TFS-18239; No of Pages 11

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological

forecasting and its implication for innovation management in Korea
Hyoung Joon An a,1, Sang-Jin Ahn b,⁎,1
a
School of History and Sociology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0225, USA
b
Office of Strategic Foresight, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning, Seoul 137-711, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Technology forecasting is inevitable in modern society; however, few studies have assessed it
Received 29 December 2014 under an innovation management framework. By employing the Innovation Readiness Level, we
Received in revised form 6 May 2015 have assessed the innovation performance of the 10 Emerging Future Technologies reported in
Accepted 20 June 2015 2009. The data-mining process, including a patent analysis and survey results, validates the
Available online xxxx
following hypotheses. 1) Technological innovation activities involving the 10 Emerging Future
Technologies have increased after their announcement. 2) A chasm exists in the commerciali-
Keywords: zation process of the 10 Emerging Future Technologies. 3) Interaction between innovation
Chasm practitioners is correlated with overcoming the chasm. 4) Government support is useful for
Technological forecasting
groups having difficulties in overcoming the chasm. Those foundations stress the roles of
Foresight assessment
technological forecasting when entrepreneur assumes the risk associated with uncertainty in
Entrepreneurship
Emerging technology commercializing emerging technologies.
Innovation © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction play specific roles in improving the quality of decision making

Any individual, organization, or nation that can be affected
by technological change inevitably engages in Technology
Forecasting (TF) with every decision that allocates resources
to particular purposes. A technological change may invalidate a
resource allocation decision. Therefore, every decision is based
on the forecast that technology either will not change or will
change favorably. If technological change is inevitable, TF can
be justified based on its use in decision making, which implies
that TF facilitates better decision making. In particular, forecasts
Abbreviations: TF, Technology Forecasting; IRL, Innovation Readiness Level;
EF Techs, Emerging Future Technologies; BMI, Brain Machine Interface; RNA,
Ribo-Nucleic Acid; IoE, Internet of Everything; iPS, induced Pluripotent Stem
Cell; IPC, International Patent Classification; CIS, Community Innovation
Survey; O1, non-overcoming group; O2, overcoming group.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 589 2254; fax: +82 2 589 5231.
E-mail address: sein@kistep.re.kr (S.-J. Ahn).
1
Two authors have equally contributed to the work as first author.
in each innovation management stage (Martino, 1993).
Hébert and Link (2009) have reported the entrepreneur
exhibit no fewer than 12 identities of the entrepreneur in the
historical economics literature. The entrepreneur can be the
person who assumes the risk associated with uncertainty, the
person who supplies financial capital, an innovator, a decision
maker, an industrial leader, a manager, an organizer of
economic resources, the owner of an enterprise, an employer
of factors of production, a contractor, an arbitrageur, or an
allocator of resources among alternative uses. Link and Scott
(2010) have defined ‘government as entrepreneur’ as a unique
lens through which to characterize a specific subset of
government policy actions. If TF is indispensable to entrepre-
neur, its role should be determined from the 12 identities of
entrepreneur.
Since innovation management frameworks have developed
in the entrepreneurial perspectives, the entrepreneurial roles
of TF can turn out from assessing it by innovation management
framework. Among the diverse innovation management

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
0040-1625/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
2 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

