A Case Study Of Innovation Morison
Related to the history of Innovative gunfire at sea, Admiral Sir Percy Scott found the new Idea of continuous-alma fire which enabled the gun pointer to keep sight and gun barrel on the target throughout the roll of the ship. For this change, he changed the gear ration, reeled telescopes and rigged a small target at the mouth of the gun. Then, from Scott in 1990 Sims, American junior officer, learned more about continuous-aim fire gun and tried out new system in China. However, his experiment was not recognized in Washington.
There was no response for comments about his innovation and men who wanted to protect and maintain existing devices and society which they identified themselves. Bureau of Ordnance thought that continuous-aim fire was impossible and the application of this experiment was not relevant to the current situation. These arguments, nevertheless, forced Scott to take furthermore step of writing to President of US. Finally, he could prove that the concept of continuous-alma fire gun was possible to everyone.
This Instead shows us how the “Identification” restrains the new creation that can change existing society to adaptive society and advance new Instruments. Main Contribution The main contribution of this study was: 1) To demonstrate the influence of limited identification that will be barriers to forming of adaptive society according to technological changes. 2) To develop opportunities of being adaptive society, will enable men to accept fully and easily the best promises of changing circumstances without losing their sense of continuity or essential Integrity.
Critique attempts to meet the new concept of continuous-aiming fire gun. For evaluating of the difficulties which Sims faced to invent continuous-aiming fire gun are: 1) There is no any interest to respond due to hierarchy structure. ) The rigid structure of society that is difficult to flexible with changes. 3) Personal identification with a concept, convention or attitude is powerful barrier to accept easily changes. In generally, society is a group of people who are sharing dominant cultural expectations.
Every society can have hierarchy organizational structure for control but that structure doesn’t mean that we have to ignore what the lower level of people are doing. Still, changes in lower level can also affect the whole society. The acceleration of changes will occur in society overtime but I think if society changes tit according to new innovation, new concept and new attitude, the patterns of society will be chaos. The important thing we need to consider is how this new innovation can affect society positively or not before it was adopted.
Every innovation can have negative impacts for examples, inventing computers evolved high standard of communication in society but it may affect less spending time with family. Again, I would like to complain that the hierarchy of society structure can be in other ways of controlling and preventing what the innovation may hurt. Regarding to attitude with elf-identification, it is difficult to adjust with new changes. Here, I would like to add another human psychological behavior- instinct which isn’t also easily to accept changes.
For examples, some will reject technological innovation because they are not confident with new technology as a lack of knowledge; some might not be willing to adapt changes by giving reason of uncertainty but it is called interior fear; some don’t want to give up their authorities which can depend on society changes. Addition to these factors, society is afraid to response these changes because of economic factors. Economy can shift because of innovation and also we need to consider the high cost of innovation from the perspective of economic.
The society which has higher advanced economy can adopt quicker and easier than that which has lower economy. Viewing the side of economy, high cost of experimental techniques may cause the ignorance of innovation of continuous-aim fire gun. In my opinion, I would like to claim that we need to consider not only factors within society but also outside factors. Society adoption, of course, seems to be related with norms and behavior within society but the other exogenous factors like global concerning bout pollution or action we can’t control from our society.
In conclusion, I would like to say that adoptive society in which we can accept innovation will be dangerous if we adopt every kind of innovation. We also need timing to adopt innovation that can meet what people in society need. Giving up traditional attitude and culture of society for innovation is really risky without knowing that innovation can perform better than before. It is reality that society needs to adopt innovation otherwise civilization won’t occur. The directions of innovation, however, we should acknowledge that, may likely lead negative path.