IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/2015-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantitative Analysis of Technology Futures: A review of Techniques, Uses and Characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • Tommaso Ciarli

    (SPRU, University of Sussex, UK)

  • Alex Coad

    (JRC-IPTS, European Commission, Seville, SP)

  • Ismael Rafols

    (Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica València, València, SP
    SPRU, University of Sussex, UK)

Abstract

A variety of quantitative techniques have been used in the past in Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA). In recent years, increased computational power and algorithms, web-based searching, and data availability have led to the emergence of new techniques that are potentially useful for foresight and forecasting. As a result, there is now a wide palette of techniques that might be used in FTA exercises. However, it is often unclear how they differ, when the use of a techniques is appropriate, what type of insights it may yield, and how they can be combined. This article reviews and qualifies quantitative methods for FTA in order to help users to make choices among alternative techniques, including new techniques that have not been integrated yet in the FTA literature and practice. We first provide a working definition of Future- Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) and discuss its role, uses, and popularity over recent decades. Second, we select 22 FTA techniques identified as the most important quantitative FTA techniques and then we review these techniques, discuss their main contexts and uses, and classify them into groups with common characteristics, positioning them along four key dimensions: descriptive/prescriptive; extrapolative/normative; data gathering/inference; and forecasting/foresight.

Suggested Citation

  • Tommaso Ciarli & Alex Coad & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Quantitative Analysis of Technology Futures: A review of Techniques, Uses and Characteristics," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-23, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:2015-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2015-23-swps-ciarli-coad-rafols.pdf&site=25
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Graefe, Andreas & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2011. "Comparing face-to-face meetings, nominal groups, Delphi and prediction markets on an estimation task," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 183-195, January.
    2. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    3. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    4. R. Johnston, 2008. "Historical Review of the Development of Future-Oriented Technology Analysis," Springer Books, in: Cristiano Cagnin & Michael Keenan & Ron Johnston & Fabiana Scapolo & Rémi Barré (ed.), Future-Oriented Technology Analysis, chapter 2, pages 17-23, Springer.
    5. Cowan, Robin & Gunby, Philip, 1996. "Sprayed to Death: Path Dependence, Lock-In and Pest Control Strategies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 521-542, May.
    6. Mark Boden & Ron Johnston & Fabiana Scapolo, 2012. "The role of FTA in responding to grand challenges: A new approach for STI policy?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 135-139, March.
    7. repec:lrk:lrkwkp:fiirs006 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geuna, Aldo & Piolatto, Matteo, 2016. "Research assessment in the UK and Italy: Costly and difficult, but probably worth it (at least for a while)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 260-271.
    2. Lorenz Gollwitzer & David Ockwell & Adrian Ely, 2015. "Institutional Innovation in the Management of Pro-Poor Energy Access in East Africa," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-29, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Mariana Mazzucato, 2015. "From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for Economic Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-25, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Mariana Mazzucato, 2015. "The Green Entrepreneurial State," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-28, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Rotolo, Daniele & Hicks, Diana & Martin, Ben R., 2015. "What is an emerging technology?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1827-1843.
    6. Friedemann Polzin & Steve Sorrell & Colin Nolden, 2015. "Innovative Procurement Frameworks for Energy Performance Contracting in the UK Public Sector," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-31, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Kemp & Ted Wilson, 1999. "Monetary Regime Transformation: The scramble to gold in the late nineteenth century," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 125-149.
    2. Ramani, Shyama V. & Thutupalli, Ajay, 2015. "Emergence of controversy in technology transitions: Green Revolution and Bt cotton in India," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-212.
    3. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    4. Albert Faber & Koen Frenken, 2008. "Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: Towards an evolutionary environmental economics," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-15, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2008.
    5. Labarthe, Pierre & Coléno, François & Enjalbert, Jérôme & Fugeray-Scarbel, Aline & Hannachi, Mourad & Lemarié, Stéphane, 2021. "Exploration, exploitation and environmental innovation in agriculture. The case of variety mixture in France and Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    6. P.J. Lamberson & Scott E. Page, 2018. "First mover or higher quality? Optimal product strategy in markets with positive feedbacks," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 40-52, March.
    7. Puffert, Douglas J., 2002. "Path Dependence in Spatial Networks: The Standardization of Railway Track Gauge," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 282-314, July.
    8. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    9. Yutao Sun & Kai Liu, 2016. "Proximity effect, preferential attachment and path dependence in inter-regional network: a case of China’s technology transaction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 201-220, July.
    10. Grazia Cecere & Nicoletta Corrocher & Cédric Gossart & Muge Ozman, 2014. "Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1037-1065, November.
    11. Choi, David Y. & Stack, Martin H., 2005. "The all-American beer: a case of inferior standard (taste) prevailing?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 79-86.
    12. Jonard, N. & Yfldizoglu, M., 1998. "Technological diversity in an evolutionary industry model with localized learning and network externalities," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 35-53, March.
    13. Ron Martin & Peter Sunley, 2010. "The Place of Path Dependence in an Evolutionary Perspective on the Economic Landscape," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Heli Koski & Tobias Kretschmer, 2004. "Survey on Competing in Network Industries: Firm Strategies, Market Outcomes, and Policy Implications," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-31, March.
    15. Kevin Maréchal & Hélène Aubaret-Joachain & Jean-Paul Ledant, 2008. "The influence of Economics on agricultural systems: an evolutionary and ecological perspective," Working Papers CEB 08-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Jean‐Philippe Vergne & Rodolphe Durand, 2010. "The Missing Link Between the Theory and Empirics of Path Dependence: Conceptual Clarification, Testability Issue, and Methodological Implications," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 736-759, June.
    17. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    18. Appel, F. & Balmann, A., 2018. "Predator or prey? - Effects of fast-growing farms on their neighborhood," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277358, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Choi, Young Back, 2008. "Path dependence and the Korean alphabet," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 185-201, February.
    20. Scott, Peter, 2001. "Path Dependence and Britain's "Coal Wagon Problem"," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 366-385, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA); Quantitative Techniques; Foresight; Forecasting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sru:ssewps:2015-23. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.html .

    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.