“New Forces at Work: Industry Views Critical Technologies”

Earlier this week the Office of Science and Technology Policy released a report by the newly-named Science and Technology Policy Institute (formerly the Critical Technologies Institute) on critical technologies. The 155-page report, “New Forces at Work: Industry Views Critical Technologies,” provides thoughtful analysis of the responses of 39 senior corporate executives to the question, “What technologies are critical to your firm/industry?”

While many technologies were cited, the following were mentioned most frequently: software, microelectronics and telecommunications technologies, advanced manufacturing technologies, materials, and sensor and imaging technologies. Regarding software, the report states, “Leading the list was concern over software as being both a potential enabler of industrial development and a serious bottleneck to it. No other technology area came close to matching it for frequency of citation as a crucial link in the individual firm’s internal process or means of production.” A related concern was shortages of skilled employees.

In discussing materials, the report says the following: “Driving the widespread interest in this area was anticipation of near-term, technology-driven developments down the cost curve...that would permit the wider application of new materials -- both structurally and functionally (as components conveying new capabilities).” Later, the report notes, “Ceramics and composites (including polymers) recurred as the principal areas of general interest.” “Presently, the costs of production and post-production machining prohibit the wider exploitation of the properties inherent in ceramics and many composites.”

Respondents were also asked about critical technologies for the larger society. Here the report states, “when asked what technologies they thought would transform industries and economies in the future, biotechnology led the list across the range of interviews.”

The report gives considerable attention to the sometimes controversial issue of the appropriate role of government in R&D. The Executive Summary includes the following:

“Perhaps surprisingly, there was little concern about government overstepping its traditional bounds and meddling in business concerns. More often, there was a desire that the government continue to contribute in areas in which it was perceived by some to be faltering: especially in funding higher education and basic research. The aspects of the current government role -- providing leadership, supporting basic and high-risk research, and ensuring an economic, legal, and regulatory environment conducive to innovative activity -- were widely thought to be appropriate.” “As the government role became viewed as being more narrowly focused on specific development areas, responses shared less agreement that such a role was appropriate.” It is notable the analysis found that “what firms think the government ought to do and what the actual numbers on federal outlays suggest it does, track each other fairly closely.” A later chapter explores government funding in the context of type of research, functional area of research, degree of targeting, and cost-sharing and other arrangements.

The report, the fourth in a series, contains much useful information and food for thought. It can be accessed at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1008/MR1008.pdf/