techniques such as the Technology Readiness Level (Mankins, 2. Background

1995) and Market Adoption Model (Moore, 1999), we adopt
IRL (Tao et al., 2010) as evaluation framework. The IRL is a
model integrating extant studies considering technology
development and market evolution. Its innovation readiness
concept involves dividing the whole innovation cycle into six
phases and the readiness level into five key aspects to provide
overall, explicit, and practical evaluation items for each
element, so it has an advantage by discovering a chasm if it
has a level less than 4. Adams et al. (2006) stressed that other
techniques have not integrated sufficiently to conceptualize
innovation as a process, differentiate its constituent phases. IRL
can provide a comprehensive framework to measure them.
Although IRL has a potential advantage in linking TF to
entrepreneurship by assessing TF, very little research has
focused on these advantages. In fact, TF have an important role
in innovation management but its ex post evaluation has
scarcely been reported on. The previous pioneering case
studies, such as Japan (Kameoka et al., 2004) and Turkey
(Öner and Beşer, 2011), have contributed marginally to
progress linking TF to entrepreneurship, but the chasm-
related researches, known as pertinent entrepreneurial issues,
have not explored in assessing TF.
Based on the IRL, our study reveals the contributions to
innovation, of the 10 EF Techs reported in 2009, such as TF
effectiveness, its commercialization implications, and the
effectiveness of public policies. For a brief introduction to the
contents, we structure this report as follows. Section 2
describes the 10 EF Techs announced in 2009 and the
methodological approaches have discussed in the Section 3.
Section 4 deals with the assessment results. Section 5 presents
discussions on the implications of assessing the TF. The final
section closes with conclusions and suggestions.
2.1. The 10 EF Techs in Korea
Several organizations have forecasted emerging technologies
and reported on their forecasts. Some well-known forecasts are
“Disruptive technologies” (Mckinsey Global Institute, 2013), “10
Breakthrough Technologies” (MIT, 2012), “Next 5 in 5” (IBM,
2012), and “Top 10 Strategic Technologies” (Gartner Group, 2012).
Similarly, in Korea, emerging technologies, which can be
crucial to increasing the nation's prosperity, have reported
regularly, because of their potential advantage in adding new
value and reducing social opportunity cost. “The 10 EF Techs in
Korea” (KISTEP, 2009) have been reported since 2009. The
wiki-based approach have been applied to the first report of the
10 EF Techs since it can take its own advantage of the effective
knowledge formation process in incorporating members'
opinions, framing policies, and leading to the discovery of
knowledge through a standardized consensual process. After
identifying 25 candidates by the economic impacts expected
over the following 10 years, the wiki-based expert review have
selected the final 10 technologies depending on the purpose of
forecasting. The final 10 technologies were BMI, RNA-based
therapeutic agent, graphene nanostructure, clean coal technol-
ogy, dye-sensitized solar cell, IoE, iPS, human body communi-
cation, cognitive robotics, and life-logging technology.
2.2. Conceptual framework
The year 2014 marks five years since the announcement of
the 10 EF Techs in 2009. Therefore, an interim check is
necessary because, normally, a 10-year period is considered
when selecting such technologies, to evaluate their realization

Table 1
Commercialization tracing by patent disclosures.

Cause: disclosure Lag Effect Effect Effect Effect (sales) Effect (capital)
(yr.) (sales/capital) (sales/employee) (capital/employee)

Forward Reverse Forward Reverse Forward Reverse Forward Reverse Forward Reverse

BMI 1 8.718⁎ 0.071 0.002 0.156 3.483 0.099 0.002 0.156 1.155 4.031
2 5.213 3.244 23.76⁎ 7.627 2.218 2.646 23.76⁎ 7.627 14.89⁎ 3.442
RNA-based therapeutic agent 1 28.42⁎⁎ 0.217 0.701 3.499 0.047 0.146 0.008 0.645 0.108 7.272
2 8.961 0.673 3.498 0.222 0.285 2.094 0.049 5.723 16.52⁎ 2.59
Graphene nanostructure 1 0.334 0.431 2.111 7.513⁎ 0.204 2.824 – – – –
2 38.23⁎⁎ 6.452 16.02⁎ 2.604 0.845 7.38 – – – –
Clean coal technology 1 0.071 0.325 0.396 0.396 2.133 0.183 – – – –
2 1.034 2.698 0.667 3.026 0.675 22.91⁎ – – – –
Dye-sensitized solar cell 1 1.012 2.847 3.015 2.682 0.733 2.749 – – – –
2 0.731 0.782 1.565 0.64 0.746 0.374 – – – –
IoE 1 0.002 0.982 0.141 0.553 1.118 3.852 – – – –
2 0.416 0.297 1.228 2.411 0.796 1.141 – – – –
iPS 1 0.959 2.283 22.71⁎⁎ 6.098 6.119⁎ 0.03 – – – –
2 5.46 0.787 4.35 5.796 14.1⁎ 1.591 – – – –
Human body communication 1 0.267 0.136 0.222 0.467 0.007 1.413 – – – –
2 1.89 7.392 0.495 3.263 2.469 2.696 – – – –
Cognitive robotics 1 0.942 0.006 1.327 0.019 9.965⁎ 0.013 27.9⁎⁎ 0.002 1.891 0.002
2 0.375 9.156 0.451 1.476 2.937 3.734 20.85⁎ 1.104 0.823 1.714
Life-logging technology 1 27.54⁎⁎ 1.15 0.05 17.45⁎⁎ 1.63 0.102 – – – –
2 22.15⁎ 0.823 2.707 5.739 0.04 6.653 – – – –
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3

Table 2
Commercialization tracing by patent registrations.

