2017 Triple Helix International Conference Theme Paper
The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Triple Helix
So Young Kim (soyoungkim@kaist.ac.kr)
Professor & Head, Graduate School of Science & Technology Policy, KAIST
July 2017
Defining and Delineating the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Since the World Economic Forum (WEF) reputed for its global agenda-setting capabilities
introduced the term, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, in its 2016 summit in Davos, it has
become a new buzzword capturing recent technological breakthroughs heralding social
transformations in every corner of socioeconomic life.
In the words of Klaus Schwab, key architect of the forum, the core of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution lies in technologies blurring the boundaries of the physical, biological, and digital
spheres, as best exemplified by artificial intelligence, virtual/augmented realities, the Internet of
Things (IoT), autonomous vehicles, and drones (Schwab 2016).
Table 1: Twelve Emerging Technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (WEF 2017a)
Artificial Development of machines that New New architectures for computing
intelligence and can substitute for humans, computing hardware, such as quantum
robotics increasingly in tasks associated technologies computing, biological computing
with thinking, multitasking, and or neural network processing, as
fine motor skills well as innovative expansion of
current computing technologies
Virtual and Next step interfaces between 3D Printing Advances in additive
augmented humans and computers, manufacturing, using a widening
realities involving immersive range of materials and methods;
environments, holographic innovations include 3D bioprinting
readouts and digitally produced of organic tissues
overlays
Ubiquitous Also known as the “Internet of Advanced Creation of new materials and
linked sensors Things” (IoT); the use of materials and nanostructure for the development
networked sensors to remotely nanomaterials of beneficial material properties,
connect, track, and manage such as thermoelectric efficiency,
products, systems, and grids shape retention and new
functionality
1
Blockchain and Distributed ledger technology Geo- Technological intervention in
distributed based on cryptographic systems engineering planetary systems, typically to
ledger that manage, verify and publicly mitigate effects of climate change
record transaction data: the basis by removing carbon dioxide or
of “cryptocurrencies” managing solar radiation
Biotechnologies Innovations in genetic Neuro- Smart drugs, neuroimaging, and
engineering, sequencing and technologies bioelectronic interfaces that allow
therapeutics, as well as for reading, communicating, and
biological-computational influencing brain activities
interfaces and synthetic biology
Energy capture, Breakthroughs in battery and Space Developments allowing for greater
storage, and fuel cell efficiency; renewable technologies access to and exploration of space,
transmission energy through solar, wind, and including microsatellites,
tidal technologies; energy advanced telescopes, reusable
distribution through smart grid rockets and integrated rocket-jet
engines.
While it is apparently straightforward to call an assemblage of these emerging technologies the
Fourth Industrial Revolution, there are uncertainties and ambiguities in defining and delineating
the scope of this transformation at least in three aspects.
Firstly, technical experts as well as historians of science and technology may well doubt that this
is really the “fourth” industrial revolution. According to the WEF’s formulation, the current
transformation is distinctly the fourth, as the previous industrial revolutions took place based on
very different technological systems (mechanical production driven by water and steam power
for the first industrial revolution, mass production driven by electrical energy for the second
industrial revolution, and automation driven by electronic and IT system). In the views of the
advocates of the novelty of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, what is truly new about the fourth
one is the integration of cyber-physical-biological system enabled by the above-listed
technologies.
Yet, these technologies driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution are critically viewed as the
extension of the previous revolution marked by digital technology. In particular, Jeremy Rifkin,
the author of The Third Industrial Revolution (Rifkin 2011), refutes the WEF’s claim by pointing
out that the velocity, scope, and systems impact characterizing Schwab’s Fourth Industrial
Revolution have in fact been the hallmarks of the digital technologies underpinning the Third
Industrial Revolution. Both Schwab and he recognize the vast potentials of digital technologies
to fundamentally transform the way political, economic and social life is organized around the
2
world, yet the point of disagreement lies, claims Rifkin, is that the Third Industrial Revolution is
yet to reach its full potentials and thus too early to be declared to be done (Rifkin 2016).
Another critical view on whether the Fourth Industrial Revolution is indeed the “fourth” is based
on the Kondratieff wave theory. Kondratieff waves refer to the long-term fluctuations of 40~60
years beginning with technological innovations and sustained over extended periods of economic
prosperity before sudden or prolonged slowdown. One of the widely circulated market trend
analyses as shown in Figure 1 posits five such waves with the sixth one characterizing current
technological and economic changes (Allianz 2010).
Figure 1: Kondratieff Cycles (Allianz 2010)
Secondly, many observers of the recent technological developments associated with the Fourth
Industrial Revolution commonly comment that it is more than the “industrial” transformation. To
a large extent, this observation seems trivial, for no previous industrial revolution has been just
an “industrial” revolution. Since Arnold Tonybee first coined the term to describe Britain’s
machine-based economy retrospectively (Tonybee 1884), technological innovations associated
with an industrial revolution have always involved social, economic and cultural transformations.
