Evaluation of Technology Level using a Dynamic Method on the ...
AEA 2008 Annual Conference Denver, USA
Evaluation of Technology Level using a Dynamic Method on the Critical Technologies in the 2nd S&T Basic Plan in Korea 2008. 11. 6 Soon Cheon Byeon, Jiyeon Ryu, Seokho Son and Moon Jung Choi KISTEP Pyengmu Bark, Pukyong National University Hyuck Jai Lee, KISTI South Korea
Contents
Backgrounds Targets and Methods Evaluation Results Future Works
I. Backgrounds – 577 strategy
II. Targets and Methods – Evaluation System NSTC NSTC
Discussing Discussingand andfinalizing finalizing plans and plans andresults results Finalize and make a notification of plans
GRIs GRIs
Plans
Survey Surveyofofthe theS&T S&Ttrends trends Survey results
Report evaluation results
Ministry Ministryof of Education, Education,Science Science &&Technology Technology Setting the plans Settingup up the plans Forming the evaluation Forming the evaluation committees committees
Make a notification of plans
Working WorkingGroup Group
Support Supportfor forthe theSurvey Surveyand and Analysis Analysis
KISTEP KISTEP
Mutual cooperation
Plans
assist
Analysis of evaluation report
Draw Drawup upthe theevaluation evaluation guidelines guidelines Analysis Analysisof ofthe theresults results
Plans
Review result
Associated AssociatedMinistries Ministries Assistance Assistancefor forthe the evaluation evaluation Recommendation Recommendationofofthe the experts experts
Committee Committeeof ofthe the Technology Technologylevel level evaluation evaluation
Review Reviewofofthe themethod method Review of the evaluation Review of the evaluation results results
II. Targets and Methods – Targets and Characteristiscs
Targets
○ 90 Critical Technologies in the 2nd S&T Basic Plan('08~'12) (364 detail technologies)
Characteristics
○ use both qualitative and quantitative method to secure evaluation result ○ analysis of quality and quantity of the related papers and patents ○ introduce Delphi method on the survey ○ introduce dynamic method to evaluate technology level ○ survey from industry, academy and research institutes
II. Targets and Methods – Process and contents Research on the S&T Trends ○ Trends on the industry, technology ○ Comparison of S&T competitiveness
Analysis on the publications
○ analysis on activity, citation of the related papers and patents
Delphi survey
○ preliminary survey to manage the survey ○ 1st survey on the tech level, time required and realization time ○ 2nd survey after informing on the 1st survey result
In-depth Interview
○ interview on the role of the government and proper policy to secure the related technology
II. Targets and Methods - items Evaluation Items
○ Technology level and time required for R&D Present and 5 years later Korea, USA, Japan, China, EU ○ Characteristics of the core technologies ○ major contribution factor for the acquisition of the tech level ○ method for the secure the core technology ○ obstruction for the R&D ○ investment direction, role sharing and R&D policy, etc.
