Technology's Promise

This article is very small so I am posting it in its entirity however, it may also be found here:

http://www.techcast.org/Commentary.aspx?ID=300


The Danish team announced the attainment of a 500 mile EV. I have previously decided my threshold was 400 miles which is nearly achieved with the Chevy Volt. 500 miles would crush my threshold and I think I would then be in the market for a new car when they arrive in the US. As eluded to in the article, I do believe the hockey stick would present itself if this occurs. This brings me to my final point. Much like we see with computers today, people have all but stopped buying laptops; HP announced a third quarter loss of nearly $9B. The primary disruptor was the Apple iPad. I am going to predict a similar disruption in the auto industry as these capabilities evolve. Watch out Japan, here come the Danes


Danish Team Announces a 500-mile EV by Chad Davis

Wednesday, Aug 01, 2012

Fuel cells for range extension, modular design and a lightweight car could make the dream a reality

 
Range-envy. It’s a huge psychological factor that any company marketing an electric vehicle (EV) has to overcome. Sure the technology will get there eventually, but when? The answer is likely to determine when and if we’ll see the ‘hockey-stick curve’ in EV adoption.

A Danish team (Serenergy, Insero E-Mobility and ECOmove) is closer to answering that question with their new Modular Energy Carrier concept (MECc). Using 2.5kW Serenergy bio-methanol fuel cell as an energy carrier, the team says their technology can extend the range of an EV up to 500 miles (By comparison, a Nissan’s EV, the Leaf, gets 138 miles per charge and the Chevy Volt hybrid gets 375.) What’s more, it can do so, Insero says, on a 3-minute refueling stop and with a more stable State-of-Charge that will extend the life of the EV’s battery.
The team hopes that using a liquid form of energy storage will speed adoption, since current distribution technology and infrastructure is tooled toward liquid energy. The MECc is expected to debut next year in the QBEAK from ECOmove (pictured above). Fore more info like this, see our Electric Car and Power Storage forecasts.

Futurists Prediction

Futurists Analysis: http://www.wfs.org/Forecasts_From_The_Futurist_Magazine

This assignment calls for the students to analyze one of the predictions made on the futurist. I have chosen forecast #7 below. I chose this one simply because I am aware of an effort to do something very similar. There are two projects that are going on now one of which is the replication of a K9 nose. A dog's nose is 300 times more sensative than a human nose, we currently are pursuing the replication of the K9 nose through mechanical means. I cannnot see any reason why vision cannot also be replicatedand improved. The second project is one that is likely to follow many projects similar to these which is a Robonaut. NASA is now vey interested in send robots on space related missions. As these other endeavors succeed, they will lay the foundation for what will likely become the Robonaut.

Forecast #7:Machine vision will become available in the next 5 to 15 years, with visual range ultimately exceeding that of the human eye. This technology will greatly enhance robotic systems’ capabilities

My Animoto Video

My Animoto Video

Attached is a very brief video that represents an recent innovation that we developed. The platform for this innovation positions us perfectly for what we have in mind for our next innovation which is why I selected this as a prediction.

New Agora: New Geometry of Languaging And New Technology of Democracy:

The article although interesting was also very peculiar to me. I actually had to read it twice to make much sense of it. A few concepts were introduced early and seemed very similar to the implications made in both the Delphi and NGT. The similarities stem from the premise that individual thought is heavily influenced in group settings. The author suggest that to overcome the propensity toward “spreadthink”, that group dialogue in certain situations requires the need to overcome constraints related to how human beings think and act.

Another very interesting concept that was introduced in the article was related to the extension of the sphere and the influence it has of decreasing the probability that a majority of participants will have a common motive to influence he rights of others; or if a common motive does exist, it will be more difficult for the participants to discover their own strength, and to act in unison.

Dr. John N. Warfield, used the term "spreadthink" to describe the outcome of group dialogue infected with those constraints. Dr. Warfield explained: “ The demonstrated fact that when a group of individuals are working on a complex issue in a facilitated group activity, the views of the individual members of the group on the relative importance of problems and/or proposed action options will be literally spread all over the map.”

Initially, it seemed that this was the same as what is commonly referred to as groupthink, it was later in the article discovered that groupthink is actually very different and referred to: “The deterioration of mental efficiency, quality of reality testing, and quality of moral judgment that results from in-group pressures. Subject to Groupthink, a group may seem to accept a specific decision; however, if individual group members are confronted with that point of view separately from the group, few members would accept that view as their own." This new geometry of languanging is key in discovering and explaining the implications of the Spreadthink.

