#3

Short summary of what was covered...



An interesting video was shown to us at the start of the lesson: The Story of Stuff.

The video was simple, yet creative with animations that keep it from bordering on boring. I have actually seen this video before numerous times but it never gets old. Although the speaker was a little cynical in my opinion, she covered some good facts about today's world that shows we're living in a world that prioritizes consumerism and how the world is losing its sustainability due to this.



cr: Dr Gurinder Shahi

The above picture was designed (using paint, but no less designed from scratch :D) and shown by prof. The valleys represent firms that do not innovate and basically stay in a 'safe' zone that depends on old principles and few investments. The summits represent firms that are intensive in the knowledge and technology zone, high investment, new principles and with few being able to compete at their level. Finally, the clouds represent something like an idea, something not yet developed but potential.

I thought this was a creative and relatively simple way to understand the dynamics of innovation and development.

Finally Prof introduced us to the RDA (research-development-application) process which gives us some useful insights into a framework of the innovation process, with development being the most important section.

The presenters for this week were: Eliza, Willius, Fiona and Keith.

The person that stood out most for me was Fiona. She presented on Steve Jobs and how he was innovative in developing Apple products. It was a fantastic presentation that gave us interesting insights into the man that Steve Jobs really is, and the idea that in order to be ahead, you have to do things differently. Steve Jobs, by doing everything that seemed wrong, has produced some of the best results that couldn't be more right.

Key takeaway points:

1. Sustainability vs. Growth; Sustainable growth?
Can we have both growth and greenness?
This question was raised in class after the video was shown and it sparked off some debate. In order to get even close to that goal, we would definitely need to consider our priorities. The ultimate priority since a long time has been growth, but it is good to know that the world is changing slowly. More 'green' products are being invented and released into the market, an encouraging sign that we are taking steps to sustain Earth.
However, in reality it is possible to have both of course, but not possible to have both at the maximum capacity, at least not for now.
Inevitably, green items are going to be more costly, and this is possibly the biggest barrier towards a greener society. We don't want to get a hybrid car for much higher than a normal one, not to mention the petrol costs, not to mention you can't just drop by any petrol station to fuel the cars. Companies are unlikely to lower prices either because ultimately, they still need profits and growth.
Therefore in my opinion, have to decide which is the priority because it is not possible to maximize both. There's an opportunity cost either way. And right now we aren't very close to that. For example, if they were serious about green cars, they'd set up more filling stations instead of having one in an inconvenient location, just as prof mentioned.

2. Innovation is essential.
As mentioned before, definitely innovation is essential to ensure that firms stay in the summit or at the clouds. The economy works in a way such that it's not possible for firms to stay at the top all the time. They can't always be at the summit or be a dominant player/rising star for a long time. Eventually the others would pick up and/or overtake.
With this in mind, I would like to touch on something that is relevant to this point. Recently, we see many tablets and a few Macbook 'Air' clones appearing in the market. The reality is that Apple had everything the other firms have, in equal. The edge that Apple had over the others was the brain, the inspiration and the innovation on the part of Steve Jobs and the rest of the firm. It is indeed true that all companies are capable of producing touch-screen technology and tablet PCs, but they just needed Apple to trigger the chain effect.
HP recently decided to drop out of the PC business and focus on software technology. There have been many who think that it's quite foolish for HP to branch out into something they are not specialized in, but HP could well be trying to remain ahead by trying something different, since they are classified as a falling star at the moment.
Who knows what breakthrough they could make?

“Life is pretty simple:
You do some stuff.
Most fails. Some works.
You do more of what works.
If it works big, others quickly copy it.
Then you do something else.

The trick is the doing something else.”

- Tom Peters -