II. Targets and Methods – survey statistics
Survey target
Preliminary survey
1st survey
2nd survey
# experts # techs # experts # responses # experts # responses # experts
70,462
364
4,781
31,941
2,816
9,985
1,943
# responses
5,277
# responses from # responses from # responses from Industry Academy Research institute
total
1,677
5,277
1,376
2,224
II. Targets and Methods – Evaluation example Technology Growth Model
○ S-shaped technology growth process Introduction → Growth → Expansion → Maturity → Decline ○ evaluate tech level(%) compared with upper limit(theoretical limit=100%) Tech level ○ evaluate time required for R&D by year Upper limit
Tech Time Gap
Tech level(USA) (65%)
USA Time required to reach the upper limit in USA(year)
Tech Level Difference
Tech level(Korea) (30%)
Kor Time required to reach the upper limit in Korea(year)
Introduction
Growth
Expansion
Maturity
Tech growth stage
Decline
Pearl equation • To predict population growth • Logistic function • Symmetric
L y= −bt (1 + ae ) y: level L: limit a: position b: decline
Level
Limit
t= -∞, y = 0 t= ∞, y = L t=0, y = L/(1+a) inflection: t=(lna)/b, y=L/2
time
10
Gompertz equation • Developed by Benjamin Gompertz • Not symmetric
y = Le
− be − kt
y: level L: Limit e: exponential b: position k: decline
Level
Limit
t= -∞, y = 0 t= ∞, y = L t=0, y = L/(1+a) Inflection: t=(lnb)k, y=L/e time
11
Pearl vs Gompertz • Which is proper model? • It depends on the characteristics and dynamics of the technology, not on the fitness with data. • Consider the purpose of the model is to predict future development. function Pearl Gompertz
characteristics Technology development velocity depends on the current level(y) and remaining level(L-y) Technology development velocity depends on the remaining level (L-y) for y>L/2 12
III. Results - All Areas
III. Results - Technology Level (%) KOREA
U.S.A
JAPAN
CHINA
EU
2008
2013
2008
2013
2008
2013
2008
2013
2008
2013
IT
62
67
77
79
71
74
50
56
70
72
BT
54
58
77
78
66
69
45
50
70
72
Machinery and Manufacturing
56
62
76
79
73
75
44
51
72
75
Energy
52
59
75
78
70
74
44
52
73
76
Space & Marine
56
61
86
88
74
77
63
68
77
82
Environment
58
64
77
78
71
73
45
49
73
73
Components and Materials
58
64
74
78
71
74
48
54
69
73
Construction and Transportation
58
61
75
77
74
75
47
52
74
78
Safety
52
61
82
83
73
77
44
52
72
80
III. Results – Required Time (year) KOREA
U.S.A
JAPAN
CHINA
EU
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 IT
13.7
11.3
9.6
7.7
10.9
9.0
16.9
14.2
11.3
9.4
BT
17.4
14.8
9.6
7.8
12.9
11.0
20.4
17.1
11.8
10.1
Machinery and Manufacturing
15.7
13.0
9.4
7.1
10.5
8.5
19.4
16.0
10.5
8.5
Energy
17.5
14.1
10.7
8.1
12.5
9.6
19.6
16.0
11.3
8.9
Space & Marine
17.4
14.3
6.0
4.2
11.0
8.6
14.9
12.0
8.5
6.4
Environment
16.4
13.5
9.6
7.5
11.1
9.1
19.8
16.7
9.8
7.8
Components and Materials
17.9
14.3
11.3
8.8
12.3
9.8
20.2
17.1
12.6
10.2
Construction and Transportation
16.7
14.4
10.6
9.0
11.2
9.5
20.2
17.5
10.3
8.8
Safety
17.1
14.9
6.9
5.8
9.6
8.6
20.3
17.9
8.1
7.3
III. Results - IT
Tech life time 36yrs
Technology Level (%)_IT (Present) World Top
81.6%
~
77.2% 72.9%
71.2%
Korea
- 14.5%
~ - 4.1yr
60.4%
- 12.2%
~
55.8%
62.7%
- 3.3yr 45.5%
China
50.5%
1. network tech group 2. mobile communication tech group 3. Semiconductor tech group 4. Electronics and components tech group 5. Information security and software tech group 6. Computer application tech group 7. Digital contents tech group
III. Results - IT (Present) Korea’s IT tech level is 62.7%
○ 14.5%p lower than World top level (77.2%) ○ 12.2%p higher than China (50.5%)
Korea’s required time up to limit is 16.3 years ○ 4.1 years behind World Top ○ 3.3 years ahead China
The highest group(72.8%)
is
Mobile
communication
* Mobile internet tech, 4G mobile communication tech, etc ○ 9.7%p lower than World top level (82.5%) ○ 12.4%p higher than China (60.4%)
Required time up to limit is 10.5 years ○ 2.2 years behind World Top ○ 3.8 years ahead China
tech
III. Results - IT (Present) The Lowest is Network tech group (55.8%)
* Next generation network tech, Next generation high performance computing tech, etc ○ 19.3%p lower than World top level (75.1%) ○ 8.2%p higher than China (47.6%)
Required time up to limit is 16.3 years ○ 6.5 years behind World Top ○ 1.8 years ahead China
Technology Level (%)_IT (5 years later) World Top
82.3%
74.6%
- 12.0%
~
Korea - 3.5yr
63.6% 61.7%
~
78.8%
73.3%
66.8%
- 10.6%
~ - 2.8yr 50.9%
56.2%
