The Future of TechnologyIEEE Fellows Web-Based Study

Prepared for: IEEE Spectrum

By: The Response Center

November 2003

2

Table of contents

Page

Background and Objectives 3

Methodology 4

Notes on the Report 5

Study Findings 6

The Big Picture 7

Tomorrow’s Technology Today 10

Emerging Technology Projects 18

Fellows Information 20

Appendix 23

Description of Emerging Technology Projects 24

3

Background and Objectives IEEE’s flagship publication, Spectrum, will focus on “the future of technology” in

its’ January 2004 issue. To obtain a better understanding of technology issues, the magazine’s editorial staff wants to obtain views from influential people in the electronic and engineering industries. To this end, the magazine commissioned The Response Center, an independent market research company, to conduct a research project among IEEE members nominated by their peers for “Fellows” status.

Primary objectives of the study include: To measure Fellows’ opinions on hot topics in science and technology today, such as the impact of technology

fields on society in the future, barriers to getting new technologies to market, and evaluation of current big money technology projects.

To provide Fellows with a forum for expressing their views on the future of technology by allowing them the opportunity to elaborate on their opinions to questions asked.

To produce a reference guide for Spectrum writers to access while authoring articles for the January ‘04 issue.

Study findings gleaned from this research are summarized in the following charts.

4

Methodology The Response Center conducted a web-based research study among IEEE

Fellows. Data collection took place over a period beginning October 21, 2003 and ending on November 12, 2003.

The questionnaire was developed by IEEE, in conjunction with The Response Center. It is estimated that the survey averaged 15 to 20 minutes to complete.

An email address list of approximately 3,047 Fellows was provided by IEEE. Fellows were pre-notified of the study via an alert email from IEEE. Following, The Response Center sent out email invitations and hosted the study’s website. Midway through data collection, reminder emails were sent to all who failed to respond to the initial invitation.

A total of 1,038 Fellows responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of 35%.

5

Notes on the Report All numbers reported are percentages unless otherwise noted. These

percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, thus percentages may not add to 100%.

Given the self-administered methodology employed, all results reported represent response-based data. That is, respondents who answer “don’t know” or who chose not to answer a specific question have been “based out” or excluded from reported results for that particular question. Thus, the actual number answering each question varies to some degree.

Where 10-point scales were used (ratings from 1-10), the higher number represents the more strongly positive evaluation. Top-3-box scores (ratings 8-10) indicate highly positive perceptions while bottom-3 box scores are indicative of highly negative perceptions.

Question numbers reflect the final version of the 2004 “Future of Technology” questionnaire.

Study Findings

7

The Big Picture Question: Please indicate how much societal impact each of the

following fields will have on the world over the next ten years. 10= great impact on the world; 1= no impact on the world.

41%

46%

59%

72%

54%

48%

36%

26%

5%

5%

5%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Robotics

Megacomputing

Nanotechnology

Biomolecularengineering

Great impact (8-10) Average impact (4-7) No impact (1-3)Q1: Base = “total” (901)

8

The Big Picture Question: How will the following labor trends affect the world

economy? 10= positive impact; 1= negative impact.

32%

40%

58%

47% 14%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Replacement ofhuman workers by

automation orrobotics

Migration of jobsfrom developed

countries todeveloping countries

Positive impact (8-10) Average impact (4-7) Negative impact (1-3)

Q2: Base = “total” (n)

9

The Big Picture

36%

51%

13%

Improve Decline Stay the same

Q3: Base = “total” (900)

Q3b: Base = “total” (850)

Question: In the next year, do you feel job prospects in your industry will improve, decline or stay the same?

Question: In 2014, do you feel job prospects in your industry will have improved, declined or will they be the same as they are today?

21%

60%20%

Improved Declined Same as today

In the Next Year In 2014

10

Tomorrow’s Technology Today Question: In your opinion, what is the biggest obstacle in getting a new

technology to market? 1= biggest obstacle; 6= least biggest obstacle.

