future internet strategy in taiwan
DESCRIPTION
Future Internet Strategy in TaiwanTRANSCRIPT
Future Internet Strategy
in Taiwan
1
Dr. Kenny Huang
TWNIC BoD; APNIC EC
Future Internet Policy Program Leader
Issue: Internet Hourglass Model
Everything on
IP
IP
Fragile tochanges
Robust tochanges
2
IP
on Everything
David Talbot. (2005). The Internet is Broken. MIT Technology Review.“The Net’s basic flaws cost firms billions, impede innovation, and threaten
national security. It’s time for a clean-slate approach”
International Foresight Research Comparison
3Source: PRESS (2008)
Foresight Research Deliveries
4
Source: PRESS (2008)
Japan Science & Technology Base Plan Foresight Methodology
5Source: NISTEP (2003)
Purpose of the research
� What policies should be recommended when deciding to
engage Future Internet research in Taiwan
� How much agreement is there among invited experts about the
relative importance of these proposed Future Internet policies
� Which of the proposed policies are not considered important
6
� Which of the proposed policies are not considered important
by the invited experts
Method of Strategic Planning
Introduction
Vision
Str
ateg
yGoals that meet
the real needs
of Citizens and
Businesses
EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
Rec
ent a
nd u
rgen
t tas
ks
7
Strategic Goals
ЦелиObjectives
ЦелиTasks
ЦелиMetricsЦелиProjectsЦелиStages
ЦелиPhases
Str
ateg
yA
ctio
n P
lan
Action of state
administration
in order to
fulfill the
strategic goals
Rec
ent a
nd u
rgen
t tas
ks
Why Delphi Method
� The research required a methodology that would identify the
variables and aid participants in ranking and selecting
important variables.
� Because consensus about the relative importance of variables
was an objective, the Delphi technique was selected.
8
� It parallels the methods employed in previous IT policy and
general consensus research.
� Brancheau, “Key issues in information systems management: A Delphi Study of IS
Executives and Corporate general Managers”, Working Paper Series-MISRC-WP-87-09,
University of Minnesota.
� Dickson, “Key information Issues for the 1980’s”, MIS Quarterly Vol 8, No 3, 1984, pp135-
159
Flow Chart for Delphi method
Start
Problem Definition
Select panel members basedon the expertise required
Prepare and distributequestionnaire
9
Analyze questionnaire response
Has a consensus been reached
Provide requested informationand tabulated response
Develop final report
Yes
No
AHP: Analytical Hierarchy Process
GOAL
CRITERIA
10
•Founded by Saaty in 1980.•It is a popular and widely used method for multi-criteria decision making.•Allows the use of qualitative, as well as quantitative criteria in evaluation. •Wide range of applications exists
ALTERNATIVES
Policy & Strategy Deliberation of Future Internet (FI)
Policy Deliberation
from the LiteratureExplanation Literature References
Architecture research Research on architectural elements FIND, FIRE, AKARI
Advanced apps research Research on advanced services/apps CNGI, GEANT, AKARI
FI Forum Forum for FI information sharing AsiaFI, FIA, FIF
Advanced R&E network Advanced R&E infrastructure development Internet2, APAN, GEANT
FI experimental research Experiment and testbed operation GENI,GEANT, CNGI
FI governance research Research on Future Internet governance FP7, FIRE, FIF
11
FI governance research Research on Future Internet governance FP7, FIRE, FIF
FI social and policy research Research on social and politic impact FP7, FIRE
FI Economic research Research on economic impact FP7, FIRE
Strategy Deliberation
from the LiteratureExplanation Literature References
Clean Slate Approach TCP/IP architectural redesign FIND, FIRE, AKARI
Incremental Approach Improve things based on TCP/IP architecture CNGI
Ranking Data by Delphi Round
Level of Importance Rank Policy Ranking
Round 1 Round 2
Mean
Rank
Std
Dev
%
Top 3
Mean
Rank
Std
Dev
%
Top 3
