for everyone. The current Singapore practice is the continued usage of non-renewable resources, but with a decreased dose. This is however, not sustainable in the end because if these non-renewable resources end, there will be a lack of alternative resources.

The fact that the Earth’s resources are being depleted at the speed of light is being repeated over and over again until it is drilled into everyone’s head. Food security is a “condition where all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. There is a increasing debate between Agribiology and Agribiotechnology and the change of Farmers to Farmists.

Honestly, I do think that we are producing enough food for everyone. More than enough actually. But due to problems like politics, profit motivation and conflicts yadda yadda……. The bottom line is – there is never enough food for everyone, especially the less-developed countries, who experience real hunger (not the I-haven’t-ate-dinner-and-therefore-I’m-hungry type of hunger). These obstacles preventing food from getting to them will forever (or at least, a long long time) will be there, and the solution is not to tackle these obstacles, but to think creatively with what limited resources we have.

GM food has been hailed as the saviour of this generation’s hunger problems, but was at the same time villanised as Frankenfood. I’m not an engineer who specialises in Food Science and whatnot, nor an insider in the government matters, so I will never know if the American government (Bush specifically) was lying when they glorified GM food. But what I do know, is that hunger problems EXIST and if no one gives GM food a shot, how will the LDCs get their food or be nourished?

Many people are going to say GM food kills, creates unwanted allergies, results in herbicide tolerant weeds and pesticide tolerant pests, causes deformities in babies and basically just,  well, screws us up.

If there’s one thing I have to agree with Bush on, it’s how GM food will help us. Don’t make a big fuss out of genetical mutation and modification, this gene-mutating thing has been going on even before we were aware that genes exist! Blue eyes are a form of genetic mutation. So’s blonde hair. GM food has the potential to do so much, an example would be vaccines in food. Injections are ever so feared, because of the risks they bring with it. You have to be medically trained to administer a shot, and even with medical training, who can be sure there won’t be a transmission of diseases through the sharing of needles? If vaccines were just somehow someway placed in food, these LDCs would see their percentage of diseases like Tetanus go down.

Yet ethical issues coincide so much with GM food. Prof mentioned one: If one to take the genes from a pig and inject it into a fish, can Muslims still eat it? How much labelling is needed? If we want people to NOT kick up a big fuss about GM food, should we label them? If GM food was indeed safe, why should people still need to know if what they’re buying is genetically modified?

Another issue mentioned during class was the need for sustainable methods of growing agriculture. While these methods are being invented and thought of, they are also expensive due to patents etc, therefore a new patent system needs to be organised. We could come up with creative and economically viable solutions to tackle food security problems, but if a new patent system is not put into place, would all our efforts be gone?

I’d rate this lesson a 7.5/10. I really like learning more about GM food because of the horizon of possibilities it can bring. The ethical issues concerned are also thought-provoking and intriguing.

Session 6 – BioBusiness Revolution: Healthcare and Biomedical Sciences (Past, Present and Future)

With diseases (both old and new) becoming more prevalent these days, one cannot help but spend more on healthcare to either cure one’s illness or to prevent one from getting a certain illness.

The USA, Canada and European countries spend around half of their GDP on healthcare. Which is unsurprising really, considering that they are fast-food nations and obesity rates are steadily rising.

There was a slide I found particularly interesting: 

This slide basically showed that developed countries like Europe and Central Asia had a high percentage of chronic diseases whereas less developed countries like Sub-Saharan Africa had a high percentage of Communicable, maternal, perinatal and nutritional conditions affected diseases. This is quite expected, considering that the infrastructure and environment in Sub-Saharan Africa is really lacking in quality. However, I find it interesting how even when focusing on the diseases that are prevalent in the Europe & Central Asia VS the Sub-Saharan Africa column, one would still find that there is a higher percentage of Chronic diseases in E&CA as compared to the percentage of communicable, maternal, perinatal and nutritional conditions affected diseases. This shows that the problems in developing countries are being solved whereas the problems in developed countries are rising. Which is rather ironic IMO…I guess money is all-powerful huh?

However the BioBusiness revolution could be slowed down by selfish motives.

Prof mentioned that the flu vaccine is often rejected by doctors since people with flu make up the bulk of their patients and doctors often put their patients on long term treatments. In addition, nurses and other medically trained assistants are being restricted by doctors. Having worked in a clinic before, I have seen qualified nurses often being berated by doctors for being too “presumptuous”, and having their duties being narrowed down to a selected few. Even dispensing medicine had to be controlled strictly, and nurses are not to make suggestions as to what drugs they may take to the patients.

