Projecting the Development of Accelerator Technologies Using Growth Models and Social Cost Benefit Frameworks


Journal of Digital Business and International Marketing

Received On : 31 December 2024

Revised On : 16 February 2025

Accepted On : 30 March 2025

Published On : 05 April 2025

Volume 01, Issue 02, 2025

Pages : 109–118


PDF
Download

DOI
https://doi.org/10.64026/JDBIM/2025012
Article Views
Abstract

This research paper seeks to predict the future developments and trends of accelerator technologies in science, medicine, and industry from the year 1968 to 2050 based on historical growth trends and social cost-benefit analysis. The study starts with gathering and cleaning international dataset on the overall number of accelerators and using the method of cubic spline interpolation to work with the missing values. The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) for each sector is computed to show different growth trends; a linear growth in science sector while the medicine and industry sectors depict nonlinear growth. Logistic functionality is employed to fit the growth of the industry and simulate future growth based on different levels of saturation. The findings suggest that the accelerator industry may be nearing saturation in the next 15-30 years with the best-fit model estimating that 60% of the market demand was met by 2014. A social Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), based upon two case scenarios of the National Centre of Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), shows that there are important social benefits, especially in terms of technological externalities, human capital formation, and health impacts. Monte Carlo simulations also illustrate the range of possible outcomes, adding to the argument that technological advancement plays a crucial role in identifying an industry’s future directions.

Keywords

Social Cost-Benefit Analysis, Accelerator Technologies, Compound Annual Growth Rate, Mean Absolute Prediction Error, Plasma Wakefield Acceleration.

