Disruptive And Emerging Technologies And Their Potential Impact On Commerce And The Environment

Analysis of Emerging and Disruptive Technologies

Question:

Discuss about the Neglected Dimension of Global Security.

The recent age, technologies have mainly disrupted or transformed both the commerce as well as the environment. Few example that can be taken into consideration are the world wide web, amazon, tablets and google. The most important phenomenon which played a very vital role is the technology of the cloud computing. Likewise taking into consideration a view of a different field, in the laboratory automation, medicine, computers, monoclonal antibodies, immunoassay can be considered as example of technology which are considered disruptive technology. Currently, there are many potentially and emerging technology which can be termed disruptive that could possess threat of direct displacing a technology which is established. The technology can lead to a major change in the field of economy as well as commerce. The concept of the technology can be sub divided into two parts namely sustaining and disruptive [1]. The sustainable technology mainly relies on the incremental improvements taking into consideration an already established technology. On the other hand, the disruptive technology lacks the part of the refinement, they are often encountered with the problem of performance due to the factor that it is new, direct appealing to an audience which are limited and may not have been proven problematic in the field of application. Taking into consideration a case study it can be stated that the concept of Alexander Graham Bells’ electric speed machine which is now better known as call the telephone can be considered as one of the best example. Another term which can be directly be related with the concept is the term digital disruption. It can be referred to as a flip side of the digital opportunity [2].

In this essay the main concept which is taken into consideration is the concept of the disruptive and the emerging technologies. On the other hand, relating to the concept the use of disruptive weapons in the aspect of changing the use of the force are also taken into consideration in the discussion.

This section mainly focuses on the analysis of the emerging and disruptive technology which are very much likely to play a role in the near future. These technological aspects may include:

Additive manufacturing: This technology is under the focus of the researchers and under the research sector for more than 30 years, initially with the point of view of tool related to rapid technology [3]. Development in the sector of additive manufacturing are very much likely to create a new field of application that will have a significant impact on the methods which are related to the traditional manufacturing.

Nature of Disruptive Technology

Advanced Robotics: An example of primary successful application of the industrial robotics is in the field of automotive manufacturing. The concept intensively uses the concept of the robots that are extensively implemented in the process of welding, painting process and material handling [4]. The new and the advanced robotics will be increasingly in the implementation in the precision of the concept of the assembly and manufacturing and even in the sector of human robotics environment which can be beyond the scope of manufacturing [5].

Digital manufacturing: Recent advances in the concept of the digital design, simulation and engineering have involved in a transformational impact on the enterprise which are related to the manufacturing. The experimental approach and the traditional experiential approach in order to develop the product, validation and the manufacturing process design, supply network development and the factory automation are being replaced by the concept of highly digital threats which are efficient [6]. This approach can be considered to be very much efficient. In order to conduct the analysis, the nature of the disruptive technology should be taken into consideration. The concept of the nature which is related to the disruptive technology can be divided into three parts namely changing the global landscape, effect of the education of the future generation and the attributes which are related to the disruptive technology.

The concept of changing the global landscape the global economy continued to be fuelled by quickly flow of information, swiftly knowledge generation and the myriad application found for this knowledge and information. The new global economy is mainly characterized by the increased uncertainty, flexibility and the openness and the choices all of these majorly impact the lifestyle, business model, the environment which is related to the working, the educational system and the national security [7]. On the global scale the population increase with the manpower being on the lower end and a lower cost is becoming the continual goal of all the operation, making the consistency increased which is related to the productivity a target which is relentless. Another shift in the paradigm occur when the off shore operation which is related to the US corporations, whose initial function was the manufacturing. The concept has majorly changed to the scientific research and the technological development. On the other hand, the Effect of the education of the future generation: education is another very much important aspect of the ground work for the disruptive technology which can be considered [8].

Examples of Disruptive Weapons

This area of the analysis mainly includes not only the aspect of the geographical and cultural influence but also take into consideration the concept of the influence it has beyond the boundary. On the other hand, the influence of the stemming from the aspect pf the demographic that is globally impacted by the technology savvy youth. Each of these dimensions may serve to impede the development and the aspect of the diffusion of the technology which is taken into consideration [9]. Taking into consideration each of the dimensions may serve to accelerate, to impede the development and the diffusion of a given technology.

Historically there has been a concern for the stemming from the concept of the geopolitical influence in the areas of where transparency is minimal due to the factor of the intentional disregard for the international disregard for the international convention’s or the norms [10]. For example, although many nations have majorly accepted limitations on the use of the biological and the weapons which are chemical in nature, there is no such guarantee that can be taken into consideration that the state of the United States will not encounter such weapon on the future battle ship. Other techniques which can be considered to be symmetric made it very much possible by the technology which are merging may fall to fall into this category [11].

