IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0183038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing public forecasts to encourage accountability: The case of MIT’s Technology Review

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey Funk

Abstract

Although high degrees of reliability have been found for many types of forecasts purportedly due to the existence of accountability, public forecasts of technology are rarely assessed and continue to have a poor reputation. This paper’s analysis of forecasts made by MIT’s Technology Review provides a rare assessment and thus a means to encourage accountability. It first shows that few of the predicted “breakthrough technologies” currently have large markets. Only four have sales greater than $10 billion while eight technologies not predicted by Technology Review have sales greater than $10 billion including three with greater than $100 billion and one other with greater than $50 billion. Second, possible reasons for these poor forecasts are then discussed including an over emphasis on the science-based process of technology change, sometimes called the linear model of innovation. Third, this paper describes a different model of technology change, one that is widely used by private companies and that explains the emergence of those technologies that have greater than $10 billion in sales. Fourth, technology change and forecasts are discussed in terms of cognitive biases and mental models.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey Funk, 2017. "Assessing public forecasts to encourage accountability: The case of MIT’s Technology Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0183038
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183038
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183038&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0183038?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0183038. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.