As a lead-in to the topic we are covering for this part of the session on Technology and Industrial Development: Toward Sustainability, we learnt the importance of industrialisation as the road to development for most countries. The idea of "most countries" and not "all countries" brings us back to Yali's question in Guns, Germs and Steel on why there are differences between the rates of development of different countries and how we should go about solving them. I feel that this lesson provides us with some insight into the question that Jared Diamond had failed to answer, as will be explored later in my discussion of the areas covered in class today!
Industrial development is necessary to ensure that our processes remain relevant in the ever-changing present and can even be sustainable in the future. Previously, mankind has utilised a traditional linear approach to industrialisation - Manufacture, keep the product and dump the waste. This might be a functional process in the past as the amount of human activity back when industrialisation was a newly introduced concept was considerably small and thus, Earth could easily absorb the waste disposed without significantly negative repercussions. However, as human activity ballooned along with time, our actions have started to take a toll on Mother Nature. Pollution in all its different forms has resulted in a very large impact on the atmosphere. This is alarming because the atmosphere is an integral part in what makes the Earth livable. Among many uses, the atmosphere blocks the Sun's harmful rays from penetrating Earth and if we are not careful, we will not only destroy Earth but ourselves too as these dangerous rays can cause skin cancer and eye damage. While the homeostatic mechanism as brought up by our professor can aid the Earth in correcting itself and compensating for disruptive changes, the consistently increasing stress we place on it over time will ultimately break down the ability for Earth to maintain a positive equilibrium. As a matter of fact, if everyone consumes as much as the US does (using 30% of the world's resources), we will find ourselves requiring 4 to 5 planets to cope with the excessive stress exerted on Earth. The unfortunate truth is we only have one. It is important to realise that there is a limit to everything, even something as expansive and seemingly formidable as Earth is. Hence, this calls for a change in our industrialisation patterns: A move towards a cyclical approach as a form of industrial development for a sustainable planet. This new approach recognises the potential damage we can bring to nature if we carelessly dump waste from manufactured products, such as the toxic material and chemicals used, that can severely contaminate the environment. Apart from discouraging thoughtless dumping of waste used in the old linear model, the cyclical approach promotes sustainable industrial development for the future. It creates opportunities for innovation and opportunities to bring about change. For example, our old practice of disposing products like diapers might require a change for a more sustainable future as diapers take up to thousands of years to degrade when disposed in landfills. They release greenhouse gases and contribute to global climate change. Other than environmental damage, diapers also contain toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and dipentene, which are known as volatile organic chemicals that are linked to adverse effects on humans with long-term exposure. Thus, with sustainable values in mind, we might be driven to seek a change and innovate an alternative product that will be healthy both to the environment and to mankind.
After going through the various models for industrialisation, we moved on to watch an interestingly animated video on the "Story of stuff". Despite only watching the first 5 minutes of the 20 minutes long video clip, I have picked up several important messages from it. The first being that we cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely. This is closely related to the idea of limits as mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is a limited amount of space that we can continue to throw our waste into, there is a limit to the tolerance level of our environment to accepting the pollutants we emit as a byproduct of our industrial and commercial processes, there is a limit even to how much we can extract from the Earth's surface before all our natural resources are one day sucked dry. We need to change our mentality that there is "still a long way to go" because if everyone thinks this way and everyone takes more and more from the Earth, the day when our future generation will be born into a barren planet, emptied of resources but covered with waste and to top it off, a damaged atmosphere that makes living on Earth impossible; will come in no time. Another message that can be taken away from the video is the fact that the Third World countries are increasingly being pulled into the chain of environmental damage as consumption giants like the US attempt to find solutions to the decline in resources within their own countries by robbing other countries of theirs, extracting and exploiting and damaging in the same way that was done back in their home country. This signifies a spread in the damage of the planet that is originally concentrated in one part of the Earth to other parts too. Our materialism and greed has contributed to environmental damage and it is time to gather both developed and developing nations to make a change. The last takeaway message is that as long as we continue to put toxics into our industrial production systems, we will keep getting toxics in the manufactured products and such toxins not only harm the environment but affect our body systems too. For us and for the environment, we should move towards sustainability especially as we live in a finite planet.