There are mainly two types of technology that can be termed as disruptive technologies. One type majorly displaces the incumbent technology in the transition phase during which the users adopts the new technology over a pre-defined time period. An early example of this was the major transition from the buggy to the horse to the automobile. The latter concept revolutionized disruption and transportation not only in the sphere of older transportation but also in the field of several ancillary means [12]. The second class of the disruptive technology creates a market or the capability when none of it ever existed. One of the example of this class is the personal computer. Before the invention of the computer, the services which are related to the computation are only available for the organisation of larger scale, institution and government sectors. The major key outcome which can be related to the concept when relating to the field of manufacturing as an example are:

• The flexibility is greater in order to produce the products that are very much multiscale, multi material and multifunctional. This have been considered as a greatest characteristic of the performance.
• Greatly reduce the time which is concerned with the marketing and the use of the modelling which is related to the digital aspect and the simulation of the tools in order to evaluate and plan the manufacturing processes and the design of the system and the network system configuration.
• Significantly improve the quality and the productivity. The issue which is generated is the issue of the labour cost and the better return on the investment in the capital.
• The high efficiency aspect which is related to the operation of the assets of the factory by the major use of the industrial big data and the advanced data analytics.
• The improved concept of the utilization of the resources and its material and the reduced energy consumption process.
• A manufacturing sustainable paradigm.

While these disruptive and emerging technology are major causing significant excitement there are also some potential barriers that can be related to it.

• Significant R & D investments are needed in order to develop these technologies. The levels of the investment which are required is beyond what the private sector can directly effort. Therefore, effective private and public partnership are very much essential in order to support the R & D efforts.
• The new technology adaptation and the insertion process would be taking many years to implement, during which the process of the co-existence of the legacy of the manufacturing methods and the technology which are merging are expected.
• Future workforce development and the concept of the training must keep space with the technology adoption rate. It is very much likely that the operating future manufacturing company factories would directly require different set of skills sets than those of the current workforce.
• The development of the disruptive manufacturing which is sophisticated may future widen the concept gap which is between the developing country and the advanced countries. It is very much essential to bridge the gap which is majorly caused by the technological advancements.
• The robustness which is related to the concept of the emerging and the disruptive technologies is expected in order to improve gradually. False expectation may lead to affect which are detrimental on the development of the technology.
• Ultimately taking into consideration the new technology their cost effectiveness must be addressed if they are to make impact on the field of industry related to manufacturing [13].

Potential Barriers to Disruptive Technologies

North Korea: The plutonium program which was initiated in the year 1985, brought into operation a small gas cooled (carbon dioxide), moderated graphite, natural uranium (metal) fuelled “experimental reactor of power” of about 25 MWt at Yongbyon. It exhibits all the features of a plutonium production. This place was located on the west coast 55km north of pyongtyang.

Israel: Israel is one of the few counties who have initiated the process of nuclear weapon. In the year 1952 after the isreal atomic energy commission was formed and in the year 1955 the USA agrred to supply a 5MWt pool type reactor for Nahal Soreq, south of Tel Aviv. This IRR -1 required enriched uranium supplied to the USA. It started up in 1960 and from the outset which is required to be under the IAEA safeguard

Libya: after the months of continuous negotiation, Libya agreed in December 2003 to halt its process of the development of the nuclear weapon. For a tenure of more than a decade it was engaged in the process of the development of a uranium enrichment capacity and the construction of now dismantled pilot scale centrifuge facility.

It can be stated from the above example that the use of disruptive weapon has changed the use of the forces. When taking into consideration whether a technology is disruptive or not, it is very much useful to think of it as disrupt. It should be taken into consideration that disruptive technology is impactful and the affect the other technologies. In many of the cases it is not the technology that can be considered to be disruptive but on the other and how the technology combines with the other factor or is applied can be termed as being disruptive in nature [14]. Taking into example the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which was combined with a rocket motor, a guidance missile and a nuclear warhead. The guided system mainly made the ICBM very much effective and disruptive. The committee which was involved with the system mainly categorised the disruptive technology into three distinct categories, to one of which truly every destructive technology must belong.

• Enabler: This technology mainly makes it possible one or more of the new technology, processes or the application for example, the integrated circuit, the gene splicing, the transistor and the cellular technology.
• Catalyst: Technology which mainly changes the rate of the technology development or the improvement rate of one or more technology. For example, the concept of the cloud computing and in the concept of the molecular biology, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Technique for the DNA sequence amplification [15].
• Morphers: Technology which is when combined with other technology creates one or more other new technology for example wireless technology and microprocessor.
• Enhancers: technology that mainly modifies other technology in order to cross a certain threshold. For example, technology which are already existing such as fuel cell, lithium ion batteries.
• Supersede: Technology that are majorly obsoletes another technology replacing the technology it with a superior concept (faster, better, cheaper, and more capable) of technology.
• Breakthrough: Technology or discover that majorly changes a fundamental understanding of the nature or which directly enables what had seemed nearly impossible (if not improbable). For example, fusion power, quantum computing [16].

