Business: An Annotated Bibliography

Thesis: Similar to industrial revolution in the nineteenth century, the current digital revolution appears to be closing doors, but in reality, is creating a net increase in economic opportunities.


Further Reading:

Collins, David & Mike Ryan (The Strategic Implications of Technology on Job Loss. CBS Business Library, 2007) This article very closely mirrors the argument that we are setting forth in our chapter. It argues that technology will create job loss, but there will be opportunities for reallocation of jobs across the economy. Furthermore, firms willing to adapt can turn a difficult situation in to an opportunity for improvement. [I found this article in an attempt to find arguments that technology is damaging to the economy because it creates job loss, but I ended finding this and found it very applicable.]

Evans, Nicholas (Business Innovation and Disruptive Technology. London: Financial Times Press, 2002)  This book discusses methods and strategies to take full advantage of disruptive innovation to gain a competitive advantage in the workplace. This is very applicable to our exploration of the effects of technology on the average individual, and how those individuals can adapt. [Found on Google Books]

Phaal, Robert & Clare Farrukh & David Probert (Technology Roadmapping--A Planning Framework for Evolution and Revolution. University of Cambridge, 2003) This article presents a unique perspective on technological forecasting and social change as presented form the University of Cambridge engineering department. Their model is often used in industries to analyze business plans, the impact of new technologies on marketing, and threats and opportunities for stakeholders in particular technological areas. This article applies to our investigation of changing business models that have been brought to fruition by the digital revolution. [Found on Google Scholar]

Thought Leaders:


Anthony, Scott (The Silver Lining: an Innovation Playbook for Uncertain Times. Harvard Business Press, 2009) In this book, Anthony addresses the need to carry on with innovation in the midst of tough economic times. It will be important to look at the effects of the recession in addition to effects of technological advancements on certain shrinking industries. This book will strengthen our idea that technological innovation advances opportunities even during uncertain times. [Anthony's book came up  as a related book to Govindarajan's, and I felt that his ideas fit well with ours.]

Christensen, Clayton (Managing the Threat of Disruptive Technology. Stanford CA: Stanford Video, 2000) This video is an excellent perspective on the value of disruptive technology and the need to embrace and adapt to change. Clayton Christensen's views on the benefit of technological innovation aligns with our argument that the digital revolution will create a net benefit for the global economy, and for individuals who are willing to adapt. [Found on HBLL website]


Govindarajan, Vijay (The Other Side of Innovation. Harvard Business Press, 2010) For our chapter we have been looking at the effects of innovation on industries and individuals, but we don't really address what it takes to become the innovator. VG introduces best practices for innovation, and emphasizes that innovation is not just ideas, but ideas plus execution. [I knew that Clayton Christensen had been awarded the number 1 spot on the Thinkers50 list of business thought leaders, so I decided to look at other leading thinkers in business. VG is number 3]

Changing Tides

Having recently joined the business team, I've been trying to do a bit of research about the shift in the job market thanks to technology. Actually though, I just came across this article by happenstance, which was reviewing the weeks new tech announcements but had just the information I had been looking for. Namely, this graph:

The job market has always and will always shift as a result of technological advancements, so I've not been terribly concerned that people in shrinking industries will be out of the job and out of luck for the rest of their lives. They will adapt. What does interest me then, is the kinds of jobs we're losing, and the possible effect that will have in the shaping of the next generation. As the above graph indicates, many of the industries that are losing steam traditionally require a lesser degree of expertise. Many of these jobs appeal to those who do not have an opportunity to pursue higher education, or do not wish to do so (there are obvious exceptions to this generalization - banking, newspapers, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Anyway, what will happen when the demographic that is attracted to these jobs is forced to adapt to a level that requires more training, education, etc. What will happen to the high school students, the empty-nesters with a bit too much time on their hands, the young men who can't go to school because they have to support their family? I suppose my question here is, will we really all adapt to the tech era? When tablets take over the role of restaurant servers and kiosks take over the role of grocers, will people be willing to make the jump to jobs like information technology or online publishing?