Next, we went through some of the assigned readings in class. The first reading that we did was on the "Environment fact sheet: industrial development". In the discussion we had in class, it was suggested that traditional industrial processes are no longer relevant to us now and there is a need for new industrial processes that has thus resulted in industrial development. It is ironic that while US is among the top few countries that extracts the most out of Earth's resources, it is also at the forefront of sustainable development in areas like renewable energy for example and in ensuring that sustainable processes are done correctly. However, information gained in America and Europe is not enough. As we undergo industrial development and successfully innovate to come up with new products or more efficient processes, it is essential that we take such technologies and transfer to poorer countries so that they possess the skills and technology too. This reduces the inequality between countries as information and processes are shared, which I feel is the answer to Yali's question on how we should close the gap between the developed and the less developed countries. Moreover, as more manufacturing processes are transferred to developing countries like the Third World which has been used by richer nations as their primary production base, it is even more crucial that the information on the appropriate and sustainable way that processes should be done is spread to them since any errors on their side will lead to an impact on the global environment. Hence, there is definitely a need to be concerned with Yali's question over the inequality as we learn to extend the necessary information on sustainable technology and processes to developing countries too. It is a rather informative summary document of what is right and wrong and what needs to be changed. It also urges us to translate traditional processes that result in externalities into sustainable processes that internalise the costs on third parties like the environment. The takeaway message here is that there is a fundamental need for people to change their mindset about externalities and start taking responsibility for their actions.
In reading 2 on "Industrialisation as an engine of growth in developing countries", it is understood that without industrialisation, we will not have development since industrialisation is an intrinsic part in transforming poor agrarian countries to wealthy ones. When a country is first in developing, it tends to take all the innovations and ideas and stand to benefit from that. However, they are also the ones that are made to bear the risks and deal with problems not encountered before with little or nothing to take reference from. These will contribute to the advantages of backwardness that the working paper has pointed out. The countries that are less advanced do not have to reinvent to produce new technology but simply adapt from existing ones, which is cost effective and time saving since they do not have to pay for R&D and defects or have to waste time going through failed processes before coming up with the successful product ready for marketing and sales. This tells us that while countries that innovate later start off with a lower base, they eventually rise with the advantage if they have the right connections and technologies. After all, mankind are copycats. We copy, imitate, borrow ideas, learn from them, adapt and make the information we have into something newer, cheaper and faster; and because we can master this skill so well, we are not in a disadvantageous situation even if we are not the first to come up with a product. Such adaptation of course has both sides to it. We can either be optimistic and see it as a positive and rapid dissemination of new ideas or be negative about it and scorn such acts of imitation as infringing on copyright and preventing the initial creator from maximising on his/her potential. It all depends on perspective and whether we belong to the camps of "the creator" or "the modifier". One real life example of a less-advanced country benefitting from its backwardness is Africa where despite it just beginning its road of industrialisation, it is still one of the fastest in the world in terms of economic growth. Reasons contributing to this phenomenon could be due to the country's new realisation that civil war does not pay (both in the short run and long run) and thus, has dealt with it and began catching up in its rate of development instead. The 10-15% economic growth clocked in by Africa exemplifies how with the right economic policies and infrastructure, even developing nations can rise and grow at a fast pace. This is another solution to Yali's question on the way to solve the inequality between advanced and less advanced countries. It is interesting to note that Africa attributes its economic growth to its traditional African values just as Asians emphasize on culture as an explanation for their growth. Perhaps, another message to be taken away from this article is that all countries will ultimately undergo fairly similar processes to develop and rise and this is comforting for the less developed nations as it provides them a glimpse of hope that as long as the country can determine what kind of development and industry they want (value-added? manufacturing?) and apply the processes, it is likely they can lift their countries out of economic impoverishment and backwardness and emerge as a growing economy too. Singapore is one such industry that has turned itself into a value-added industry with emphasis on electronics and other value-added products as well as skills enhancement.
