TechNet Introductory Remarks

Welcome to the discussion on identifying critical technologies in developingcountries. This discussion, initiated at the request of the World Bank, is timelybecause many developing countries see science and technology as a path toeconomic and social development. Yet, given limited resources, it is not clearwhich technologies should be nurtured, and which entity - government, industry,academe or some combination should take action. Officials in developing countrieswant to see if lessons about technology forecasting from the developed world canbe adapted to their specific development needs.

To address this question, we have invited you to discuss technology forecasting.More than 500 readers from around the world have signed onto this discussion tolearn what the expert panelists have to say. The readers will be able toparticipate on a limited basis through Vita.

This paper outlines the issues to be discussed, and describes some of thediscussion protocol. This discussion will take place sequentially on a listserv,but will also be archived. A finalproceeding will summarize the findings of this discussion and will also be postedto the listserv and on the web page.

Issues

In this age of rapidly advancing technology, what will it take fornations to remain competitive in the world economy? What new technologies must bedeveloped to ensure the health and security of an economy, while at the same timeprotecting the quality of the environment? How do the imperatives for theseactions change with the size of a Nation's economy and the level of nationaleconomic development? Can business and government partner in a way that providessupport to industry while helping meet national level needs? This on-linediscussion will ask these questions in the context of technology forecasting. Bydelineating the experiences of technology forecasting in industrializedcountries, we will attempt to derive specific lessons that can be used bydeveloping countries.

As a background to the discussion, this note discusses five key concepts andquestions surrounding the identification of critical technologies:

Why look ahead when the future is so uncertain?
What is a critical technology?
What are methods used for identifying critical technologies?
How do different countries make these determinations?
What is the recent U.S. approach to identifying criticaltechnologies?

I. Why Look Ahead?

While the probability is high that any single guess about the future will bewrong, the exercise in asking what technologies may be important in the future isanything but idle. Envisioning the future creates a cultural dialog whichhelps tailor expectations about the contribution of science and technology to meeting future needs. A broad social dialog can focus on:

Solving societal problems with science and technology
Anticipating ethically or environmentally objectionable outcomes
Help to manage the allocation of limited resources
Determine when a nation should seek to cooperate internationally or whengovernment industry partnering is appropriate
Identify national or regional strengths.

Looking ahead at technological possibilities may also be more likely to bearfruit now than in the past. A consensus appears to be emerging among scientistsand engineers - the creators of technology - about the directions that technologymay go in the future. Some have suggested that this emerging consensus ispossible because the laws behind quantum theory, computer science and informationtheory, and molecular biology and genetic technology have reached a level ofmaturity and cohesion that enables significant and increasingly rapiddevelopment, and that these three broad disciplines will be the driving forcesfor the development of future technology.

II. What is a Critical Technology?

When one examines the various reports and discussions about criticaltechnologies, it is possible to identify several different meanings of the termimplicit in its use:

Technology which is the "state-of-the-art," or "high technology"
Technology which is a component of national self-sufficiency
Scientific or technical capabilities that are the "pace setter" for otherapplications.
Capabilities or tools that are generic or pre competitive and thereforecontribute to many fields.

In a paper by Steven Popper (one of our expert panelists) and Bruce Bimber, "Whatis a Critical Technology?" (RAND 1994), the authors identified the meaningsabove, and outlined criteria for a useful definition of the term "critical."These are:

The term should be policy relevant and actionable so that decisions can bemade about R&D funding, technology transfer, and other allocation issues.
Use of the term "critical technologies" should be discriminating and clear sothat not all technologies can be added to the list, and some can be taken off asconditions change.
The definition should be reproducible and functional so that panels andagencies employing it will come up with comparable results.

