5/13/2017

Impact of Disruptive Technologies MAS-ESS Essay Competition 2017

Zhang Zhi and Clara-Ann Cheng Ling RAFFLES INSTITUTION

1

Executive Summary

As the Fourth Industrial Revolution reaches its height, disruption is the buzzword of the day.

Disruptive technology is not a new phenomenon, but the exponentially increasing pace at which

it is emerging is worth considering. The incessant disruption it brings to industry structures and

business models entails a world that is increasingly uncertain. The Singapore economy's

meteoric ascent over the past 50 years can be attributed to keen economic strategies - given

the increasingly volatile economic environment, it is necessary to ensure Singapore's strategies

remain relevant.

Disruptive technology holds much promise in terms of enhancing business processes and

lowering operating costs, and present opportunities for businesses to venture into new areas to

reap the momentum of growth. Yet, disruptive technology threatens to erode the

competitiveness of incumbent firms that rely on old product lines and existing value networks.

Hence, it is imperative for firms to take on a new paradigm for competition, to constantly adapt

to technologies outside their traditional realms. The labour market is also affected - a

fundamental challenge lies in the widening skills gap as new jobs created demand a distinct set

of skills from jobs of today.

To cope with the impacts of disruptive technology, our proposed strategy comprises 2 arms -

Environment and Empowerment, in order to enable Singapore to best respond to, exploit and

create disruptive technology. An environment conducive to disruptive technology can be created

through ensuring a progressive legal environment and nurturing a flexible workforce. Firms are

empowered to exploit and create disruptive technologies through Integrated Technology

2

Ecosystems and Innovation Funds that involve a tripartite collaboration between government,

firms and research institutions to push the boundaries of disruptive technology. Such

collaborations are the key to unlocking the potential of SMEs as they face challenges due to

high cost of research and development.

(293 words)

3

Content:

Executive Summary ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1. Deciphering “Disruptive Technologies” ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4

2. Impacts of disruptive technologies -----------------------------------------------------------------------6

2.1 Empowering businesses, consumers and the society--------------------------------- 6

2.2 Towards a new paradigm for competition ------------------------------------------------ 7

2.3 Never the same job market --------------------------------------------------------------------- 9

2.4 Challenges to existing legal frameworks ------------------------------------------------- 12

3. Synthesis: Disruptive technologies from Singapore’s perspective ------------------------- 13

4. Response to disruptive technologies ------------------------------------------------------------------ 14

4.1 Proposed Approach ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14

4.2 Environment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

4.2.1 Regulatory Frameworks ----------------------------------------------------------- 15

4.2.2 Adapting the Workforce------------------------------------------------------------ 16

4.3 Empowerment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

4.3.1 Integrated Technology Ecosystem--------------------------------------------- 18

4.3.2 Innovation Fund and Tripartite Collaboration ----------------------------- 19

5. Final Thoughts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21

Appendix: A Brief Introduction To Christensen’s Theory of Disruptive Innovation ---------------- 22

References ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

4

1. Deciphering “Disruptive Technologies”

Based on Clayton M. Christensen’s theory, disruptive innovations typically arise from the lower

end of the market. By targeting overlooked segments of consumers and eventually moving

upmarket, they significantly alter existing value networks and erode the market share of

incumbents, who focus on sustained innovations in pursuit of higher profitability in more

demanding segments. (Christensen, Raynor, & Mcdonald, 2015)

However, this theory fails to account for the dynamics of disruption today1. Firstly, disruptive

innovation may not always emerge from the lower segments, but from technological

breakthroughs in unexpected directions. Secondly, disruption entails not only new products, but

also process innovation made possible by the creative use of technologies, whose impacts are

never restricted to a single market.

Hence, this essay defines disruptive technologies as technological innovations that are capable

of inducing shifts in existing business models and value networks, including both product and

process innovation. Revolutionary technology causes disruption - but it could well be caused by

existing technologies applied in new ways.

1 According to King and Baatartogtokh, only 9% of the companies studied fully meet the classic pattern of disruption

proposed by Christensen. Their essay, “How Useful Is the Theory of Disruptive Innovation?”, was published on the Fall 2015 Issue of the MIT Sloan Management Review.

