Session 3

My format for writing this entry will be different from my previous posts. I found it hard to give individual sections what they deserve as a few of my points overlapped. I will thus integrate my thoughts with the flow of the events so as not to make the entry feel disjointed and segregated.

This session covered technology and industrial development towards sustainability and technology and innovation matters. In the first half, we were shown why as a country becomes more developed, their industries shift their focus from before, treating every unprofitable cause as an externality to sustainable development. Essentially, unlike previously done, sustainability requires a shift from linear thinking to circular thinking. What do I mean? It means that unlike the old industrial model, which focuses just on economic development and not caring for the environment's well being, the new model of sustainable industries are economic development and environmental well being.

As we went through this portion of the class, a question formed in my head. The question was why had the industries and governments decide to adopt the sustainable industrial model? It was at this point when a self realisation occurred. The realisation stemmed from the thought of global warming. How the polar ice caps are melting and how sea levels are rising. Possibly in the next 20 years, all the low lying ares on earth would disappear from the map.

As I thought more, although global warming was one of the major reasons that the developed industries are shifting to being more environmentally sustainable, it was not the only reasons. Other reasons I could think of was also pollutants being disposed off into rivers and seas. Being so polluted, it could not support the life that lived in it before. Whole ecosystems would be destroyed. People would fall sick drinking the polluted water.

Other reasons too played a part, like the excessive burning of fossil fuels to fuel man's industrial ambitions, or the reckless felling of trees, plants and killing of animals to their extinction? Now we have realised this, was the only reason why we are taking all the initiatives for sustainability. But, are we already too late?

Prof then showed us a Youtube video of a woman, most probably an environmental activist, giving a condensed history of how industrailisation came to be. She showed that, for the sake of economic development, governments are metaphorically "bowing down" to big corporations to to fund their economy. As the corporations grew bigger, they became more greedy. So to quench their thirst for greed, more and more natural resources were used up until what is being left today, where we are starting to feel the effects of a world too fast and too greedy to get rich. The effects are the change and shift in weather patterns, more hurricanes, floods, barren land, a warmer world.

What has made the world into its present state? Its the whim and fancy of rich developed nations that has caused this. While they have developed economically, the rest of the world lagged behind. Now that they have realised the consequences of a world running out of resources, they are actively promoting more environmentally sustainable projects. But will it work? It is the doings of the western nations because of their greedy corporations that got we are where we are in the first place. In fact, the US uses far more resources than anyone around the world. Their consumption for natural resources is in fact sixty times more than the average chinese or indian.

The lesson explained that with sustainable development, a new industrial plan must be drawn out. Without the consideration of the natural world, and only caring about profits, the industrial plan then was first to extract the resources, process it, manufacture it, then market it,finally selling it. But with the new sustainable measures in place, quotas could be set on how much new resources are taken up, whether it would be possible to reuse the materials, or even better, make the products from previously used material. Essentially the new model is now circular, where industries take into account the environmental consequences, otherwise it will come back to bite you in the backside.

We then took a dive into the readings. The first reading was about the European Union's plans for industry development and environmental sustainability. The article elaborated on the measures taken to reduce the levels of pollutants in their industries and also to reduce the carbon footprint of their industries to help a suffering world. However I did notice that perhaps the EU has been too ambitious in their figures. Perhaps, whether they can reach their goals, only time will tell.

There was a question of since much of the world's resources have been used up, how then can developing countries develop into developed economies? Reading 2, as briefed through in the lesson showed that it was possible to get developed without first going through the process of industrialisation. To me this was an eye opener, but I knew that this was possible.

This is because, taken to a local context, I know for a fact that Singapore has no natural resources, and we are too weak to colonise new territories. But we developed our economy first to be skilled and ultimately developing a service economy where the fundamental force of driving out economy is knowledge. New niche sectors are popping up ever so frequently in the country that I so love. We are to the whole world, an impeccable finance industry, the forth largest in the world for forex trade, a rising star in biotech and R&D, the regions best health hub etc. We didn't need to go through a face of processing natural resources and industry, but rather we went through the stage of skilled labour and then now having a knowledge based economy.

Also elaborated was how other countries, who are not yet developed can build on their niches. Being underdeveloped, as I understand, that these countries would have a more pristine and undestroyed natural environment. Hence they could capitalise on this niche of theirs, to build it into a sustainable tourism industry, considering factors of overcrowding etc.

The 3rd article was about the business models of many major companies. After studying through it, the truth is that most business models are unsustainable. The challenge then I think for us is the question on whether we can create a model that is sustainable. I believe that the business model that is sustainable is indeed very possible.

This is because, although cost is a factor, where sustainable technologies are indeed more expensive, if companies are willing to spend more for environmental sustainability rather than on producing obscene profit amounts, the advantages will far outweigh their initial costs.