  1. M. S. Livingston, “Early history of particle accelerators,” in Advances in electronics and electron physics, 1980, pp. 1–88. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2539(08)61061-6.
  2. P. V. Logachev, D. A. Malyutin, and A. A. Starostenko, “Application of a low-energy electron beam as a tool of nondestructive diagnostics of intense charged-particle beams,” Instruments and Experimental Techniques, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–27, Jan. 2008, doi: 10.1134/s0020441208010016.
  3. B. Hidding et al., “Progress in hybrid plasma wakefield acceleration,” Photonics, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 99, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3390/photonics10020099.
  4. R. Fabbro, J. Fournier, P. Ballard, D. Devaux, and J. Virmont, “Physical study of laser-produced plasma in confined geometry,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 775–784, Jul. 1990, doi: 10.1063/1.346783.
  5. J. H. Cobb, W. W. M. Allison, and J. N. Bunch, “The ionisation loss of relativistic charged particles in thin gas samples and its use for particle identification I. Theoretical predictions,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods, vol. 133, no. 2, pp. 315–323, Mar. 1976, doi: 10.1016/0029-554x(76)90625-x.
  6. M. Uesaka et al., “Experimental verification of laser photocathode RF gun as an injector for a laser plasma accelerator,” IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1133–1142, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1109/27.893293.
  7. Gambardella and A. M. McGahan, “Business-Model Innovation: General Purpose Technologies and their Implications for Industry Structure,” Long Range Planning, vol. 43, no. 2–3, pp. 262–271, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.009.
  8. H.-J. Steenhuis and L. Pretorius, “The additive manufacturing innovation: a range of implications,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 122–143, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1108/jmtm-06-2016-0081.
  9. R. Garcia and R. Calantone, “A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 110–132, Mar. 2002, doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.1920110.
  10. D. Jugend, T. R. De Araujo, M. L. Pimenta, J. A. Gobbo, and P. Hilletofth, “The role of cross-functional integration in new product development: differences between incremental and radical innovation projects,” Innovation, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 42–60, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1080/14479338.2017.1364971.
  11. C. S. Koberg, D. R. Detienne, and K. A. Heppard, “An empirical test of environmental, organizational, and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation,” The Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 21–45, Mar. 2003, doi: 10.1016/s1047-8310(03)00003-8.
  12. J. E. Souto, “Business model innovation and business concept innovation as the context of incremental innovation and radical innovation,” Tourism Management, vol. 51, pp. 142–155, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.05.017.
  13. P. J. Holahan, Z. Z. Sullivan, and S. K. Markham, “Product development as core competence: How formal product development practices differ for radical, more innovative, and incremental product innovations,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 329–345, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12098.
  14. R. Kanter, “Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies,” Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 47–60, Dec. 1985, doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(85)90006-0.
  15. Gupta, A. Dey, and G. Singh, “Connecting corporations and communities: Towards a theory of social inclusive open innovation,” Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1–34, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1186/s40852-017-0062-3.
  16. J. Birkinshaw, “entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the characteristics of subsidiary initiatives,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 207–229, Mar. 1997, doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199703)18:3.
  17. G. Gemser and M. A. A. M. Leenders, “Managing Cross-Functional cooperation for new product development success,” Long Range Planning, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 26–41, Feb. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2010.11.001.
  18. S. Holland, K. Gaston, and J. Gomes, “Critical success factors for cross‐functional teamwork in new product development,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 231–259, Sep. 2000, doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00040.
  19. E. Fredericks, “Cross‐functional involvement in new product development,” Qualitative Market Research an International Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 327–341, Sep. 2005, doi: 10.1108/13522750510603370.
  20. R. G. Cooper and A. F. Sommer, “The Agile–Stage‐Gate hybrid model: a promising new approach and a new research opportunity,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 513–526, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12314.
  21. L. Morgan, “Impact of accelerators on technology,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 36–39, Jan. 1973, doi: 10.1109/tns.1973.4327038.
  22. M. De Nooij, “Social cost-benefit analysis of electricity interconnector investment: A critical appraisal,” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 3096–3105, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.049.
  23. P. W. Roberts and S. A. Lall, Observing Acceleration: Uncovering the Effects of accelerators on Impact-Oriented entrepreneurs. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL27772289M/Observing_Acceleration.
  24. G. Dosi, “Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change,” SSRN Electronic Journal, Jan. 1982, [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1505191.
  25. D. H. H. Hoffmann et al., “Particle accelerator physics and technology for high energy density physics research,” The European Physical Journal D, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 293–300, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1140/epjd/e2006-00125-0.
  26. D. A. Edwards and M. J. Syphers, An introduction to the physics of high energy accelerators. 1993. doi: 10.1002/9783527617272.
  27. E. J. Mishan and E. Quah, Cost-Benefit analysis. 1976. [Online]. Available: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA14049486.
  28. J. S. Nye, “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis,” American Political Science Review, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 417–427, Jun. 1967, doi: 10.2307/1953254.
  29. F. De Francesco, “Transfer Agents, knowledge Authority, and Indices of Regulatory Quality: A comparative analysis of the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 350–365, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1080/13876988.2014.882648.
  30. J. Woithe, A. Müller, S. Schmeling, and J. Kuhn, “Motivational outcomes of the science outreach lab S’Cool LAB at CERN: A multilevel analysis,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 930–968, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1002/tea.21748.
  31. S. R. Cellini and J. E. Kee, “Cost‐Effectiveness and Cost‐Benefit Analysis,” Wiley Online Library, pp. 636–672, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1002/9781119171386.ch24.
  32. S. Makridakis, “Metaforecasting,” International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 467–491, Jan. 1988, doi: 10.1016/0169-2070(88)90112-4.
  33. M. Lappe and K. Spang, “Investments in project management are profitable: A case study-based analysis of the relationship between the costs and benefits of project management,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 603–612, May 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.005.
