Dr. Aly, O.
Computer Science

Innovation can refer to a successful novel variant, a novel variant, or any variant (Buchanan, 2013).  It can also refer to the ideas underlying an invention or its first implementation (Buchanan, 2013).  Innovation can also refer to both the process by which variants are generated and the product (Buchanan, 2013).  Innovation introduces new cultural variation into the population through copying error, novel invention, refinement, recombination, and exaptation (Buchanan, 2013).  Thus, innovation is not a synonym of variation, as the variation entails a broader category which encompasses diverse forms only some of which are novel (Buchanan, 2013).  

Game-changing ideas are the “transformational magic” which takes the organizations from ordinary to exceptional (Myatt, 2012).  Game changers focus on pursuing a game-changing idea (Myatt, 2012).  They never get satisfied with the ordinary or mundane (Myatt, 2012).  They are described as relentless, persistent, committed to pursuing that idea that is hunting them (Myatt, 2012).   Moreover, the game changers are originals, and they refuse to allow their organizations to adopt conventional orthodoxy and bureaucracy (Myatt, 2012).  They challenge the norm, break the conventions, and encourage diversity of thoughts (Myatt, 2012).   They have a clear purpose, and they understand the value of serving something beyond themselves (Myatt, 2012).  In (Myatt, 2012), six steps called SMARTS for finding and implementing game-changing ideas; Simple-Meaningful-Actionable-Relational-Transformational-Scalable (Myatt, 2012). 

            Every game-changing ideas and innovation have driving forces that either supported them or were against them.  The driving force is described by (Wade, 2012) as “something with the potential to bring about significant change in the future.”   Some of the driving forces include uncertainty, potential impact, stability, risks, benefits, culture (Wade, 2012).

The historical and technological records contain various and numerous examples of innovation (Buchanan, 2013). Some of these innovations were accidental.  Some of these accidental inventions include the microwave, Saccharin, Slinky, Play-Doh, Super Glue, Teflon, Bakelite, Pacemaker, Velcro, X-Rays, Stainless Steel, Plastic, Teflon, Corn Flakes (Biddle, 2010; Cyran, 2012). The discussion in this project is limited to two of these accidental inventions, and the driving forces that supported them.  The driving forces can be culture, religion, technical complexity, technology and so forth.

1. Pacemaker

In 1959, the engineer Wilson Greatbatch and the cardiologist Chardack developed the first fully implantable pacemaker (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009).   The accidental innovation of the pacemaker happened when Greatbatch took 1-megaohm variety instead of picking a 10,000-ohm resistor out of a box to use on a heart-recording prototype (Biddle, 2010).  The resulting circuit produced a signal which sounded for 1.8 milliseconds, and then paused for a second – a dead ringer for the human heart (Biddle, 2010).  Greatbatch realized that the precise current of the resulting circuit could regulate a pulse, overriding the imperfect heartbeat of the person who has an issue with the heartbeat (Biddle, 2010).  The pacemaker before this accidental innovation was large and was attached to the person from the outside.  However, after this accidental innovation, the effect of the resulting circuit can lead to a small circuit which can be implanted into the person’s heart (Biddle, 2010).   Pacemakers have become smaller and lighter over the years (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009).

The pacemaker evolved with time.  The complexity and reliability in the modern pacemaker have increased because of the developments in the integrated circuit design (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009).  For instance, the early pacemakers did not have the capability of electrogram sensing pacing the ventricles asynchronously (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009).  However, the modern devices, called “demand mode pacemakers,” included a sense amplifier measuring cardiac activity, thereby avoiding competition between paced and intrinsic rhythms (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009). The demand pacemaker functional block involves power source, a sense amplifier, timing control, output driver, and electrode, while the earlier pacemaker functional block involved only power source, pulse generator and electrodes (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009).