The use of force in the context of the law enforcement may be directly defined as the “amount of effort required by the police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject.

A Destructive weapon can be termed as a weapon that can cause destruction or kill a large amount of people epically a chemical, nuclear or biological weapon.

Conclusion

Conclusion

This report mainly focuses on the concept of the disruptive technologies that should be taken into consideration. It can be stated that not all technology is destructive in nature but the affect it has on other technology are mainly considered as destructive. The concepts such as categories, attributes and the timelines associated with the technology are majorly taken into consideration. These terms play a very vital role in term associated with the technology being destructive. The timeless which is related to the deployment of the technology does not necessarily involve time period which is very short. This concept cannot be deployed for a technology which can be called a destructive technology. The life cycle of the technology can be varying, with most of the technology undergoing a series of S curves of growth and the deployment. The approach like the likelihood of a given technology disruption is also put direct limelight in the report.

Ahlborn, C. (2016). The Normative Erosion of International Refugee Protection through UN Security Council Practice. Leiden Journal of International Law C Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law, 24, 1009–1027. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156511000471

Ashenden, D., & Lawrence, D. (2016). Security Dialogues: Building Better Relationships between Security and Business. IEEE Security and Privacy, 14(3), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2016.57

Carr, M. (2016). Public-private partnerships in national cyber-security strategies. International Affairs, 92(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12504

Chernobrov, D. (2016). Ontological Security and Public (Mis)Recognition of International Crises: Uncertainty, Political Imagining, and the Self. Political Psychology, 37(5), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12334

Christie, D. J., & Montiel, C. J. (2013). Contributions of psychology to war and peace. American Psychologist, 68(7), 502–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032875

Cohen, D. K. (2016). Rape During Civil War. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Retrieved from https://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/26785/rape_during_civil_war.html?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Cohen_RapeDuringCivilWar_Sep16%2520(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=15360669&spUserID=Mjk4ODAxMDExODgS1&spJobID=86051625

Conklin, W. A. (2016). IT vs. OT security: A time to consider a change in CIA to include Resilienc. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 2016–March, pp. 2642–2647). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.331

Di Sarno, C., Garofalo, A., Matteucci, I., & Vallini, M. (2016). A novel security information and event management system for enhancing cyber security in a hydroelectric dam. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 13, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2016.03.002

Doucet, M. G. (2016). Global assemblages of security governance and contemporary international intervention. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 10(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2015.1054656

Duffy, R. (2016). War, by Conservation. Geoforum, 69, 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.09.014

Enamorado, T., López-Calva, L. F., Rodríguez-Castelán, C., & Winkler, H. (2016). Income inequality and violent crime: Evidence from Mexico’s drug war. Journal of Development Economics, 120, 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2015.12.004

Figueiredo Pereira de Faria, A. C., Berchin, I. I., Garcia, J., Barbosa Back, S. N., & Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. de. (2016). Understanding food security and international security links in the context of climate change. Third World Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1129271

Foster, D. (2016). The International Test Commission Guidelines on the Security of Tests, Examinations, and Other Assessments: International Test Commission (ITC). International Journal of Testing, 16(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2015.1111221

Garcia, D. (2016). Future arms, technologies, and international law: Preventive security governance. European Journal of International Security, 1(1), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2015.7

Hendrix, M., Al-Sherbaz, A., & Bloom, V. (2016). Game Based Cyber Security Training: are Serious Games suitable for cyber security training? International Journal of Serious Games, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v3i1.107

Hussein, N. H., & Khalid, A. (2016). A survey of cloud computing security challenges and solutions. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 14(1), 52–56. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/1764183503?accountid=27965%5Cnhttps://wv9lq5ld3p.search.serialssolutions.com.library.capella.edu/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ:criminaljusticeperiodicalsshell&rft_

Ijaz, S., Shah, M. A., Khan, A., & Ahmed, M. (2016). Smart Cities: A Survey on Security Concerns. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 7(2), 612–625. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2016.070277

ISO/IEC. (2016). ISO/IEC 27000:2016 Information technology — Security techniques — Information security management systems — Overview and vocabulary. ISO.org [Online]. Retrieved from https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c066435_ISO_IEC_27000_2016(E).zip

Kirby, P., & Shepherd, L. J. (2016). Reintroducing women, peace and security. International Affairs, 92(2), 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12550