Cause: registration Lag Effect Effect Effect Effect (sales) Effect (capital)
(yr.) (sales/capital) (sales/employee) (capital/employee)

Forward Reverse Forward Reverse Forward Reverse Forward Reverse Forward Reverse

BMI 1 6.2 18.31⁎⁎ 1.979 4.977 0.922 8.239⁎ 1.979 4.977 0.066 0.888
2 2.574 3.182 13.53⁎ 21.61⁎ 0.652 1.929 13.53⁎ 21.62⁎ 2.062 19.13⁎
RNA-based therapeutic agent 1 8.32⁎ 0.692 0.311 0.273 0.059 2.165 0.517 3.875 1.732 0.988
2 0.141 0.709 1.176 0.688 0.578 1.828 0.155 1.532 0.647 1.144
Graphene nanostructure 1 1.875 1.867 1.487 18.16⁎⁎ 0.035 3.194 – – – –
2 5.585⁎ 3.468 0.817 1.201 0.253 0.31 – – – –
Clean coal technology 1 1.682 1.729 2.466 35.12⁎⁎ 4.82 14.14⁎⁎ – – – –
2 10.22⁎ 60.85⁎⁎ 4.093 9.723⁎ 1.197 1.545 – – – –
Dye-sensitized solar cell 1 11.55⁎ 3.431 0.241 8.078⁎ 0.136 3.41 – – – –
2 15.97⁎ 0.841 7.075 2.606 0.588 2.797 – – – –
IoE 1 1.204 4.675 2.758 0.076 0.762 5.266 – – – –
2 3.263 0.792 0.241 1.468 2.676 9.162 – – – –
iPS 1 0.308 1.523 3.731 40.91⁎⁎⁎ 1.004 55.42 – – – –
2 – – – – – – – – – –
Human body communication 1 1.04 10.4 4.94 8.095⁎ 2.793 2.87 – – – –
2 0.776 2.502 1.563 1.751 1.983 36.45⁎⁎ – – – –
Cognitive robotics 1 0.51 4.98 3.678 2.256 0.786 1.802 0.013 2.794 2.545 0.031
2 0.133 3.546 3.659 3.075 2.193 0.681 0.685 1.005 1.246 4.015
Life-logging technology 1 27.54⁎⁎ 1.15 0.05 17.45⁎⁎ 1.63 0.102 – – – –
2 22.15⁎ 0.824 2.706 5.739 0.04 6.654 – – – –
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

and resulting effects. Such an interim check is vital for an
effective selection of the 10 EF Techs, the establishment
of follow-up measures, and the finalization of the investment
target. This study employed the IRL, an innovation manage-
ment tool, as the conceptual framework to perform the interim
check on the 10 EF Techs announced in 2009 from the
perspective of the parties using the technology foresight
results. This study aims to test the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1. Technological innovation activities involving
the 10 EF Techs have increased after they were reported.
Hypothesis 2. A chasm exists in the commercialization
process of the 10 EF Techs.
Hypothesis 3. Interaction between innovation practi-
tioners is correlated with overcoming the chasm.
Hypothesis 4. Government support is useful for groups
that face difficulties in overcoming the chasm.
Hypothesis 1 is related to the assessment of TF while
hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 are concerned with the implications of
linking TF to strategic public policy. To this end, hypotheses 1, 2,
3, and 4 were reviewed based on (i) data mining using patent
analysis and (ii) survey results.
3. Methods
Second, the questions for the survey were framed based on
the Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005)—the source of standardized
international guidelines for innovative activity data collection
and application. The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) (STEPI,
2010) has been implemented in Korea since 2002. For this study,
the CIS survey on the manufacturing sector published in 2010
was amended for the purposes of this study, and new questions
were added to it to finalize 28 detailed items in 11 areas. In this
study, we choose the inventors in each corresponding 10 EF
Techs as a related survey target for the practical reasons. To
maximize relevant respondents, we have collected the inventor's
information in each corresponding 10 EF Techs from patent
mining because the patent activities can be as a trace of
industrialization. The following results of Granger causality test,
shown in the Tables 1 and 2, can prove the patent activities are a
trace of industrialization. As a result, 218 inventors among the
whole 256 survey targets can be secured through patent mining
and 38 inventors of them will be based on the recommendation
(snowball sampling). After collecting the preliminary respon-
dents, we contact to the whole targets by phone and explain the
agenda of the survey to encourage their responses.2 The Internet
survey period for this study extended from September 12 to
October 15, 2014. There were 63 survey respondents, of whom
49.2% indicated that the 10 EF Techs-related activities were
crucial for their organizations whereas 33.3% said lower. This
implies that the representativeness of the sample survey group
can be recognized.

First, patent disclosure, registration, patent holders, and

collaborative patents were chosen for innovation activities in
the data-mining process. A Granger causality test (Seth, 2007)
has been applied to the trace commercialization process of each 2
There is the assistance of the professional survey corporation, that is Gallup
technology. Korea, in that process.