5

Disruption is hardly a new phenomenon, but an ongoing process, as evidenced by Joseph

Schumpeter's Creative Destruction2. However, the staggering pace and scale at which

disruption occurs today speak of its unprecedented relevance, and warrants attention to be paid

to its potential fallouts.

2 Joseph Schumpeter believes that competition under capitalism is not fundamentally about decisions on price or

quality of goods. Rather it is related with the race to discover new technologies and ways of doing business that expand the range of available products, change daily life and destroy existing industries. (Jose, 2016)

6

2. Impacts of Disruptive Technology

2.1. Empowering Businesses, Consumers and the Society

Disruptive technologies revolutionise the business landscape by altering all aspects of the

business value chain, serving as a potential enabler for firms. This lies in the potential of

disruptive technologies to enhance business processes and lower operating costs, leading to

streamlined workflows, faster supply chains and more efficient back-offices3.

Moreover, disruptive technologies have drastically altered the way firms interact with their

consumers, with services such as Big Data & Analytics4 affording better understanding of

consumption patterns and enhancing supply decisions. Mobile Internet platforms such as

Taobao and Airbnb has significantly lowered the production costs while connecting suppliers to

customers worldwide, extending the reach of businesses and boosting revenues.

3 One example would be the implementation of Industry 4.0 technologies in the German manufacturing sector, which

is expected to boost productivity by €90 to 150 billion, according the The Boston Consulting Group. 4 McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) estimated that retailers exploiting data analytics at scale across their organizations

could increase their operating margins by more than 60 percent and that the US healthcare sector could reduce costs by 8 percent through data-analytics efficiency and quality improvements.

7

Meanwhile, the far-reaching benefits of disruptive technologies to the economy should not be

overlooked. Consumers stand to benefit from the enhanced value proposition of innovative

products as well as lowered prices due to lowered production costs5. On a societal level, new

markets created, along with spikes in productivity, may generate substantial economic spin-

offs67.

2.2. Towards a new paradigm for competition

However, the emergence of disruptive technologies threatens to erode the competitiveness of

incumbent firms that rely on old product lines and existing value networks. Traditional industry

players may be disadvantaged because 1) New products and innovative business platforms

undermines the market shares of incumbents through the substitution effect. 2) Enhanced

business processes lower the production costs of entrants while suppressing market prices,

rendering existing business models unprofitable.

5 A study by McKinsey Global Institute shows that as much as two thirds of the value created by new Internet

offerings has been captured as consumer surplus.

6 According to McKinsey, a selected group of disruptive trends has the potential to drive direct economic impact on

the order of $14 trillion to $33 trillion per year in 2025.

7 The effect on economic growth of disruptive technologies cannot be fully accounted for in GDP figures, as much of

the benefit is not captured in the market value of associated goods and services. This includes the benefit of free products and information (Google, Skype, WhatsApp, Wikipedia) which replace paid products, entertainment value from social and digital media, increased buying choices through online platforms, and reduced search and transaction costs, among others. (Leipziger & Dodev, 2016)

8

Competition is expected to intensify, with technological innovations lowering the barriers to entry

and upsetting old market structures built on cost-based deterrence. Such liberalisation of

markets may precipitate the rise of small suppliers and further weaken the position of

incumbents8.

However, this hardly spells doom for all incumbents as some firms are quick to integrate

disruptive innovations into their own business processes9. Others take action to convert

disruptive technologies into their own advantages through merger & acquisitions. For example,

Cisco’s acquisition of Linksys allowed it to protect profits in its core business while capturing the

growth created by disruptive technologies10.

