i

Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy 

Technology Scouting 

Phase 1 Report

Authors: Ellen Gertsen, Elaine Gresham, Jason Hay, Peter 

Hughes, Nik Joseph, Renata Kommel, Betsy Pugel, Nick 

Skytland, Stephanie Silva, Jordan Sotudeh, David Voracek 

Contributors: Gabe Merrill, Brian Schwing

Reviewers: Alesyn Lowry, Carolyn Mercer, Chris Moore, Ken Wright, 

Grace Wusk

September 22, 2023

Report ID 20230011409

NASA Headquarters 

300 E Street SW

Washington, DC 20024
For more information on the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy to view this and 

other reports visit https://www.nasa.gov/offices/otps/home/index.html

Executive Summary

Technology Scouting Phase 1 Report

Purpose of the Study

Identifying emerging technologies is critical to a mission-oriented agency such as NASA that is 

always endeavoring to achieve first-of-a-kind human and scientific exploration goals. While 

NASA attempts to embrace faster and novel development approaches, there have been 

several recent examples where the Agency has been outpaced in technology research and 

development, especially by emerging companies. This is in part due to the democratization of 

space, as seen in the flood of new space companies and capital, and because capabilities and 

performance levels that used to be almost exclusively demanded by space missions are now 

scattered across many industries. Also, NASA tends to focus on technologies and techniques 

developed internally, within the space sector, or in clearly related disciplines.

In this context, the overall goal of the Technology Scouting project is to develop an approach to 

conduct effective technology scouting within NASA by first assessing the need for such a 

capability, evaluating current and recommended approaches, and then developing a strategy 

to address any weaknesses in the current approach. The study was designed to be conducted 

in three phases, each with its own goals and objectives:

• Phase 1: Validate whether NASA’s technology scouting capability is consistent with best 

practices from industry, academia, and other government organizations, and identify 

whether there is the appetite for adopting a more rigorous technology scouting 

capability across the Agency.

• Phase 2: Identify specific opportunities and challenges to adopting a more 

comprehensive technology scouting program through a pilot effort.

• Phase 3: Define the implementation approach for the more comprehensive technology 

scouting program that is in response to the information learned during the earlier 

phases of the study.

This report addresses the first phase of the study, which explored two specific questions: 

September 22, 2023 Report ID 20230011409
iii

1. Benchmarking: How do industry, academia, and other government organizations 

conduct and structure their technology scouting activities? What are the characteristics 

of an effective technology “scout” and how they are developed? Are there any best 

practices from industry, academia, and other government organizations that NASA 

should adopt?

2. Gap analysis: What is the current state of technology scouting at NASA? In particular, 

how do “end users” use the products that emerge from technology scouting activities?

During Phase 1, we sought to address these study questions by conducting discussions with

U.S. government organizations and international space agencies, including the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), and the 

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and reviewing 14 pieces of literature. Through 

discussions with 26 technologists and mission planners at NASA, we also sought to identify 

whether there is the appetite for adopting a more rigorous technology scouting capability 

across the Agency.

Based on this information, we propose candidates for an expanded technology scouting 

program that NASA can further explore during Phase 2 before developing an implementation 

approach for a more comprehensive NASA-wide technology scouting program in Phase 3. The 

overall intended outcome of all three phases is a more robust technology scouting capability at 

NASA. 

Key Findings: Benchmarking

How do industry, academia, and other government organizations conduct and structure their 

technology scouting activities? 

In conducting discussions with 15 external organizations, we captured a wide range of 

technology scouting definitions, approaches, and timelines. Often the definition provided was 

closely tied to the objectives of the organization and how they intended to use the “scouted” 

information. Nearly all external organizations we consulted came to their technology scouting 

processes through organic approaches, with gradual improvements guided by unique 

organizational cultures. There were a few notable exceptions of organizations (e.g., DARPA) 

that had been established with the specific charter to conduct technology scouting and to 

identify disruptive technologies. 

After evaluating a range of organization types, our team identified three basic models for 

technology scouting: near-term gap filling, needs incubator, and horizon scanning (see table 

“Features of three basic technology scouting models” below). We base each model on the 

relevant time horizon and goals for the technologies—specifically, how narrowly the model 

focuses on addressing a specific gap or mission need. We also identified two distinct cadences 

for conducting these activities: opportunistic/ad hoc and highly structured. In general, the 
iv

organizations we consulted from industry tended to be the most organic in their approach,

while Federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs), nonprofits, and academia 

tended to be most structured.