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
4 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

4. TF and its assessment regardless of the type of technology; therefore, we can

4.1. Hypothesis 1: Technological innovation activities involving the
10 EF Techs have increased after they were reported.
If the cumulative patents (disclosed/registered) or patent
holders over time are expressed in a normalized distribution
with time, it can be understood as an S-curve type of
technology lifecycle. The time evolution of the cumulative
patents or patent holders can be illustrated as a concave curve
in the introductory phase, whereas it can be displayed as a
convex curve in the maturity phase. In addition, modern
complex network theory predicts that network evolution is
generated by an increase in nodes and links (phase 1),
demonstration of preferential attachment (phase 2), extremely
concentrated hubs forming their own organizations (phase 3),
and network aging (phase 4) (Albert and Barabasi, 2002; Böner
et al., 2004; Valverde et al., 2007). Therefore, the time variation
of a collaborative patent network can determine the stage of
development in a partnership.
Fig. 1(a) and (c) show that the time evolution of the
cumulated patents can be understood as a concave pattern
demonstrate that Hypothesis 1 is true as regards the technol-
ogy aspect of IRL. This is an intrinsic effect of the 10 EF Techs
because the time dependence of each corresponding IPC code is
represented in a linear fashion, as shown in Fig. 1(b) and (d).
The time evolution of the cumulated patent holders can be
understood similarly to the cumulated patents depicted in
Fig. 2. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is true as regards the organiza-
tion aspect of IRL.
As the 10 EF Techs are emerging technologies in a nascent
stage, it is highly unlikely for their evolution to reach phase
3. The collaboration networks can be exhibited as small-
world characteristics (Barabasi et al., 2002; Watts, 1999;
Watts and Strogatz, 1998). Such a network evolution status
is examined in the disclosed and registered patents on the 10
technologies. Consequently, graphene nanostructure, dye-
sensitized solar cell, and IoE frequently display the rising
re-link probability from 2009—an initial change in network
evolution. The evolution of collaboration networks in the
dye-sensitized solar cell and IoE is displayed in Fig. 3. This
analytic result proves that Hypothesis 1 is true in a
partnership in the IRL.

Fig. 1. Time evolution of technology: (a) patent disclosures of the 10 EF Techs, (b) patent registrations of the 10 EF Techs, (c) patent disclosures of each corresponding
IPC code, and (d) registrations of each corresponding IPC code. The 10 EF Techs: 1. BMI, 2. RNA-based therapeutic agent, 3. Graphene nanostructure, 4. Clean coal
technology, 5. Dye-sensitized solar cell, 6. IoE, 7. iPS, 8. Human body communication, 9. Cognitive robotics, and 10. Life-logging technology.

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Time evolution of organization: (a) patentees by disclosures and
(b) patentees by registrations. The numbers of the 10 EF Techs correspond to
Fig. 1.
The evolution of innovation activities can be analyzed by each
level of the IRL, with the modified CIS survey. Fig. 4 shows that
the readiness levels have progressed in all areas from the pre-
2009 period to the post-2009 period. This can help to prove
whether Hypothesis 1 is true. Therefore the TF for the 10 EF
Techs reported in 2009 was significant.
4.2. Hypothesis 2: A chasm exists in the commercialization process
of the 10 EF Techs.
The existence of a chasm between technology and the
market can be verified by the Granger casualty test, evaluating
the causal relationships between innovation practitioners'
patent activities (disclosed/registered) and enterprises' eco-
nomic activities. Of the causal relationships, if there is a
forward causal relation from technology toward the market,
patent activities can be viewed as making a certain level of
economic contribution to partly overcome the technology-
market chasm. However, if such a forward causal relation does
not exist or even if a reverse causal relationship exists, the
technology-market chasm is presumed not to have been
overcome.
Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
5
The results of the causality test for the 10 EF Techs have
been summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The results reveal that
statistically significant causality has not been found in the
four disclosed cases (clean coal technology, dye-sensitized
solar cell, IoE, and human body communication) and the
four registered cases (IoE, iPS, human body communication,
and cognitive robotics). In particular, forward causality
cannot be found in IoE and human body communication.
Therefore, it can be concluded that Hypothesis 2 is true, and
Fig. 4 can serve as corroborative evidence to support this
conclusion. A significant number of respondents are concen-
trated below the 4th level, which strongly suggests the
existence of a chasm.
4.3. Hypothesis 3: Interaction between innovation practitioners is
correlated with overcoming the chasm.
Collaborations in patents have received attention in relation
to Triple Helix indicators for knowledge-based innovation
systems (Leydesdorff and Meyer, 2006); therefore, the corre-
lation between the collaboration network and commercializa-
tion might be expected. However, Table 3 cannot demonstrate
that Hypothesis 3 will be true. This contradiction may imply
that the 10 EF Techs cases cannot provide sufficient data to be
meaningful because they are in nascent stage.
Moreover, we examine differences in innovation diffusion,
innovative activity, product and process innovation, the
purpose and effect of innovation, innovation activity disturbing
factors, organization innovation, marketing innovation, and
government support. Specifically, of the five key IRL aspects,
those with a valid number of samples are selected in the
chasm-overcoming groups (4–6th phases) and non-
overcoming groups (1–3rd phases). Statistical analyses (chi-
square test and variance analysis) are performed for each
survey item of the chosen factors between the two groups. Any
item with a statistically significant difference is considered to
have significant correlation with chasm-overcoming.
Consequently, the two aspects—technology and organiza-
tion—are found to have enough size in both groups for a
survey group-specific statistical analysis, and only the
organization aspect produces statistically significant results.
Therefore, the subsequent descriptions of this work are
limited solely to the organization of the IRL. First, the non-
overcoming group (O1) and overcoming group (O2) display
a statistically significant difference in the preliminary
identification of cooperative and competitive relationships.
Table 4 shows that O2 has a more specific understanding of
its competitors than O1 at the beginning of the innovation
activity. Table 5 shows that O2 has a more specific
understanding of the cooperative relationship for outcomes
than O1. Therefore, overcoming the chasm has a statistically
significant relationship with the interaction between inno-
vation practitioners (the preliminary identification of the
cooperative and competitive relationships), and Hypothesis
3 becomes true.
4.4. Hypothesis 4: Government support is useful for groups that
face difficulties in overcoming the chasm.
The effectiveness of government support is found to be
different between O2 and O1. The chi-square test is implemented
6 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Time evolution of partnership: (a) dye-sensitized solar cell (2004–2008), (b) IoE (2004–2008), (c) dye-sensitized solar cell (2009–2014), and (d) IoE
(2009–2014).

