Our professor kickstarted the session by posing a question to the class on the distinction between "Innovation" and "Invention". While these two ideas may seem the same to many, I have learnt that there is a clear though subtle difference between them. In fact, "Invention" is a subset of "Innovation", where innovation can be briefly defined as the process of coming up with new and novel things.
As shown in the diagram above, supposing that A denotes "Invention" and B denotes "Innovation"; we can clearly see how innovation encompasses both the need for invention (The generation of ideas as the first step in the process of leading into the transfer of a product into a market) and the need to actually introduce the product into the market. It is important to understand what innovation is as it plays a part in elevating societies, countries, companies, ideas etc. to a state of dominance, a concept that is closely related to this lesson's topic of "Technology, Society and Global dominance".
Next, we viewed a short (literally 7 minutes) video on "History of the world in 7 minutes". In my opinion, learning about the past is essential as we study this course because it acts as a starting point of where things originated from and where we will thus progress towards by making use of our roots to improve on what we have done right as well as correct our mistakes. It can be understood from the video how civilisations dominated and disappeared across different time periods. This brings us to the question that the professor raised on why some societies rise and fall? As seen from the clip, the rate of development that the world is undergoing is extremely remarkable as our progress accelerates at an increasing speed each time. This would mean that our knowledge and ideas are building very quickly, and civilisations that are unable to keep up with the progress and advancement of the era would thus be replaced by other more competitive civilisations. Could this possibly be the reason behind the evolution of societies and the constant shift in dominance? Feel free to comment if you feel that there are other explanations behind this phenomenon :)
Illustrated in the video are the rapid developments and advancement of mankind. What if we were to reverse this advancement and were asked to return to a world without technology? Are we able to do it? The answer would inevitably be no, simply because our lives have become so intertwined with the various forms of technology that having to live without it would be a torture to many. In a society like the one we are living in now, it would not be an exaggeration to claim that technology has dominated our lives.
Speaking of dominance, how do we build societies/ companies that are dominant leaders in their respective arenas? Countries such as Korea for example, have risen to become culturally dominant as the K-pop wave evolved from a regional development into a global phenomenon, which allowed the South Korean culture to expand tremendously. In other arenas like mobile technology, the shift in dominance has also been observed. While IBM used to possess a huge market share, it has lost its dominance since the rise of companies like Apple that has grown to be a global dominant leader in the market with its ability to reinvent and come up with new products and technology. How do we determine who becomes the dominant leader in a certain industry or civilisation then? This could possibly be attributed to the Organisational Behavioural Model that was gone through in class. Basically, the model consists of three tiers - The Rising Stars, The Falling Stars and The Dominant Player. The Rising Stars are those who are open to new ideas, are keen to learn and devote investments into development. Such are the group of people who are able to thrive in a competitive, progressive and ever-changing society. A nation that was hungry to learn and grasp new knowledge, Singapore was spurred to undergo industrialisation, a huge stepping stone that has aided its emergence as the number 1 city with the best investment potential. The Falling Stars, on the other hand, are made up of those who develop the mindset that they are the best players in the market and thus close their doors to others in the belief that they do not require external help from anyone else. Europe is one grand example of a falling star bearing the mentality that they had all the answers, while cost competitive countries such as China and innovation giants like Japan are steadily climbing to the top and outshining Europe's rate of advancement. The Dominant Player is the one that sets the rules and controls the field with its primary authority and influence. I agree with the professor that often, the best are the ones that are dominant leaders in their own sectors and yet still crave to be a rising star. On the contrary, stagnant societies that are unwilling to make a change, improve and innovate will be rendered as a falling star with their closed mindset. This points to a key message on how we should shape our society - To be the best without being blinded by our superiority in order to possess the drive for even better developments and thus, maintaining our position of dominance.