III. What methods are available to identify critical technologies?

Although similar in their goal of identifying technologies important to thefuture, each country undertaking a forecasting or technology identificationexercise has crafted its own approach to defining and identifying criticaltechnologies. Each of these national efforts reflects the system of innovationand technology development in that country. Criteria for listing technologiescross a range of factors:

Economic benefits sought (i.e., contributes to industrial competitiveness,essential for future innovation, support a rapidly developing sector, improvesforeign exchange)
Scientific benefits expected (i.e., builds the national science base, buildsgeneric technology capabilities)
Social benefits needed (i.e., improves the environment, builds human capital,contributes to health and safety)
National security imperative.

Once a group identifies a definition of what is critical and determines whatcriteria are essential for listing a technology, several methods are available toseek expert and stakeholder input on views of future technology. Theseinclude:

Foresight--a collection of methods to establish priorities based on analysisof current trends; monitors indicators of evolving trends and developments tounderstand the forces shaping the future;
Survey research--using face-to-face interviews to elicit expert judgmentabout the future of social needs and/or technology
Delphi--a specific form of survey research useful for long range forecastingwhere expert opinion is the only source of information; surveys experts initerative rounds of process seeking patterns and consensus
Group meeting--an outreach effort in which citizens and experts can be askedto help identify national problems and possible technology solutions.

IV. How do Different Countries Make These Determinations?

Three broad approaches instruct national technology forecasting exercises:

Technology supply--where current trends in technology "push" are projectedinto the future
Social demand--where social needs are defined and possible technology-basedsolutions are identifie;
Integrated--where both technology trends and social needs are examined incomplement and combination.

In a monograph, "Critical Technologies in a Global Context," (RAND, 1996)Caroline Wagner broadly attributes the first type of approach to past exercisesconducted in the United States. The second type of approach--the social demand"pull"--to past Japanese efforts, and the integrated approach as representingmore of the European approaches to technology forecasting. In general, the U.S.exercises have involved only a small number of experts while the Japanese haveinvolved hundreds of experts. The European activities often involve both expertsand stakeholders.

V. The Recent U.S. Approach

Since 1991, the U.S. federal government has sponsored reports at regularintervals to identify critical technologies and to ask, essentially, "How are wedoing?" in creating and nurturing critical technologies. Most recently, the WhiteHouse Office of Science and Technology Policy turned to the RAND Corporation tohelp answer this and related questions. Whereas previous government reportsfocused on producing lists of critical technologies, "New Forces at Work:Industry Views Critical Technologies," (RAND, 1998), the fourth in a series ofreports on critical technologies, explores the wider set of issues surroundingthis area of policy from an industry perspective. The authors, StevenPopper, Caroline Wagner, and Eric Larson, engaged and solicited the views ofpresidents, CEOs, and Chief Technology Officers from 39 firms representing across section of industries. The result is a revealing look at the state of fivemajor technology sectors that U.S. industry can't do without: software,microelectronics and telecommunications technologies, manufacturing technologies,materials, and sensor and imaging technologies-as well as the context of theirapplication in industry.

The format enabled the authors to elicit views on the importance of technologiesmentioned less frequently in the public discourse. It permitted examination ofthe question, "What constitutes a critical technology?" from a businessperspective. The discussions also considered the larger environment within whichthe technologies of the future will be developed and deployed: the state of K-12education, the connection between technology and the public welfare, the role ofthe federal government in critical-technology development, and the nature ofpossible partnerships between the government, industry, and the universitysectors.

Discussion Protocol

Expert panelists can post directly to the discussion, which will run fromFebruary 15 until March 15. Readers may also participate, but first send theirmessages to tec4@vita.org.

Please post messages to the list in response to issues and thoughts posted byother experts. We will focus on one issue at a time. Try to keep a line ofdiscussion going, but, if you are suggesting a new topic, note this in theheader.

Please do not post material that you or others have published elsewhere - thismaterial can be posted on the web page and referred to in email. (Send materialsto jtin@worldbank.org.) Keep it informaland respectful. Post as often as you like, remembering that shorter notes aremore likely to be read.

The topics for discussion will be sent separately, as the discussion itselfunfolds.

S&T Policy Institute Home | RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment | RAND Home

Please forward all questions about our work to the Director of ISE.