for O1 and O2 for the effectiveness of government support for
five years before and after 2009. Consequently, Table 6 shows
significant differences exist in tax benefits for technology
development, commercialization support (financial support),
and technology assistance and guidelines. O1, when compared
with O2, is more effective as regards tax benefits for technology
development, commercialization support, and recent five-year
technology assistance and guidelines. Therefore, Hypothesis 4
is found to be true.
In addition, we will look at several more items with
significant differences between the chasm-overcoming
group and non-overcoming group in the Table 7. O2 is
found to have fewer disturbances due to the absence of a
cooperative partner in its product and process innovation
than O1. In other words, cooperation with a partner in
product and process innovation is helpful for chasm-
overcoming in the organization aspect. Also in this aspect,
O2 tends to establish “product or service quality improve-
ment” or “internal/external organizational information
sharing or communication skill improvement” more fre-
quently as its key purpose for organization innovation. Since
the number of respondents may be an important limitation
in terms of reliability of the result, only a few determinants
for overcoming the chasm has found in this study. If the

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 4. Time evolution of the 10 EF Techs by IRL. The numbers at the bottom denote each level of innovation in IRL and a level of less than 4 implies a failure to overcome
the chasm.

number of innovators in the 10 EF Techs can increase, more
copious and reliable conclusions will reach in the future.
5. Implications for linking TF and innovation management
If TF is indispensable to entrepreneur, stressed in the
introduction, its entrepreneurial roles need to examine in
terms of the innovation management framework. The results in
this study demonstrate the IRL have an advantage in assessing
TF from the entrepreneur's point of view. It can help to show
the advancement of innovation in some emerging technology
objectively, thus also to identify the existence of chasm. Those
excellences can make it possible to compare attributes between
the chasm-overcoming group and non-overcoming groups.
Through this comparison study, it is possible to observe the
identities of the entrepreneur.

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
8 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Correlation between commercialization and collaboration network.

Small world characteristics

No Yes

Patent disclosure Forward Yes BMI, RNA-based therapeutic agent, iPS, Cognitive robotics, Life-logging Graphene nanostructure
causality technology
No Clean coal technology, Human body communication Dye-sensitized solar cell,
IoE
Patent Forward Yes BMI, RNA-based therapeutic agent, Clean coal technology, Life-logging Dye-sensitized solar cell
registration causality technology
No iPS, Human body communication, Cognitive robotics IoE

Table 4
Degree of identifying competitors related with research outcome.