We also did a review of a few readings, "Colonial Holocaust" and "Innovation in Reset World". Personally, the Colonial Holocaust felt like a twist to the original perception that we had of Columbus and was rather an interesting albeit shocking read. With the alternative viewpoint offered, I have learnt that different experiences contribute to the different opinions that people formulate. For example, whether colonialism was beneficial or detrimental largely depended on whether you shared the experience being part of the "marginalised" or the "elites". While the marginalised that constituted the majority suffered under the hands of western colonialism (disempowered and abused into slavery, cheap labour and prostitution), the elites viewed colonialism as an opportunity for their introduction and subsequent expansion into the global playground. Colonialism and the desire for societies to advance and expand regardless of the consequences on other cultures, peoples and civilisations point to the key concept of mankind trying to dominate over each other. This is not only witnessed in colonialism and territorial wars that were rampant in human history but it is also extended to our modern society, where competition and domination are observable in schools, in the workforce and even between countries. How then can we change this? Really, it all depends on the players in the field, which is us. Colonialism for example, was a choice. Yet, it is hard to change the mindset of wanting to dominate especially as more and more rising stars are emerging worldwide. We are competitive, we all want to be the best, we all want to get on the top rungs of society and for many, this is the path of pursuit even if it is at the expense of others. Thus, change might be elusive in a society like ours in addition to the competitive nature of mankind.
"Innovation in Reset World" was an exceptionally educational piece of reading in my opinion as I really agree with the idea of the 3 boxes, namely 1. managing the present 2. selectively forgetting the past and 3. creating the future. I felt these three steps were an accurate depiction of what we should do to continuously remain relevant in a transitory world that shifts quickly from the present into the future. A key message to be taken away from this article is the fact that while mankind is often caught up with generating new ways to tackle the present challenges, this is still a rather myopic view in light of the evolutionary nature of the world. To survive and even develop into a cutting-edge quality, we need to invent and innovate to create products that can still be marketable in the future. However to fulfill box 3, we will first need to undergo box 2, where old practices and legacies should be forgotten to welcome new ones that will be compatible to the future. In addition, I feel that it is not just important to transfer and implant the good results harnessed from the previous product into the new innovation but it is also vital for us to learn and remember the mistakes committed to prevent their repetition in the future product. One question that was raised in class that I felt did not have enough screen time but should have been discussed more was "If you are a company that is going to be broke, what should you do? Can you still afford to focus on boxes 2 and 3 when you will be so preoccupied with box 1?" This question, in my opinion, is very applicable to the larger context of the world today. In a war-torn country like Syria that has trouble even feeding its current population, would it be wise for the government to divert resources from feeding the hungry to research and development? While we can claim that for societies/ companies that are not doing well, these steps must be done hand in hand where we should focus on saving the situation to ensure short term survival as well as make developments for long run sustainment; but stepping into the shoes of those facing a critical situation, this idea might not work after all as people are likely to plunge their focus into saving their institution and might thus lack the funds to engage in subsequent innovation. As a result, would this cause the further backwardness of the society relative to a flourishing society that has the excess funds to spend on investment and development? How then do we solve this widening gap? These are the questions I felt were unanswered during the session, possibly due to the lack of time.
2B
After viewing some presentations from my peers in class, we moved on to the next part of the session that covered "Technology and Human Development". The world is constantly changing because of developments yet ironically, developments also drive change (social, economic, cultural, industrial, sustainable etc.). This close relation between development and change is also why development can be generally defined as a change in the positive direction or progress in other words. (Although there is also a possibility of a negative development where change moves in the negative direction)
How then do we measure human development considering that it seems intangible? Through the Human Development Index (HDI)! As some of us might have learnt in economics previously, HDI is a gross measure that makes use of Health, Income and Education to tabulate the results. Breaking down this index, we can then learn how to help an individual develop and maximise his/her potential. Health needs include that of health and sanitation where clean drinking water and a sanitary environment are in fact amongst one of the most important things for human development. In addition, sustainable sources of food that are healthy and nutritional are also essential. Our income needs include sufficient job opportunities that can provide more employment for the people, as well adequate training of the workforce to ensure that they can apply for better and more well-paid jobs. This can translate into higher income, economic growth and as a result a higher material standard of living for the citizens of a country, that contributes immensely to human development. Lastly, education needs include a well-trained pool of teachers, opportunities for skills development (to expand into areas such as nanotechnology) and the proper infrastructure to facilitate learning. With this knowledge equipped, we can now better measure human development :)
Making reference to the "Colonial Holocaust" covered in the above section, advocates of colonialism would find themselves wrong about the "beneficial impact" that colonialism had on the societies of territories that were conquered. In fact, from the session, I learnt that those under the colonial rule did not become healthy and wealthy as the people were dictated by the (selfish) agendas of others that often only serve the colonial masters themselves and were not catered for the locals to reap benefits. On the other hand, decolonised nations had the freedom to harness resources for growth. This brings us to another key message that can be conveyed from both sessions 2A and 2B that for humans to develop, they should be offered the freedom and space to grow and innovate in a way that not only enables one to survive in present circumstances but ensures our continuous relevance in future contexts, in which this can be done when we bear the rising star mentality to seek greater improvements even as we flourish and emerge as a dominant leader in the industry (or even as we attain global dominance). This is what drives the evolution of mankind as we make revolutionary discoveries in the process of invention and innovation.