Really though, this is not nearly as black and white as I'm making it out to be. Of course there will always be a broad range of jobs, but I can't help but wonder if this shift might have real implications on the way we educate and bring up the next generation. Maybe for those already in the workforce it will be difficult to bridge the gap, but perhaps more of our children will be able to fit into the mold of the emerging job market. Further then, might this indicate the possibility of a future generation that is more motivated to excel academically, knowing that menial jobs will be fewer and far between? Might America become more seriously competitive on a global scale? Lots of questions here, not a lot of answers, but I'm looking forward to pursuing the topic it further.

Technology and Legislation

As a member of the government group, I'm excited to start looking at some of the effects of technology growth on government. Having just read an article about the need for more regulatory laws restricting the ability of corporations to use technology to gather private information about their customers, I want to focus for now on the legislative branch. I'd like to look at where we've been, where we are now, and where we're headed.

Yep, that's the one.
Note the Walkman capabilities.

As I read the article, a thought struck me about something that my ISys 201 teacher told us last semester. I don't remember the exact statistic, but the point was that if transportation technology were improving as fast as information technology, we'd be able to travel around the world... well, a heck of a lot faster than we can now. Really though, everybody knows technology is improving fast. In fact, just last night I was thinking about my little Sony Ericsson that I had not to long ago, and how I always felt like the internet on that phone was a joke, and I wondered why anyone would ever need internet on their phone. Obviously times change. The reason this concerns me though, is that our government was not designed to be a fast moving entity. On the contrary, it was designed to take quite some time and a fair amount of hassle to get anything done, mostly to prevent rash decisions. It seems, however, that this does not coincide well with the ever adapting world of information technology.

For the next few posts then I'll begin outlining the life and works of three congressional subcommittees:

• Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology & the Law (which I'll likely have to abbreviate from now on as PTL, for obvious reasons)
•  Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet (CTI)
• House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation (TI... admit it, "whatever you like" is now stuck in your head). 

For each subcommittee I'll be focusing on the following areas:

• History
• Foundation, development, past legislation
• Recent and ongoing activity
• Growth
• Ability to adapt to rapidly changing technological environment
• Jurisdiction
• Areas of expertise 
• Members
• Representation according to political party - impact on legislation

I'm looking forward to focusing in on this area, and hopefully I'll be able to find some insights about the short and long term effects of technological growth with respect to congressional legislation. 

Hindsight is 20-20

I was really dreading the moment that I would have to look through the muddled waters of my blog posts and try to extract some sort of coherent tweethis, but I mustered up the courage and did it. I'll begin by summarizing the main points of past posts:

Pushing the Envelope - keeping up with and taking advantage of digital resources

Go About Doing Good - being willing to take risks and develop ideas that will have a positive effect on the world

Too Much of a Good Thing & Overcoming the Fool's Ultimatum - battling stifling societal polarity and argumentative thinking

Jamestown: Cultures Collide for Better or Worse - evidence of positive and negative effects of cultural convergence in the past and present

Promoting Self Reliance - a higher form of philanthropy

Finding a Balance - noting the need for harmony and civil order, and finding a place for "civil disobedience" in productive societies

Open Government: Hope for the Future of Campaign Season - potential of open government to encourage a return to fundamental issues during campaigns

Let's Make This Fun - fun theory applied to voter education

Are you sure about that? - responsible use of internet information

Give Me Liberty - account of troubling governmental invasions and attacks on personal liberties

So You Want to Write the Next SOPA? - examination of current forms of open government

What I found after reading through these posts didn't surprise me (although I was surprised that I found anything at all). There are undertones in each post of a psychological principle that I have found to be very poignant throughout my studies of civilizations past and present: Maslow's Hierarchy. In 1943, Abraham Maslow first introduced his idea of human motivation, which includes 5 levels of social growth that humans progress through, beginning with basic survival needs, and ending with self-actualization.

This triangle is not the traditional 5-teired representation of the hierarchy, but I chose to include it because it makes note of an even higher level of human progression: transcendence, or the need to help others reach a state of self-actualization. And so, thanks to Maslow, I have determined what I'm all about. We can see examples of social progression up the pyramid from the beginning of time. In the 17th century, for example, society was not yet at the self-actualization phase. More likely, they were somewhere in the cognitive needs phase, developing more complex ideas about science, religion, and political thought. Since then society has increased at an exponential rate, and a great deal of the world's population is currently self-actualizing. But we aren't all there yet.