Reading 3 provides a business case on sustainability with its article on "Sustainability for tomorrow's consumer". It is found that increasingly, businesses have realised that it is to their best interests to promote sustainability. This deviates from their past perception of sustainability where many companies have previously scoffed at it. This new interest in sustainability could be attributed to businesses wanting to build a positive perception in the eyes of the public (who will view them as a good corporation with clean and green technology and therefore be supportive of their company's efforts and products) and the government (who will lend support and provide funding to green companies). Our professor conducted a small poll in class on how much more we were willing to pay for a completely sustainable computer as compared to a contaminating computer that costs $1000. The results of the poll showed that our class was only willing to pay 5% more for greener technology where the higher the price ($1075 compared to $1050), the lesser the number of people willing to pay. This highlights the fact that people generally are price sensitive, a concept that economics students would have learnt that as prices increase, the willingness and ability of consumers to pay for the good will be reduced and as a result, quantity demanded for the greener and sustainable product will fall. It is also possible that the poorer you are with lower purchasing power, the less interested you will be in upholding a sustainable environment as it is likely that you will want to use the least possible amount of money to purchase a good or service and will not be willing to pay more for a similar but environmentally sustainable product when you are already tight on cash. However, this is the wrong mindset to have as everyone should take responsibility for the issue on sustainability and all of us, rich or poor, have a part to play in sustainable development. It is prudent to remember that the planet is shared and so will the burden of sustaining it be. The problem arises when consumers are short-sighted and tend to focus on the short-term costs rather than the potential benefits in the long run. Let's take the example of the energy-saving lamp for example. It is a costly product with low demand because buyers place their myopic focus on the short-term expenses of purchasing a more expensive energy-saving device rather than on the benefits of cost efficiency, higher sustainability and friendliness to the environment that can all be reaped in the long term. A key message that can be taken away is how important a role each and every individual play in efforts towards sustainability. In Singapore for example, as people became aware of the importance of sustainability and asked for renewable energy, the government was thus spurred to look into alternative sources of energy. The government alone does not have incentive to subsidise sustainable products because of the higher cost of production involved. However, if the people are proactive about sustainable development, so will the government in a bid to appeal and cater to the public's requests.
3B
The next half of the session was on Technology and Innovation Management. We were introduced to the Research-Development-Application (R-D-A) Translation Process, a three step process that is used to respond to market needs.
1. Research: This is the step where we can fantasize all we want about possibilities and bask in the creativity of looking at things in completely different ways just like Albert Einstein did when he combined things together to make something interesting and novel. Our experimentation contributes to new insights and understanding on how things can be done in a new and different way and this serves as constructive research in the eventual innovation.
2. Development: This is the bridge between research and application when we attempt to translate these new ideas, insights and understanding into reality and test out their practicality in application (For example, the receptiveness of the product in the market according to market circumstances like if the economy happen to meet with a Financial Crisis, people are unlikely to be willing and able to spend on luxury products and hence, we need to develop a product that will suit the economic situation.)
3. Application: This is the final step of the process and is the reality where the ideas, products and technologies are now sold to markets, corporations and enterprises.
We also learnt about the value creation pipeline, which I found interesting. Invention is the first creative step with coming up with something new that will become your concept. The next step is technology validation in which the idea put forth has to be proven to be able to be translated into reality (that the concept works and is able to be utilised in the new product). Following this is the need for "productivisation"where the product is developed, tested and further improved before it undergoes business case validation that demonstrates how business plan can be taken to the market. Before finally introducing the product into the market, ways of regulating the product has to be decided on. For example, if the product is a drug, it has to be decided whether the drug can be found in any drugstore or has to be regulated by the doctor before purchase in which case only a limited number of people will have access to the product. The first two steps rely on science and technology before subsequently relying on business and marketing to create the rapid growth that we see in the pipeline. I also understood from the study of this model that there is a higher chance of success and a lower chance of risk as we move along the pipeline.