(Unit: %)

Starting point Now

Respondents Not Normal Rather Very F Respondents Never Not Normal Rather Very F
(number) much level specific specific (number) much level specific specific

Total 31 12.9 35.5 45.2 6.5 – 38 2.6 7.9 21.1 39.5 28.9 –
Technology Not overcome 16 18.8 37.5 37.5 6.3 1.223 22 4.5 13.6 18.2 36.4 27.3 1.282
Overcome 14 7.1 28.6 57.1 7.1 16 0 0 25 43.8 31.3
Uncategorized 1 0 100 0 0 – – – – – –
Market Not overcome 11 9.1 45.5 36.4 9.1 0.057 18 5.6 16.7 16.7 33.3 27.8 1.349
Overcome 17 11.8 29.4 52.9 5.9 19 0 0 26.3 47.4 26.3
Uncategorized 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0 1 0 0 0 0 100
Organization Not overcome 20 20 45 30 5 7.860⁎⁎ 26 3.8 11.5 26.9 30.8 26.9 2.907
Overcome 10 0 10 80 10 12 0 0 8.3 58.3 33.3
Uncategorized 1 0 100 0 0 – – – – – –
Partnership Not overcome 11 9.1 36.4 45.5 9.1 0.022 17 5.9 17.6 17.6 29.4 29.4 1.925
Overcome 18 11.1 33.3 50 5.6 21 0 0 23.8 47.6 28.6
Uncategorized 2 50 50 0 0 – – – – – –
Risk Not overcome 4 0 0 75 25 4.748⁎ 7 14.3 0 14.3 28.6 42.9 0.005
Overcome 24 12.5 41.7 41.7 4.2 29 0 10.3 20.7 44.8 24.1
Uncategorized 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0 2 0 0 50 0 50
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

Table 5
Degree of identifying collaborators related with research outcome.

(Unit: %)

Starting point Now

Respondents Not Normal Rather Very F Respondents Not Normal Rather Very F
(number) much level specific specific (number) much level specific specific

Total 31 6.5 45.2 38.7 9.7 – 38 5.3 21.1 42.1 31.6 –

Technology Not overcome 16 12.5 50 31.3 6.3 2.071 22 4.5 22.7 40.9 31.8 0
Overcome 14 0 42.9 42.9 14.3 16 6.3 18.8 43.8 31.3
Uncategorized 1 0 0 100 0 – – – – –
Market Not overcome 11 9.1 63.6 18.2 9.1 2.376 18 5.6 22.2 38.9 33.3 0.033
Overcome 17 0 41.2 47.1 11.8 19 5.3 21.1 47.4 26.3
Uncategorized 3 33.3 0 66.7 0 1 0 0 0 100
Organization Not overcome 20 10 60 20 10 4.450⁎ 26 7.7 23.1 42.3 26.9 1.467
Overcome 10 0 20 70 10 12 0 16.7 41.7 41.7
Uncategorized 1 0 0 100 0 – – – – –
Partnership Not overcome 11 9.1 54.5 27.3 9.1 1.164 17 5.9 23.5 35.3 35.3 0
Overcome 18 0 44.4 44.4 11.1 21 4.8 19 47.6 28.6
Uncategorized 2 50 0 50 0 – – – – –
Risk Not overcome 4 25 50 25 0 2.556 7 0 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.954
Overcome 24 0 50 37.5 12.5 29 6.9 20.7 44.8 27.6
Uncategorized 3 33.3 0 66.7 0 2 0 50 0 50
⁎ p b 0.05.

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 9

Table 6
Effectiveness of the government subsidy (technology development and commercialization support).

(Unit: %)

2004–2008 2009–2013

Respondents (number) Yes No Chi square Respondents (number) Yes No Chi square

Total 44 52.3 47.7 – 63 46 54 –

Technology Not overcome 25 52 48 0.002 38 55.3 44.7 2.841
Overcome 19 52.6 47.4 24 33.3 66.7
Uncategorized – – – 1 0 100
Market Not overcome 20 55 45 0.028 31 58.1 41.9 2.947
Overcome 21 52.4 47.6 28 35.7 64.3
Uncategorized 3 33.3 66.7 4 25 75
Organization Not overcome 30 56.7 43.3 0.403 43 55.8 44.2 3.999⁎
Overcome 13 46.2 53.8 18 27.8 72.2
Uncategorized 1 0 100 2 0 100
Partnership Not overcome 20 45 55 0.834 30 56.7 43.3 2.411
Overcome 22 59.1 40.9 30 36.7 63.3
Uncategorized 2 50 50 3 33.3 66.7
Risk Not overcome 9 44.4 55.6 0.289 13 53.8 46.2 0.358
Overcome 33 54.5 45.5 45 44.4 55.6
Uncategorized 2 50 50 5 40 60
⁎ p b 0.05.

