*** I have included first the instructions and then my own notes***
***https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB1RDz9jaj0*** This is link to a video about the Gartner Hype cycle which explains what this whole paper will be on.
“This project is designed for you to do a thorough review, analysis, and reflection on key dynamics of innovation that characterize a particular technology trajectory, field, firm, or governance institution. As a starting point, you might think along the following lines as possible topical emphases:” I chose an agency concerned with innovation (Gartner, https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-cycle)
“This project is designed for you to do a thorough review, analysis, and reflection on key dynamics of innovation that characterize a particular technology trajectory, field, firm, or governance institution. As a starting point, you might think along the following lines as possible topical emphases:” I chose an agency concerned with innovation (Gartner)
Here is an explanation of the category I have chosen “Rather than studying a private firm, focus on a program or agency within a government (or the nonprofit sector) that is designed to foster innovative developments. These might include agencies like DARPA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or a program within it; a Department of Energy laboratory, In-Q-Tel, a major University research program, Battelle, and so on. The objective would be to thoroughly characterize the program/agency’s activity, establish its relation to other supportive agencies or parties, and analyze its activities and outcomes.”
“This should focus on the broader context in which your technology has been developed, or in which your firm or agency operates:”
“ Institutional Context: Even if one organization did all of the R&D on your technology by itself, or your firm is completely “closed”, it is nevertheless embedded in an environment in which there are many sources of information, support (via e.g. infrastructure, human capital, etc.) In this paper, you should provide an initial explanation and analysis of the main individual, organizational and/or institutional supports for the technology/firm’s/agency’s development or operations. How have “external” organizations/actors nurtured or galvanized key actors in the field? You may find these to be local, regional, and/or national in character. Again, one expects this story is complicated, but it may involve questions such as:”
• Where did/does funding come from? Internally? From private firms? Research grants? Did the firm get
tax breaks, preferred access to markets, government procurement opportunities that sped development
and/or diffusion?
• What kinds of physical infrastructure supported the innovation process?
• Were there outside collaborators? Who or what? How important were they?
• Were there legal rules, systems or protections that the firm took advantage of (or was hindered by)?
• These are not exhaustive; you will undoubtedly run across other relevant issues. Moreover, some will be
difficult to answer – do your best and we’ll discuss strategies for finding information and walk-through
potentially relevant databases in class.( Links provided)
USA Spending (2008+):
Fedspending: (2000-2015):
SBIR (1982- ):
USPTO: to an external site.
Google also has a patent database. Search here:
NIH (1992- ):
I have included an attached Hype cycle chart as an example. Why should we trust Gartner? If we compared Gartner charts from all other years in the 2010s (are these available? Do they do one every year?) how much change is there in the predictions? When Elon Musk said self-driving cars would be in every city soon back in the early 2010s, did Gartner buy the hype? This is a GREAT topic on how companies try to predict the future. My guess is that these are often wrong, else they’re tautological in predicting obvious things. Another example is Facebook transition to META. Do they even really believe VR is the next “thing”? And what’s a “hype cycle”, anyway? Is it routine? I am skeptical. Does this seem like a long digression? If it does, it is because I find this chart absolutely fascinating. How can they say it is an “objective” methodology, but then later say “no one can predict the future”? I’m astonished and intrigued, all at once..