3
In particular, the question about whether the Fourth Industrial Revolution is more than the
“industrial” revolution is linked to the origin of the term, Industry 4.0. Industry 4.0, also called
smart industry or smart manufacturing, is a German project launched in 2011 to automate
manufacturing production based on digital platforms (GTAI 2014). While it is generally
understood to encompass such phenomena as real-time supply chain, data-driven demand
prediction, self-optimizing systems, and connected factories, its meaning has been expanded with
each company having its own definition. As many features of Industry 4.0 represent the
developments linking cyber-physical systems, the Fourth Industrial Revolution in a narrow
definition can be interchangeable with Industry 4.0.
Thirdly, there is a question whether the Fourth Industrial Revolution truly “revolutionary.”
Advocates of the Fourth Industrial Revolution claim that it is so, as the changes it brings about
are exponential disrupting almost every industry in every country enabling new capabilities for
people and machines and ultimately leading to the transformation of entire systems of production,
management and governance.
In the past human history, all real revolutions – whether political or technological – have only
come to be called a revolution posthumously. Then, naming the ground-breaking technologies
linked to the Fourth Industrial Revolution and their associated changes as a revolution cannot be
a mere attempt to describe what is happening now. Rather, it is close to a prescription in the
sense of setting a global agenda. And even such effort is viewed to have a dubious effect, as one
of the immediate book reviews upon the release of Schwab’s book (Thornhill 2016) criticizes the
book as an inflight reading that is hard to reach broader audience.
In short, the apparent arrival of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is debated and disputed over the
precise definition and scope of its impacts. Yet at least in South Korea it has emerged as a
powerful keyword setting the tone of policymaking of the new administration let alone science,
technology and innovation (STI) policy.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution in the South Korean Context
4
Just two months after the 2016 Davos Forum, the AlphaGo match was held in the downtown
Seoul, South Korea. Widely televised, the match was proposed by Google DeepMind, the new
British start-up company acquired by Google, to challenge humans in the board game of Go.
AlphGo, the artificial intelligence (AI) based computer program developed by DeepMind, won
over Lee Sedol, world Go champion with the highest rank (9 dan) in a five-game match.
The match result sent a shockwave to people watching the match, for the prediction before the
match was predominantly against AlphGo. Since the Go game requires more than simple
calculation, many conjectured that even an AI program would not be able to penetrate the
strategic logic and insight that could only be accumulated over many years of practice.
The match was all the more impactful in this country, for South Korea has been well recognized
as a global IT leader. The government immediately responded with the announcement of the 2
billion dollar R&D project. Named as the National Strategic Project, the initiative primarily
targeted the technologies closely linked to the Fourth Industrial Revolution such as AI, self-
driving cars, and virtual/augmented realities (VR/AR).
The sudden focus of the national R&D on the Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies became
more intensified over the presidential election in the spring of 2017. As revealed in a simple
comparison of the frequencies of the search term between the world and South Korea using
Google Trends in Figure 2, South Koreans’ keen interest in the Fourth Industrial Revolution is
very much evident in the continuing rise of searches in the spring of 2017. While the worldwide
search shows the peak in the very week of the 2016 Davos Forum subduing in the following
weeks, the search of the term in South Korea has risen much more as time went by.
5
100
80
60
40
20
0
04/01/2015
04/02/2015
04/03/2015
04/04/2015
04/05/2015
04/06/2015
04/07/2015
04/08/2015
04/09/2015
04/10/2015
04/11/2015
04/12/2015
04/01/2016
04/02/2016
04/03/2016
04/04/2016
04/05/2016
04/06/2016
04/07/2016
04/08/2016
04/09/2016
04/10/2016
04/11/2016
04/12/2016
04/01/2017
04/02/2017
04/03/2017
04/04/2017
04/05/2017
04/06/2017
Worldwide South Korea
Figure 2: Keyword Search on the Fourth Industrial Revolution (World vs. South Korea)
What was notable in this intense pre-election debate was that it went beyond a simple
identification of future strategic areas or fields that the government has to promote for the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. The debate touched upon the roles of the government vs. private sector in
meeting the system-wide challenges from the Fourth Industrial Revolution as well as various
issues of national R&D governance that have long been discussed in the nation’s R&D
community.
Indeed, when the Korea Federation of S&T Societies, the largest organization encompassing
S&T associations in South Korea polled scientists and engineers in June 2017, more than a
quarter of the respondents pointed out the reform of education and R&D system as the highest
priority in meeting the challenges from the Fourth Industrial Revolution (KOFST 2017). In this
survey of 2,350 researchers in various fields of S&T, the responses prioritizing the development
of individual technologies driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution such as AI or IoT were in fact
fewer than those prioritizing more governance or system-related aspects, i.e., the reform of
education and R&D system as shown in Figure 3.