In addition, patents on drugs may have helped inventors to capitalise on their inventions for 20 years until it becomes a public good, but 20 years is an awfully long time. If the AIDS drug was invented and patented for 20 years, how many more people would die because they could never afford the cure?

I don’t blame the inventors/doctors for such selfish behaviors, I mean, if I came up with a cure for a disease known to be annoyingly incurable after researching for years, I would expect some monetary returns for all my hard work. But shouldn’t there be a limit to this? Shouldn’t there be a time when the inventor/doctor goes, “Okay that’s enough, I’ve earned enough”?

Some of the presenters for this session presented on genetic modification. Genetic modification is always such a debatable topic, the ethical issues can go on and on but no one will ever reach a right conclusion. Unlike science, our understanding of ethics are way underdeveloped.

Jethro presented on immortality, something mankind have been trying to attain ever since they realised death is too cumbersome and interruptive to life. Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese Emperor ate mercury pills thinking that it could prolong his life but ended up killing himself. This decade’s way of immortality though, involves genetic modification. I can’t recall the exact terminologies, but changing one’s DNA could make sure one stays forever young. I know one should be open to new technologies (or risk being a falling star), but genetic modification to achieve immortality will forever be a theory that I will not get. When will mankind ever realise that one can’t live forever? It is the short span of years we have in our lives that make us treasure and enjoy what we are experiencing. If we have forever in our hands, our perspectives of life would change drastically.

There was also an issue brought up on gene testing, which I felt could be a double-edged sword. Gene testing could be used to predict one’s time of death, or could potentially save a baby’s life. Even so, all these would be crossing the line between man and God. I don’t know about you, but I think that everytime man tries to play God, keyword being “tries”, he tends to fail drastically.

All in all, I have always found technology and the medical world interesting -thus the choice of my topic on haptic technology. But once man ventures too far out and starts abusing his knowledge, then he is likely to create a mess that he would never have thought would occur.

I’d give this lesson a 6.5, reason being I feel that genetic modification issues are being too over-repeated and are by now, really old news. I would like to hear fresher issues that would give a new perspective to what else this genetic modification could do, and if ethical issues are being overcome. Also the moral hazards of the Biobusiness revolution – selfish doctors/inventors are quite depressing, I would like to have heard more about the opposite and new stirrings in the Biobusiness world.

Individual Topical Review Paper Outline

Individual Topical Review Paper Outline

Topic: Technology and How It Revolutionised the Medical World

Preamble

Specific Area of Innovation: Haptic Technology

Haptic technology is the art of applying the sense of touch and control to computer applications. With the invention of joysticks, data gloves and other devices, users can feel, manipulate, create, and alter simulated 3-dimensional objects in a virtual environment. This is particularly useful for occupations requiring hand-held tools like surgeons, mechanics, or even gamers.

Rationale for Selecting this Innovation:

Haptic technology is currently being hailed as the next up-and-coming rising star of the medical world, because it solves so many problems and brings along with it much convenience. Haptic technology is already present in today’s society, in the form of surgical telerobots.  It has the potential to do so much more than what it currently offers.

Intro/Background

• When Haptic Technology started in the medical world
• Why did it start
• Who invented it
• Extent of usage it covers now
• 3 types of Haptic Technology

Historical Perspective

• How surgeries were maximally invasive
• Medical students in training operated on corpses or on animals -> Bring in ethical issues
• Doctors had to present in the operating room to operate on patients -> “It is human to err”   -> Human errors during surgery eg. Fatigue and falling asleep, retained surgical intruments eg gossypiboma, resulting from a surgical sponge being left behind inside the patient after surgery

Current Situation

• Keyhole surgeries (minimally invasive surgeries) working hand-in-hand with haptic technology
• Training medical students can experience operations and surgeries without having to do them on breathing patients; builds up their confidence
• Doctors do not have to be in operating room -> less fatigue?
• In cardiac surgeries especially those working on small arteries etc, small movements required -> motion-scaling in haptic technology
• Rehabilitation robots – helping those with injuries regain their movement faculties (http://interactive-motion.com/technology.htm)

Future Considerations

• Doctors can operate from different countries – especially useful if it is an extremely urgent life or death case
• Doctors can operate out of their present capabilities – eg availability of only 2 hands (http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/december98/features/microheart/microheart.html)
• Tremor reduction -> especially for doctors who are old
• Doctors can now reach places that were previously impossible to operate on
• In the future of surgery, traditional human touch will be replaced for a more accurate robotic one
• Definitely see haptic technology moving towards the area of miniaturisation

Implications

• Such technology is incredibly expensive
• Require doctors to be properly trained before usage of haptic robots
• Machines are huge, require big space
• Technology error VS Human error – which is more likely to happen?

