The Story of Technology: How We Got Here and What the Future Holds

by Daniel M. Gerstein

In this way, it is the combination of technologies—really the integration, coordination, and synchronization of the technologies—that contributes to an overall warfighting capability. This means that individual comparisons of aircraft can be interesting, but they only tell part of the story and—if not considered within the operational context in which the aircraft will be employed—can even be misleading. The real comparison should be assessing the comparative offensive and defensive employment of systems for the United States and potential adversaries to gain an understanding of which side has the advantages.

Considering the technology’s S-curve and relating it through analogy to other technologies’ developmental profiles can provide insights into how the technology in question might evolve in the future. One such method is called TRIZ or Theoria Resheneyva Isobretatelskehuh Zadach, which is Russian for “inventive problem-solving.” TRIZ is based on the principle that your problem or one similar to it has already been solved at some point. Thus, creativity means finding the earlier case, adapting that solution to your issue, and resolving all the contradictions.

One such model uses an economic analysis centered on understanding rates of return to assess future technology trends; this model is quite similar

to the use of the S-curve in determining where the technology falls within its life cycle. Another model uses chaos theory and artificial neural networks to look for repeatable patterns in previous technology development that can suggest the future for the technology being evaluated. The use of influence diagrams provides yet another model that has been identified for technology forecasting; such techniques allow one to determine the logical cause-and-effect relationships between related activities and the probabilities of those outcomes. Tools such as the critical path method and PERT (Program Evaluation Review Technique) provide specialized tools for considering such relationships and have proven useful in project management, of which technology development can be considered a subset.

The point of departure for our technology forecasting framework will be the assertion that five areas can be considered to gain an understanding of the prospects for a technology in the future: (1) science and technology maturity; (2) use case, demand, and market forces; (3) resources required; (4) policy, legal, ethical, and regulatory impediments; and (5) technology accessibility.

Related to TRLs are knowledge readiness levels (KRLs) and manufacturing readiness levels (MRLs).

KRLs can be very useful in assessing whether the technology area is sufficiently understood. Are the physical phenomena being employed well understood, or is further research or early development required to gain a fuller understanding? MRLs correspond to the producibility of the technology. Understanding the MRL is critical for a technology to cross the valley of death and become operationally relevant. Can the technology be produced in quantities needed to have an operational impact, or can it only be produced in small quantities? Does the product depend on component technologies with long lead times? Is there a viable supply chain for the technology to be produced (including any raw materials such as rare earth metals)? Publications can also provide insights into the maturity of the science and technology.

Patents provide important protections for intellectual property.

What is the level of maturity of the science and technology under consideration?” By considering the five components that define this area, a technology under consideration could be assessed according to the specific rating levels that indicate the maturity of the technology and therefore the effort that could be required to bring it to maturity. The levels are (1)

elemental, (2) proof of concept, (3) component and system validation, (4) full prototype, and (5) mature technology.

The five components of this technology area are perceived investment risk for technology development; need or potential impact of innovation; number and types of people or groups using the technology; business case; and number and size of companies that own IP or are doing the R&D.

Will market forces propel

the technology, or will developers and investors struggle to attract customers and need to stimulate demand and pull the market? Is it likely to become an essential part of everyday life or a technology that only a few specialized users will require?

The business case refers to the likely ROI t...

What is the initial investment? When is it likely to be recovered? What is the anticipated risk of the technology development? Is the technology a ...

The number and size of the company (or companies) that owns the IP or is doing the R&D matters.

Is the technology being developed by a small number of people who essentially are the horsepower behind the technology? Or are there likely to be issues with gaining access to the IP? Is the ownership clean, or are the relationships between the companies holding the IP and those doing the R&D complex and even uncertain? Are any foreign investors involved that could complicate IP protections? Are the companies commercial entities or small R&D firms?

Resources committed can provide useful metrics for considering the investment spending and thereby the potential for successfully developing a technology. The five components of this area are indirect investments, technology development costs, total research dollars allocated to the technology, organization of the investment, and related grants.

Indirect costs are critically important to the development of technology.

Estimating the total technology development costs is also essential and speaks volumes to the likely success of the endeavor.

Understanding the cost structure of the technology development project is also imperative.

Understanding the organizations making the investment is also imperative.

Using the five components that define this area, technology resource investments could

be assessed to be (1) little or no investment, (2) declining investment, (3) steady investment, (4) increasing investment, or (5) exponentially increasing investment.

Considering policy, legal, ethical, and regulatory impediments allows one to examine the potential barriers that have been or are likely to be imposed. The five components of this area are policy, legal, or ethical barriers; export controls; technical leadership; existing regulations and ability to regulate; and comparative advantage.

Accessibility allows for considering the technology from the point of view of the user.

The five components of this area are cost to use, regulatory, technical, access to the technology, and democratization and deskilling.

To assess this area, one would consider the technology accessibility by answering the following question: “Are the controls on the technologies likely to limit access to the wider population or be too technically sophisticated for widespread use?” Using the five components that define this area, the technology accessibility to the user could be assessed to be (1) extreme, (2) significant, (3) some, (4) few, or (5) no user accessibility impediments.