How does the SDP support planning for innovation and change? The SDP process is simply a way to systematically through structured dialogue assist participants in collaboratively articulating their ideas. The schematic is significant in bringing clarity to the complex topic.

References:

Schreibman, V., Christakis, A. (n.d.). New Agora. Retrieved from http://www.harnessingcollectivewisdom.com/pdf/newagora.pdf

Christakis, A. (n.d.) The SDP Process. Retrieved from http://www.harnessingcollectivewisdom.com/sdp_process.html

Delphi Method vs. the Nominal Group Technique

I would first like to point out the purpose, similarities and differences of the two techniques.

First the Delphi Method’s intended purpose is:
“The Delphi method is an iterative process used to collect and distill the judgments of experts using a series of questionnaires interspersed with feedback. The questionnaires are designed to focus on problems, opportunities, solutions, or forecasts. Each subsequent questionnaire is developed based on the results of the previous questionnaire. The process stops when the research question is answered: for example, when consensus is reached, theoretical saturation is achieved, or when sufficient information has been exchanged.”

The purpose of the Modified Nominal Group Technique is:

“The modified nominal group technique (NGT) is a useful and practical course evaluation tool that complements existing methods such as evaluation forms, surveys, pretests and posttests, focus groups, and interviews. The NGT’s unique contribution to the evaluation process is the semi-quantitative, rank-ordered feedback data obtained on learners’ perceptions of a course’s strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, we demonstrate through a worked example how to use a modified NGT as a course evaluation tool in medical education.”

Although similar, not identical and it seems that the NGT can actually augment and compliment the Delphi method. I participated in a NGT event for the purposes of a Team Building and Strategy session. The end result was surprisingly one of superior quality. Although the time it took to get to the end state was a significant investment, the result was well worth it. During the course of the session the organizational leadership followed the process below. Although the objective was not to review a course, the intent of the exercise was to identify areas of strength and improvement within the organization to facilitate focused improvements, speed the maturation process and develop an organizational strategy that had 100% leadership endorsement. The results were amazing. I am normally for anonymity which is certainly a benefit of the Delphi method however, I think something’s require open dialog to achieve resolution and this was certainly one of them. With that said I believe each of them has their own merits and one may be more beneficial than another in a particular scenario.   

Step 1. Present evaluation questions to the large group of learners

• What were the strengths/highlights of the course?

• What were the weaknesses/suggestions for improvement?

Step 2. Silent phase

• Form small groups of four to eight participants, each with a flip chart.

• Assign a faculty facilitator, or elect a scribe for each group.

• Issue five pink and five yellow “stickies” to each participant.

• Without conferring or group discussion, participants record one-strength on each pink sticky and one weakness/suggestion for improvement

on each yellow sticky.

Step 3. Round-robin phase

• Participants stick one pink sticky in turn on the flip chart without comment or discussion until all ideas are exhausted.

• The facilitator or scribe groups similar comments together.

• Repeat the process using yellow stickies for suggestions for improvement.

Step 4. Discussion/item clarification

• The group clarifies unclear items and edits the grouped items into themes.

• The facilitator or scribe lists and letters items in order of popularity.

Step 5. Voting phase

• Participants rank their top five suggestions in each list from 1 to 5.

• Participants award 5 points to their top item, 4 to the second, and so on.

• The facilitator or scribe collects these lists for data gathering.

Step 6. Small-group data gathering

• Scribes or facilitators add the total points for each lettered item to produce a rank-ordered, weighted list of the groups’ opinions of the strengths

and weaknesses of the course.

• Scribes or facilitators write this list (with weightings) on the flip chart to present to the large group.

Step 7. Large-group data combining

• Reconvene the large group and examine the results from the small groups.

• Combine the small-group scores. (Small groups in this exercise usually produce very similar factors and this can be done with minimal discussion).

• Present the cohort’s ranked, weighted opinions of the strengths of the course and suggestions for improvement.

Step 8. Large-group discussion around dominant themes

• Record or take notes on the rich discussion that now ensues.

NGT Source: http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2004/June/Alison402.pdf

Delphi Source:

http://jite.org/documents/Vol6/JITEv6p001-021Skulmoski212.pdf