8 This is best illustrated by individual suppliers on mobile internet platforms such as Taobao and Uber. Even in

traditionally capital-intensive industry, such as manufacturing, the development of 3D printing will allow new niche manufacturers to emerge with the ability to digitally design and “print” items on demand, according to a report released by the Economist Intelligence Unit. 9 A prime example would be Domino, the second large pizza chain in the world. According to Harvard Business

Review, Domino’s success lies much in its investments in new technologies, which has changed “how customers order (using the Domino’s app, or directly via twitter, or even by texting an emoji), how they monitor the status of their order, and how Domino’s manages its operations.” In addition to traditional technology platforms, “the company is also experimenting with robotic delivery, and delivery by drones”. (Taylor, 2016)

10 Cisco’s acquisition of Linksys, “ a wireless small-business router maker which over the next decade would

otherwise have disrupted Cisco from its low-end beachhead”, represented Cisco’s entry into the high-growth Consumer/SOHO market. “By managing Linksys separately from its high-end routers, Cisco simultaneously pursues further profit in its core business, even as it catches the growth that disruption is creating at the simple end of the market.” (Christensen, 2009)

9

The age of disruption hence ushers in a new paradigm for competition, as incumbents can no

longer be satisfied with internal operational efficiency or incremental innovations, but have to

constantly adapt to technologies outside their traditional realms to retain their competitiveness.

While Christensen posited that incumbents are reluctant to pursue radical innovations,

businesses worldwide are making big investments in future disruptive trends. From IBM’s focus

on blockchains11 to the latest research into driverless cars12, firms are goaded into a global

innovation race as they seek to become the next disruptors before being disrupted. Future

cycles of disruption are expected to shorten. (Nunes, 2013)

2.3. Never The Same Job Market

Incessant innovation and adoption of new technologies promise demand for jobs related to the

creation of such technologies. Meanwhile, the rise of assistive technologies and emergence of

new industries could have a positive impact on employment levels. Uber is credited with

creating more than 15000 jobs in Australia in 2015 ("15,000 Jobs, 1,000,000 Riders", 2015);

collaborative technologies have empowered disabled workers, allowing societies to tap into

wasted potentials in their populations. (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012)

11 One recent initiative would be IBM’s announcement of a $200 million investment to develop its Watson IoT

headquarters in Munich, Germany, focusing on blockchain technology and security. (Johnson, 2017)

12 A wide range of firms including Google, Intel Uber, Tesla and General Motors have made hefty investments in the

technologies of autonomous driving. According to IHS Automotive, Google alone has invested nearly $60 million so far in autonomous vehicle research and development, at a run rate of nearly $30 million per year.

10

On the other hand, labour-supplanting technologies, including automation, computerisation and

artificial intelligence, have raised the spectre of the displacement of human labour13. Largest

number of job losses are expected to be observed in office and administrative as well as

manufacturing and production (World Economic Forum, 2016), while highly specialised roles

including lawyers14 and doctors15 could also be affected. Overall, economic expansion

productivity increase are steadily decoupled from job growth16; the exact relationship varies from

industry to industry depending on the nature of technologies adopted.

13 According to MGI, as many as 45% of the activities individuals are paid to perform can be automated by adapting

currently demonstrated technologies, representing about $2 trillion in wages within the United States, which compares to about $7 trillion of total wages in 2014.

14 According to McGinnis and Pearce, “computationally based services are already replacing the task of document

review that lawyers have performed in the past”, and are “on the cusp of substituting for other legal tasks—from the generation of legal documents to predicting outcomes in litigation.” (McGinnis & Pearce, 2014)

15 Based on Khosla’s predictions, a significant amount of tasks within physician's’ job scope, including checkups,

testing, diagnosis, prescription, behavior modification, can be done better by sensors, passive and active data collections and analytics. “Eventually, computers will replace 80% of what doctors do and amplify their capabilities”, reducing the need for human medical officers. 16 Traditional economic theories predict a tightly coupled relationship between productivity growth, economic

expansion and growth in employment, a trend that has been observed in economic statistics in the decades after World War II. However, economist Jared Bernstein first observed that productivity growth and employment levels started to become decoupled from each other at the end of 1990s, which was attributed to the rapid advancements in technologies that supplant labour.

11

The fundamental challenge lies in the widening skills gap as new jobs created demand a distinct

skillset from jobs of today17. This heightens the risks of structural unemployment as labour made

redundant by disruptions may not be absorbed into new roles. Emerging industries may be

afflicted by a shortage of talent owing to the skills mismatch, thwarting further growth. This is

may be accompanied by growing inequality as disruption entails disproportionate opportunities

for highly-educated workers boosting skills on demand, at the expense of low-skilled workers

who are prone to disruption by machines. (World Economic Forum, 2016)

Moreover, new business models have caused shifts in the nature of jobs, exemplified by the rise

of the online “gig economy1819” along with freelance workers that work on an on-demand basis.