China 1. network tech group 2. mobile communication tech group 3. Semiconductor tech group 4. Electronics and components tech group 5. Information security and software tech group 6. Computer application tech group 7. Digital contents tech group
III. Results - IT (5 years later) Korea’s IT tech level is expected to be 66.8% (4.1%p higher than Present level) ○ Level difference with World Top decreases 2.5%p compared with Present level * 12.0%p lower than World top level (78.8%) ○ Level difference with China decreases 1.6%p compared with Present level * 10.6%p higher than China (56.2%)
Korea’s required time up to limit is 11.2 years (decrease 5.1 years than Present time) ○ Time difference with World Top decreases 0.6 year compared with Present level * 3.5 years behind World Top ○ Time difference with China decreases 0.5 year compared with Present level * 2.8 years ahead China
III. Results - BT
Tech life time 60yrs
III. Results - Machinery and Manufacturing
Tech life time 39yrs
III. Results - Energy
Tech life time 54yrs
III. Results - Space and Marine
Tech life time 43yrs
III. Results - Environment
Tech life time 42yrs
III. Results - Components and Materials
Tech life time 45yrs
III. Results - Construction and Transportation
Tech life time 44yrs
III. Results - Safety
Tech life time 44yrs
IV. Future Works
Prepare for the future technology growth
○ Determine a proper growth models for each core technologies ○ Predict future technology growth * Analyze the data on all the 9 areas ○ Develop proper R&D strategy based on the prediction
Thank you for your attention
For more questions : [email protected]
Evaluation of Technology Level using a Dynamic Method on the Critical Technologies in the 2nd S&T Basic Plan in Korea 2008. 11. 6 Soon Cheon Byeon, Jiyeon Ryu, Seokho Son and Moon Jung Choi KISTEP Pyengmu Bark, Pukyong National University Hyuck Jai Lee, KISTI South Korea
Contents
Backgrounds Targets and Methods Evaluation Results Future Works
I. Backgrounds – 577 strategy
II. Targets and Methods – Evaluation System NSTC NSTC
Discussing Discussingand andfinalizing finalizing plans and plans andresults results Finalize and make a notification of plans
GRIs GRIs
Plans
Survey Surveyofofthe theS&T S&Ttrends trends Survey results
Report evaluation results
Ministry Ministryof of Education, Education,Science Science &&Technology Technology Setting the plans Settingup up the plans Forming the evaluation Forming the evaluation committees committees
Make a notification of plans
Working WorkingGroup Group
Support Supportfor forthe theSurvey Surveyand and Analysis Analysis
KISTEP KISTEP
Mutual cooperation
Plans
assist
Analysis of evaluation report
Draw Drawup upthe theevaluation evaluation guidelines guidelines Analysis Analysisof ofthe theresults results
Plans
Review result
Associated AssociatedMinistries Ministries Assistance Assistancefor forthe the evaluation evaluation Recommendation Recommendationofofthe the experts experts
Committee Committeeof ofthe the Technology Technologylevel level evaluation evaluation
Review Reviewofofthe themethod method Review of the evaluation Review of the evaluation results results
II. Targets and Methods – Targets and Characteristiscs
Targets
○ 90 Critical Technologies in the 2nd S&T Basic Plan('08~'12) (364 detail technologies)
Characteristics
○ use both qualitative and quantitative method to secure evaluation result ○ analysis of quality and quantity of the related papers and patents ○ introduce Delphi method on the survey ○ introduce dynamic method to evaluate technology level ○ survey from industry, academy and research institutes
II. Targets and Methods – Process and contents Research on the S&T Trends ○ Trends on the industry, technology ○ Comparison of S&T competitiveness
Analysis on the publications
○ analysis on activity, citation of the related papers and patents
Delphi survey
○ preliminary survey to manage the survey ○ 1st survey on the tech level, time required and realization time ○ 2nd survey after informing on the 1st survey result
In-depth Interview
○ interview on the role of the government and proper policy to secure the related technology
II. Targets and Methods - items Evaluation Items
○ Technology level and time required for R&D Present and 5 years later Korea, USA, Japan, China, EU ○ Characteristics of the core technologies ○ major contribution factor for the acquisition of the tech level ○ method for the secure the core technology ○ obstruction for the R&D ○ investment direction, role sharing and R&D policy, etc.