Criteria Near-Term Gap Filling Needs Incubator Horizon Scanning 

Time Horizon 1 to 5 Years 5 to 10 Years 10 Years + 

Technology Type 

Critical technologies to 

fill a near-term and 

well-defined need

Enabling technologies 

anticipated to fulfill an 

anticipated future 

need

Disruptive 

technologies that 

represent a significant 

leap

Description 

Focused on finding 

existing or emerging 

technologies from new 

sources to meet a need 

for a defined mission 

Finding and supporting 

organizations pursuing 

low-TRL technologies 

that have the potential 

to fill future gaps

Foresight activities

often focused on 

emerging and longterm technology trends

Guidance Focus 

Areas 

Direct interaction with 

developers based on a 

specific request

Long-term needs

statements, strategies, 

roadmaps, concepts of 

operations. Forecast of 

likely future weakness 

or strategic need 

Emerging concepts 

that could have broad 

applicability looking 

across multiple 

domains

Primary Tools 

Technology calls, 

focused searches from 

nontraditional sources, 

advancements from 

new sectors, crowd 

sourcing

Focus on finding 

promising new 

technologies, 

incubating and 

fostering companies 

that may build a new 

market to address 

future needs

Data analysis of leading 

indicators of 

technology 

advancements, 

patents, publications, 

interactions with 

academia. Big data 

tools, data analytics, 

and developing watch 

lists for long-term 

tracking

 

 

 

Features of three basic technology scouting models

What are the characteristics of effective technology “scouts” and how are they developed? 
v

Most organizations we consulted considered technology scouting an intrinsic part of the job 

function of their employees, performed as part of normal responsibilities. Most training to 

perform this work is done on-the-job rather than formally. As a result, organizations generally 

felt that the best matches for technology scouting come from individuals who can understand 

the technical aspects of the technology and the design criteria for its application (e.g.,

engineers working on a program, systems engineers, or technologists) and that this 

understanding was gained over time. While discussion around characteristics of effective 

technology “scouts” was mostly on the understanding for technology, communicating and 

disseminating the information is also a critical skill required.

Are there any best practices from industry, academia, and other government organizations that 

NASA should adopt? 

We found that NASA’s current technology scouting practices are generally consistent with 

those of other government organizations (both U.S. government organizations and international 

space agencies), but there are differences between how governmental and nongovernmental 

organizations approach technology scouting, given the customer-centric nature of their work 

and investments in tools.

Based on our discussions and literature review, we identified three common areas where NASA

and other organizations expressed desire to enhance current activities:

• Resource Availability: In the absence of a formal process or prioritization of technology 

scouting, many organizations described how resource limitations impact their ability to 

conduct effective technology scouting, either because employees do not have sufficient 

bandwidth or because there are limited funds to conduct a large number of technology 

scouting activities. NASA could provide resources (i.e., time and money) to allow 

employees to increase their participation in conferences, workshops, panel reviews, and 

other activities to maintain awareness of the latest developments in their fields.

• Transparency: Effective technology scouting requires a high degree of transparency in 

order to understand what technologies are available and how to match them to known 

needs. NASA could create greater transparency around areas of technology interest to 

promote collaboration and operational efficiency across organizations and with outside 

entities.

• Integration: As systems become more complex and new capabilities become available, 

effective technology scouting activities must integrate information from an increasingly 

diverse array of sources. To support this work, NASA could integrate technology 

scouting activities across disciplines, combining advancements in different technology 

areas, and promote interoperability by including systems experts in the process.
vi

Key Findings: Gap Analysis

What is the current state of technology scouting at NASA? In particular, how do “end users” 

use the products that emerge from technology scouting activities? 

NASA’s technology scouting activities are typically mission-driven, to identify either a specific 

technology to fill an unmet need or an area of opportunity for future investment. The nature of 

the technology scouting and the relevant time horizon varies across the Agency, with more 

near-term gap filling done at the center and project level and more longer term horizon 

scanning done at the mission directorate level. Most technology scouting activities at NASA are 

being done organically and opportunistically, as part of people’s everyday jobs, as a way to 

maintain currency in a particular field, and there is limited information-sharing once someone 

has conducted a technology scouting activity. People we consulted generally felt that there was 

opportunity for improvement, and there was broad interest in changing NASA’s culture to be 

more collaborative and transparent. We identified several mechanisms currently in 

development across the Agency, including the creation of information-sharing workshops and 

pilot testing of technology scouting tools, that could contribute to this shift.

