|
Appendix B
Technology Selection and Analysis
This appendix discusses the process for the selection and
analysis of National Critical Technologies. It starts with
the discussion of the legislative mandate for creating the
National Critical Technologies Report. It then details the
process by which particular technologies were selected for
inclusion. Finally, it discusses the methodologies used for
analysis and assessment.
Legislative Mandate
The National Critical Technologies Report is prepared
biennially at the direction of the 101st U.S. Congress in
Public Law 101-189. This law charges a panel of public and
private sector officials with identifying no more than 30
national critical technologies "essential... to develop and
further the long-term national security or economic
prosperity of the United States." The current report is the
third in the series.
National Critical Technologies Review and Selection
Process
Review and approval
The National Critical Technologies Review Group that approved
the 1995 National Critical Technologies Report includes
members of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST) senior government officials. The
government officials applinted by the Director of OSTP
included the Associate Director of OSTP for Technology and
the Associate Director of OSTP for National Security and
International Affairs.
In addition to the National Critical Technologies Review
Group, the 1995 Report was prepared with the participation
from the committees of the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC). All relevant federal agencies that
participate in NSTC committees had the opportunity to review
and comment on the National Critical Technologies list,
although the Committee on Civilian Industrial Technology and
the Committee on National Security had the lead roles in the
process. The primary focus of the content reviews by the
agencies was to reflect current status and relative
importance of various technologies, to fill in gaps, and to
assure that the most important potential applications were
included.
Following the NSTC review, the list was presented for review
and approval to the National Critical Technologies Review
Group. The report itself went through a similar process of
review and approval, ensuring that all inputs and comments on
earlier versions were addressed.
Selection criteria
As described in Appendix A, the process began with a
candidate list. Technologies from this candidate list were
selected for the final list if they met one or more of the
following criteria.
Economic Prosperity
- Directly and substantially supports major S&T goal(s)
of the Administration as documented in the Memorandum on 1996
Research and Development (R&D) Priorities, dated May 6,
1994, as shown in Table B.1.
- Directly and substantially contributes to the S&T
base essential for maintaining or promoting a globally
competitive position for one or more U.S. industries.
- Meets tests of potential economic importance in the near-
term for technologies of incremental change, and in the
longer term for breakthrough technologies.
- Has a high rate of discovery (i.e., will impact fast-
moving technology intensive industries, such as
telecommunications infrastructure and devices).
- Meets a test that despite recognition of an industry
need, sufficient R&D investments by the private sector
will not occur without Federal support due to the magnitude
or protracted payback period for the required investment,
riskiness of the technological development, or generic nature
of a technology in which no single company could expect to
recover its R&D investment (the latter is a "commons"
test).
National Security
- Makes an essential contribution to enabling or advancing
the future warfighting requirements, as shown in Table
B.2.
- Makes an essential contribution to mission areas under
the administration national security priority R&D as
stated in the Memorandum on 1996 Research and Development
(R&D) Priorities, dated May 6, 1994 (Goal 6, Enhancing
National Security)
- Is essential to meeting other Defense requirements that
are traceable through the 1994 Defense Science and Technology
plan.
Methodological Notes
International benchmarking
Assessments of foreign position and trends for the critical
technology areas are based on analysis of specific technology
sub-areas. Sub-area assessments are aggregated, based on
analytical judgments regarding relative weighting or
importance, to obtain assessments of each area. Assessments
in some areas, e.g., biotechnology or predictive process
control, are difficult because much of the overseas research
and process development take place in corporate rather than
academic environments, the work is considered proprietary,
and there is little incentive to publish or to reveal the
state of development to anyone who might be considered a
potential competitor.
Other methodological points include:
- Geographic regions. Europe and Japan are the
focus of this assessment, but other countries are considered
when they are at or near the leading edge. Europe is treated
as an aggregate and assessments are based on the best
demonstrated capability in any European country rather than
on an average across countries.
- Technical vs. non-technical measures. Assessments
of current position and five-year trends are based on
technical performance rather than on market success,
competitiveness, government policy, corporate spending, or
any other non-technical factor. In some cases, assessments
are complicated by the need to separate design trade-offs
from significant differences in technology capabilities. For
example, telecommunications vendors are pursuing alternative
R&D strategies for asynchronous transmission mode
switches. Assessments must take into account the fact that
alternative R&D strategies could reflect real differences
in capability, such as weakness in software, or could simply
be a result of different perceptions as to the best technical
path.
- Research vs. embedded technology. The entire
technology spectrum is considered, but with differing
emphases depending on which technology is being assessed.
For example, assessments of biotechnology stress the research
portion of the innovation spectrum, whereas aircraft
propulsion evaluations focus more heavily on what is actually
in service.
![](/media/gif/cti-tb1title.gif)
![](/media/gif/cti-tb1.gif)
![](/media/gif/cti-tb2.gif)
President and First Lady | Vice President and Mrs. Gore Record of Progress | The Briefing Room Gateway to Government | Contacting the White House White House for Kids | White House History White House Tours | Help | Text Only Privacy Statement |