More specifically, the respondents viewed creativity as the most important feature of educational
reform (29%), followed by interdisciplinary education (19%) and basic science education (18%).
As to R&D reform, they answered the streamlining of redundant legal and institutional measures
6
for S&T (26%) and the abolition of ineffective regulations for technology transfer (25%) as the
most urgent tasks in meeting the challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These survey
results naturally lead us to revisit the Triple Helix model in relation to the discourse on
governance and policymaking for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
9%
27%
17%
21%
26%
Reform of Education & R&D System Internet of Things
Artitificial Intelligence Digitalization of Manufacturing
Autonomous Vehicles
Figure 3: Priority in Promoting the Fourth Industrial Revolution (KOFST 2017)
Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to the Triple Helix
Amid a plenty of discussions on emerging technologies driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution,
the World Economic Forum created an expert group last year to initiate and promote
participatory deliberation of the values embedded in the Fourth Industrial Revolution as well as
potential risks and hazards of those technologies. Called the Global Future Council on
Technology, Values and Policy, this group together with other more technology-oriented
councils are developing policy approaches and options to shape the future of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. So far four key principles have been laid out through multiple rounds of
brainstorming discussions (WEF 2017b).
7
One is to focus on systems, not technologies. This is effectively a call to avoid technological
determinism viewing technology development as natural or inevitable. The second principle is to
have technologies empower people, not determine the fate of people unilaterally. The third
principle is to think and develop technologies by design, not by default, meaning that much more
care and attention needs to be given in order to avoid coming up with technological default blind
to various sectors and segments of the society. The last one is to consider value as feature of
technology development, not a bug to fix, which is to acknowledge that technologies are
inherently value-laden rather than value-neutral.
These principles, together with the aforementioned survey results on the Fourth Industrial
Revolution of South Korean researchers, directly call us to re-think the roles of the university,
government, and industries that form the Triple Helix of the innovation eco-system and re-
imagine their interfaces in the governance of emerging technologies.
First of all, unlike many existing technologies developed with clear performance goals in mind,
most technologies underpinning or driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution are being developed
without clear end-results in view. This implies that the specific paths of technological
development for the Fourth Industrial Revolution are much more likely to depend on how
various actors of the innovation eco-system, especially those three main tripartite actors
(university-industry-government), perceive the utility and risk of emerging technologies and
structure the discussions of alternative futures of those technologies.
Secondly, the increasing demand on creativity and inter-(or trans-) disciplinarity in education
and R&D in the face of the Fourth Industrial Revolution suggests that the traditional dual
missions of universities – teaching and research – need to be upgraded in the directions of
allowing much more room for experiments and learning by doing. In this regard, the rise of
design thinking in engineering education is of particular note, as the central pillar of design
thinking lies in the ability to identify problems and to remain open-minded to every possibility.
As a human-centered approach to innovation to integrate the needs of people and the possibilities
of technology, design thinking involves creating choices and shifting through analysis and
synthesis that would inevitably necessitate interdisciplinary communication (Brown 2009).
8
Finally, the indeterminate and uncertain nature of new technologies associated with the Fourth
Industrial Revolution would make the Triple Helix institutions and agents all the more important
and pertinent, as the interactions within the Triple Helix would go beyond strategizing
opportunities from technological innovations. That said, institutions and agents within the Triple
Helix networks should pivot around social imaginations of future technologies as well as the
sociotechnical governance structure for the of new frontiers opened up with the Fourth Industrial
Revolution.
9
References
Allianz. 2010. The Six Kondratieff – Long Waves of Prosperity. Analysis & Trends, January
2010.
Brown, Tim. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and
Inspires Innovation. HarperCollins Publishers
GTAI. 2014. Industrie 4.0: Smart Manufacturing for the Future. German Trade & Invest.
KOFST. 2017. Survey of the S&T Community on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Korea
Federation of Science and Technology Societies.
Rifkin, J. 2016. The 2016 World Economic Forum Misfires with its Fourth Industrial Revolution
Theme. Industry Week, January 16, 2016.
Rifkin, J. 2011. The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy,
the Economy, and the World. Palgrave MacMillan.
Schwab, K. 2016. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.
Thornhill, J. 2016. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Book Review, Financial Times, January 17,
2016.
Toynbee, A. 1884. Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England. Rivingtons (Digitized by
Harvard University 2008).
WEF. 2017a. Global Risk Report. World Economic Forum.
WEF. 2017b. Realizing Human Potentials in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. White Paper,
World Economic Forum.
10