Session 5 of TWC – ICT & World Change (Past Present & Future)

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Arthur C. Clarke

Information and Communication, according to Wikipedia (my ultimate best friend right after Google), is basically an extended synonym for Information Technology, but is a more general term which focuses on the role of unified communication and the integration of telecommunication (telephone lines and wireless signals), intelligent building management systems and audio-visual systems in modern information technology.

Which kinda basically means… Everything in our world now isn’t it?

In our inter-connected world, ICT has made it possible for us to overcome the geographical boundaries in the world. No longer are we bounded by time differences, travel time, or even language barriers.

Mass media has been evolving over the past few years, from a passive form to a dynamic and increasingly interactive one. Web 1.0 evolved to give us Web 2.0 then further upgraded itself to give us the spanking new and awesome Web 3.0. Web 1.0 simply meant the first implementation of the web, often described as the “read-only web”, Web 2.0 took this web-surfing to a whole new level by allowing internet users to be able to interact with one another an contribute content. Web 3.0 will allow data to be “put in a form not only accessible to humans via natural language, but able to be understood and interpreted by software applications as well”. (Source: Practicalecommerce.com)Basically these online websites and programmes will have the ability to understand us based on our previous search records etc, and will serve as our helpers.

I am fascinated by this Web 3.0 Semantic technology, and being a typical girl, I think this will be incredibly useful in online shopping. All I have to type in is “I want to buy a dress with floral prints” and Web 3.0 will take into account of my previous searches, analyse and recognise my fashion taste, and come up with the most suitable dresses for me. Much better than a personal shopper or a friend if you asked me. Personal shoppers and friends would take AGES to know my taste, and I daresay I have friends who have known me for 5 years and still don’t know what my taste is like, whereas Web 3.0 will take a mere few seconds.

Is ICT a driver of world change? In many many aspects, it definitely is. It redefined our lives, and the way we lived.

I mentioned in class that ICT may not be of much help in Gender Empowerment (one of the Millennium Development Goals) because I feel that Gender Empowerment deals a lot with preconceived notions and fears. Women are generally not as tech-savvy as men, and may have an inherent fear of technology, and this is especially so for women aged 40 and above. I stand by this view because my mum (age undisclosed for obvious reasons) has this weird disagreement with all things that deal with technology. She doesn’t text and only switches on her handphone when she needs to make a call outside. I mean…..that might actually be the purpose why handphones were created, but who on earth does that?!? In Uganda, girls do not run. Serious. There is this social norm and “rule” that girls should not run. Which is why in school (if the girls even get the opportunity to go to school that is), when the teachers start computer lessons, boys often get the access to the school computers first and (boys being boys) will refuse to let them up to the girls. This is one of the many examples how ICT is less powerful in alleviating these social norms and inherent fears IMO.

Prof also showed us an extremely interesting video of a virtual boy called Milo. My jaw dropped when I was doing my reading and watching the video back then. If you had read my earlier entries, you would realise I drew the line between robots and humans very firmly, because I never believed there was a grey area when it comes to things like this. Milo shocked me, because I found myself somewhat responding to Milo too as the girl in the video interacted with him. I’ve never seen anything like this. The last time I watched some interactive television was with Dora The Explorer, and she didn’t even WAIT for me to finish my sentences.

Milo was so real-like, it was hard to tell these responses were programmed in him. Prof then drew some possibilities on how virtual characters like Milo could be used – eg. childcare. I found this to be a relevant cause, because many children are left alone at home and watching trashy television programmes like Music Television. I would rather my child interact with virtual characters. There might be some problems explaining to my child that people like Milo ain’t real, but I’d rather answer such questions then find my child watching 16 And Pregnant on the television.

