R&D’s Hot Tech for 2007
As 2007 is ushered in, the editors and readers of R&D weigh in on what technologies will indeed be “hot”.
For the third consecutive year, the editors of R&D Magazine performed a survey of our readers in late-November 2006 inquiring what technologies they expect to see rapid growth and high investment in 2007. This year’s survey was identical to the surveys performed in 2004 and 2005 for similar technology forecasts to provide statistically comparable results. Nearly 300 readers responded to this year’s web-based survey, substantially more than replied in previous years.
Readers selected the “hot technologies” for 2007 from a list of 70 alphabetically arranged choices, starting with “anti-bioterrorism devices “and ending with “x-ray”. The results (see bar chart with the top choices) were somewhat similar to those obtained over the past two years with some shuffling of the top picks. Nanotechnology/NEMS (nanoelectromechanical systems) was the top choice this year with 39.4% of the responses—it was the third choice in 2005 with 34% of the responses and No. 2 in 2004 with 40% of the responses. Anti-bioterrorism devices was the second most-selected hot technology this year with 37% of the responses—it was the top choice in 2005 (39%) and No. 3 in 2004 (30%). Battery/chemical energy was the third most-selected technology for 2007—it was No. 4 in 2005 (30%) and No. 5 in 2004 (20%).
Energy up, life science down
Energy issues drove many of the selected technologies this year, as it did in previous years. Readers noted the value that nuclear energy may have in its impact on the overall rise of energy costs and continued its rise from 4.5% of the responses in 2004 to 7.8% in 2005 and 8.5% of the responses this year. Similarly, solar/wind power increased its share of reader responses from 19% in 2005 (the seventh most selected item) to 26.8% this year (No. 5 in the rankings).
Mature technologies based primarily on analytical techniques, like microscopy, chromatography, spectroscopy, rheology, x-ray, and electronic test systems consistently received the fewest responses (less than 1%) in the 2004, 2005, and 2006 reader surveys. Many of the “hot” life science technologies that were touted following completion of the Human Genome Project five years ago have also lost a lot of technology following. Genomics for example, ranked No. 22 in 2004 and No. 15 in 2005 (10%), fell to No. 22 in this year’s survey ranking with 10.7% of the responses. Proteomics also ranked No. 18 in 2004 and No. 29 in 2005, fell further in this year’s rankings to No. 48 with just 3.9% of the responses.
A few other life science-based technologies also appear to have lost ground this year. Drug delivery systems, ranked No. 6 in the 2005 survey with 20% of the responses, fell to No. 10 in this year’s survey ranking with 18% of the responses. Bioinformatics also lost ground, ranked No. 9 in 2005 (16%) and No. 25 in this year’s survey with 9.9% of the responses. Just more than half (52%) of the survey respondents indicated that they themselves were involved in the hot technologies that they chose.
Commercializing a technology
The time that the survey respondents expect that it will take for these hot technologies to become commercially viable products is virtually identical in 2006 to what the survey respondents said in 2005. Our readers said that they expect it to take an average of 4.8 yr to become commercially viable in 2006, compared to the 4.7 yr they said it would take in 2005.
The time it took for these technologies to become “hot”—meaning the time from the initial discovery to now—was slightly less in 2006 than it was in 2005 according to the survey respondents. In 2005, the average time to become a hot technology was 5.97 yr; in 2006, that average fell slightly to 5.78 yr, although the two averages are statistically different. The overall statistic response curve for 2006 was a normal bell curve centered on the five yr response value, while that for 2005 was a double peak shape with one peak at 5 yr and another at the more than 10 yr value.
About 60% of the respondents in 2005 said that it took less than six years to become a hot technology. This year, only 55% of the respondents said that it took less than six years. In 2005, 17% of the respondents said that it took more than 10 yr to become a hot technology. In 2006, that statistic fell to just 13%.
The overall chance of a hot technology chosen by this year’s readers of becoming or spawning successful commercial products increased from 56% in 2005 to 59% this year, with about 8% of the respondents indicating that the technology already was a commercial success (an actual drop from 10% in 2005). About 62% of this year’s respondents indicated that the hot technology they chose would have a better than 50% chance of becoming a successful commercial product. Again, the editors of R&D Magazine did not define what successful meant, leaving the respondents to define it in their own rather subjective minds.
