Technology is constantly changing and, in turn, has the capacity to promote widespread social and economic change. For example, as blogger Bob Morris (2012) pointed out, if 3D printing

technology becomes available to and accepted by the masses, it could dramatically shift control of consumer production. Everything from lifesaving medicines to high-grade weaponry could

theoretically be manufactured by the individual, resulting in a significant economic and social change. Is such technological change desirable or detrimental?
Given the potential of technological change to generate economic upheaval, it should be no surprise that this question has garnered attention in the business research community. Theories have

been developed to explain the development and diffusion of technological changes; the theory of disruptive technology being among the most influential. Since its introduction by Clayton

Christensen in the mid 1990s, the theory has raised considerable debate. Topics of debate include what is the definition of disruptive technology, when and why it occurs; and how to predict,

survive, or promote it. As the pace of technological change accelerates, business professionals have given increased attention to this field of research and the impact of disruptive technology.
To prepare: Consider recent disruptive technologies that have impacted your specialization or professional practice.

Find at least one peer-reviewed article related to disruptive technology.(please attached article)
Write your definition of disruptive technology and an informed opinion on whether you consider disruptive technology to have a primarily positive or negative impact.
• In line with your argument, identify who it benefits and who it adversely affects.
• Then, offer the two most important considerations for either surviving or taking advantage of disruptive technology.
• Use examples from the Learning Resources to support your position.

: Disruptive technology

Order Description

The following are the instructions for this article review:

Read and critique the following article:
Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, (January-February): 71-79.
Please reference from the following articles in this critique:

Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1996b) Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System,” Harvard Business Review (January-February):75-85.
Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1993) Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work, Harvard Business Review (September-October).

Critique guidelines:
Do NOT use the first person
Do NOT use the second person
Then the structure of the review should include the following sections:
Introduction Review Section — The length of an introduction is usually one or two paragraphs, and briefly explains the topic of the article. Begin by providing initial identification of the article (author, title of article, year of publication, and other details that seem important,) and an indication of the major aspects of the article you will be discussing.

Summary Section — Present precise summary of the article’s main claims, findings, and arguments. Discuss the main aim of the article and summarize the main finding or key argument. Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the article. This can be a positive or negative evaluation or, as is usually the case, a mixed response. The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review. The author’s argument needs to be presented clearly and be objectively summarized so that the reader can recognize the theoretical approach and the range of material covered.

Assessment Review and Discussion section — The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the article. Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference or use examples). In this section you are required to question the information and opinions in the article and present your evaluation or judgement of the main themes of the article. Provide a critical discussion of the key issues raised in the article. In this section you need to clearly present the author main points or arguments before you express your own opinion. In this section, you need to indicate the main position or claim that your review will make in response to the article, and try to use relevant examples to support your arguments. You need to develop your review in relation to aspects of the article, offering thoughtful, well-supported proof for your claim(s) (examples). Make sure to provide reasons for your agreement or disagreement of the article supported by relevant example, theoretical framework or your own relevant working experience.

Summary of the review and Assessment Section — final evaluation of the overall contribution that the article has made to your understanding of the topic (and maybe its importance to the development of knowledge in this particular area or discipline).Summarize the main points made in the review stage in terms of your assessment of each aspect of the main points. Provide your overall assessment of the article and the basis of your agreement or disagreement with the main points of the articles. This should include your final evaluation of the overall contribution that the article has made to your understanding of the topic and maybe its importance to the development of knowledge in this particular area or discipline.

Feel free to add more section headings but use the listed four for certain.

The paper needs to be in Calibri 11 point with 1 inch margins all around.

: Disruptive technology

Order Description

The following are the instructions for this article review:

Read and critique the following article:
Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance, Harvard Business Review, (January-February): 71-79.
Please reference from the following articles in this critique:

Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1996b) Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System,” Harvard Business Review (January-February):75-85.
Kaplan, R. S. and D.P. Norton (1993) Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work, Harvard Business Review (September-October).

Critique guidelines:
Do NOT use the first person
Do NOT use the second person
Then the structure of the review should include the following sections:
Introduction Review Section — The length of an introduction is usually one or two paragraphs, and briefly explains the topic of the article. Begin by providing initial identification of the article (author, title of article, year of publication, and other details that seem important,) and an indication of the major aspects of the article you will be discussing.

Summary Section — Present precise summary of the article’s main claims, findings, and arguments. Discuss the main aim of the article and summarize the main finding or key argument. Conclude the introduction with a brief statement of your evaluation of the article. This can be a positive or negative evaluation or, as is usually the case, a mixed response. The summary should only make up about a third of the critical review. The author’s argument needs to be presented clearly and be objectively summarized so that the reader can recognize the theoretical approach and the range of material covered.

Assessment Review and Discussion section — The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the article. Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference or use examples). In this section you are required to question the information and opinions in the article and present your evaluation or judgement of the main themes of the article. Provide a critical discussion of the key issues raised in the article. In this section you need to clearly present the author main points or arguments before you express your own opinion. In this section, you need to indicate the main position or claim that your review will make in response to the article, and try to use relevant examples to support your arguments. You need to develop your review in relation to aspects of the article, offering thoughtful, well-supported proof for your claim(s) (examples). Make sure to provide reasons for your agreement or disagreement of the article supported by relevant example, theoretical framework or your own relevant working experience.

Summary of the review and Assessment Section — final evaluation of the overall contribution that the article has made to your understanding of the topic (and maybe its importance to the development of knowledge in this particular area or discipline).Summarize the main points made in the review stage in terms of your assessment of each aspect of the main points. Provide your overall assessment of the article and the basis of your agreement or disagreement with the main points of the articles. This should include your final evaluation of the overall contribution that the article has made to your understanding of the topic and maybe its importance to the development of knowledge in this particular area or discipline.

Feel free to add more section headings but use the listed four for certain.

The paper needs to be in Calibri 11 point with 1 inch margins all around.