Since pacing stimuli were only delivered when needed, longevity increase by the introduction of demand pacemakers (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009).  In 1963, the pacemakers were introduced to have the capability to synchronize ventricular stimuli to a trial activation (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009).  Since that time, the clinical, surgical and technological developments have proceeded at a significant pace providing the highly reliable, extensive therapeutic and diagnostic devices that are available today (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009).  Today, the modern pacemaker technologies are extremely complex and include an analog part, comprising the sense amplifier and a pacing output state, and a digital part consisting of a microcontroller, and some memory,  implementing diagnostic analysis of sensed electrograms, adaptive rate response and device programmability (Haddad & Serdijn, 2009). 

• X-Ray

In 1895, the German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen was performing a routine experiment involving cathode rays (Biddle, 2010; Cyran, 2012; NASA, n.d.).  He observed that a piece of fluorescent cardboard was lighting up from across the room (Biddle, 2010; NASA, n.d.).  A thick screen was placed between his cathode emitter and the radiated cardboard, demonstrating that particles of light passed through a solid object (Biddle, 2010).  He discovered it through arms and hands created detailed images of the bones inside (NASA, n.d.).  He experimented with cathode-ray tubes. Glass tubes with the air sucked out and a special gas pumped in (Cyran, 2012).  When he ran the electricity through the gas, the tube would glow.  However, something strange happened after he surrounded the tube with blackboard.  When he turned on the machine, a chemical few feet away started to glow (Cyran, 2012).  He was surprised because the cardboard should have prevented any light from escaping (Cyran, 2012).  He found out that cathode-ray tube had been sending out more than just visible light (Cyran, 2012).  It was sending out invisible rays which could pass right through paper, wood, and even skin (Cyran, 2012).  He captured X-Ray images, and the first of the skeletal images was his wife’s hand (Biddle, 2010; Cyran, 2012; NASA, n.d.).

X-Rays have much higher energy and much shorter wavelength than the ultraviolet light.  Scientists refer to X-Rays regarding their energy instead of their wavelength, because they have very small wavelengths, and some of them are no bigger than a single atom of many elements (NASA, n.d.).  Due to the benefits of the X-Rays, they have been used in many domains such as dental, any part of our body, and even the universe (NASA, n.d.).  In the area of radiography, X-Rays have used on dental, chest, mammography which is recommended for early detection of breast cancer.  These tests utilize short bursts of X-Ray beams and post little risk (NRPB, n.d.). X-Rays benefit extended to fluoroscopy a technique that uses X-Rays to produce a moving image on a TV screen.  More sophisticated method of using X-Rays is found in the computed tomography (CT) scan to produce 3-D pictures of the patients (NRPB, n.d.).  Although X-Rays provided many benefits to our lives, they expose some risks as they are a form of electromagnetic radiation, just like light waves and radio waves (NRPB, n.d.). X-Rays can cause damage to cells in the body, which in turn can increase the risk of developing cancer with the increasing number of X-Rays tests (NRPB, n.d.).

In summary, game-changing ideas and innovation can also be accidental.  The key success factor and forces for any innovation and game-changing ideas rely heavily on the person to process persistently, patiently, wisely with great commitment to go against the conventional and the traditional process and be bold. Game changer leaders have these common attributes which make them game changers, leaders, and innovators.  

References

Biddle, S. (2010). Whoops! The 10 Greatest (Accidental) Inventions of All Time. Retrieved from https://gizmodo.com/5620910/whoops-the-10-greatest-accidental-inventions-of-all-time.

Buchanan, B. (2013). Alex Mesoudi, Kevin N. Laland, Robert Boyd, Briggs Buchanan, Emma Flynn, Robert N. McCauley, Jürgen Renn, Victoria Reyes-García, Stephen Shennan, Dietrich Stout, and Claudio Tennie. Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology, Language, and Religion, 193.

Cyran, P. (2012). The 20 Most Fascinating Accidental Inventions. Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2012/1005/The-20-most-fascinating-accidental-inventions/X-ray-images.

Haddad, S. A. P., & Serdijn, W. A. (2009). Ultra-low-power biomedical signal processing: an analog wavelet filter approach for pacemakers: Springer Science & Business Media.

Myatt, M. (2012). 6 Steps for Creating a Game Changer. Retrieved January 30, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/10/10/how-great-leaders-create-game-changers/#43ee8019558b, Forbes.