Biggest Obstacle %* Least Biggest Obstacle %**

Funding for the great idea 47 Marketing the product 38

Gaining public acceptanceof something new ordifferent

39Gaining public acceptance ofsomething new or different

37

Developing and prototypingthe great idea

31Building alliances or businesspartnering

36

Scaling up from prototype toproduction

30Developing and prototypingthe great idea

35

Marketing the product 29 Scaling up from prototype toproduction

28

Building alliances orbusiness partnering

24 Funding for the great idea 25

Q4: Base = “total” (845)* Percentage ranked 1st or 2nd** Percentage ranked 5th or 6th

11

Tomorrow’s Technology Today Question: When you evaluate the potential investment value of a new

technology, how important is each of the following in influencing your evaluation. 10= strongly influences evaluation; 1= does not influence evaluation.

19%

22%

25%

40%

43%

66%

77%

57%

48%

57%

48%

46%

32%

21%

30%

1%

2%

11%

18%

24%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Watching the investment community for stock ormarket trends

Looking at any pending lawsuits

Following the business and general press

Searching the patent literature

Attending conferences

Reading the technical literature

Talking to experts in the field

Strong influence (8-10) Average influence (4-7) No influence (1-3)

Q5: Base = “total” (778)

12

Tomorrow’s Technology Today Question: How much do you agree with this statement? 10= strongly

agree; 1= strongly disagree.“Established companies lose out to smaller companies in developing new technology.”

35% 48% 17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Level of Agreement

Strongly agree (8-10) Average rating (4-7) Strongly disagree (1-3)Q6: Base = “total” (861)

Statement: “Established companies lose out to smaller companies in developing new

technology.”

13

Tomorrow’s Technology Today Question: Why do you feel this way? (Base = Those who agree with

the statement -- gave a 7, 8, 9 or 10 rating)

48%

51%

68%

76%

82%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not invented here syndrome

The company's culture does not encourageinnovation

The company is burdened by the existingmarket

Potentially valuable ideas get lost in thebureaucracy of established companies

Established companies are not agileenough

Q6b: Base = “agree” (431)

Statement: “Established companies lose out to smaller companies in developing new technology.”

Percentage who said yes

14

Tomorrow’s Technology Today Question: Why do you feel this way? (Base = Those who disagree with

the statement -- gave a 1, 2, 3 or 4 rating)

50%

64%

70%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Established companies have morebusiness alliances

Established companies do more research

Established companies have betteraccess to markets

Established companies have deeperpockets

Q6b: Base = “disagree” (222)

Statement: “Established companies lose out to smaller companies in developing new technology.”

Percentage who said yes

15

Tomorrow’s Technology Today Question: Of the following companies, which should be worried that

their competitors will surpass them in developing new technology?

26%

39%

39%

43%

47%

68%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Intel

IBM

Dell

Cisco

Microsoft

Sun

Lucent

Q7: Base = “total” (787)

Percentage who said yes

16

Tomorrow’s Technology Today Question: Where will the center of new technology research and

development be in 2014?

6%

7%

18%

60%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

India

European Union

Southeast Asia

China

United States

Q8: Base = “total” (842)

Percentage who said yes

17

Tomorrow’s Technology Today

34%

53%

14%

Improve Decline Stay the same

Q9: Base = “total” (866)

Question: In the next year, do you feel investment in new technology development will improve, decline or stay the same in your country?

18

Emerging Technology Projects Question: Below is a list of some emerging technology projects*. Please rate

the potential success or failure of each project? 10= great success; 1= failure.

Q10: Base = “total” (318)

*See appendix for project descriptions

Great Success (8-10)

Average Success (4-7) Failure (1-3)

Nikon'sElectron Projection Lithography Project 40% 53% 8%

The Alberta Supernet 36% 54% 10%Sumitomo's Bulk Gallium nitride Waffer Project 35% 55% 10%Daimler Chrysler/EPRI Plug-In Hybrid Car 33% 55% 12%IBM's Web Foundation Project 32% 58% 11%General Motors Hywire 29% 59% 13%Microsoft's Spot Project 22% 54% 25%American Superconductor's Ship Motor Project 21% 56% 23%Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion project 15% 58% 28%Ensco/NASA Smart Dust Project 14% 59% 27%Lawrence Livermore Laboratory National Ingnition Facility 14% 58% 28%

The Vergo Consortium's $$ billion Millennium Run 13% 60% 27%

19

Emerging Technology Projects Question: Of the projects you have just rated, please check each one that you

think will dramatically transform its industry if the project is successful.

