Unit 3 Discussion Board 2

Planning & Forecasting

Primary Response

ThienSi (TS) Le

CS875-1602C-01

Futuring & Innovation

Dr. Imad Al Saeed

 (05-May-2016)

In Unit 3 Discussion Board 2 on the topic of “Planning & Forecasting”, students are required to do research about the concepts of forecasting and predictions in business or innovation context. This short piece of writing will describe these concepts and document one infamous prediction that actually came true in an innovation context. A summary and three impact forces will also be provided.

Forecasting is a technique trying to predict outcomes of an event or future state that has not been observed. It establishes a framework and processes for vision in many areas such as healthcare, weather, economics, business, education, etc. (Seeman, 2002). Prediction is a more general term in similarity. Both forecasting and prediction methods refer to formal statistical methods using time series, cross-sectional or longitudinal data, qualitative or quantitative approaches, or alternatively to less formal judgmental techniques. However, the former intends for estimates of values at certain specific future times while prediction refers to more general estimates with the number of times happening over a long period (Garett, 2013; Ogilvy, 2015). For this assignment, a narrative story with a simple title “Freeman Dyson Talks About Biotech vs. Nanotech” by John Blyler (2009) is used in this discussion.

The website URL is:

http://www.chipdesignmag.com/blyler/2009/12/04/freeman-dyson-talks-about-biotech-vs-nanotech/

(Source: Adapted from Tetlock & Gardner, 2015)

1. A summary of the infamous story

            On December 4^th, 2009 in an informal discussion, the famous physicist Freeman Dyson shared his thoughts about technologies in the future of humanity with John Blyler, vice president and editor-in-chief of System Design Engineering Community (Blyler, 2009).

Dr. Dyson discussed the world of semiconductor technology, particularly focused on the importance of biotechnology. He observed that the origins and growth of bio-technology seemed to mix between facts and personal opinions. For example, he compared domestication of biotechnology to the analogous evolution of computers. With much smaller computers, he concluded that computers had now become domesticated. He observed that biotechnology, not nanotechnology, was the fastest growing field of technology. In fact, biotech such as gene splicing or inexpensive home DNA analyzers is still in its infancy, but it is far more common place than nanotech recently. In late 1950’s, Dyson (2009) had theorized that it was possible to build a colossal spherical structure around a planet such as Dyson sphere in a Star Trek episode in which lifeforms would grow around the interior of the sphere. His prediction of the golden era of nanotechnology and Dyson sphere has not happened yet, but the technology that is still active and dynamic inspired many organizations, universities in R&D work.

In judging from Dr. Dyson’s early work in electrodynamics and quantum mechanics, John Blyler thought Dr. Dyson was more of a mathematician than a physicist while the later greatly agreed. With Dyson’s humbleness, new ideas and theories, he felt inspiring, exciting in this casual talk.

Figure: Dr. Dyson (left) discussed technologies with John Blyler.

(Source: Adapted from Systems Design Engineering, 2009)

2. Impact forces

The story is simple but inspiring and innovative about technologies when Dyson (2009) predicted nanotechnology would take off in1950s. However, it did not happen in 2009 when biotechnology from behind moved forward with stem cell research, gene splicing. There was an argument that even biotechnology has reached the same point with the huge misconceptions regarding stem-cell research and what it is capable of, the common wisdom might be all and end all of the disease management.    

            Both biotechnology and nanotechnology have made a significant contribution to technology, economy, culture, humanity, and society. The forces that impact these technologies are technological, cultural, human, and societal. Three typical forces are technological, human behavioral and economic. They are discussed as follows:

            With technological force, research on both nano-biotechnologies is driven neck-to-neck. Ten years ago populace never thought about computers, mobile phones, Ipad, social network media such as Facebook, Linkedin, Cloud, youtube, etc. with tiny microprocessors Today, these tools are inexpensive and ubiquitous. The cutting edge nanotechnology is still popular in demands. For biotechnology, the demand on disease management is high because it contributes great benefits to humans, society, and the environment. The technological force drives these technologies and makes a great impact on every living thing on this planet.

With the human-behavioral and economic forces, people like to study, research and innovate on themselves, others and things around them. The governments encourage people to improve, innovate, create, and invent new tools, novel methods, and better approaches to solving all kinds of problems, or at least to lessen the pains in society. The purpose is not only to make human life better but also protect animals and environment with less cost and the efficient, simple solutions in the Occam’s razor fashion or law of parsimony (Gibbs, & Hiroshi, 1997).  

In summary, the writing described the similar concepts of forecasting and prediction in an innovation context. Physicist Dyson’s infamous story of biotechnology vs. nanotechnology in 2009 was selected for discussion and summary. The three forces that drove these bio-nano technologies made the substantial impact on novel technologies, human life, and society in the rapid changing and intertwining world.

REFERENCES

Blyler, J. (2009). Freeman dyson talks about biotech vs nanotech. Retrieved May 04, 2016 from http://www.chipdesignmag.com/blyler/2009/12/04/freeman-dyson-talks-about-biotech-vs-nanotech/

Garett, M. (2013). Traditional forecasting leads to traditional results...failure. Retrieved May 1, 2016 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewgarrett/2013/08/22/traditional-forecasting-leads-to-traditional-results-failure/#64836177c401

Gibbs, P., & Hiroshi, S. (1997). What is occam’s razor? Retrieved May 01, 2016 from       

            http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

Ogilvy, J. (2015). Scenario planning and strategic forecasting. Retrieved May 2, 2016 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2015/01/08/scenario-planning-and-strategic-forecasting/#661a1e006b7b

Seeman, S. (2002). Traditional forecast techniques. Retrieved May 2, 2016 from

            http://speedy.meteor.wisc.edu/~swetzel/winter/methods.html

Tetlock, P., & Gardner, D. (2015). Predict the future: how to improve the accuracy of forecasts. Retrieved May, 05/2016 from

            http://www.wsj.com/articles/predict-the-future-how-to-improve-the-accuracy-of-forecasts-1449245817