Among 12 identities, TF can be useful for entrepreneurs, when
they will act as both an innovator and the person who assumes
the risk associated with uncertainty. The four hypotheses
examined in this study and their verifications can provide clues
to solve the following questions.
(1) Which factors affect the success of entrepreneurship and
technology foresight?
(2) What kind of mechanisms and partnerships affect the
emergence of successful entrepreneurship and technol-
ogy foresight outcomes?
Among five types of innovations, our study on the 10 EF
Techs shows that organization innovation will be the most
important determinant for success. This implies that entrepre-
neurs should focus on promoting their organization innovation
on the basis of information from TF. Then the question arises,
“what kind of information is essential in the emergence stage?”
The results of our analytics strongly indicate that it is crucial to
identify the enemies and friends in the supply chain as early as
possible. It means that entrepreneurs can overcome the chasm
when they assume the risk associated with uncertainty. Thus,
the reliable results from risk analysis are essential in linking TF

Table 7
Existence of hurdles in product or process innovation (absence of collaborators).

(Unit: %)

2004–2008 2009–2013

Respondents (number) Low Normal High Chi square Respondents (number) Low Normal High Chi square

Total 24 8.3 25 66.7 – 32 3.1 28.1 68.8 –

Technology Not overcome 11 9.1 18.2 72.7 0.503 19 0 26.3 73.7 1.964
Overcome 13 7.7 30.8 61.5 12 8.3 33.3 58.3
Uncategorized – – – – 1 0 0 100
Market Not overcome 9 0 11.1 88.9 3.247 16 0 25 75 2.139
Overcome 13 15.4 30.8 53.8 13 7.7 38.5 53.8
Uncategorized 2 0 50 50 3 0 0 100
Organization Not overcome 14 0 14.3 85.7 6.171⁎ 18 0 22.2 77.8 2.708
Overcome 10 20 40 40 13 7.7 38.5 53.8
Uncategorized – – – – 1 0 0 100
Partnership Not overcome 7 0 14.3 85.7 2.06⁎⁎ 13 0 30.8 69.2 0.792
Overcome 16 12.5 31.3 56.3 17 5.9 29.4 64.7
Uncategorized 1 0 0 100 2 0 0 100
Risk Not overcome 4 0 0 100 2.281⁎⁎⁎ 5 0 20 80 0.639
Overcome 18 11.1 27.8 61.1 24 4.2 33.3 62.5
Uncategorized 2 0 50 50 3 0 0 100
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
10 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
to entrepreneurship. It can also explain why government acts
as entrepreneur in the provision of technology infrastructure
when its involvement is both innovative and characterized by
entrepreneurial risk (i.e., uncertainty).
Collaborations in patents cannot guarantee success in
the earliest emergence stage. This means that business from
the 10 EF Techs in Korea can be associated with a laissez-
faire regime from the neo-institutional perspectives of the
Triple Helix model (Etzkowitz, 2008; Etzkowitz and
Leydesdorff, 2000). In this regime, intervention in the
economy is limited and industry is the driving force, with
the other two spheres as ancillary support structures and
having limited roles in innovation; further, a university
acts primarily as a provider of skilled human capital, and
government primarily as a regulator of social and economic
mechanisms.
Our methodology for assessing TF, based on IRL, will not be
limited in this specific case. It can take advantage of combining
measures for TF with indicators understanding innovation.
Therefore, it can be tailored by investigator's intention and be
applied to improve the understanding of linking TF and
innovation management.
6. Conclusions
In this study, an interim check was performed for the 10 EF
Techs announced in 2009. Although there is not enough data on
the ET Techs essentially, four hypotheses can be verified
through a data-mining process and a survey.
It is confirmed that technological innovation activities
involving the 10 EF Techs have increased after their announce-
ment. This implies that the forecasting of the 10 EF Techs in
2009 has had a significant effect. Although we have no
evidence to show whether the announcement of the 10 EF
Techs helped stimulate technology innovation activities, the
2009 technology foresight was found to be valid as at the
current time.
It is demonstrated that a chasm exists in the commer-
cialization process of the 10 EF Techs and that interaction
between innovation practitioners is correlated with overcoming
the chasm. Overcoming the chasm is deemed a strategy to
turn these technologies into national economic drivers. Our
evidence indicates that organization innovation will be the most
important determinant of success among the five types of
innovations.
The chasm-overcoming group and non-overcoming group
showed a statistically significant difference in the interaction
between innovation practitioners (cooperative relationship
and competitive relationship) and government support effec-
tiveness. The cooperative patent did not affect chasm-
overcoming in any distinctive positive way. Thus, it cannot be
categorically stated that cooperation among different organi-
zations is a key factor for successful chasm-overcoming.
However, the early identification of innovation practitioners
who were its partners and competitors was found to have a
positive effect on chasm-overcoming.
In addition, the chasm non-overcoming group performed
better in response to government support than the overcoming
group. This finding is interpreted to mean that government
support is more effectively used by a group having difficulties
in overcoming a chasm. If cooperation with a partner is
Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015
reinforced in product and process innovation or if an
innovation practitioner formed a suitable environment for