Tweethis: Digital resources should be employed for the continued advancement of individuals and societies to a higher level of human motivation and development. 

One of the great blessings of technology is that it enables us to do better. We are in a constant state of progression, and contrary to Professor Umbridge's counsel, we should continue to strive for social progress.

"progress for the sake of
progress must be discouraged"

It is important to remember that the Internet is a blessing, and Heavenly Father most likely had a very good reason for giving it us. I would submit that we should use the Internet to foster as much good as possible, progressing where progress can be made, helping others to reach their full potential, and transcending the levels of societal development that we inherited from those that came before us.

So You Want to Write the Next SOPA?

In some of the conversations that we've had about open government, we've discussed the possibility of creating a platform that will facilitate a more direct democracy, using digital tools. Essentially, we've brainstormed a forum for representatives to post working drafts of upcoming bills, giving their constituents the opportunity to submit comments and suggestions. Last night, I found out that this is already happening. While sifting through my Flipboard for the night (so cool), I came across an article posted by The Atlantic, which talks about a new platform called Madison. Co-creater of the platform Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA) (along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)), calls the project "an ongoing experiment in direct digital democracy." Madison was so named because of a quote that the congressmen found particularly inspiring:


"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives"
                                                                             -James Madison


The two congressmen created the platform as way to introduce a bill called the OPEN Act, a follow-up to the SOPA and PIPA bills, that would be drafted in part by everyday citizens. So far, the draft of the bill has seen participation by about 150 people, and the congressmen are pleased with the outcome. Issa went on to say that Madison is "proof that crowdsourcing can deliver better bills and a more accountable government." 


Madison still has some issues. There are a few minor barriers to entry, including signing up for an account, and it is not yet widespread enough to garner the desired level of participation, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. 


The benefits of a program like this are numerous and compelling. The most apparent benefit to me is that this may be an effective tool to eliminate, or at least minimize, some of the corruption and self interest that goes on in congress. If people across the country have the opportunity to review a bill, they will probably object to some of the outrageous earmarks and pork barrel projects. On that note, some congressmen may be concerned about proving their loyalty to their constituents without engaging in pork barrel spending, but I would submit that an open process like this would do even more to convey the loyalty and devotion to the public interest of congresspersons across the nation. 

For every good idea though, there are drawbacks. For Madison, I fear the problem will come in the form of chaos. When everybody gets a say, and everybody is gunning for their own agendas, things can get muddled very quickly. As improvements and new editions of Madison emerge, I hope there will be some way to manage this chaos, and ensure that the focus stays on the issue at hand. 


Needless to say, there are a lot of issues circulating around this idea, and whether or not we decide to create a project that aligns with open government, we should all be aware of the changes that are happening at the ground level as we speak.

Give me Liberty

In my Western Political Heritage class we've been talking all semester about justice - what it is, why it's important, etc. In order to find the answer to these questions, we've been studying Plato's Republic, and yesterday we finally finished it. At the conclusion, *spoiler alert* Plato delineates 5 major types of regimes:

1. Aristocracy
2. Timocracy
3. Oligarchy
4. Democracy
5. Tyranny

Believe it or not, this list is ordered from best to worst. What's more, each regime leads cleanly to the next with the natural decline of society. That's right, I just said that democracy naturally devolves into tyranny. We could easily wake up one day and have a tyrant on our hands. How? Because America has problems, and we want someone who will be champion of the people - someone who will make America great again. And maybe they really will, but maybe once they do they won't want to hand power back over to the other guys who messed us up in the first place. So maybe they'll tinker with a few laws and hold on to power just a little longer. And a little longer. Until a little longer becomes an indefinite stay in the White House. Now I'm not saying this is going to happen. I still have a little bit of faith in the system that our Forefathers established, but I do want to take some time to examine the changes that our taking place in our democratic society right now.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                   - Benjamin Franklin