So how might this technology assessment framework be employed? First, an individual technology can be examined over time to assess how it has evolved and is likely to evolve in the future. For example, in one analysis I led at RAND, specific biotechnologies were examined in 2000, 2018, and 2030 to look at the past, present, and future periods. By examining the past and current trends, one could extrapolate into the future, in this case out to 2030. Second, examining an individual technology in this way could be useful in determining likely teaming partners for R&D projects. Understanding the relative advantages that each performer might bring to the R&D project could increase the potential for success. Third, this methodology could facilitate comparing various competing technologies to arrive at an assessment of which technology is most likely to complete a successful R&D process and transition. Certainly as the reader gains familiarity with the Technology Assessment Methodology, other applications are likely to be identified.

Establishing operational requirements is an essential component for developing technology programs that are connected to real-world problems and therefore more likely to successfully transition to use. The system in use throughout much of the government today is called the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) and serves as a mechanism for alignment and measurement of programs to determine their linkages to strategy, operational requirements, and resource expenditures.

Planning is an analytical activity carried out to aid in the selection of an organization’s objectives and then to examine courses of action that could be taken in the pursuit of objectives. . . . Programming is the function that converts plans into a specification schedule for the organization. . . . Budgeting is the activity concerned with the preparation and justification of the organization’s annual budget. . . . Operations consist of the actual carrying out of the organization’s program. . . . Evaluation is the function that evaluates the worthiness of programs.

While the system is highly formulaic, having such structure is imperative for conducting purposeful R&D that is connected to operational requirements. Without such a system, R&D could be conducted with little or no linkage to use cases in an operational environment.

The PPBS established a system that linked strategies, plans, operations, R&D, system acquisition, and life cycle support. The PPBS had also been nested within the DoD, where each of the departments, agencies, and geographic and functional commanders had a role in the process.

A natural tension exists between the operator and the technologist. The operator thinks about today’s problems and looks for ready solutions to allow her to do the job more effectively, efficiently, and safely. The technologist thinks about solving tomorrow’s problems, looking at how technology could provide important solutions. To complicate matters, the operator has a deep understanding of the context within and the constraints under which her duties are performed. The technologist, on the other hand, may lack this perspective and might have only a limited understanding of the actual requirements.

Bridging this divide requires closing the knowledge gap between the operator and technologist to find solutions that lead to the purposeful application of capabilities (including scientific knowledge or the collection of techniques, methods, or processes) for practical purposes.

Two relatively small federal programs are designed to foster innovation and promote small businesses, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. The SBIR program encourages domestic small businesses to engage in federal R&D that has the potential for commercialization. Competitive awards allow small businesses to conduct focused R&D in topic areas of interest to the government. Twelve departments and agencies in the federal government have SBIR programs, and each has the flexibility to administer their programs based on their needs and the guidelines established by Congress. The SBIR program has three phases tied to the R&D life cycle: (1) establishing the technical merit, feasibility, and commercial potential of the proposed R&D, which is an award of less than $150,000, (2) continuing R&D efforts, not to exceed $1 million, and (3) pursuing commercialization.10 STTR also provides funding for innovative R&D through an expansion of the public/private sector partnership to include the joint venture opportunities for small businesses and nonprofit research institutions.

While TRLs allow one to assess the maturity of the technology, they do not seek to capture explicitly when a technology will become widely available to the public. Nor does the TRL framework identify when a technology is likely to be used in dangerous and unintended ways.

The very concept of managing technology implies being able to change the trajectory of a scientific field or individual technology. Yet as history has repeatedly demonstrated, technology development relates more to human preferences and needs than to a rigid plan to either promote or retard technologies.

We should expect technology to develop based first on response to a perceived

need, second on whether the basic science and principles are understood and resources applied, and third on any constraints or limiters in place (related to either the feasibility of the science or human constraints).

While competition for technology and scientific discovery are not new, taking a structured approach to controlling or managing technology is.

Dangerous uses of technology, technological surprises, and the erosion of the US dominance across many key technologies have signaled a need to consider different approaches to the placing of limits, controls, and management oversight on key technologies.

The rapidly increasing development pace and growing availability of technology combine to create a tipping point where monitoring—or, in some cases, limiting activities—and proliferation—of a specific technology will prove prudent.

any attempts to limit technology development and proliferation must be considered in the broader context of balancing technological advancement, global perspectives, and the safety and security of society.

Historically, no repeatable, methodical approach for identifying when technology limits or controls should be put in place has been developed.

Humans have long sought to control their environment. However, controlling technology is no easy task. Too much control of early technologies could stifle the science, knowledge, and innovation likely to result in important advances. Too little control of a technology could allow

dangerous uses with potentially catastrophic outcomes. To this choice, some might say, “Pick your poison.”

Five categories of activities for protecting technology have been identified: (1) international laws and treaties (including arms control), (2) international bodies such as the World Health Organization, (3) coalitions of the willing, (4) US unilateral actions, and (5) national laws and best practices.

Dividing these activities into five discrete categories as we have done could leave the misimpression that they are distinct. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

the delicate balance between serving the interest of greater technological advancement with the safety and security of society must be considered at all times. To this end, a risk-based framework for guiding efforts to assess when additional scrutiny or even control measures could be required becomes essential. At all costs, a “one size fits all” or heavy-handed approach to technology management should be avoided, as it could have a stifling effect on technology development yet do little to avoid the concerns resulting from the misuse of technology.