IMPORTANT 1 Architecture research 2.69 1.70 61.5
2 Advanced apps research 3.31 1.65 53.8
MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 FI Forum 3.17 2.41 53.8
12
MODERATELY IMPORTANT 3 FI Forum 3.17 2.41 53.8
4 Advanced R&E network 3.25 1.48 46.2
5 FI experimental research 3.31 1.75 76.9
UNIMPORTANT 6 FI governance research 5.67 1.78 7.7
7 FI social and policy research 5.83 2.37 15.4
8 FI Economics research 5.50 1.83 7.7
Delphi Mean Rank
678
4
5
6
Me
an
Ra
nk
1234
Network architecture research
Advanced services/apps research
FI Forum
Advanced R&E network
13
1
23 45
2
3
4
ROUND1 ROUND2
Me
an
Ra
nk
45678
Advanced R&E network
Network experiment research
FI governance research
FI social & policy research
FI economics research
Delphi Percentage in Top Three
1
23
4
35
45
55
65
Pe
rce
nta
ge
in
To
p T
hre
e
1234
Network architecture research
Advanced services/apps research
FI Forum
Advanced R&E network
14
6
7
85
15
25
35
ROUND1 ROUND2
Pe
rce
nta
ge
in
To
p T
hre
e
45678
Advanced R&E network
Network experiment research
FI governance research
FI social & policy research
FI economics research
Delphi Standard Deviation
37
2
2.2
2.4
Sta
nd
ard
De
via
tio
n 1234
Network architecture research
Advanced services/apps research
FI Forum
Advanced R&E network
15
12
4
5 68
1.4
1.6
1.8
ROUND1 ROUND2
Sta
nd
ard
De
via
tio
n
45678
Advanced R&E network
Network experiment research
FI governance research
FI social & policy research
FI economics research
Nonparametric Statistics Friedman Test
Item Gov Research Business Ri Li
1 Architecture research 2 2 1 5 5
2 Advanced apps research 4 1 2 7 14
3 FI Forum 1 5 2 8 24
16
4 Advanced R&E network 3 4 2 9 27
5 FI experimental research 5 3 5 13 65
6 FI governance research 7 6 6 19 114
7 FI social and policy research 7 7 7 21 147
8 FI Economics research 6 8 7 21 168
Friedman Test Computation
H0: There is no difference between the proposed policies
H1: There is a difference between the proposed policies
α = 0.05 df = 7Critical Value X2 (0.95, 7)=14.0671
If X2 is greater than 14.0671: Reject the null hypothesis
17
After computation, X2 =9.61
X2 is not greater than 14.0671: do not reject the null hypothesis
Conclusion:Conclusion:Conclusion:Conclusion:There is no statistical difference among the proposed policiesThere is no statistical difference among the proposed policiesThere is no statistical difference among the proposed policiesThere is no statistical difference among the proposed policies
Weight-Ranking from Government
ItemGovernment
1 2 3 Weight Rank
FI Forum 1 1 3 22 1
FI architecture research 1 4 1 21 2
FI Advanced R&E network 2 2 4 19 3
18
2 2 4 19 3
FI Advanced apps research 3 5 2 17 4
FI experimental research 3 3 6 15 5
FI economics research 4 8 5 10 6
FI social & policy research 4 7 7 9 7
FI governance research 4 6 8 9 7
Nonparametric Statistics Jackknife Test (Gov)
Go
vern
me
nt
FI
foru
m
FI
arch
itectu
re
rese
arch
Ad
van
ced
R&
E
ne
two
rk
FI
ad
van
ced
ap
ps
rese
arch
FI
exp
erim
en
t
rese
arch
FI
eco
no
mics
rese
arch
FI
socia
l & p
olicy
rese
arch
FI
go
vern
an
ce
rese
arch
Me
an
weight 22 21 19 17 15 10 9 9 15.25 Sj
2 45.6 33.1 14.1 3.1 0.1 27.6 39.1 39.1
N=8, V=7, T(0.95,7)=1.8946 s=5.37 90% confidence level , r= 3.594
19
N=8, V=7, T(0.95,7)=1.8946 s=5.37 90% confidence level , r= 3.594
18.84 >= r >=11.66
High Priority Median Low PriorityFI
foru
m
FI
arch
itectu
re
rese
arch
Ad
van
ced
R&
E
ne
two
rk
FI
ad
van
ced
ap
ps
rese
arch
FI
exp
erim
en
t
rese
arch
FI
eco
no
mics re
sea
rch
FI
socia
l & p
olicy
rese
arch
FI
go
vern
an
ce
rese
arch
Weight Ranking from Research Community
ItemResearch
1 2 3 4 5 Weight Rank
FI advanced apps research 3 3 1 1 5 32 1
FI architecture research 2 2 4 5 1 31 2
FI experiment research 4 5 2 2 5 27 3
20
4 5 2 2 5 27 3
Advanced R&E network 4 3 4 1 24 4
FI forum 1 8 1 5 21 5
FI governance research 6 7 3 4 16 6
FI social & policy research 8 6 7 1 14 7