NASA. (n.d.). X-Rays. NASA, Retrieved January 30, 2018, from https://web.archive.org/web/20121122024930/http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/11_xrays.html.

NRPB. (n.d.). X-Rays – Benefits and Risks. National Radiological Protection Board, Retrieved January 30, 2018, from http://www.radiology.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/X-Rays-Benefits-and-Risks.pdf.

Wade, W. (2012). Scenario planning: A field guide to the future: John Wiley & Sons.

Dr. Aly, O.
Computer Science

Purpose

The purpose of this discussion is to research some of the think tank concepts and methods that are deliberate and foster innovation. The discussion will address some key points about each method.

Discussion

Think Tank is also known as “Reflection Pool” (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  It was developed to assist in addressing the needs to expand the process of thinking without restriction (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  The traditional way for solving problems and learning include conferences, workshops and so forth (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  However, with Think Tank, the techniques go beyond the traditional method to include simulating creativity in the field, developing holistic thinking patterns, providing powerful tools to deal with complex and long-term problems, challenging restlessly creative leaders, and renewing the participants’ spirit (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).

There is no consensus on the definition of the Think Tank, despite the considerable efforts of the academic literature to define Think Tank and to establish its topology (Kelstrup, n.d.).  Think Tank is defined in various studies and journals.  The term “Think Tank” is defined as a structure for a group that focuses on providing a solution to a particular problem in the technology and science domain (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  However, it is regarded as a process rather than a structure by (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  Thus, the term can be defined as “a process for in-depth consideration of issues and challenges whose relevance reaches beyond the individual or program and the immediate time frame.” (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  In (Shaw, Russell, Greenhalgh, & Korica, 2014), Think Thank is described as “a civil society organization specializing in the production and dissemination of knowledge related to public policy” (Shaw et al., 2014).  In (Whittenhauer, n.d.), the Think Tank is described as “an organization that assembles experts with the sole purpose of coming together to think—more specifically, to think of ideas on how to solve a particular problem” (Whittenhauer, n.d.).   In (Hauck, 2017) Think Tanks are described as “organizations that have to proliferate, playing more and more the role of very relevant actors on the political scene in clashes over interests, preferences, and ideas for the formation of public policies” (Hauck, 2017).  In (Kelstrup, n.d.), Think Tanks are described as agents established globally in public policy across different levels of governance (Kelstrup, n.d.).  

Some indicated that the first proliferation wave of Think Tanks began in the United States and the United Kingdom at the turn of the twenty century (Hauck, 2017).  Most of the Think Tanks in the United States are funded by the government or political advocacy groups (Whittenhauer, n.d.). However, some of the Think Tank are established as for-profit organizations which sell their intellectual property or ideas to businesses and government (Whittenhauer, n.d.).  In Western Europe, the government finances 75% of German Think Tanks, to include public organizations in the studies (Hauck, 2017).  As indicated in (Shaw et al., 2014), around 6500 Think Tanks are operating across 169 countries and representing a range of organizations and interests (Shaw et al., 2014).   The role of the Think Tanks is increasing in healthcare domain worldwide through the work of organizations such as “Commonwealth Fund” in the US, the King’s Fund in the UK, and the Health and Global Policy Institute in Japan.  These organizations support health services research and policy analysis such as surveying trends in health coverage and communicating their work through media briefings and research seminars to shaping the health policy and planning (Shaw et al., 2014).

