Several articles from week two’s
readings reference the influx of “disruptive” technologies across many fields
and disciplines that not only alter the way in which people live and work, but
also have tremendous capacity for social benefit. For example, the McKinsey Global
Institute’s report highlights twelve examples of disruptive technologies, from mobile internet to robotics, that are drivers of significant economic transformation. The report
estimates the potential economic impact will be between $14 trillion and $33
trillion a year in 2025. Although the report
clarifies that these numbers are neither predictive nor comprehensive, they still
shows the massive potential that can be harnessed from technology to reshape the world as we know it. But from the “relentless parade of new
technologies” as the report describes, how does the McKinsey Global Institute
only identify these twelve technologies? And although it may provide economic
benefit, what if it has a negative environmental impact? Which is more important?
As technology and innovation
develop quickly and at a rapid pace, it becomes more difficult to determine with certainty which of these “disruptions” provide opportunity, and which pose risks or threats to society,
individuals and certain cultures. This is a problem that many
policymakers and governments face as they attempt to develop rules and
regulations that both recognize the benefits and mitigate the risks of
disruptive technologies. The McKinsey
Global Institute addresses this challenge in their report by suggesting that
policymakers think beyond the immediate benefits and toward the future in
order to identify which technologies actually matter and prepare accordingly
for their impact. The report warns that if policymakers and government leaders
wait until these technologies are exerting their full influence, it will be too
late to capture the benefits or react to the consequences.
Although the report offers
guidelines to help policymakers be more forward-thinking in their approach to disruptive technologies, there still remains a significant amount of ambiguity that leave many governments feeling as if they are entering an unknown territory. How can these policymakers prepare accordingly for the impact of disruptive technologies when the impact of some remain relatively unknown or difficult to measure? Just as these technologies are changing the status quo and the
way we think about the world, can shifting the way we think about policy help address these new challenges?
Another concept introduced in
week two is this idea of design thinking for social innovation. Design thinking deviates from conventional problem solving
techniques by offering a non-linear, human centered process of continual
progress to provide innovative and sustainable solutions to many social
problems. Billed as a “new approach to creating solutions," the design thinking process is what has allowed many of these new,
innovative technologies to surface. This technique allow us to
re-orient the way we participate in the world around us, much like these
disruptive technologies. Can design thinking help policymakers face challenges
related to rapid technological innovation? Or, alternatively, how can design
thinking be applied to government policy-making to keep pace with future
innovations and disruptive technologies? Are there governments out there that
are already putting these techniques to use?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.