FI economics research 7 5 6 5 13 8
Nonparametric Statistics Jackknife Test (Research)
Re
sea
rch co
mm
un
ity
FI a
dva
nce
d a
pp
s
rese
arch
FI a
rchite
cture
rese
arch
FI e
xpe
rime
nt
rese
arch
Ad
van
ced
R&
E
ne
two
rk
FI fo
rum
FI g
ove
rna
nce
rese
arch
FI so
cial &
po
licy
rese
arch
FI e
con
om
ics
rese
arch
Me
an
weight 32 31 27 24 21 16 14 13 22.25
Sj2 95.1 76.6 22.6 3.1 1.6 39.1 68.1 85.6
21
N=8, V=7, T(0.95,7)=1.8946 s=7.48 90% confidence level, r = 5.009
27.26 >= r >=17.24
High Priority Median Low PriorityFI a
dva
nce
d a
pp
s
rese
arch
FI a
rchite
cture
rese
arch
FI e
xpe
rime
nt
rese
arch
Ad
van
ced
R&
E
ne
two
rk
FI fo
rum
FI g
ove
rna
nce
rese
arch
FI so
cial &
po
licy
rese
arch
FI e
con
om
ics rese
arch
Weight Ranking from Business
ItemBusiness
1 2 3 4 5 Weight Rank
FI architecture research 1 5 1 5 3 30 1
FI advanced apps research 2 4 5 6 1 27 2
Advanced R&E network 3 3 3 7 2 27 2
22
3 3 3 7 2 27 2
FI forum 4 1 6 3 4 27 2
FI experiment research 6 2 2 4 5 26 5
FI governance research 7 5 7 1 6 19 6
FI social & policy research 8 5 8 2 7 15 7
FI economics research 5 5 4 8 8 15 7
Nonparametric Statistics Jackknife Test (Business)
Bu
sine
ss
FI
arch
itectu
re
rese
arch
FI a
dva
nce
d a
pp
s
rese
arch
Ad
van
ced
R&
E
ne
two
rk
FI
Foru
m
FI e
xpe
rime
nt
rese
arch
FI g
ove
rna
nce
rese
arch
FI so
cial &
po
licy
rese
arch
FI e
con
om
ics rese
arch
Me
an
weight 30 27 27 27 26 19 15 15 23.25
Sj2 45.6 14.1 14.1 14.1 7.6 18.1 68.1 68.1
23
Sj 45.6 14.1 14.1 14.1 7.6 18.1 68.1 68.1
N=8, V=7, T(0.95,7)=1.8946 s=5.97 90% confidence level, r = 3.999
27.25 >= r >=19.25
High Priority Median Low PriorityFI
arch
itectu
re
rese
arch
FI a
dva
nce
d a
pp
s
rese
arch
Ad
van
ced
R&
E
ne
two
rk
FI
Foru
m
FI e
xpe
rime
nt
rese
arch
FI g
ove
rna
nce
rese
arch
FI so
cial &
po
licy
rese
arch
FI e
con
om
ics rese
arch
Delphi Weight Ranking for All Participants
Item G1 G2 G3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5weigh
tRank
FI architecture research 1 4 1 2 2 4 5 1 1 5 1 5 3 82 1
FI advanced apps
research3 5 2 3 3 1 1 5 2 4 5 6 1 76 2
FI forum 1 1 3 1 8 1 5 4 1 6 3 4 70 3
Advanced R&E network 2 2 4 4 3 4 1 3 3 3 7 2 70 4
24
Advanced R&E network 2 2 4 4 3 4 1 3 3 3 7 2 70 4
FI experiment research 3 3 6 4 5 2 2 5 6 2 2 4 5 68 5
FI governance research 4 6 8 6 7 3 4 7 5 7 1 6 44 6
FI social & policy
research4 7 7 8 6 7 1 8 5 8 2 7 38 7
FI economics research 4 8 5 7 5 6 5 5 5 4 8 8 38 8
Nonparametric Statistics Jackknife Test (all)
All p
articip
an
ts
FI a
rchite
cture
rese
arch
FI a
dva
nce
da
pp
s
rese
arch
FI
foru
m
Ad
van
ced
R&
E
ne
two
rk
FI e
xpe
rime
nt
rese
arch
FI g
ove
rna
nce
rese
arch
FI so
cial &
po
licy
rese
arch
FI e
con
om
ics
rese
arch
Me
an
weight 82 76 70 70 68 44 38 38 60.75
S 2 3451.6 2782.6 2185.6 2185.6 2002.6 430.6 217.6 217.6
25
Sj2 3451.6 2782.6 2185.6 2185.6 2002.6 430.6 217.6 217.6
N=8, V=7, T(0.95,7)=1.8946 s=17.82 90% confidence level, r = 11.9383
72.69 >= r >= 48.81
High Priority Median Low PriorityFI a
rchite
cture
rese
arch
FI a
dva
nce
da
pp
s
rese
arch
FI
foru
m
Ad
van
ced
R&
E
ne
two
rk
FI e
xpe
rime
nt
rese
arch
FI g
ove
rna
nce
rese
arch
FI so
cial &
po
licy
rese
arch
FI e
con
om
ics
rese
arch
AHP Computational Result
Taiwan Future Internet Strategy
Clean Slate
26
0.495 0.505
Clean SlateIncremental Approach
Inconsistency=0.00 with 0 missing judgments
There is no statistical difference among the policies
Delphi Methodology – Nonparametric Statistics
Friedman
Test
27
Prioritize all policy item
Nonparametric
Statistics
Jackknife
Test
Policy Recommendations
6570758085
Weight Ranking
28
6065
Nonparametric Statistics Jackknife Test
Government Role & Responsibility in High-Tech Policy
Develop fair competition environment
Strengthen industrial
competitive advantage
Risk mitigation
IMP
OR
TAN
CE
H
29
Deprioritize and source alternative technologies
IMP
OR
TAN
CE
RISK
HL M
M
L
Thank You
30
Thank You