II. Targets and Methods – survey statistics
Survey target
Preliminary survey
1st survey
2nd survey
# experts # techs # experts # responses # experts # responses # experts
70,462
364
4,781
31,941
2,816
9,985
1,943
# responses
5,277
# responses from # responses from # responses from Industry Academy Research institute
total
1,677
5,277
1,376
2,224
II. Targets and Methods – Evaluation example Technology Growth Model
○ S-shaped technology growth process Introduction → Growth → Expansion → Maturity → Decline ○ evaluate tech level(%) compared with upper limit(theoretical limit=100%) Tech level ○ evaluate time required for R&D by year Upper limit
Tech Time Gap
Tech level(USA) (65%)
USA Time required to reach the upper limit in USA(year)
Tech Level Difference
Tech level(Korea) (30%)
Kor Time required to reach the upper limit in Korea(year)
Introduction
Growth
Expansion
Maturity
Tech growth stage
Decline
Pearl equation • To predict population growth • Logistic function • Symmetric
L y= −bt (1 + ae ) y: level L: limit a: position b: decline
Level
Limit
t= -∞, y = 0 t= ∞, y = L t=0, y = L/(1+a) inflection: t=(lna)/b, y=L/2
time
10
Gompertz equation • Developed by Benjamin Gompertz • Not symmetric
y = Le
− be − kt
y: level L: Limit e: exponential b: position k: decline
Level
Limit
t= -∞, y = 0 t= ∞, y = L t=0, y = L/(1+a) Inflection: t=(lnb)k, y=L/e time
11
Pearl vs Gompertz • Which is proper model? • It depends on the characteristics and dynamics of the technology, not on the fitness with data. • Consider the purpose of the model is to predict future development. function Pearl Gompertz
characteristics Technology development velocity depends on the current level(y) and remaining level(L-y) Technology development velocity depends on the remaining level (L-y) for y>L/2 12
III. Results - All Areas
III. Results - Technology Level (%) KOREA
U.S.A
JAPAN
CHINA
EU
2008
2013
2008
2013
2008
2013
2008
2013
2008
2013
IT
62
67
77
79
71
74
50
56
70
72
BT
54
58
77
78
66
69
45
50
70
72
Machinery and Manufacturing
56
62
76
79
73
75
44
51
72
75
Energy
52
59
75
78
70
74
44
52
73
76
Space & Marine
56
61
86
88
74
77
63
68
77
82
Environment
58
64
77
78
71
73
45
49
73
73
Components and Materials
58
64
74
78
71
74
48
54
69
73
Construction and Transportation
58
61
75
77
74
75
47
52
74
78
Safety
52
61
82
83
73
77
44
52
72
80
III. Results – Required Time (year) KOREA
U.S.A
JAPAN
CHINA
EU
2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 2008 2013 IT
13.7
11.3
9.6
7.7
10.9
9.0
16.9
14.2
11.3
9.4
BT
17.4
14.8
9.6
7.8
12.9
11.0
20.4
17.1
11.8
10.1
Machinery and Manufacturing
15.7
13.0
9.4
7.1
10.5
8.5
19.4
16.0
10.5
8.5
Energy
17.5
14.1
10.7
8.1
12.5
9.6
19.6
16.0
11.3
8.9
Space & Marine
17.4
14.3
6.0
4.2
11.0
8.6
14.9
12.0
8.5
6.4
Environment
16.4
13.5
9.6
7.5
11.1
9.1
19.8
16.7
9.8
7.8
Components and Materials
17.9
14.3
11.3
8.8
12.3
9.8
20.2
17.1
12.6
10.2
Construction and Transportation
16.7
14.4
10.6
9.0
11.2
9.5
20.2
17.5
10.3
8.8
Safety
17.1
14.9
6.9
5.8
9.6
8.6
20.3
17.9
8.1
7.3
III. Results - IT