While this may suggest greater flexibility in working arrangements and lower costs, freelance

workers are usually denied access to perks, employment benefits and social welfare, which are

benefits traditionally associated with fixed, contract-based employment. (Toh, 2016)

17 According to WEF, given the exponential rate of increase in the amount of digital information available, an ability to

work with data and make data-based decisions will become an increasingly vital skill across many job families. Content skills (which include information and communication technology literacy and active learning), cognitive abilities (such as creativity and mathematical reasoning) and process skills (such as active listening and critical thinking) will be a growing part of the core skills requirements for many industries.

18 In a gig economy, temporary, flexible jobs are commonplace and companies tend toward hiring independent

contractors and freelancers instead of full-time employees.

19 The total number of primary freelancers in Singapore was about 167,000 in 2016, making up 8% to 10% of

employed residents in the past ten years, mentioned Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister for Manpower in a recent speech.

12

2.4. Challenges to existing legal frameworks

Similar to on-demand jobs, new business models and practices founded on disruptive

technologies add further complexity to the business environment and could generate problems.

For example, concerns have been raised over safety issues of properties on Airbnb and anti-

competitive practices by incumbent firms against potential disruptors. These issues are hardly

sufficiently addressed by existing regulatory frameworks, which are slow to respond to rapid

technological changes.

13

3. Synthesis: Disruptive Technologies from Singapore’s perspective

Disruption in Singapore has long been under way, affecting every industry including key sectors

such as manufacturing, finance and retail, where weakened competitiveness translates into

declined performance and mass retrenchment (Chia, 2016). This is reflected in the SBF

2016/17 Economics Survey, where 68% of businesses stated a need to transform (Singapore

Business Federation, 2016).

Yet, disruptive technologies could present significant benefits to Singapore in view of their

empowering effect. Adoption of disruptive technologies may also improve Singapore’s stagnant

productivity growth, which has lagged behind other developed nations20.

Hence, it is imperative that Singapore tackles the problems emerging from disruptions and

encourages firms to adapt to and embrace disruptive technologies. In light of ever-shortening

cycle of innovations, Singapore must strive to be a disruptor to avoid being disrupted (Nunes,

2013).

With a skilled workforce, sound infrastructure and forward-looking policies, Singapore is well-

positioned to thrive amidst disruptions. However, policy changes could be implemented to better

achieve this aim.

20 Over the past five years, the Singapore economy's growth of about 4 per cent a year was powered solely by

manpower growth, while productivity was more or less stagnant, according to Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister for Manpower. “Add in a shrinking local labour force and a slowing foreign workforce growth, and the result is simple: Growth will fall. Without a breakthrough in productivity growth... low growth will become the new norm,"

14

4. Responding to disruptions---The EE Framework

4.1. Proposed Approach

Our proposed strategy comprises two arms---providing a favourable environment and effective

empowerment for firms and society to respond to, exploit, and create disruptive innovation.

“Environment” involves firms’ external factors - creating legal and social conditions that

encourage the adoption and creation of disruptive innovation. “Empowerment” focuses on

enabling firms to adopt and create disruptive innovation.

EE Framework

15

4.2. Environment

In facilitating the sustainable adoption and creation of disruptive technologies, an ideal

environment comprises appropriate regulatory frameworks that minimises the adverse impacts

of disruptive technologies and encourages innovation, along with a flexible workforce which

ensures smooth transition.

4.2.1. Regulatory Frameworks

To ensure continued relevance of legal frameworks despite incessant disruptions, it is

necessary to create a robust mechanism that allows regulators to understand and anticipate the

legal ramifications of disruptive technologies, enabling timely response. One possible instrument

is regulatory sandboxes, which enable testing of innovations in a controlled environment21

("MAS Proposes a Regulatory Sandbox for FinTech Experiments", 2016). Partnership with

research institutions and periodic consultations with business leaders also deepens awareness

of technological trends and their potential fallouts, which would guide policy making.