We also covered some readings in the latter part of the session. The first reading on "U.S. Technology and Innovation Policies: Lessons For Climate Change" is based on the viewpoint of the US government. As discussed in class, there are two main points to be remembered from this article. The first is that the technological innovation process is huge and the second is that the US government realised that spending on R&D is insufficient as public and private partnership needs to be drawn in to work hand in hand with government efforts. A three-way collaboration between the government, public and private firms is thus required to promote innovation in the country.
The next reading is on "Human Development Report 2001", where it is known that certain countries fare better than others in technological achievements/advancements. Through the Report, I was introduced to the concept of technology hubs that are either legendary such that there is a congruence of people with ideas and venture capitals (e.g. US that has a grand total of 13 hubs, UK with 4 hubs and Germany with 3 hubs) or those that are trying hard to achieve but reap little or no results (e.g. Singapore with only 1 hub). Here, Yali's question can be brought back into the context as we question the different rates of development of technology hubs around the world. Why do some countries like the US have so many while Singapore can only achieve one? Why are there marginalised countries like Nicaragua and Pakistan that have no hubs at all? Could political stability play a part? Could government policies be preventing countries like Ethiopia from building a hub of its own due to the lack of Internet penetration there? Statistically, less than 1% of the population there has Internet access. If the Ethiopian government invested in bringing Internet to the people, could this open them up to more opportunities to grow a technology hub?
The last reading we discussed is that on "The Biobusiness Landscape: The Importance Of Innovation And Value Creation". The concept of valley-summit landscape was introduced, with the valley being the environment that has many competitors, low barriers to entry, low interest for investment and low margins whereas the summit is an environment with high investment, high barriers to entry, high returns opportunities and have value-added products and services. Naturally, we will aim to be in the summit. Same goes for businesses and corporations. Since the summit is knowledge and invention-intensive, players in the summit have to keep innovating in order to remain at the top and this would mean a certain level of R&D to prevent them from falling into the valley. Apart from the valley-summit landscape that deals with the old and new economic principles respectively, there are also cloud opportunities that are future opportunities in which the business models are not sufficiently developed yet. In an era of "copycats", where you are just one of multiple players in the industry, innovation is an essential process that allows one to venture into different areas and be a step ahead of others. There are many different ways to get to the summit: 1. Cloud to summit (e.g. When a new cure is discovered for HIV) 2. Valley to summit (e.g. When a company begins to brand itself differently and uniquely while simultaneously denying another company of rights to the their product through copyright acts. This can be seen in the example of Apple that upon finding themselves in doldrums, reinvented to harness themselves to the summit) The cream of the crop in this case would be those at the summit level with entrepreneurship, resources and technologies put together and yet have aspiring business plans and new ideas that serve as cloud opportunities.
To answer the professor's question on whether innovation should be technology-driven or market-driven? It is wise to select based on the amount of resources and funds you possess. For one with sufficient and even excessive funds, it will be an investment in the future to enter technology-driven innovation where people with different specialisations are put together to create a product that might or might not serve the market. Products that are a result of such innovations are usually categorised under what "people don't know that they need it until they see it". Sony Walkman is a classic example where people got curious and excited with the creativity and ingenuity of the product when it was launched and this resulted in a huge sales of the product. The same goes for a smartphone when it was first brought into the market. Market-driven innovation, on the other hand, is what the market exactly needs. This is especially useful for innovators that do not have excess funds and thus would want to make as much money as they can without suffering much cost. Such would be categorised as products "people know they need and will buy when they see it". A key takeaway message is the need of a fusion of the 4 "SMARTS" - 1. Smart manpower 2. Smart ideas 3. Smart money (Investors coming in at the right time in the right places) 4. Smart alliances, connections and partnerships (Connections are important since good business/market partnerships are needed to ensure that the product can enter the market easily and quickly).
In conclusion, this lesson has been a really informative one that has really provided me with a better understanding of both technology and industrial development as well as technology and innovation management. Judging from the amount of things to write and reflect, the class has been a 3h 15 mins well spent soaking up the information taught to us by the professor! I would rate this lesson a 9/10. In addition, I also appreciate those who gave us their time and presented on the various topics in class today. Really good job :)
Cheers,
Glenda
No comments:
Post a Comment