Let's start with the Patriot Act. Let me begin by saying I felt a little nervous googling anything negative about this piece of legislation. I tried to steer clear of any inflammatory words or phrases so as not to be put on the No-Fly List (this happens more often than you might think - my aunt was put on the list not too long ago. I can assure you she isn't a threat to national security). Honestly though, I don't think the Patriot Act is ever going to affect me personally, and that's probably why we let it happen. As long as we all get to stay in our comforts zones, and as long we're not going to be the ones that are detained by the TSA, then why would we care? It keeps the terrorists at bay for heaven's sake! But isn't it kind of a slippery slope? I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with the overwhelming power of the government in this case to squelch the liberty of the individual. So is it worth it? I don't think so. People die every day - and sometimes it's at the hands of really malicious people - but if we continue to go down this path, bad things will still happen, we'll just have fewer civil liberties when those bad things happen. Now by no means do I think there shouldn't be any government control of national security, I just think it would be prudent to make sure that we won't be at risk for continued degradation of personal liberties.  


Unfortunately, the injustice doesn't end with the Patriot Act. If you heard about the North Carolina preschooler that had her home-made lunch of turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, and potato chips revoked and replaced with cafeteria chicken nuggets, you know what I mean. This is just ridiculous, and it isn't an isolated incident. My aunt (not the no-fly aunt), is a teacher in central California, and her entire school district was instructed to monitor children's lunches and confiscate unhealthy items as necessary. Are you kidding me? When did we decide that this level of government interference is okay? Not to mention, anybody who has ever eaten from a school cafeteria knows how completely insane it is to replace a homemade meal with that mystery meat on the basis of health. 


The early manifestations of these issues were very prominent in the 19th century. There were many different schools of thought on the role of the federal government, and how large we should allow it to grow. Despite ever-present concerns about a government that is too large and too powerful, ours has continued to grow. In fact, it would be fair to say that no president has ever left the office weaker than when he entered it. So what would our 19th century counterparts think of us now? What would all of the men who have fought and died for our country and our freedoms think of us now? Because quite frankly, I'm not sure this is what they had in mind. 

Are you sure about that?

We all want to hear what we want to hear. Regardless of our purpose in looking for information - be it personal edification, a research assignment, or trying to find something to prove somebody else wrong - we always gravitate toward the side of the issue that we most closely align with. But there's a problem here: how do you know the information you're getting is correct? 

I tried an experiment tonight: I typed in to my search bar "abortion is evil." Now obviously I expected to get some seriously biased information here, but there was a point to my experiment, just wait for it. The first result was the site for an organization called TFP Student Action, a project of The American Society for the protection of Tradition, Family, and Property, which works with college students on over 700 campuses across the nation to take a stance on prevalent issues. This organization had compiled a list of 10 reasons why abortion is evil. Some of these reasons are theology based, but there are also a good deal of precise statistics. Initially I thought, "well, how do I know these stats aren't incredibly skewed?" I knew, though, that the article at least had some sources to back up the information, so I was momentarily reassured. When I scrolled down to check out the sources, however, my doubts came flooding back. It looked a lot like TFP Student Action had done exactly what I did: they looked for some of the most convincing arguments that abortion is evil, from some very biased sources. I find this disconcerting. 

How am I supposed to find decent information if everybody that's compiling the information is just as biased as I am, and they're getting their information from sources that are just as biased as they are? This sounds like a vicious cycle. Of course, we all know about google scholar, and that's usually a good source for accurate studies and findings, but those reports are often very difficult to muddle through, and can get a bit dry. What am I supposed to do when I don't want to spend the time that I would researching for paper, but I want some solid information for my own benefit? I think one way to do this is to seek out information on both sides of an issue, and somehow try to reconcile the information to the most reasonable conclusion. It's not foolproof, but it's not doing us any good to constantly yield to our desires to read things we agree with. 

The fact is there are a lot of issues that are hotly debated, and it's not always good enough to do a google search and take the first hit on their word. Like David Perkins pointed out in his post, sometimes you have to take the path of most resistance. Sometimes you have to go the extra mile to uncover a bit of truth from the muddled and distorted information pool that we love so much.