Two Major Concepts of Autonomous and Influence:  The two major concepts of Think Tank are the autonomy and influence (Kelstrup, n.d.).  These two concepts are drawn from existing literature on the definitions and description of the Think Tank (Kelstrup, n.d.).  Thus, the general definition of Think Tank is “Organizations that claim autonomy from and attempt to influence public policy” (Kelstrup, n.d.).  Based on these two underlying concepts, two dimensions are formed to include demand-driven and supply-driven (Kelstrup, n.d.).  Two main perspectives are categorized under each of these two dimensions; “political policy world,” and “administrative policy world” (Kelstrup, n.d.).  The “political policy world” perspective include two main sub-categories; the “political advisor” under the demand-driven dimension, and the “instrumental” under the supply-driven dimension (Kelstrup, n.d.).  Under the “political advisor,” which is the demand-driven approach, Think Tank meet the demand for biased knowledge (Kelstrup, n.d.).  Under the “instrumental,” which is the supply-driven approach, Think Tank supply normative knowledge by stakeholder interests (Kelstrup, n.d.).  The “administrative policy world” perspective include two main sub-categories; the “administrative, institutional” and “network” (Kelstrup, n.d.).  Using the “administrative institutional” that is the demand-driven approach, Think Tank meet the demand for cognitive knowledge (Kelstrup, n.d.).  In the “network,” which is the supply-driven approach, Think Tank supply cognitive knowledge to public administration (Kelstrup, n.d.).

Two Major Models of “one roof” and “without roof”:  There are two models for the Think Tank; the “one roof” Think Tank model and “without a roof” Think Tank model (Whittenhauer, n.d.).  In the “one roof” Think Tank Model, the diversified group comes in one place “under one roof” and interacts together face to face (Whittenhauer, n.d.).   Before the “one roof” model, the participants of the Think Tank communicated through phones and written correspondences (Whittenhauer, n.d.).  The costs that are associated with “one roof” model such as travel was a factor in decreasing the interaction among the Think Tank members (Whittenhauer, n.d.).  This model of “one roof” is regarded to be an effective Think Tank approach when immediate interactive conservation facilitates the intensified thought process (Whittenhauer, n.d.).  In 2009, the second model of “without roof” Think Tank model is used by organizations which do not have to fund the “one roof” model (Whittenhauer, n.d.).  The “without a roof” Think Tank model is more effective than the “one roof” because it does not require the funding that is required by the “one roof” on travel costs and so forth.  The “without roof” Think Tank model spends most of the money on research and the required costs for computers and utilities are not paid by think tank organization using this model (Whittenhauer, n.d.). 

Five Think Tank Techniques:  In (Penttila, 2007), there are five Think Tank techniques that enhance innovation: “combine ideas,” “think backward,” “do rapid prototyping,” “Create an internal incubation fund,” and “take it online” (Penttila, 2007).  Example of the “Combine Ideas” technique is the interactions between ideas and the methods to merge them which is used by Xerox (Penttila, 2007).  Example of “Think Backward” technique is the innovation method of McDonald by “backcasting” the product to see the end product first and work towards that end product (Penttila, 2007).  Example of “Do Rapid Prototyping” is McDonald which puts ideas through fast prototyping for a short period such as one day (Penttila, 2007).  Example of the “Create an internal incubation fund” is Xerox which sets aside funds that encourage employees to network and chase ideas that otherwise would not have a budget (Penttila, 2007).  For the “Take it online” Think Tank technique, as cited in (Penttila, 2007), Anthony Warren, the director of the Farrell Center for Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Penn State states that “Everybody can contribute all the time” (Penttila, 2007).

The Most Influential Think Tanks:  In (TBS, 2015), there are fifty most influential Think Tanks in the United States.  However, for this Discussion Board, the researcher is covering only the first five of these most influential Think Tanks in the United States.  The first Think Tank in the US that has great influence is “Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs” established in 1973 to analyze arms control and nuclear threat reduction (TBS, 2015).  The “Earth Institute” is the second influential Think Tank in US established in 1995 focusing on addressing important global issues such as sustainable development and the needs of the world’s poor (TBS, 2015).  The third most influential Think Tank is “Heritage Foundation” established in 1973 (TBS, 2015).  The focus of the Heritage Foundation is to track the yearly growth of federal spending, revenue, debt and deficit, and entitlement programs, which it then publishes as the Budget Chart Book and distributes free to the public.  The fourth most influential Think Tank is “Human Rights Watch” established in 1978 with the goal to conduct research and advocacy on human rights (TBS, 2015).  Kaiser Family Foundation is one of the first five most influential Think Tank founded in 1948 focusing on major health care issues in the US and the world (TBS, 2015).

