Assessment of Technological Emergencies – Diploma

Diplomat author Mercy Kuo regularly engages issue experts, policy practitioners and strategic thinkers around the globe for their diverse insights into US Asia policy. This conversation with Dr. Richard Silberglitt – Senior Physical Scientist and Professor at Pardee RAND Graduate School, RAND Corporationis the 326th in the Trans-Pacific View Insight Series.

Identify your co-author’s three main conclusions report, “Using Predictive Analytics Tools to Assess Technology Contingencies and Acquisition Objectives.”

From 1990-2017, the United States led—the first country in which the show took place—for more technological emergencies than any other country in six general technical areas of interest to the Department of the Air Force: Additive Manufacturing (AM), Artificial Intelligence (AI), Ceramics, Quantum and Sensors.

When China’s emergence follows that of the United States, ie, China is trailing, the time period between the onset of emergence in the two countries is much longer than for the much smaller number of emergencies for which China is money and the United States. States follow.

Technology emergences in China grow significantly faster than those in the United States, and in the most recent time period studied (2009-2017) there are more early patent filings (ie, within the first two years after emergence) in China than in the United States for performances in the six general technical fields studied occurring within three years of each other in the two countries.

Do you like this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Only $5 a month.

Explain the report’s methodology and the role of US and Chinese patent filings and applications in measuring technology emergencies and acquisition targets.

We identified technological emergencies by detecting rapid increases in the cumulative number of patent applications filed in specific technical fields, using a large dataset that includes all international patent filings and patents issued since 2001. We set the country in which it first emerges as a “technology leader” in that specific technical field, because it is most likely the home of the inventors, and its patent files are often the leaders in the most important applications of that technology. When an emergence occurs in the same specific technical area, which we define under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) Scheme, at a later time in another country, we designated that country as a “follower”.

We compared the emergence years between the US and China for all emergences between 2001 and 2017 in the six general technical areas studied to determine who was the leader and who was the follower. Organizations that have the earliest patent applications in an emergency in the country that is the “technology leader” may be attractive acquisition targets, especially if their patent applications are early in more than one showing, suggesting potential application of an emerging technology in one. or more diverse emerging technology fields.

Compare and contrast us and china technological leadership and comparative advantage.

The US is the “technology leader” many times more than any other country in the six general technical areas studied over the entire time period studied (1990-2017). When the US and China both have performances in the same specific technical field, the US is the “technological leader” many times more than China. For the smaller number of cases when China is the “technology leader” and the US is the “follower”, the time between the emergence of the leader and the follower is much shorter than when China is the “follower”, suggesting that, over time period and in the general technical areas studied, the US has been in a stronger position as a technological “follower” than China as a technological “follower”.

Examine international patent trends and the trajectory for US-China technology competition.

We did a detailed comparison of US and Chinese patent filings in the small number of specific emerging technical areas (2 percent of total emergencies) in which US and Chinese filings occur within 1–3 years of each other. next. which we call “near shows”. For these near-emergencies, we find a time-dependent difference when we compare the number of early patent filings in the US and China:

  • From 2001-2008, most of the early patent filings in related shows in the general technical areas studied were in the US.
  • From 2009-2017, the number of close filings in which China has the most early patent filings is greater than the number of close filings in which the US has the most early patent filings in all six general areas techniques studied.

Evaluate the policy implications of the report’s findings and recommendations for policymakers and US industry leaders.

While the US continues to be the “technology leader” in the general technology areas studied, China has been filing more early patent applications in recent years than the US in specific technical areas for which the US and China have shown within 1-3 years from each. other (“nearby shows”). To properly assess technological leadership in these specific technical areas, US policymakers and industry leaders should conduct a detailed comparative analysis of the quality of patent filings and products in the global market of early filers in the US and China.

Do you like this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Only $5 a month.

To identify specific technology areas in which the U.S. is the “technology leader” and has U.S. companies with leading technology capabilities that could make them attractive to potential foreign acquisitions, U.S. policymakers and industry leaders should examine organizations with early patent applications that are early. in more than one manifestation, suggesting the potential application of an emerging technology in one or more different emerging technology areas.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.