Fostering a legal environment that encourages creation of disruptive technologies is also

crucial. For example, ownership transfer of intellectual property, as opposed to licensing when

companies co-invest in development of new technology, would incentivise more companies to

innovate (Soon, 2016). In addition, anti-competitive laws could be reviewed to protect small

innovators from incumbent firms.

21 Pioneering attempts to utilise regulatory sandbox have been made by Monetary Authority of Singapore(MAS) in

the Fintech industry, “in which FinTech players can experiment with innovative financial products or services in the production environment but within a well-defined space and duration”, according to MAS.

16

4.2.2. Adapting the workforce

In response to the skills mismatch, Singapore’s current strategies encompass both short-term22

and long-term measures23 to create a flexible, adaptable workforce. For example, Skillsfuture24

offers an avenue for skills-upgrading through public-private partnerships and the provision of

financial incentives.

However, a more nuanced approach is required to facilitate skills-upgrading amongst low-

income workers to ensure greater inclusiveness of economic restructuring. For instance, low-

skilled workers may not fully benefit from Skillsfuture as they may not have the basic literacy

and numeracy skills to undergo certain technical courses.

Hence, we believe that more targeted effort should be made to address the impacts of

disruptions on low-skilled workers. For Skillsfuture, this may take the form of differentiated

training programmes for workers of different education levels, as well as courses delivered in

mother tongue languages to cater to workers with inadequate English language skills. This

would better address the potential inequalities arising from disruptions while enabling flexibility

of the workforce across all levels.

22 Current measures are summarised by the Continuing Education and Training Masterplan, to “better ensure a

competitive and career resilient workforce” through skills retraining via multiple avenues, including improving education, training and career guidance, technology-enabled learning and workplace-based learning, according to the Workforce Development Agency 23 Singapore’s education system is moving towards one that is more “flexible and diverse”, providing an education

that is “broad based”, in order to nurture students who are able to “think in new ways”, “solve new problems”, and “create new opportunities”, according to MOE. This is aimed at creating a workforce in the future that is innovative and creative. In addition, there has been a rise in courses aimed at encouraging innovation - SMU now offers Masters of Science in Innovation degree program. Such schemes will have long term benefits. 24 Skillsfuture is a national movement under which a variety of skills upgrading programs are rolled out, with the aim

of fostering a more flexible workforce. In 2015, each working Singaporean was given $500 Skillsfuture credit to attend courses under Skillsfuture.

17

4.3. Empowerment

The empowerment arm seeks to galvanise businesses to actively adopt and create disruptive

technology.

In particular, while disruptive innovation often arises from small, emerging firms, local Small and

Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are often reluctant to engage in innovation25. According to the

Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI), less than 35% have invested

in innovation in the past two years (Shiao, 2016). To achieve widespread, sustained innovation,

we must engage local SMEs, given their importance to the Singapore economy26.

25 Local SMEs are reluctant to undertake research and development due to their small size and lack of resources.

ASME president Kurt Wee: "One of the main issues troubling our SMEs is the scale and size of the market they service, which can sometimes limit your ability to automate or innovate." according to The Business Times. 26 SMEs make up 99% of the country’s enterprises and contribute to nearly half the GDP. As SMEs employ 70% of

Singapore’s workforce, these enterprises play a significant role in the development of Singapore’s future and to create good jobs for Singaporeans.

18

4.3.1. Integrated Technology Ecosystem

Current policies which empower firms to exploit and create disruptive innovation mainly provide

financial support27 (Tan, 2016). However, technological transformation for firms entails more

than financial investments - requiring also customised solutions for specific business processes

and drastic institutional restructuring along with cultural changes (Habtay and Holemen, 2012).

As such, an integrated system is necessary to connect the providers of such support to the firms

to smoothen their transitions.

We propose the development of Integrated Technology Ecosystems (ITE) --- integrated

technological supply chains characterised by partnerships between industrial solutions

providers, local firms and business consultancies. This could be done by linking local

enterprises with global solution providers to facilitate co-development of customised

technological solutions, which, in addition to finding the best transformation plan, generates

substantial knowledge spillover. This also has the effect of attracting global solution providers to

set up their innovation base in Singapore, allowing local firms to stand at the forefront of

technological innovations and enjoy first-mover advantage.