This has been a lengthy post! There was just so much to absorb and learn from the class and the professor :) I would rate this informative lesson a 9/10. I also really enjoyed the presentations by my classmates, great job to all of you who presented :D
Have a great weekend,
Glenda
Speaking of dominance, how do we build societies/ companies that are dominant leaders in their respective arenas? Countries such as Korea for example, have risen to become culturally dominant as the K-pop wave evolved from a regional development into a global phenomenon, which allowed the South Korean culture to expand tremendously. In other arenas like mobile technology, the shift in dominance has also been observed. While IBM used to possess a huge market share, it has lost its dominance since the rise of companies like Apple that has grown to be a global dominant leader in the market with its ability to reinvent and come up with new products and technology. How do we determine who becomes the dominant leader in a certain industry or civilisation then? This could possibly be attributed to the Organisational Behavioural Model that was gone through in class. Basically, the model consists of three tiers - The Rising Stars, The Falling Stars and The Dominant Player. The Rising Stars are those who are open to new ideas, are keen to learn and devote investments into development. Such are the group of people who are able to thrive in a competitive, progressive and ever-changing society. A nation that was hungry to learn and grasp new knowledge, Singapore was spurred to undergo industrialisation, a huge stepping stone that has aided its emergence as the number 1 city with the best investment potential. The Falling Stars, on the other hand, are made up of those who develop the mindset that they are the best players in the market and thus close their doors to others in the belief that they do not require external help from anyone else. Europe is one grand example of a falling star bearing the mentality that they had all the answers, while cost competitive countries such as China and innovation giants like Japan are steadily climbing to the top and outshining Europe's rate of advancement. The Dominant Player is the one that sets the rules and controls the field with its primary authority and influence. I agree with the professor that often, the best are the ones that are dominant leaders in their own sectors and yet still crave to be a rising star. On the contrary, stagnant societies that are unwilling to make a change, improve and innovate will be rendered as a falling star with their closed mindset. This points to a key message on how we should shape our society - To be the best without being blinded by our superiority in order to possess the drive for even better developments and thus, maintaining our position of dominance.
We also did a review of a few readings, "Colonial Holocaust" and "Innovation in Reset World". Personally, the Colonial Holocaust felt like a twist to the original perception that we had of Columbus and was rather an interesting albeit shocking read. With the alternative viewpoint offered, I have learnt that different experiences contribute to the different opinions that people formulate. For example, whether colonialism was beneficial or detrimental largely depended on whether you shared the experience being part of the "marginalised" or the "elites". While the marginalised that constituted the majority suffered under the hands of western colonialism (disempowered and abused into slavery, cheap labour and prostitution), the elites viewed colonialism as an opportunity for their introduction and subsequent expansion into the global playground. Colonialism and the desire for societies to advance and expand regardless of the consequences on other cultures, peoples and civilisations point to the key concept of mankind trying to dominate over each other. This is not only witnessed in colonialism and territorial wars that were rampant in human history but it is also extended to our modern society, where competition and domination are observable in schools, in the workforce and even between countries. How then can we change this? Really, it all depends on the players in the field, which is us. Colonialism for example, was a choice. Yet, it is hard to change the mindset of wanting to dominate especially as more and more rising stars are emerging worldwide. We are competitive, we all want to be the best, we all want to get on the top rungs of society and for many, this is the path of pursuit even if it is at the expense of others. Thus, change might be elusive in a society like ours in addition to the competitive nature of mankind.
