Development of post-evaluation model for future and emerging technology item reflecting environmental changes

Abstract This study suggests a post-evaluation model for future and emerging technologies identified by previous foresight activities to determine whether their potential has been maintained, extended, or minimized due to rapid technological and social changes in the research and development environment occurring after the technology item was selected. Moreover, the proposed model is based on specialist insight, and can measure whether the selected technology is still promising and socially and technically feasible at the current time domestically and worldwide based on a technology growth curve. The results of the case study suggest which technology items have been implemented or unimplemented due to particular accelerators or obstacles, which items are still promising, and the technology level of the items. The proposed model focuses on the technology items themselves, whereas previous evaluation activities have focused only on the process and impacts of foresight projects. Moreover, this post-evaluation model can be applied to various emerging technology items that are continuously selected and reported around the world, allowing for the monitoring of changes in the brightness and realization status of previously selected items. Thus, the model can provide feedback for the future selection process to improve the reliability of emerging technology selections and suggest the information for decision-making with related to a particular emerging technology item.

[1]  Per Dannemand Andersen,et al.  Innovation system foresight , 2014 .

[2]  Rafael A. Gonzalez,et al.  A systemic evaluation framework for futures research , 2012 .

[3]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  Evaluation of national foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact , 2006 .

[4]  Clayton M. Christensen EXPLORING THE LIMITS OF THE TECHNOLOGY S‐CURVE. PART I: COMPONENT TECHNOLOGIES , 1992 .

[5]  Mariano Nieto,et al.  Performance analysis of technology using the S curve model: the case of digital signal processing (DSP) , 1998 .

[6]  Dirk Meissner,et al.  Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future , 2013 .

[7]  Rafael A. Gonzalez,et al.  Theory of and within foresight – “What does a theory of foresight even mean?” , 2015 .

[8]  Hariolf Grupp,et al.  National Technology Foresight Activities Around the Globe , 1999 .

[9]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Science in Information Systems Research , 2004, MIS Q..

[10]  S. S. Li,et al.  Developing the evaluation framework of technology foresight program: lesson learned from European countries , 2009, 2009 Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy.

[11]  Kwang S. Kim,et al.  Large-scale pattern growth of graphene films for stretchable transparent electrodes , 2009, Nature.

[12]  Martijn van der Steen,et al.  Beyond use: Evaluating foresight that fits , 2012 .

[13]  Donghoon Oh,et al.  An analysis of international cooperation in the public research and development programs of Korea , 2010 .

[14]  Ekaterina Makarova,et al.  Integrated Framework for Evaluation of National Foresight Studies , 2013 .

[15]  C. Fleisher,et al.  Strategic and Competitive Analysis: Methods and Techniques for Analyzing Business Competition , 2002 .

[16]  James M. Utterback,et al.  A dynamic model of process and product innovation , 1975 .

[17]  John C. Mankins,et al.  Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective , 2009 .

[18]  Ron Johnston,et al.  Developing the capacity to assess the impact of foresight , 2012 .

[19]  Han-Lim Choi,et al.  Procedural characteristics of the 4th Korean technology foresight , 2014 .

[20]  Tatsuro Yoda,et al.  Perceptions of domain experts on impact of foresight on policy making: The case of Japan , 2011 .

[21]  Beata Poteralska,et al.  Evaluation of technology foresight projects , 2013, European Journal of Futures Research.