cooperation inside his or her organization, these can be viewed
as key success factors to overcome the chasm. Some examples
of this are the organizations in which innovation purposes
include product or service quality upgrade, internal/external
organizational information sharing, and communication skill
improvement.
Based on the above discussion, entrepreneurs should
identify the enemies and friends in the supply chain as early
as possible. Thus, the reliable results from risk analysis are
essential in linking TF to entrepreneurship. Moreover, business
from the 10 EF Techs in Korea can be associated with a laissez-
faire regime. Policy makers should consider the characteristics
of these innovation environments in framing an innovation
policy. In a laissez-faire regime, intervention in the economy is
limited and industry is the driving force; a university acts
primarily as a provider of skilled human capital, and the
government primarily as a regulator of social and economic
mechanisms.
References
Adams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R., 2006. Innovation management measurement:
a review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 8 (1), 21–47.
Albert, R., Barabasi, A.L., 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev.
Mod. Phys. 74, 47–97.
Barabasi, A.L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Shubert, A., Vicsek, T., 2002.
Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Phys. A 311,
590–614.
Böner, K., Maru, J.T., Goldstone, R.L., 2004. The simultaneous evolution of author
paper network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 101, 5266–5273.
Etzkowitz, H., 2008. The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government
Innovation in Action. Routledge, London, England.
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national
systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government
relations. Res. Policy 29, 109–123.
Gartner Group, 2012. Gartner Identifies the Top 10 Strategic Technology Trends
for 2013.
Hébert, R.F., Link, A.N., 2009. A History of Entrepreneurship. Routledge, London.
IBM, 2012. The 5 in 5.
Kameoka, A., Yokoo, Y., Kuwahara, T., 2004. A challenge of integrating
technology foresight and assessment in industrial strategy development
and policymaking. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 71, 579–598.
KISTEP, 2009. The 10 Emerging Future Technologies (in Korean).
Leydesdorff, L., Meyer, M., 2006. Triple helix indicators of knowledge-based
innovation systems: introduction to the special issue. Res. Policy 35,
1441–1449.
Link, A.N., Scott, J.T., 2010. Government as entrepreneur: evaluating the
commercialization success of SBIR projects. Res. Policy 39, 589–601.
Mankins, J.C., 1995. Technology Readiness Levels. Advanced Concepts Office,
Office of Space Access and Technology, NASA.
Martino, J.P., 1993. Technological Forecasting for Decision Making. 3rd ed.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., US.
Mckinsey Global Institute, 2013. Disruptive Technologies.
MIT, 2012. Breakthrough technologies. MIT Tech. Rev.
Moore, G.A., 1999. Crossing the Chasm. Harper Business, New York, NY.
OECD, 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation
Data. 3rd edition. (www.oecd.org/sti/oslomanual).
Öner, M.A., Beşer, S.G., 2011. Assessment of corporate foresight project results:
case of a multinational company in Turkey. Foresight 13 (2), 49–63.
Seth, A.K., 2007. Granger causality. Scholarpedia 2 (7), 1667.
STEPI, 2010. Community Innovation Survey (in Korean).
Tao, L., Probert, D., Phaal, R., 2010. Toward an integrated framework for
managing the process of innovation. Res. Dev. Manag. 40 (1), 19–30.
Valverde, S., Sole, R.V., Bedau, M.A., Packard, N., 2007. Topology and evolution of
technology innovation networks. Phys. Rev. E 76, 056118.
Watts, D.J., 1999. Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks Between Order and
Randomness. Princeton University Press.
Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H., 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks.
Nature 393, 440–442.
 H.J. An, S.-J. Ahn / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 11

Hyuong Joon An is a Ph. D candidate at the School of History and Sociology at

the Georgia Institute of Technology. He received his M.S. in the philosophy of
science at Seoul National University and worked as a science journalist for
years. Also he took charge of the institutional evaluation for government-
funded research institutes at Korea Research Council for Industrial Science &
Technology before joined Georgia Tech. Currently, he is writing a Ph. D.
dissertation on the history of Korean rocket/space programs since 1950s.

Sang-Jin Ahn is a research fellow in Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and

Planning (KISTEP), Korea. He received his Ph. D. in Physics from Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in 2005. He has two year
research experiences as a senior researcher in Samsung Electronics. He has
joined in KISTEP since 2007 and took part in developing the 1st edition of
standard guideline for implementing preliminary feasibility study on R&D
program. He has worked as feasibility analyst and futurist. His research
interests are preliminary feasibility analysis on R&D program, R&D life-cycle
management, scientometrics, technological forecasting, future foresight, and
statistical mechanics of social & economic system.

Please cite this article as: An, H.J., Ahn, S.-J., Emerging technologies—beyond the chasm: Assessing technological forecasting and its
implication..., Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.06.015