References

Caliva, L., & Scheier, I. H. (1992). The Think Tank Techniques. Retrieved from http://academic.regis.edu/volunteer/ivan/sect03/sect03b.htm, The Center for Creative Community(Santa Fe, New Mexico).

Hauck, J. C. R. (2017). What are ‘Think Tanks’? Revisiting the Dilemma of the Definition *. Brazilian Political Science Review, 11(2), 1-30. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-3821201700020006

Kelstrup, J. D. (n.d.). Four Think Tank Perspectives. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/pdfs/Kelstrup_EILS.pdf.

Penttila, C. (2007). 5 Big Biz Think Tank Techniques. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/174688.

Shaw, S., Russell, J., Greenhalgh, T., & Korica, M. (2014). Thinking about Think Tanks in Health Care: a call for a New Research Agenda.

TBS. (2015). The 50 Most Influential Think Tanks in the United States. The Best Schools: Retrieved from https://thebestschools.org/features/most-influential-think-tanks/.

Whittenhauer, K. (n.d.). Effective Think Tank Methods. Retrieved from http://classroom.synonym.com/effective-think-tank-methods-5728092.html.

Dr. Aly, O.
Computer Science

Purpose

The purpose of this discussion is to discuss the research group decision-making methods. The discussion will include the Delphi technique, and at least two methods with a comparison among these methods.

Discussion

There are different techniques in group decision-making.  These techniques include Brainstorming, Normal Group Technique, Delphi Method, Dialectical Inquiry (Sarkissian, 2002).  The techniques in group decision-making also include the “Plop” Method” (Ozcan, Misir, & Kheiri, 2013; Schwartz, 1994), Decision by Authority Rule (Schwartz, 1994), Decision by Authority without Consultation (Minnesota, 2007), and Decision by Authority after Consultation (Minnesota, 2007).  Moreover, the group decision-making techniques also include Average of Group Member Opinion (Minnesota, 2007),  and Decision by Minority Rule (Minnesota, 2007; Schwartz, 1994).  The decision by Majority Rule (Minnesota, 2007; Schwartz, 1994) also known as “Voting and Polling” (Schwartz, 1994), Decision by Experts (Minnesota, 2007), and Consensus (Minnesota, 2007) are also group decision-making techniques.  The two group decision-making techniques for this DB are limited to the Delphi method, and to the Plop Method. 

The Delphi method is described as “a general way of structuring the group communication process and making it effective enough to allow a group of individuals, functioning as a whole, to deal with complex problems (Saizarbitoria Iñaki, Arana Landín, & Casadesús Fa, 2006).    It is also described as a systematic process attempting to obtain group consensus resulting in much more open and in-depth research as each member of the group has a unique contribution to identify a new aspect of the problem for more research (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006).  The Delphi method is also described as “a panel of experts is asked individually to provide forecasts in a technical field, with their views summarized and circulated for iterative forecasting until a consensus is reached” (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013). The Delphi method a commonly used technique for research in the fields of medicine or sociology (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006). The techniques of Delphi are rooted in the social representation more than in statistics representation.  This social representation is based on views of experts in the field of the research and investigation (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006).  The key factors to this type of research are the selection of the members of the panel which should be based on their knowledge, capabilities, and independence (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006).   It is highly recommended that the panel should include at least seven members and at most thirty members (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006).   Studies show that when the panel has a large group of experts, many of them do not demonstrate sufficient knowledge or capabilities, and accordingly, they withdraw from the panel prematurely increases (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006).   To minimize such premature withdrawal from the panel, it is critical that the experts must be selected carefully and receive the information about the objective of the study (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006).  The selected experts should be notified of the estimated time required for their participation, and the potential of the research and possible benefits they can obtain by participating in such a study (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006).  Delphi method minimizes the danger of dominant influence of any of the panel members by not identifying the members when expressing their opinions (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006).   Another success factor for Delphi method is rooted in the writing of the questions to be included in the different questionnaires (Saizarbitoria Iñaki et al., 2006). 