"Innovation in Reset World" was an exceptionally educational piece of reading in my opinion as I really agree with the idea of the 3 boxes, namely 1. managing the present 2. selectively forgetting the past and 3. creating the future. I felt these three steps were an accurate depiction of what we should do to continuously remain relevant in a transitory world that shifts quickly from the present into the future. A key message to be taken away from this article is the fact that while mankind is often caught up with generating new ways to tackle the present challenges, this is still a rather myopic view in light of the evolutionary nature of the world. To survive and even develop into a cutting-edge quality, we need to invent and innovate to create products that can still be marketable in the future. However to fulfill box 3, we will first need to undergo box 2, where old practices and legacies should be forgotten to welcome new ones that will be compatible to the future. In addition, I feel that it is not just important to transfer and implant the good results harnessed from the previous product into the new innovation but it is also vital for us to learn and remember the mistakes committed to prevent their repetition in the future product. One question that was raised in class that I felt did not have enough screen time but should have been discussed more was "If you are a company that is going to be broke, what should you do? Can you still afford to focus on boxes 2 and 3 when you will be so preoccupied with box 1?" This question, in my opinion, is very applicable to the larger context of the world today. In a war-torn country like Syria that has trouble even feeding its current population, would it be wise for the government to divert resources from feeding the hungry to research and development? While we can claim that for societies/ companies that are not doing well, these steps must be done hand in hand where we should focus on saving the situation to ensure short term survival as well as make developments for long run sustainment; but stepping into the shoes of those facing a critical situation, this idea might not work after all as people are likely to plunge their focus into saving their institution and might thus lack the funds to engage in subsequent innovation. As a result, would this cause the further backwardness of the society relative to a flourishing society that has the excess funds to spend on investment and development? How then do we solve this widening gap? These are the questions I felt were unanswered during the session, possibly due to the lack of time.
2B
After viewing some presentations from my peers in class, we moved on to the next part of the session that covered "Technology and Human Development". The world is constantly changing because of developments yet ironically, developments also drive change (social, economic, cultural, industrial, sustainable etc.). This close relation between development and change is also why development can be generally defined as a change in the positive direction or progress in other words. (Although there is also a possibility of a negative development where change moves in the negative direction)
How then do we measure human development considering that it seems intangible? Through the Human Development Index (HDI)! As some of us might have learnt in economics previously, HDI is a gross measure that makes use of Health, Income and Education to tabulate the results. Breaking down this index, we can then learn how to help an individual develop and maximise his/her potential. Health needs include that of health and sanitation where clean drinking water and a sanitary environment are in fact amongst one of the most important things for human development. In addition, sustainable sources of food that are healthy and nutritional are also essential. Our income needs include sufficient job opportunities that can provide more employment for the people, as well adequate training of the workforce to ensure that they can apply for better and more well-paid jobs. This can translate into higher income, economic growth and as a result a higher material standard of living for the citizens of a country, that contributes immensely to human development. Lastly, education needs include a well-trained pool of teachers, opportunities for skills development (to expand into areas such as nanotechnology) and the proper infrastructure to facilitate learning. With this knowledge equipped, we can now better measure human development :)
Making reference to the "Colonial Holocaust" covered in the above section, advocates of colonialism would find themselves wrong about the "beneficial impact" that colonialism had on the societies of territories that were conquered. In fact, from the session, I learnt that those under the colonial rule did not become healthy and wealthy as the people were dictated by the (selfish) agendas of others that often only serve the colonial masters themselves and were not catered for the locals to reap benefits. On the other hand, decolonised nations had the freedom to harness resources for growth. This brings us to another key message that can be conveyed from both sessions 2A and 2B that for humans to develop, they should be offered the freedom and space to grow and innovate in a way that not only enables one to survive in present circumstances but ensures our continuous relevance in future contexts, in which this can be done when we bear the rising star mentality to seek greater improvements even as we flourish and emerge as a dominant leader in the industry (or even as we attain global dominance). This is what drives the evolution of mankind as we make revolutionary discoveries in the process of invention and innovation.
This has been a lengthy post! There was just so much to absorb and learn from the class and the professor :) I would rate this informative lesson a 9/10. I also really enjoyed the presentations by my classmates, great job to all of you who presented :D
Have a great weekend,
Glenda