  34. R. Vogt, “Cold nuclear matter effects onJ/ψandϒproduction at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC),” Physical Review C, vol. 81, no. 4, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1103/physrevc.81.044903.
  35. S. Rossi, “The National Centre for Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO): Status and perspectives,” Physica Medica, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 333–351, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.03.001.
  36. Magazinik, J. S. Bedolla, N. C. Lasheras, and S. Makinen, “Societal impact as Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparative analysis of two research infrastructures,” IEEE, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1109/ice.2019.8792600.
  37. M. Florio and E. Sirtori, “Social benefits and costs of large scale research infrastructures,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 112, pp. 65–78, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.024.
  38. Y. Peng et al., “A High-Voltage generator and multiplexer for electrostatic actuation in programmable matter,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 915–928, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1109/jssc.2022.3230927.
  39. S. Masuda, M. Washizu, and M. Iwadare, “Separation of small particles suspended in liquid by nonuniform traveling field,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. IA-23, no. 3, pp. 474–480, May 1987, doi: 10.1109/tia.1987.4504934.
  40. K. Wille, The Physics of Particle Accelerators: An Introduction. 2001. [Online]. Available: https://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA52520641.
  41. W. B. Lewis, “The intense neutron generator and future factory type ion accelerators,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 28–35, Jan. 1969, doi: 10.1109/tns.1969.4325078.
  42. B. K. Das, A. Shyam, R. Das, and A. D. P. Rao, “Development of compact D-D neutron generator,” Instruments and Experimental Techniques, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 130–133, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1134/s0020441213010260.
  43. M. Letournel, “Brief review of the development of electrostatic accelerators and continuing work at Strasbourg,” IEEE, Jan. 2003, doi: 10.1109/pac.1989.73366.
  44. D. O. Boerma and Ph. B. Smith, “The Groningen 5 MV van de Graaff accelerator,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 221–240, Sep. 1970, doi: 10.1016/0029-554x(70)90705-6.
  45. S. Tazzari and M. Ferrario, “Trends in high energy particle accelerators,” Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 1045–1094, May 2003, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/66/6/204.
  46. M. R. Pranzo, E. D. Prà, and A. Besana, “Epidemiological geography at work: An exploratory review about the overall findings of spatial analysis applied to the study of CoViD-19 propagation along the first pandemic year,” GeoJournal, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 1103–1125, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10708-022-10601-y.
  47. J. F. Schwensen, D. Bregnbak, and J. D. Johansen, “Recent trends in epidemiology, sensitization and legal requirements of selected relevant contact allergens,” Expert Review of Clinical Immunology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 289–300, Nov. 2015, doi: 10.1586/1744666x.2016.1120159.
  49. Šoltés and B. Gavurová, “Innovation policy as the main accelerator of increasing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises in Slovakia,” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 15, pp. 1478–1485, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1016/s2212-5671(14)00614-5.
  50. B. J. Healy, D. Van Der Merwe, K. E. Christaki, and A. Meghzifene, “Cobalt-60 Machines and Medical Linear Accelerators: competing technologies for external beam radiotherapy,” Clinical Oncology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 110–115, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2016.11.002.
  51. L. Fendler and I. Muzaffar, “THE HISTORY OF THE BELL CURVE: SORTING AND THE IDEA OF NORMAL,” Educational Theory, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 63–82, Feb. 2008, doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2007.0276.x.
  52. Grübler, “Diffusion: long-term patterns and discontinuities,” in Springer eBooks, 1991, pp. 451–482. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-02700-4_18.
  53. J. R. Ortt and J. P. L. Schoormans, “The pattern of development and diffusion of breakthrough communication technologies,” European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 292–302, Dec. 2004, doi: 10.1108/14601060410565047.
  54. M. M. Danziger, I. Bonamassa, S. Boccaletti, and S. Havlin, “Dynamic interdependence and competition in multilayer networks,” Nature Physics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 178–185, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41567-018-0343-1.
  55. W. W. Powell and E. Giannella, “Collective invention and inventor networks,” in Handbook of the economics of innovation, 2010, pp. 575–605. doi: 10.1016/s0169-7218(10)01013-0.
  56. M. L. Rosenzweig and R. D. McCord, “Incumbent replacement: evidence for long-term evolutionary progress,” Paleobiology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 202–213, Jan. 1991, doi: 10.1017/s0094837300010563.
  57. P. C. Fife, Mathematical aspects of reacting and diffusing systems. 1979. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-93111-6.
  58. D. W. Stroock and S. R. S. Varadhan, Multidimensional diffusion processes. 1997. doi: 10.1007/3-540-28999-2.
  59. Özsomer and S. T. Cavusgil, “The effects of technology standards on the structure of the global PC industry,” European Journal of Marketing, vol. 34, no. 9/10, pp. 1199–1220, Oct. 2000, doi: 10.1108/03090560010342601.
  60. P. C. Stern, L. Kalof, T. Dietz, and G. A. Guagnano, “Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects1,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 25, no. 18, pp. 1611–1636, Sep. 1995, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02636.x.
  62. F. Díez-Martín, C. Prado-Roman, and A. Blanco-González, “Beyond legitimacy: legitimacy types and organizational success,” Management Decision, vol. 51, no. 10, pp. 1954–1969, Nov. 2013, doi: 10.1108/md-08-2012-0561.
  63. J. Fagerberg and B. Verspagen, “Technology-gaps, innovation-diffusion and transformation: an evolutionary interpretation,” Research Policy, vol. 31, no. 8–9, pp. 1291–1304, Dec. 2002, doi: 10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00064-1.
  64. K. Harley, P. Van Heijster, and G. J. Pettet, “A geometric construction of travelling wave solutions to the Keller--Segel model,” ANZIAM Journal, vol. 55, p. 399, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.21914/anziamj.v55i0.7801.
  65. B. Ganapathysubramanian and N. Zabaras, “Modeling diffusion in random heterogeneous media: Data-driven models, stochastic collocation and the variational multiscale method,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 226, no. 1, pp. 326–353, Sep. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2007.04.009.
  66. B. Alrazi, C. De Villiers, and C. J. Van Staden, “A comprehensive literature review on, and the construction of a framework for, environmental legitimacy, accountability and proactivity,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 102, pp. 44–57, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.022.
  67. Filatotchev and C. Nakajima, “Corporate governance, responsible managerial behavior, and corporate social responsibility: organizational efficiency versus organizational legitimacy?,” Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 289–306, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.5465/amp.2014.0014.
CRediT Author Statement