In addition, government could seek to tackle the ‘soft’ side of technological transformation and

facilitate engagements of firms with business consultancies, which can guide firms through

institutional shifts and cultural changes that are necessary alongside the adoption and creation

of disruptive technologies.

27 According to the Business Times, last year, Spring and its partners supported more than 300 start-ups, up from

160 in 2014. Spring Seeds Capital, the investment arm of Spring, co-invested S$13 million in 17 early-stage companies, catalysing private investments of S$36 million in 2015. Close to 800 start-ups were assisted through the 21 incubators appointed to date. Such financial support is provided through grants and schemes, examples of which are the Capability Development Grant, which defrays up to 70 percent of qualifying project costs such as consultancy, training, certification and equipment costs for new startups, and the Sector Specific Accelerator (SSA) scheme which targets niche areas like Medtech and Cleantech.

19

4.3.2. Innovation Fund and Tripartite Collaboration

A significant stumbling block to innovation by SMEs is the high costs and risk of Research &

Development (R&D), as most SMEs lack the resources and capacity to undertake long-term

innovation projects28 (“Seeking Opportunities from Disruption”, 2017).

28 According to Mr S Iswaran, Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry), in 2015 “most SMEs lack the resources and

capacity to undertake long-term research and development or innovation projects,”

20

Hence, an innovation fund could be established, with the government and other SMEs co-

investing in it, enabling cost-sharing. Under this framework, co-investments by SMEs are

matched with co-payment by governmental bodies, which allows large-scale innovation projects

to be carried out by research institutions. The tripartite partnership encourages innovation by

SMEs since research costs can be spread over many stakeholders. Sharing of outcomes of

research amongst SME investors enables widespread benefits across the economy.

21

5. Final Thoughts

As we stand at the cusp of the age of disruption, focus should be placed on creating an

environment for and empowering firms to exploit and create disruptive innovation, to move

towards a dynamic, competitive future economy.

Yet, beyond the strategies proposed, perhaps what is most critical is a shift in mindset. The

effectiveness of these strategies is, after all, contingent upon a paradigm shift in Singapore -

transforming the culture of “fear of failure” into one that embraces failure as an avenue for

innovation and progress. Disruptive innovation requires risk-taking, adaptability to change and

courage to venture into dangerous unknowns. Only then will Singapore be positioned at the

forefront of innovation and thrive in the age of disruption.

22

Appendix: A Brief Introduction To Christensen’s Theory of Disruptive

Innovation

Disruptive innovation, a term of art coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by

which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market

and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.

As companies tend to innovate faster than their customers’ needs evolve, most organizations

eventually end up producing products or services that are actually too sophisticated, too

expensive, and too complicated for many customers in their market.

Companies pursue these “sustaining innovations” at the higher tiers of their markets because

this is what has historically helped them succeed: by charging the highest prices to their most

demanding and sophisticated customers at the top of the market, companies will achieve the

greatest profitability.

However, by doing so, companies unwittingly open the door to “disruptive innovations” at the

bottom of the market. An innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of

consumers at the bottom of a market access to a product or service that was historically only

accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill.

Characteristics of disruptive businesses, at least in their initial stages, can include: lower gross

margins, smaller target markets, and simpler products and services that may not appear as

attractive as existing solutions when compared against traditional performance metrics.

Because these lower tiers of the market offer lower gross margins, they are unattractive to other

firms moving upward in the market, creating space at the bottom of the market for new

disruptive competitors to emerge.

23

Adapted from: “Disruptive Innovation”

http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

Image Extracted From:

https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/disruptive-innovation

24

Bibliography

Christensen, C., Raynor, M., & Mcdonald, R. (2015). What Is Disruptive Innovation?. Harvard

Business Review, (DECEMBER 2015). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-

disruptive-innovation

Christensen, C. Disruptive Innovation. Clayton Christensen. Retrieved 13 May 2017, from

http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

King, A., & Baatartogtokh, B. (2015). How Useful Is the Theory of Disruptive Innovation?. MIT

Sloan Management Review, (Fall 2015). Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-

useful-is-the-theory-of-disruptive-innovation/

Jose, T. (2016). Creative destruction and disruptive innovations - Indian Economy.