Tech life time 36yrs
Technology Level (%)_IT (Present) World Top
81.6%
~
77.2% 72.9%
71.2%
Korea
- 14.5%
~ - 4.1yr
60.4%
- 12.2%
~
55.8%
62.7%
- 3.3yr 45.5%
China
50.5%
1. network tech group 2. mobile communication tech group 3. Semiconductor tech group 4. Electronics and components tech group 5. Information security and software tech group 6. Computer application tech group 7. Digital contents tech group
III. Results - IT (Present) Korea’s IT tech level is 62.7%
○ 14.5%p lower than World top level (77.2%) ○ 12.2%p higher than China (50.5%)
Korea’s required time up to limit is 16.3 years ○ 4.1 years behind World Top ○ 3.3 years ahead China
The highest group(72.8%)
is
Mobile
communication
* Mobile internet tech, 4G mobile communication tech, etc ○ 9.7%p lower than World top level (82.5%) ○ 12.4%p higher than China (60.4%)
Required time up to limit is 10.5 years ○ 2.2 years behind World Top ○ 3.8 years ahead China
tech
III. Results - IT (Present) The Lowest is Network tech group (55.8%)
* Next generation network tech, Next generation high performance computing tech, etc ○ 19.3%p lower than World top level (75.1%) ○ 8.2%p higher than China (47.6%)
Required time up to limit is 16.3 years ○ 6.5 years behind World Top ○ 1.8 years ahead China
Technology Level (%)_IT (5 years later) World Top
82.3%
74.6%
- 12.0%
~
Korea - 3.5yr
63.6% 61.7%
~
78.8%
73.3%
66.8%
- 10.6%
~ - 2.8yr 50.9%
56.2%
China 1. network tech group 2. mobile communication tech group 3. Semiconductor tech group 4. Electronics and components tech group 5. Information security and software tech group 6. Computer application tech group 7. Digital contents tech group
III. Results - IT (5 years later) Korea’s IT tech level is expected to be 66.8% (4.1%p higher than Present level) ○ Level difference with World Top decreases 2.5%p compared with Present level * 12.0%p lower than World top level (78.8%) ○ Level difference with China decreases 1.6%p compared with Present level * 10.6%p higher than China (56.2%)
Korea’s required time up to limit is 11.2 years (decrease 5.1 years than Present time) ○ Time difference with World Top decreases 0.6 year compared with Present level * 3.5 years behind World Top ○ Time difference with China decreases 0.5 year compared with Present level * 2.8 years ahead China
III. Results - BT
Tech life time 60yrs
III. Results - Machinery and Manufacturing
Tech life time 39yrs
III. Results - Energy
Tech life time 54yrs
III. Results - Space and Marine
Tech life time 43yrs
III. Results - Environment
Tech life time 42yrs
III. Results - Components and Materials
Tech life time 45yrs
III. Results - Construction and Transportation
Tech life time 44yrs
III. Results - Safety
Tech life time 44yrs
IV. Future Works
Prepare for the future technology growth
○ Determine a proper growth models for each core technologies ○ Predict future technology growth * Analyze the data on all the 9 areas ○ Develop proper R&D strategy based on the prediction
Thank you for your attention
For more questions : [email protected]
