There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the foregoing five country case studies and the cross-country analysis that have implications for Korea. First, as is the case for each of the other countries in the study, Korea is unique and must develop its NII with regard to its own circumstances and values. Although many features of Korea’s NII might be similar to the NII plans and experiences of other countries, they will almost always be different in their actual implementation and details in Korea. This is as it should be.
Second, it behooves Korea to continue to watch NII developments in other countries, but especially in the United States, Japan and Europe. These are the three largest markets in the world, and what they do will shape the future developments NII developments elsewhere. While Asia might become a unified market sometime in the future, such a prospect is longer term rather than intermediate and probably cannot be a serious consideration in NII plans at this time.
Third, the other countries in this study tend to see the United States as the leader in creating or innovating with technology, but they see Japan having the manufacturing capability to compete strongly once the direction of new technology becomes clear. Europe is seen less as a leader in technology than a possible leader in standard-setting. Thus, different developments bear watching in the different leading markets.
Fourth, Korea can benefit from looking more closely at Singapore’s strategy and plans. Singapore’s NII, like Korea’s KII, is influenced by external forces and hopes to have influence beyond its borders, within the Asian region specifically. How feasible is this goal for Korea? Does Korea now play roles within the region that the KII can reinforce? Or, is Korea trying to use KII to become a force in the region? The latter aim might be too ambitious if Korea does not already play a significant role.
Fifth, Korea probably needs to further clarify for itself the primary goals and strategy of its KII initiative, and to ensure that government and industry are moving in the same direction so that their efforts are synergistic and mutually reinforcing rather than in conflict and mutually defeating. The Korea case study suggests that industry is moving in close relationship with government, but it does not indicate whether industry and government are moving in the same direction. Now might be a good time for Korean government and industry leaders to consider this question because the KII initiative is very young and the country is about to embark on the next Five Year Plan for the NBIS Project.
Finally, as indicated in the cross-country comparison, it is going to take longer than expected for NII visions to be realized and the future reality will probably look different than anyone imagines today. This is indicated by the fact that the initial euphoria and rosy forecasts for NII are giving way to a host of realities which have the net effect of slowing down implementation. Korea needs to closely look at this issue when it updates the KII Plan.
|