The “Plop” method as a group decision-making technique works by providing different ideas about a subject and arguing them until the group reaches consensus on one of them (Ozcan et al., 2013; Schwartz, 1994).  It is described to be simple and commonly used technique (Ozcan et al., 2013). However, it is not regarded to be appropriate for all types of group decisions (Ozcan et al., 2013).  In (Ozcan et al., 2013), the “Plop” method is described similar to (Ozcan et al., 2013). However, (Schwartz, 1994) elaborated on the technique indicating that a member from the group proposes an idea before anyone else in the group, followed by another member proposes another idea until the group eventually finds one and agree upon it to act on (Schwartz, 1994).  The result in shooting down the original idea before it is considered and the rejection of all other ideas, the members who proposed these rejected ideas feel their proposals have “plopped” (Schwartz, 1994).  The member feels ignored and possibly rejected (Lauby, 2015).  In (Rebori, NA) the “Plop” method is described as “no decision” technique where members avoid making decision consciously or unconsciously and thus make the decision not to decide (Rebori, NA).  In this techniques member jumping from one topic to another, allowing the member to shift the topic before a decision is reached and by the “plop” (Rebori, NA).  The plop is a board decision by “omission” (Rebori, NA).   Thus, it is a decision not to decide (Rebori, NA).  While the “Plop” method is common, it is the least visible technique for group decision making (Ozcan et al., 2013).   The “Plop” method can be very useful when a person just refuses to believe the idea has any merit (Lauby, 2015).

References

Lauby, S. (2015). Essential Meeting Blueprints for Managers: Packt Publishing.

Minnesota, U. O. (2007). Typical Methods of Group Decision Making. Retrieve from http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@ncr/documents/webcontent/convert_274389.pdf.

Ozcan, E., Misir, M., & Kheiri, A. (2013). Group decision making hyper-heuristics for function optimisation. Paper presented at the Computational Intelligence (UKCI), 2013 13th UK Workshop on.

Rebori, M. K. (NA). Community Board Development: Series 5. University of Nevada, Retrieved from https://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/cd/other/fs9856.pdf.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers: Sage.

Saizarbitoria Iñaki, H., Arana Landín, G., & Casadesús Fa, M. (2006). A Delphi study on motivation for ISO 9000 and EFQM. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 23(7), 807-827.

Sarkissian, A. (2002). Different Techniques in Group Decision-Making. Retrieve from https://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/different-techniques-group-decisionmaking-17366.html.

Schwartz, A. E. (1994). Group decision-making. The CPA Journal, 64(8), 60.

Dr. Aly, O.
Computer Science

Purpose

The purpose of this discussion is to discuss a technology and a key trend from this Web site: https://www.nmc.org/nmc-horizon/. The discussion will analyze at least two forces that impact the trend and the technology.

Note: For additional information on the sociotechnical process, review this Web site: http://horizon.wiki.nmc.org/

Discussion

This discussion is about “Think Tank.”  Let us begin with the definition of “Think Tank” before we get to the NMC. The term “Think Tank” is defined as a structure for a group that focuses on providing a solution to a particular problem in the technology and science domain (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  However, it is regarded as a process rather than a structure by (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  Thus, the term can be defined as “a process for in-depth consideration of issues and challenges whose relevance reaches beyond the individual or program and the immediate time frame.” (Caliva & Scheier, 1992).  In (Shaw, Russell, Greenhalgh, & Korica, 2014), Think Thank is described as “a civil society organization specializing in the production and dissemination of knowledge related to public policy” (Shaw et al., 2014).  In (Whittenhauer, NA), the Think Tank is described as “an organization that assembles experts with the sole purpose of coming together to think—more specifically, to think of ideas on how to solve a particular problem” (Whittenhauer, NA). Most of the Think Tanks in the United States are funded by the government or political advocacy groups (Whittenhauer, NA). However, some of the Think Tank are established as for-profit organizations which sell their intellectual property or ideas to businesses and government (Whittenhauer, NA).  There are two models for the Think Tank; the “one roof” Think Tank model and “without a roof” Think Tank model (Whittenhauer, NA).  The “without a roof” Think Tank model is more effective than the “one roof” because it does not require the funding that is required by the “one roof” on travel costs and so forth.  The “without roof” Think Tank model spends most of the money on research and the required costs for computers and utilities are not paid by think tank organization using this model (Whittenhauer, NA). 