Indianeconomy.net. Retrieved 13 May 2017, from

http://www.indianeconomy.net/splclassroom/296/creative-destruction-and-disruptive-

innovations/

The Boston Consulting Group. (2015). Industry 4.0 The Future of Productivity and Growth in

Manufacturing Industries. Retrieved from http://www.zvw.de/media.media.72e472fb-1698-4a15-

8858-344351c8902f.original.pdf

McKinsey Global Institute. (2013). Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life,

business, and the global economy. McKinsey Global Institute.

Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Agent of change The future of technology disruption in

business. The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. Retrieved from

http://specials.nrc.nl/ricoh/documens/files/whitepapers/Economist%20IU_Agent%20of%20chan

ge_The%20future%20of%20technology%20disruption%20in%20business_2012_Whitepaper.pd

f

Taylor, B. (2016). How Domino’s Pizza Reinvented Itself. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved

from https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-dominos-pizza-reinvented-itself

25

Christensen, C. (2009). The Past and Future of General Motors. The Huffington Post. Retrieved

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clayton-m-christensen/the-past-and-future-of-

ge_b_184780.html

Johnson, K. (2017). IBM Watson opens $200 million IoT headquarters in Munich. VentureBeat.

Retrieved 13 May 2017, from https://venturebeat.com/2017/02/16/ibm-watson-opens-200-

million-iot-headquarters-in-munich/

McGinnis, J., & Pearce, R. (2014). THE GREAT DISRUPTION: HOW MACHINE

INTELLIGENCE WILL TRANSFORM THE ROLE OF LAWYERS IN THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL

SERVICES. FORDHAM LAW REVIEW, 82. Retrieved from http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-

content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_82/No_6/McGinnisPearce_May.pdf

Khosla, V. (2017\2). Technology will replace 80% of what doctors do. Fortune.com. Retrieved

13 May 2017, from http://fortune.com/2012/12/04/technology-will-replace-80-of-what-doctors-do/

Dragonette, L. Gig Economy. Investopedia. Retrieved 13 May 2017, from

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gig-economy.asp

Lim, S. (2017). Speech on CPF and gig economy by Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister for Manpower

at Committee of Supply 2017. Speech.

Chia, Y. (2016). Tech disruption may push up unemployment rate. The Straits Times. Retrieved

from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/manpower/tech-disruption-may-push-up-

unemployment-rate

Toh, Y. (2016). A year of disruption: From jobs to gigs. The Straits Times. Retrieved from

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/from-jobs-to-gigs

Paul Nunes, L. (2013). Big-Bang Disruption. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from

https://hbr.org/2013/03/big-bang-disruption

26

Singapore Business Federation. (2016). http://www.sbf.org.sg/sbf-national-business-survey-

2016-17-businesses-still-facing-challenging-times-and-more-can-be-done-to-mobilise-

companies-to-transform. Singapore: Singapore Business Federation. Retrieved from

http://www.sbf.org.sg/sbf-national-business-survey-2016-17-businesses-still-facing-challenging-

times-and-more-can-be-done-to-mobilise-companies-to-transform

SEIZING OPPORTUNITIES FROM DISRUPTION. (2017). Springnews, 5-7.

Habtay, S. R., & Holemen, M. (2012). From disruptive technology to disruptive business model

innovation: In need for an integrated conceptual framework. Creativity and Innovation

Management. Forthcoming.

Tan, M. (2016). Spring Singapore aims to help drive topline growth. The Straits Times.

Shiao, V. (2016). Many SMEs bo chap about innovation. The Business Times. Retrieved from

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sme/many-smes-bo-chap-about-innovation-sccci-head

MAS Proposes a Regulatory Sandbox for FinTech Experiments. (2016). Mas.gov.sg. Retrieved

13 May 2017, from http://www.mas.gov.sg/News-and-Publications/Media-Releases/2016/MAS-

Proposes-a-Regulatory-Sandbox-for-FinTech-Experiments.aspx

Soon, S. (2016). Preparing Singapore in a Disruptive World. The Straits Times. Retrieved from

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/preparing-spore-in-a-disruptive-world