The responses from both the 2005 and the 2006 reader surveys confirm that it takes more than 10 yr from the time of initial discovery to the time of initial commercial introduction for a new technology. In 2005, this combined value was 10.7 yr and this yr it was 10.6 yr—statistically identical. These values confirm the generally accepted values of new product introduction cycles. The responses provided for successful commercial introduction are likely more optimistic than most analysts would like to state, but researchers working on products already nearly six yr into its cycle are generally going to be optimistic about its eventual outcome. Most unsuccessful products do not make to the six-yr mark, as it is.
The respondents also indicated that the definition of a hot technology is mostly a mix of hype and serious technology development—63.5% indicated this response. About 21% said that a hot technology was some or mostly hype, while 14% were the very serious types who indicated that a hot technology was mostly serious technology development.
Investing for the future
It may have become slightly more difficult to obtain funding for further development of new technologies, according to this year’s hot technology reader survey. The averages changed noticeably with just 17% of the respondents indicating that it was “relatively” or “very easy” to obtain additional investments for the future development of their hot technologies. This combination of responses in 2005 garnered about 21% of the respondents. Just 21% of the respondents in 2005 said that it was either impossible or very difficult to obtain these investments, while in 2006, this combination of responses rose to 28%.
A somewhat similar (55% in 2006 versus 58% in 2005) response was obtained for the category that it was “somewhat difficult to obtain further investments” to fund future development of the respondents’ hot technologies. Again, no questions were asked as to the specifics behind these “difficulties” for obtaining additional funding, so the editors are left to assume economic or business issues as being the reasons behind the responses.
Overall, this year’s survey responses compares very favorably with the results from our previous similar surveys. The trends reveal a shift from life science topics to physical science areas, a trend reinforced by the current fiscal year’s federal government funding changes, although it would be difficult to see this change that quickly in our survey responses. The non-technology responses also reflect a slightly slower economic growth and a slightly more rushed technology development cycle.
In the following pages, the editors of R&D invite you to learn about three distinct technologies that you should watch in 2007.
—Tim Studt
For the third consecutive year, the editors of R&D Magazine performed a survey of our readers in late-November 2006 inquiring what technologies they expect to see rapid growth and high investment in 2007. This year’s survey was identical to the surveys performed in 2004 and 2005 for similar technology forecasts to provide statistically comparable results. Nearly 300 readers responded to this year’s web-based survey, substantially more than replied in previous years.
Readers selected the “hot technologies” for 2007 from a list of 70 alphabetically arranged choices, starting with “anti-bioterrorism devices “and ending with “x-ray”. The results (see bar chart with the top choices) were somewhat similar to those obtained over the past two years with some shuffling of the top picks. Nanotechnology/NEMS (nanoelectromechanical systems) was the top choice this year with 39.4% of the responses—it was the third choice in 2005 with 34% of the responses and No. 2 in 2004 with 40% of the responses. Anti-bioterrorism devices was the second most-selected hot technology this year with 37% of the responses—it was the top choice in 2005 (39%) and No. 3 in 2004 (30%). Battery/chemical energy was the third most-selected technology for 2007—it was No. 4 in 2005 (30%) and No. 5 in 2004 (20%).
|
Energy issues drove many of the selected technologies this year, as it did in previous years. Readers noted the value that nuclear energy may have in its impact on the overall rise of energy costs and continued its rise from 4.5% of the responses in 2004 to 7.8% in 2005 and 8.5% of the responses this year. Similarly, solar/wind power increased its share of reader responses from 19% in 2005 (the seventh most selected item) to 26.8% this year (No. 5 in the rankings).
Mature technologies based primarily on analytical techniques, like microscopy, chromatography, spectroscopy, rheology, x-ray, and electronic test systems consistently received the fewest responses (less than 1%) in the 2004, 2005, and 2006 reader surveys. Many of the “hot” life science technologies that were touted following completion of the Human Genome Project five years ago have also lost a lot of technology following. Genomics for example, ranked No. 22 in 2004 and No. 15 in 2005 (10%), fell to No. 22 in this year’s survey ranking with 10.7% of the responses. Proteomics also ranked No. 18 in 2004 and No. 29 in 2005, fell further in this year’s rankings to No. 48 with just 3.9% of the responses.