Q11: Base = “total” (758)

*See appendix for project descriptions

Percent who said yes

Daimler Chrysler/EPRI Plug-In Hybrid Car 43%

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Project 35%

General Motors Hywire 32%

Nikon's Electron Projection Lithography Project 31%

Sumitomo's Bulk Gallium nitride Wafer Project 24%

Ensco/NASA Smart Dust Project 21%

IBM's Web Foundation Project 20%

American Superconductor's Ship Motor Project 18%

Microsoft's Spot Project 13%

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory National Ingnition Facility 11%

The Alberta Supernet 9%

The Vergo Consortium's $$ billion Millennium Run 3%

Fellows Information

21

Area of Expertise and Employment

Area of professional expertise(Q12) % Area of Employment (Q13) %

Telecommunications 30 Education 50

Semiconductors 17 Private industry 22

Computers 18 Public/Government/Non-profit 9

Power and energy 15 Self-employed 8

Transportation 1 Retired/Unemployed 10

Other 19 Other 1

Q12; Q13: Base = “total” (859)

22

Entrepreneurial Status

28%

72%

Yes No

Q14: Base = “total” (862)

23

Description of Emerging Technology Projects IBM’s Web Foundation Project: Data mining is a powerful tool that allows organizations to detect hidden patterns and

trends. But currently, the data have to be well structured to allow software to analyze them, e.g., a database of shipping orders. Web Fountain is an IBM project that aims to allow users to mine the huge wealth of unstructured data available both within companies and on the Web, from office memos and white papers to Web logs and discussion boards.

Microsoft’s Spot Project: Smart Personal Object Technology. The idea is to endow ordinary objects such as watches and refrigerator magnets with “glanceable” information like sports scores, weather conditions, and stock prices via a new $60/year service called MSN Direct. To implement this, Microsoft, along with partners in the FM broadcasting industry, has created the DirectBand Network, a continuous broadcast network across the United States and Canada. Taking advantage of FM radio sub-carrier frequencies, watches with MSN Direct are continuously updated with Web-based information.

Alberta Supernet: By the end of 2004, the Alberta Supernet will have developed a single network providing 12,000 miles of wired and wireless high-speed Internet access backbone to every corner of Canada’s huge Alberta province.

Ensco/NASA Smart Dust Project: Through a grant from NASA, ENSCO Inc. hopes to accurately predict global weather by seeding the atmosphere with a network of sensors to a density of one per square kilometer. The system, says ENSCO, could also be used to chemical, biological or nuclear events.

Sumitomo’s Bulk Gallium Nitride Wafer Project: A process for making single-crystal gallium nitride wafers is being readied for manufacturing by researchers at Sumitomo Electric Industries. Such a process would vastly improve the quality of blue solid-state gallium nitride lasers, which are now built on sapphire substrates.

Nikon’s Electron Projection Lithography Project: This next-generation-lithography technology passes a broad beam of electrons through a mask containing the desired circuit patterns to create the very small—70-nm or less—structures needed for the next generations of ICs.

24

Description of Emerging Technology Projects American Superconductor's Ship Motor Project: With completion of preliminary load and no-load tests,

the first 5-MW high-temperature superconducting (HTS) electric ship propulsion motor is now being prepped

by the U.S. Office of Naval Research for sea trials, even as design work begins on a 36.5-MW version. General Motor’s Hywire: GM is calling this project the Journey to Reinvent the Automobile. This concept

vehicle is designed around a fuel-cell propulsion system, which GM is betting will be the technology of the future.

Daimler Chrysler/EPRI Plug-In Hybrid Car: Daimler Chrysler/EPRI’s plug-in hybrid, will offer owners the option of charging their vehicles’ batteries from a wall outlet, giving them many of the advantages of a so-called “pure” electric vehicle, but without the drawback of limited range.

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion: Several prototype energy plants around the world are studying the economic feasibility of generating electricity from the difference in temperature between the warm water of the ocean’s surface and the cold water at depths of one or two kilometers, a process called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory National Ignition Facility: The $4.2 billion laser fusion system (the world’s largest) is intended to ensure the continued reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without performing full-scale underground tests.

The Virgo Consortium’s $$ billion Millennium Run: Goal is to create the most-advanced-to-date computer simulation of the evolution of the universe. It is being conducted by an international team of scientists out of the Max Planck Institute in Garching.