Question

9. Explain why an organizational structure other than hierarchy might make sense in the knowledge economy. Can you justify a hierarchical organization?

11. How would you encourage innovation when whatever is invented or created is expensive to invent or create and has a very low cost of copying and distribution?

12. Why do economists tend to disagree with protectionist measures that interfere with trade and also support patents and copyrights?

Answer 1

9 Answer:
Centralization
Centralization is how much basic leadership specialist is amassed at more elevated amounts in an association. In brought together organizations, numerous imperative choices are made at larger amounts of the chain of importance, though in decentralized organizations, choices are made and issues are tackled at bring down levels by workers who are nearer to the issue being referred to.
As a representative, where might you feel more good and beneficial? In the event that your answer is "decentralized," you are not the only one. Decentralized organizations give greater specialist to bring down level workers, bringing about a feeling of strengthening. Choices are regularly speedier, and representatives trust that decentralized organizations give more noteworthy levels of procedural reasonableness to workers. Occupation applicants will probably be pulled in to decentralized associations. Since concentrated associations dole out basic leadership duty to more elevated amount chiefs, there are more noteworthy requests on the psychological and physical capacities of CEOs and other abnormal state directors. Regardless of numerous apparent disservices, centralization may prompt more effective tasks, especially if the organization is working in a steady situation

Hierarchyial Levels

Another critical component of an organization's structure is the quantity of levels it has in the progression. Keeping the span of the association consistent, tall structures have a few layers of administration between cutting edge representatives and the best level, while level structures comprise of few layers. A firmly related idea is traverse of control, or the quantity of workers answering to a solitary chief. In tall structures, traverse of control has a tendency to be littler, bringing about more prominent open doors for administrators to oversee and screen representative exercises. Conversely, level structures include a more extensive traverse of control. In such a structure, chiefs will be generally unfit to give close supervision, prompting more noteworthy levels of opportunity of activity for every worker. Research demonstrates that level associations give more prominent need fulfillment to workers, and more noteworthy levels of self-realization (Ghiselli and Johnson, 1970; Porter and Siegel, 2006). Organizations, for example, the IKEA Group, the Swedish furniture maker and retailer, are effectively utilizing level structures to fabricate a representative attitude of employment contribution and proprietorship. In the meantime, there might be a few difficulties related with level structures. In level structures, representatives won't have numerous chances to get supervision and direction from the administrator, making it vital for workers to act naturally dependent. Indeed, examine demonstrates that when directors administer a substantial number of workers, which will probably occur in level structures, representatives encounter more noteworthy levels of part equivocalness (Chonko, 1982). This might be a detriment for workers who require nearer direction from their directors. Besides, in a level structure, headway openings will be more constrained, on the grounds that there are less administration layers. At long last, while workers report that level structures are better at fulfilling their higher request needs, for example, self-realization, they additionally report that tall structures are better at fulfilling security needs of representatives (Porter and Lawler, 1964). Since tall structures are run of the mill of vast and entrenched organizations, it is conceivable that when working in such associations, representatives feel a more prominent feeling of employer stability.

11 Answer:

Individuals OFTEN USE the words "creation" and "advancement" conversely. This isn't just inaccurate, yet misses a couple of key nuances in implying that can change a discussion. Development is tied in with making something new, while advancement presents the idea of "utilization" of a thought or technique. While this distinction is unpretentious, and these words are recorded in each thesaurus that I checked as equivalent words of each other, they are certainly not 100% compatible. A development is generally a "thing", while an advancement is typically a creation that causes change in conduct or connections.

Organizations regularly claim to be a "pioneer in advancement", and demonstrate an extensive heap of licenses as confirmation. Licenses are proof of developments, of having thought of something in the first place, and reporting the new innovation through a lawful procedure. The handiness of those creations isn't demonstrated, so "developments" don't generally liken to "advancements." There are numerous licenses which truly don't have an utilization or have affected no items or businesses. Licenses without an "utilization" are not advancement.

On the off chance that advancements deduce the "utilization" of another thought or strategy, at that point a creation that prompts development is extremely qualified by the amount it changes the practices of the clients, the organizations, and the procedures around it. Presently maybe the "Nose Pick" patent was a casualty of awful advertising, poor assembling, or only a "right thought at the wrong time", yet clearly it has not changed conduct and turn into a typical thing in the a long time since the patent was allowed.

Creation IS EASY — INNOVATION IS GENIUS (OR ACCIDENTAL)

Was the iPhone an awesome creation? We can dismember the iPhone into singular innovations and developmental unions of other contraption capacities and highlights. There are extremely no historic innovations from a specialized point of view, in the first (or second, or third) age iPhones. Shouldn't something be said about the iPad? As a general rule, one may contend that it is just a goliath iPhone with a couple of refreshed highlights. Touch screens, versatile interchanges for voice and information, "advanced cell" applications and UIs, the "home" catch, and tablet registering gadgets all existed (as thoughts and as items) numerous years prior to the iPhone. As confirmation, you should simply observe some Star Trek re-keeps running on TV or watch a Stanley Kubrick film.

Was the iPhone an incredible advancement? Absolutely.The iPhone made a biological community of media content, broadcast communications, permitting, application advancement, and brought together them all under one rooftop. The iPad developed on that achievement and made another "screen" to grow the portable and individual experience (an exceptionally lean-in style involvement) to incorporate more "recline" ergonomics and association. The iPad, I would contend, pushed Apple and iTunes from music into video and more rich-content markets (e.g. gaming).

Not very many developments are, without anyone else's input, effective advancements. Most developments are transformative changes to existing procedures, uses, or capacities, which are improved by one (or a few) contributing innovations. The tablet is an advancement of PDAs, compact PCs, touch-screen interfaces, and substance/media conglomeration. These developments existed a long time before the Kindle, iPad or GalaxyTab gadgets.

DRIVING INNOVATION WHILE PROTECTING INVENTION

We would prefer not to minimize the significance of creation. Archiving, securing, and utilizing developments is a foundation of advancement. The patent procedure and lawful frameworks around the globe perceive the privileges of a designer and help them by building up a framework which permits them the chance to abuse their developments for monetary benefit for a given timeframe. Development rights proprietors can del

iver items without others unmitigatedly replicating, permit their innovations to others to create, or make blends of innovations by banding together with other protected innovation proprietors.

Development is troublesome, as it is as a rule a mix of innovation, alongside utilize, behaviour and development models

12 Answer:

since the market harmony that for the most part happens with facilitated commerce (no impedance) augments social surplus in the economy licenses are great since they incidentally lessen rivalry so the one organization chipping away at the task can center around making it without worrying about whats going ahead with different organizations the same goes for copyright. they need to ensure licensed innovation.The principle thought of both is to diminish rivalry around one particular undertaking to permit the individual or organization delivering it to do it best