Future Internet Strategy in Taiwan

Future Internet Strategy

in Taiwan

1

Dr. Kenny Huang

TWNIC BoD; APNIC EC

Future Internet Policy Program Leader

[email protected]

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


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



FI Forum


14

6

7

85

15

25

35

ROUND1 ROUND2

Pe

rce

nta

ge

in

To

p T

hre

e

45678






Delphi Standard Deviation

37

2

2.2

2.4

Sta

nd

ard

De

via

tio

n 1234



FI Forum


15

12

4

5 68

1.4

1.6

1.8

ROUND1 ROUND2

Sta

nd

ard

De

via

tio

n

45678






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


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


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

Future Internet Strategy in Taiwan

Technology

Transcript of Future Internet Strategy in Taiwan