Klahr, R., Amili, S., Shah, J. N., Button, M., & Wang, V. (2016). Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2016. Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2016, 56. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4332.6324

Kozhemiakin, A. V. (2016). Expanding the zone of peace?: Democratization and international security. Expanding the Zone of Peace?: Democratization and International Security. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26687-6

Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Li, Z., Zhang, J., Qin, H., & Zeng, J. (2016). Dynamic defense architecture for the security of the internet of things. In Proceedings - 2015 11th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security, CIS 2015 (pp. 390–393). https://doi.org/10.1109/CIS.2015.100

Lowe, D. (2016). Surveillance and international terrorism intelligence exchange: Balancing the interests of national security and individual liberty. Terrorism and Political Violence, 28(4), 653–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2014.918880

Mahmoud, R., Yousuf, T., Aloul, F., & Zualkernan, I. (2016). Internet of things (IoT) security: Current status, challenges and prospective measures. In 2015 10th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, ICITST 2015 (pp. 336–341). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITST.2015.7412116

Marr, D. G. (2013). Hanoi’s War: An International History of the War for Peace in Vietnam. Critical Asian Studies (Vol. 45). https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2013.758826

Meger, S. (2016). The fetishization of sexual violence in international security. International Studies Quarterly, 60(1), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqw003

Odutayo, A. (2016). Human security and the international refugee crisis. Journal of Global Ethics, 12(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2016.1251484

Ooms, G. (2016). Disease diplomacy: international norms and global health security. Global Change, Peace & Security, 28(3), 334–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781158.2016.1195805

Pelletier, B., Hickey, G. M., Bothi, K. L., & Mude, A. (2016). Linking rural livelihood resilience and food security: an international challenge. Food Security, 8(3), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0576-8

Pouliot, V. (2016). Hierarchy in practice: Multilateral diplomacy and the governance of international security. European Journal of International Security, 1(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2015.4

Qian, J., Xu, H., & Li, P. (2016). A novel secure architecture for the internet of things. In Proceedings - 2016 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems, IEEE INCoS 2016 (pp. 398–401). https://doi.org/10.1109/INCoS.2016.36

Rashid, A., Naqvi, S. A. A., Ramdhany, R., Edwards, M., Chitchyan, R., & Babar, M. A. (2016). Discovering “unknown known” security requirements. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE ’16 (pp. 866–876). https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884785

Richmond, O. P. (2016). The Transformation of Peace. Transformation, 286. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505070

Rotte, R. (2016). Western drones and African security. African Security Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/10246029.2015.1124043

Sands, P., Mundaca-Shah, C., & Dzau, V. J. (2016). The Neglected Dimension of Global Security — A Framework for Countering Infectious-Disease Crises. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(13), 1281–1287. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1600236

Sherif, E., Furnell, S., & Clarke, N. (2016). Awareness, behaviour and culture: The ABC in cultivating security compliance. In 2015 10th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, ICITST 2015 (pp. 90–94). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITST.2015.7412064

Soomro, Z. A., Shah, M. H., & Ahmed, J. (2016). Information security management needs more holistic approach: A literature review. International Journal of Information Management, 36(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.009

Sovacool, B. K. (2013). An international assessment of energy security performance. Ecological Economics, 88, 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.019

Sovacool, B. K. (2016). Differing cultures of energy security: An international comparison of public perceptions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.144

Thakur, K., Qiu, M., Gai, K., & Ali, M. L. (2016). An Investigation on Cyber Security Threats and Security Models. In Proceedings - 2nd IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Cloud Computing, CSCloud 2015 - IEEE International Symposium of Smart Cloud, IEEE SSC 2015 (pp. 307–311). https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCloud.2015.71

Torabi, G. (2013). Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. Political Studies Review, 11(3), 418. https://doi.org/10.2307/2625592

van Ittersum, M. K., & Giller, K. E. (2014). The First International Conference on Global Food Security - A Synthesis. Global Food Security, 3(3–4), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.10.008

Weeks, J. L. P. (2014). Dictators at war and peace. Cornell studies in security affairs.

Woody, C. (2016). Security Engineering Risk Analysis (SERA). 3rd International Workshop on Software Engineering Research and Industrial Practice, SER and IP 2016, 23–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2897022.2897024

Yoo, H., & Shon, T. (2016). Challenges and research directions for heterogeneous cyber-physical system based on IEC 61850: Vulnerabilities, security requirements, and security architecture. Future Generation Computer Systems, 61, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2015.09.026

You, I., & Bertino, E. (2016). MIST 2016: 8th International Workshop on Managing insider Security Threats. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security - CCS’16 (pp. 1890–1891). https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2990482

Zhang, H., & Mu, Y. (2016). Cyberspace security. China Communications. https://doi.org/10.1109/CC.2016.7781719