Modern influences

"When do you consider yourself up-to-date? When you have the latest gadgets? Is that what you want, or what the world wants?"

Today's Lesson (Brief overview/summary)
Today we talked about the dominance of certain countries/organizations over the years, and how there has been a shift in dominance. Dominance is the influence an entity holds over others, in controlling the decisions that they make. To have that control, is one of the reasons why different countries develop at different rates.

However,
Being plentiful in raw materials does not necessarily mean you are the leader of that field. Look at Brunei as compared to Russia (oil)
Being the first to come up with the idea, does not mean you will be the fore-runner for that area of expertise. Look at Friendster as compared to Facebook (social networking websites)
This really caught my attention, what exactly makes them dominant? 


Reasons for dominance of certain organizations over others:
FIRSTLY, through the methods employed to become dominant.
Control (a direct hierarchical structure where decisions are made for the people, ie. communism) or Influence (freedom of choice).
In this day and age, we can safely say that communism is more or less, a thing of the past. People now have more choices than ever on how to live. Yet control need not be a direct order from someone higher up. It can be something much more subtle, like subliminal messages in commercials or through word of mouth from various friends. Because of this, we succumb to the daily peer pressure of checking our facebook accounts, being told what we need according to the latest world trends.


How free are we really?

The thin line between control and influence is being blurred every single day. Our intrinsic human desire to be accepted into society has us looking towards the latest global trends, to find out what is widely accepted as a social norm. This is what successful corporations play at in their advertising campaigns, their method of hooking in consumers. Today, the extent of an organization's dominance depends on not so much on "CREATING the next big thing", but more on "creating the next BIG thing".

SECONDLY, the underlying complications behind the type of products the organization produces.
Since today's lesson was geared towards development, we looked to new, innovative products rather than existing ones. They can be classified into either:
Technology-driven innovation (creativity propelled to newer heights through recent progress in technology) or Need-driven innovation (creativity used to fulfill unmet needs)

I learnt today that the main difference between technology-driven innovation versus need-driven innovation is the time taken for the widespread acceptance of the new technology. Why is this so? Need-driven innovation looks at existing products and tries to improve on the current design. On the other hand, technology-driven innovation really looks to pander to the future needs, to create its own unique niche market and basically think beyond its time.

Needless to say, it is easier for people to accept something which they are already comfortable with, than to accept something totally new. However, once a technologically-driven product gains dominance, it remains dominant for an extended period due to the lack of competitors (unique area of expertise).

Let me illustrate this with a flowchart as shown below:

This shows the difference in the long run between technology-driven innovation, as compared to need-driven innovation. Basically, there is a trigger in a turn of events that allows technology-driven innovation to progress at a exponentially faster rate as compared to need-driven innovation. That is how dominance affects the progress of technology in a big way.

Key take-away points:
1. Dominance is only temporary, it takes constant review of your product to maintain it.
2. Trends and fads change, that is why allocation of resources change as well. This is good as it fosters much more innovation in the technological field (technology-driven innovation)

We have all seen how dominant companies in the world have impacted world change. But I would have liked to analyze how long it would take before they lose their dominance. With all the new and emerging technologies that are springing up, who knows whether what is important now will be irrelevant in the future?

I would rate this session a 7 out of 10, for the in-depth analysis of the relationship between dominance and technology.

New Beginnings

 Technology is undeniably a big part in our everyday lives, be it traveling from place to place, to something as simple as just telling the time. Where would we be without technology today?

Today's Lesson (Brief overview/summary)

 RESEARCH, REPORT AND REGURGITATE

Those were my initial thoughts when I first bidded for the TWC course. Myself, I am not the biggest fan of embracing the latest technological trends such as the iPhone and Facebook. You could hardly blame me for having the Monday blues when i entered the class!

Surprisingly, my introduction into this new world, was not what i had imagined.

We started off with introductions throughout the class. It was a nice touch that helped to relieve some tension from the classroom.We watched a video entitled Shift Happens, and moved on to look at the looooooong timeline of technology, every single breakthrough from prehistoric times until now.

That was when it hit me. I had never given a second thought as to where it came from, had I?  Technology had always been there for me, ever since I was young till now. I basically took everything for granted. That is why, today being the first lesson, I feel it was only right that we delved into the history of technology, where the very basis of technology came about. Where would we be now, without having had the wheel invented? We should not only recognize the success that technology has brought us, but the efforts of the inventors before them.

However, the highlight of the session, for me, had to be when Professor Shahi showed us a video based upon the book Guns, Germs and Steel. It depicted the major imbalances across the world, and dug deep into the past to try and find the root causes of this said divide.

"What factors do you think resulted in this huge technological difference?"

Class discussion started and a few good points were pointed out.

Firstly, one classmate suggested that the transfer of knowledge and materials through the overseas  expeditions. This is something I find to be very true, as it might have led to an influx of new technologies that gave the Europeans an unfair advantage over others in development.  Whatever the Europeans lacked, they used barter trade to obtain it from other countries, trading sacks of barley for domesticated animals to help pull their ploughs. Any inventions they needed, they looked abroad to other countries and copied the designs, and brought them back to their home country. These cultural exchanges of entire countries took not the best materials and practices out of each country, but more importantly the most relevant to them at the time, what they needed to continue their progress in the technological chain. This ultimately manifested into their technological supremacy over the rest.

Secondly, it was brought up that there was a lack of writing in Papua New Guineans (PNGs) to express their own ideas to their own communities. I believe strongly that an idea starts off as being nothing more than thoughts and dreams of the future. It only can only be considered an invention, after rounds of refinement and tinkering with the initial prototype. How useful would it be to chop down a tree with a blunt axe? The idea of using a tool to help chop trees down is there, but it is just not efficient. This is where brainstorming comes in. Unfortunately, that is where PNGs fail at. Having no way to make notes on what the idea might be, there can be no input from their fellow tribesmen to help improve the idea. They themselves might even forget about the idea after awhile! They ended up only operating in their own comfort zones, and "killed" creativity and innovation at a time crucial for technological developments. This inability to express their ideas clearly, and communicate within their society ultimately led to a standstill in the technology front, regardless of how ingenious their people might be.

Key take-away points:
1. My view of technology has changed drastically.
2. Technology is not an entity by itself, it is the big driving factor behind major socio-economical changes.
3. Technological developments inherently imbue a snowball-effect, be it decades or centuries down the timeline.

(issues for further discussion) One issue which I would like to have seen discussed was the importance of the inventions created at that particular point of time.

I would rate this session a 9 out of 10, for the interesting and relevant use of materials (Youtube), along with the clear direction of lesson as well as class involvement in blogging and facebook. It has really piqued my thirst for knowledge and I cannot wait until the next lesson starts!

I think my stance as a luddite has changed for the better.