NMC Horizon Report 2017 Higher Ed Edition:  This is a collaborative effort between NMC and the EduCause Learning Initiative (ELI) (NMC, 2018).  This Edition is the fourteenth edition to describe the annual findings from the NMC Horizon Project.  The purpose of this project is to identify and describe emerging technologies likely to have an impact on learning, teaching, and creative inquiry in education.  The key trends for accelerating technology adoption in Higher Education include three modes of trends: long-term, mid-term and short-term (NMC, 2018).  The main objective of the long-term trends is to drive ED Tech adoption in higher education for five or more year.  The advancing cultures of innovation and deeper learning approaches are the two forces that are required to achieve the long-term trends (NMC, 2018). The main objective of the mid-term trends is to drive Ed Tech adoption in higher education for the next three to five years (NMC, 2018).  The growing focus on measuring learning and redesigning learning spaces are the two forces that are required to achieve the mid-term trends (NMC, 2018). The main objective of the short-term trends is to drive Ed Tech adoption in higher education for the next one to two years.  Two forces are required to achieve short-term trends which are the blended learning designs, and collaborative learning (NMC, 2018).

For the long-term trends, the advancing cultures of innovation force include many areas of higher education that are spreading innovation, including the advancing cultures of entrepreneurial thinking and designing new forms of artificial intelligence (AI) (NMC, 2018).  It is considered to be the vehicle for driving the innovation.  The focus of this trend has moved from understanding the value of fostering the exploration of new ideas to finding ways to replicate it across a span of diverse and unique learning institutions (NMC, 2018).  The main element to enhance this force is to encourage higher education to modify its status quo to accept failure as an important part of the learning process.  The integration of the entrepreneurship in the higher education is an important step in realizing that big ideas usually begin from somewhere (NMC, 2018). Students and faculties should be equipped with tools that are required to spark the real progress in that domain.  Thus, the institution must evaluates and examine the curriculum and implement the required changes to remove any barriers that limit the development of new ideas (NMC, 2018).  There is a need for policies that can assist institutions to better finance revolutionary practices encouraging the nations to be more strategic in the allocation of funds to invest in efforts that enhance the completion of programs and the attainment of degree (NMC, 2018).

The deeper learning approach force is defined by William and Flora Hewlett Foundation as “the mastery of content that engages students in critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and self-directed learning” (NMC, 2018).  The connection between the coursework and the real world is required to help student remain motivated.  The deeper learning has proved that it is effective for improving the rates of the graduation in schools (NMC, 2018). The trend of the deeper learning approach force has been growing and is continuing to new developments.  The active learning approach has two strategies of inquiry-based learning; the problem-based learning where students solve real challenges and project-based learning where they create completed products (NMC, 2018).  There are no explicit policies that mandate project-based learning or other deeper learning approached in the universities or colleges. However, there is an effort from entities such as the Knowledge Alliances in Europe which represent projects intending to bring together post-secondary institutions and businesses to solve common problems (NMC, 2018).  The emphasis is on to develop innovation using multi-disciplinary approaches to education, and simulating entrepreneurial skills in higher education; and exchanging knowledge (NMC, 2018).   In the US, there are efforts from entities such as the Improving Career and Technical Education for the 21^st Century Act is to assist Americans to receive the skills that are required to compete for in-demand jobs.  The purpose of these efforts is to support students to get involved in work-based learning opportunities and promote the use of new types of credentialing (NMC, 2018). 

References

Caliva, L., & Scheier, I. H. (1992). The Think Tank Techniques. Retrieved from http://academic.regis.edu/volunteer/ivan/sect03/sect03b.htm.

NMC, H. P. (2018). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Retrieve from https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2017-higher-education-edition/.

Shaw, S., Russell, J., Greenhalgh, T., & Korica, M. (2014). Thinking about Think Tanks in Health Care: a call for a New Research Agenda.

Whittenhauer, K. (NA). Effective Think Tank Methods. Retrieved from http://classroom.synonym.com/effective-think-tank-methods-5728092.html.