In conclusion, I’d rate this class a 7.6/10. I found the earlier parts of the seminar quite dry, but the video of Milo made it all better. ICT is really an intriguing technology, and its potential stretches further than the horizon IMO. Here’s hoping I get to experience Milo and his counterparts in my life soon!

911

It is, by the way, September 11 today.

There was a revolutionary change 10 years ago, it shook the whole world, and is still continuing to shake us now, 10 years after.

Here’s a very interesting article I found (not very linked to TWC, but still.): http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/07/my-take-muslims-should-stop-apologizing-about-911/

Session 4 of TWC

“He who rejects change is the architect of decay.  The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.”  ~Harold Wilson

This seminar revolved around the term “CHANGE”. People say change is inevitable and imminent. I feel that the importance should not be on WHAT kind of changes that are coming our way, but on HOW we face and manage these changes.

The first part of the seminar was on the drivers of world change.

There was basically a list of all the things that could drive change in the world, like environmental factors, globalisation, scientific discovery and technological innovation. Environmental changes could change the flora and fauna around the world. Ideological changes would include the Cold War, where there was a great divide between the Capitalist and Communist parties.

Change could be categorised under Evolutionary and Revolutionary. Though they only differ by the one letter “R”, they mean totally different things.

Evolutionary stems from the latin word ēvolūtiō which means to unfold, whereas Revolutionary stems from revolutio, which means to turn around. Evolutionary change gives one the idea of change that is naturally progressing gradually, while on the other hand, revolutionary change is RADICAL. It is planned, it is deliberate, and irreversible. Revolutionary change seeks to not just interrupt but disrupt, and is usually dramatic. Inventions should lean towards being revolutionary to really make an impact in the world.

The second part of the seminar was on Change Management and Leadership. Prof lead us in on a very interesting analogy, that is, comparing leaders, managers, and followers to eagles, ostriches and dodo birds.

Obviously leaders are like eagles, who have a vision and aim and possess a charismatic and powerful image. Leaders create paradigms and defines directions. Managers are like ostriches, but I do not exactly see the link to this. I would liken managers to be like mother hens instead, because of the way they manage and take care of their chicks. But anyway, managers do not give instructions, they implement objectives. According to Prof, they wait for the leaders to make a change, which is somewhat like ostriches who have their head in the ground most of the time. Last but not least, the dodo birds. The followers do not lead, they do not manage either. They wait for instructions, do not have aims or visions of their own….and will soon die out like the dodo birds. Simply saying, they follow others blindly and this results in a very sad state – extinction.

Generally speaking, it is important for a country be a leader in change management. A country who foresees change coming, prepares for the change in advance, deals with the change positively and lets change impacts it in a good way, will definitely hold its place as a “dominant star” in the world. I’m glad to say that Singapore’s government is mostly a leader in change management, as compared to the governments in Europe and America. The then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew foresaw that China and India would be the up and coming stars even before China started its astonishing state of growth, and made policies that would welcome this change and help Singapore retain its place in the world’s economy even with the rise of China and India. Prof mentioned that he didn’t think governments in Europe and America were prepared for their power to be taken over by China and India, and I agree with him. Look at America’s huge debt and the receding value of the Euro.

Prof also said that to manage change effectively, one has to FREEZE, then UNFREEZE, and then REFREEZE. In layman terms, it is basically knowing and setting your goals that you want to achieve and freezing it i.e, keeping it in mind. Then you have to unfreeze it, that is, reevaluating your goals to suit impending changes in the world, and then refreezing it again, working even harder with these new goals in mind.

I found Huiying’s article on the CIO’s role particularly interesting, because to be honest I have never came across such terms before. CIO – Chief Information Officer. CEO – Chief Executive Officer. An example of CIOs taking over CEOs’ role would be the company Tesco. These days, information and technology has became so important that CIOs are very much valued in a company. There are rising questions like “should a CIO report to his CEO now?”. Tech experts can help companies grow by using up and coming technology and they can help companies gather substantial profits. The CIOs of today are hailed to become the CEOs of tomorrow, but do they possess enough leadership skills? Not every tech guy around has the vision and skills to lead a company!

All in all, I’d rate this class a 8/10. I felt that I’ve learnt a lot, sometimes a little too much for my puny brain to handle. But it was an enlightening session, and it got me questioning on how change management relates to Singapore’s context. Despite what others say, I’m proud of Singapore’s government for turning Spore from a dormant star to a rising star that it is now. I hope with a new President and Parliament Singapore would continue to use the freeze unfreeze refreeze method and progress even more!