People who have already converted to being green, will buy their products, they will have a whole new market of followers. The not too obvious advantages would be that perhaps our climate will revert back to how it was previously, like in the last 20yrs. Its a long call but it may be possible. Perhaps a multi step approach will make the transition less painful, or in this case, costful. One could first introduce sustainability gradually embracing the concept, slowly implement products that are greener, first on the drawing board, then finally implementing it with wholesale production. Perhaps governments who introduce legislation for adoption for this green technology can quicken the transition for businesses to draw their own environmentally sustainable business plans.

An example of a company that has embraced a environmental sustainable model is that of apple computer. Apple inc has made all its products with 100% recyclable materials, with zero mercury. In fact, its computers are the gold standard for the tech industry for environmental sustainability. Perhaps that has already gotten them more a market share, as we can already see the conversion of people to using a Mac.

Indeed it is true that when one is poor(referring to countries) he does not overfish. He is contented. As he gets into the next level of wealth building, he does not stop, for he has tried the luxury, and cannot rests till he can afford it. He kills nature around him to make his keep. Finally as he has made enough, he has nothing more to want, he takes alook around, and he realises what atrocities he has done. He is repentant as he tries to stat anew to regrow what he has killed. This observation is a very powerful one as we are now seeing the same with the developed countries. How they legislate so much into conserving the environment and also setting goals to keep themselves motivated.

Developing countries cannot afford the expensive green technology but they too need to develop. They are reflections of what the developed countries have been in the past. Perhaps, for the survival of humankind, we have to cross boarders to help one another. Developed countries should share their knowhow on green technology, so that the developing countries can too achieve economic growth in the environmentally sustainable way.

The presentations given were about aquaponics fish farming, and Israel's green technology. The presentations were pretty insightful, esprecially about the green technology Israel is developing. The country is a leader in green techonology development in the middle east and the world. Alot of money is being poured in for research for the development the green technology. In fact it shocked me that Israel has the highest university graduates penetration percentage. Thus they have the skilled labour for research to innovate and create the new green technology to give them a cutting edge to be a leader in the world in this field.

After this was a break before the start of session 3b.

Session 3b talked about technology and innovation management. About how an idea formulates into a product for consumption in the mass market, and its challenges. The session first went through the process of doing "stuff"(taken from a poen by Tom Peters" Essencially, if we want to succeed, we have to keep doing things at the forefront of making people's lives more convinient and meaningful. We should not enter opportunities that others have already taken and made big, jumping on the bandwagon. We build ideas, and from these ideas try to turn them into products that have new market possibilities and not just reinterating and reproducing what other successful people have done. Once we have succeeded, others too will follow us, hence we need to think up more on newer ideas that are just as good. Perhaps we think up of new ideas that are too futuristic, we could shelve them, and perhaps return to them when the appropriate time comes.

We have to innovate and to create the product or service that can shape people's lives. However, even thought much input has gone into research and development and understanding new things, still, alot of innovation is needed. In reality, the application process for these research and development (due to lack of ideas) are dismal. Those who succeed will make it big. The rate of innovation is highly disappointing, as compared to the rate of our informantion gathering. Finally, if a good idea has gone through, it will be developed and then finally released to the market for retailers to sell. Here we learn that ideas, are actually the key to building an innovative product to meet the market demands.

Following from the development of ideas, it is noted that these ideas form from a technology driven or market driven perspective. This means that, for market driven, it is how a young entrepreneur, without much money, finds a solution for an existing problem in the mass market and creates a product to solve it. Whereas, in a technology driven perspective, it is the creation of an entirely revolutionary product, with the backing of sufficient funds to create a product that attracts people and give them value added advantages that was not previously attainable before. An easier way to explain that is by saying that before apple created the iPhone, no one knew they could not live without one.

I found that thought really enlightening. But, as for a young entrepreneur to succeed, he must not only find a problem, he too must devise a solution that is stable and marketable. This is very unlike the Big corporations, where they can afford to make new value added products, employing teams just to think about the creation of a new mass market product that would serve as value addedness to a person. As we observe, alot of products in our market today are technology driven. So the question is, can we actually create anything to compete, without even hindering us in the first place? I'd think not.

We observe that to innovate is not an easy thing. It is the development process, by which the idea is the most fundamental. To apply current knowledge into creating a new product that people would see that they need. However the process of getting a service or product into the market does not end there. After all the application of the research and development for a product, and the creation of it, one must market it to ensure people will buy it. Hence we see that this is a shift of focus, from the scientific to the social science of management and business. It is, perhaps a good question to ask then, has technology really driven world change? or perhaps its the successful implementation by the marketing and advertising gurus that really has driven world change in the modern world.

Rating: 7/10