The author reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to the reviewers for nice comments on the manuscript.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Ethics Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Availability of Data and Materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

Author Information

Contributions

All authors have equal contribution in the paper and all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding Author



Rights and permissions

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This license permits unrestricted use, sharing, distribution, reproduction, and adaptation in any medium or format, including for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source, a link to the license is provided, and any changes made are indicated.

Copyright

© 2025 Madeleine Wang Yue Dong. The author(s) retain copyright of the work. The author(s) grant the Journal of Digital Business and International Marketing (JDBIM) and its publisher, Ansis Publications, the right of first publication and the right to identify itself as the original publisher of the article.

Cite this Article

Madeleine Wang Yue Dong, “Projecting the Development of Accelerator Technologies Using Growth Models and Social Cost Benefit Frameworks”, Journal of Digital Business and International Marketing, vol.1, no.2, pp. 109–118, April 2025, doi: 10.64026/JDBIM/2025012.

Journals
JCCN JDBIM JSSF
Policies
Publication Ethics Copyright Policy Open Access Policy Article Posting Policy Advertising Policy Privacy Policy Data Availability Policy
Ethics
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests Allegations of Misconduct Appeals Process Complaints Process Peer Review Process Authorship Criteria Terms and Conditions
Resources
Digital Preservation Ansis ManuscriptHub Contact Us
Information
Authors Editors Librarians Societies Journal News
© Ansis Publications, All Right Reserved. Designed By Ansis Publications
Home About Us Resource Contact