A few other life science-based technologies also appear to have lost ground this year. Drug delivery systems, ranked No. 6 in the 2005 survey with 20% of the responses, fell to No. 10 in this year’s survey ranking with 18% of the responses. Bioinformatics also lost ground, ranked No. 9 in 2005 (16%) and No. 25 in this year’s survey with 9.9% of the responses. Just more than half (52%) of the survey respondents indicated that they themselves were involved in the hot technologies that they chose.
Commercializing a technology
The time that the survey respondents expect that it will take for these hot technologies to become commercially viable products is virtually identical in 2006 to what the survey respondents said in 2005. Our readers said that they expect it to take an average of 4.8 yr to become commercially viable in 2006, compared to the 4.7 yr they said it would take in 2005.
The time it took for these technologies to become “hot”—meaning the time from the initial discovery to now—was slightly less in 2006 than it was in 2005 according to the survey respondents. In 2005, the average time to become a hot technology was 5.97 yr; in 2006, that average fell slightly to 5.78 yr, although the two averages are statistically different. The overall statistic response curve for 2006 was a normal bell curve centered on the five yr response value, while that for 2005 was a double peak shape with one peak at 5 yr and another at the more than 10 yr value.
About 60% of the respondents in 2005 said that it took less than six years to become a hot technology. This year, only 55% of the respondents said that it took less than six years. In 2005, 17% of the respondents said that it took more than 10 yr to become a hot technology. In 2006, that statistic fell to just 13%.
The overall chance of a hot technology chosen by this year’s readers of becoming or spawning successful commercial products increased from 56% in 2005 to 59% this year, with about 8% of the respondents indicating that the technology already was a commercial success (an actual drop from 10% in 2005). About 62% of this year’s respondents indicated that the hot technology they chose would have a better than 50% chance of becoming a successful commercial product. Again, the editors of R&D Magazine did not define what successful meant, leaving the respondents to define it in their own rather subjective minds.
The responses from both the 2005 and the 2006 reader surveys confirm that it takes more than 10 yr from the time of initial discovery to the time of initial commercial introduction for a new technology. In 2005, this combined value was 10.7 yr and this yr it was 10.6 yr—statistically identical. These values confirm the generally accepted values of new product introduction cycles. The responses provided for successful commercial introduction are likely more optimistic than most analysts would like to state, but researchers working on products already nearly six yr into its cycle are generally going to be optimistic about its eventual outcome. Most unsuccessful products do not make to the six-yr mark, as it is.
The respondents also indicated that the definition of a hot technology is mostly a mix of hype and serious technology development—63.5% indicated this response. About 21% said that a hot technology was some or mostly hype, while 14% were the very serious types who indicated that a hot technology was mostly serious technology development.
|
|
Investing for the future
It may have become slightly more difficult to obtain funding for further development of new technologies, according to this year’s hot technology reader survey. The averages changed noticeably with just 17% of the respondents indicating that it was “relatively” or “very easy” to obtain additional investments for the future development of their hot technologies. This combination of responses in 2005 garnered about 21% of the respondents. Just 21% of the respondents in 2005 said that it was either impossible or very difficult to obtain these investments, while in 2006, this combination of responses rose to 28%.
A somewhat similar (55% in 2006 versus 58% in 2005) response was obtained for the category that it was “somewhat difficult to obtain further investments” to fund future development of the respondents’ hot technologies. Again, no questions were asked as to the specifics behind these “difficulties” for obtaining additional funding, so the editors are left to assume economic or business issues as being the reasons behind the responses.
Overall, this year’s survey responses compares very favorably with the results from our previous similar surveys. The trends reveal a shift from life science topics to physical science areas, a trend reinforced by the current fiscal year’s federal government funding changes, although it would be difficult to see this change that quickly in our survey responses. The non-technology responses also reflect a slightly slower economic growth and a slightly more rushed technology development cycle.
In the following pages, the editors of R&D invite you to learn about three distinct technologies that you should watch in 2007.
—Tim Studt
Use of this website is subject to its terms of use.
Privacy Policy