Session 3 of TWC

The lesson started off with a video called “The Story of Stuff”. I’ve watched the video several years back, but went home to take a second look after Prof showed it in class. The video talked about mindless Consumerism and how it was contributing to unsustainable development. It seems like corporations and industries have drilled into our heads that we HAVE to get the next big thing, otherwise we’d be missing out. In fact, I’ve once heard that some companies deliberately build their products with an expiry date, i.e, no matter how well you treat your current product, it’s bound to spoil within the next 2 years or so, leaving you no choice but to buy another one – thus contributing to the endless cycle of consumerism.

Prof mentioned the Great Pacific Garbage Patch during class. Being curious about how consumerism is affecting our environment adversely, I googled it up. I don’t know about you, but it stunned me.

The light blue thing above is a swirling mass of plastic and has ballooned up to twice the size of the continental US .

The above objects, so commonly seen in someone’s garbage bin, was found in an albatross’s STOMACH. 😥

We consume and consume and consume, buy iPhones after iPhones every year, without ever thinking about the consequences of our actions. I’ll admit, my iPhone hasn’t completed its lifespan, and I’m already planning to buy a Blackberry next year. I buy tons of plastic iPhone covers because one isn’t ever enough. I buy plastic coke bottles because they’re easier to carry around than the metal cans. I’m one of those mindless consumers who need a big slap in the cheek to wake up from their deep ignorant slumber. Until we know how our actions are impacting innocent people and animals, we would never stop this mindless consuming. And even if we knew, are we making the effort to put an end to this consuming cycle?

But it works, doesn’t it? If there wasn’t an endless cycle of consumerism, an economy would be rather stagnant – simply because no one is contributing to the “demand” part. Which begets the question – is there a trade off between being green and achieving growth?

I found the Integrated Policy Planning (IPP) for sustainable industrial development rather interesting. It shows how different parties can help in making development sustainable and was made by the European Commission back in 2006. My question is – has it worked?

In 2010, the news reported that new policies were needed  to reform the electricity market and home efficiency in order for the government to reach its carbon emissions goals. David Kennedy, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, said ” continuing to implement green measures at the pace seen in 2009 would mean “we won’t deliver the carbon budgets””.

Eliza mentioned during her presentation that “Consumer is king” – we can change our habits and make an impact. I agree, if everyone started doing their part to consume less, perhaps development could be sustainable! I think growth could go along with being green, BUT definitely not rapid growth. I’m sure an economy wouldn’t collapse if we decide to wait 2 years before getting a new iPhone.

The next part of the lesson was about technology and innovation management.

Prof showed us his own masterpiece, the Valley Summit and Cloud Model. Valleys represent opportunities which have low profit margins and low interest for investment, where else Summits represent the total opposite. Summit opportunities are technology and knowledge intensive and there is a high interest for investment. Cloud opportunities, like its name implies, are somewhat floating, not well developed and have “KIV interest”.

We should focus on “Summit” opportunities, very much like how Apple did. Fiona presented on Apple’s Steve Jobs, how he revolutionised the IT world, got everything right by doing things “wrongly”. Apple has indeed came a long way. Steve Jobs was an amazing visionary and went against the conventional rules of doing business. He made Apple products incompatible with other products, which is sort of like shutting out against investments, BUT Apple products are now today the preferred brand mainly because of its exclusivity. Steve Jobs never really did prior market research, and each product produced could have failed badly, but they never do. Like what a classmate mentioned in class before, he TELLS people what they need, and people do believe him. Apple never fails to improve itself with each comeback, and the iPhone 5 is now rumoured to have wireless synchronisation with iTunes! Apple just outdoes itself all the time, leaving competitors with no time/chance to catch up with their accelerated visions and plans.

I’m always amazed by them, because not only does Apple retain its “Valley” opportunities, it makes use of the “Cloud” opportunities available and comes up with something not thought or unheard of.

In essence, I’d rate this lesson a 8/10! TWC sometimes really feels like GP on steroids, but what we learn is so applicable to the real world so it’s not just mere fluff (unlike some other mods if I should say so). TWC also never fails to make me feel inadequate and ignorant about the world and technology, because with every lesson I realise there’s so much more to learn, so much more technology has to offer than what I currently know. Looking forward to the next lesson! :))))))