Do “end users” believe a more rigorous technology scouting capability will be useful for them? 

People we consulted acknowledged that current technology scouting activities are highly laborintensive and that people often have limited resources or bandwidth to perform this work. Given 

the disparate needs for technology scouting, a single one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to 

address everyone’s needs. However, consulted individuals were generally supportive of more 

robust and more centralized capabilities as a way to increase transparency and promote 

collaboration. We identified several pilot efforts underway to develop technology scouting tools. 
vii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ii

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... ii

Key Findings: Benchmarking ................................................................................................iii

Key Findings: Gap Analysis ................................................................................................. vi

Table of Contents..............................................................................................................vii

Background and Rationale for the Study..........................................................................1

What Is Technology Scouting? .............................................................................................. 2

What Is the Value Proposition of Technology Scouting?........................................................... 3

Why Should NASA Care? ..................................................................................................... 4

Study Questions and Key Assumptions ...........................................................................5

Methodology .......................................................................................................................6

Findings from Outside of NASA ........................................................................................6

Findings from Inside of NASA .........................................................................................11

Current State .................................................................................................................... 11

Future State ...................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion and Next Steps..............................................................................................17

Appendix A: List of Consulted Individuals and Organizations .....................................18

Appendix B: Future Forum’s Foresight Analysis Methodologies .................................20

Appendix C: Technology Scouting Tools .......................................................................22

Appendix D: Acronyms ....................................................................................................23

References ........................................................................................................................25

Bibliography......................................................................................................................25

 
1

Background and Rationale for the Study 

Identifying emerging technologies is critical to a mission-oriented agency such as NASA that is 

always endeavoring to achieve first-of-a-kind human and scientific exploration goals. As shown 

in Figure 1, there are multiple pathways that NASA can take to close a particular technology 

gap. To fill technology gaps, NASA can pursue a make, buy, or re-use approach. By re-using 

or buying, NASA can take advantage of investments and an increased pace of

innovation. However, that requires awareness of advancements in external technologies and 

innovations outside of NASA. This study focuses on technology scouting approaches that bring 

the awareness and knowledge required to support the buy and re-use strategies.

Figure 1. Gap Discovery and Closure Strategy Overview (credit to B. Schwing, JSC)

Advancements in the commercial space sector have enabled space technology research and 

development to flourish outside of NASA. At times, certain advancements have outpaced

technology development within NASA, even with NASA embracing some faster and novel 

technology development approaches. As an example, SpaceX was able to develop new 

spacesuits faster and more cheaply than NASA. This is in part due to the democratization of

space, as seen in the flood of new space companies and capital. Furthermore, capabilities and 

performance levels once almost exclusively demanded by space missions are now scattered 

across many industries; programs such as Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) are an 

explicit recognition of the commercial sector’s technical capabilities.

Also, NASA tends to focus on technologies and techniques developed internally, within the 

space sector, or in clearly related disciplines. For example, the Technology Portfolio 
2

Management System (TechPort)

1

is an effective tool to track NASA’s technology investments.

However, there is no approved Agency-wide solution to provide similar insights for non-NASA 

technology investments. To identify new technologies that can have major impacts, and match 

them to NASA’s needs, requires new technology management techniques and practices.

What Is Technology Scouting?

“Technology scouting” is a term that companies, government organizations, nonprofits, 

academia, and others apply to a wide range of activities for technology discovery. For example, 

Futures Platform identified nine discrete methodologies (see Appendix B for definitions) that 

companies use to conduct foresight, depending on the relevant timespan and the qualitative or 

quantitative nature of the particular methodology.

2 Other techniques exist as well, such as 

crowd-sourcing and gap-based mapping. Technology scouting exists within the space defined 

by these foresight methods, by helping to define both mature solutions for near-term needs and 

maintaining awareness of emerging trends.

The definitions of technology scouting further illustrate this diversity. For example, the Science 

and Technology Directorate within the Department of Homeland Security defines technology 

scouting as “the process of identifying, locating, and evaluating existing or developing 

technologies, products, services, and emerging trends.”3 The National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) provides a more informal definition, namely that “technology scouting 

helps when you need a technology but don’t know where to find it. It taps into existing but 

unknown sources of information to find solutions that can save...time, money and frustration.”

4

Alternatively, the University of Tennessee provides a definition that focuses on process and 

approach, noting “technology scouting is a systematic approach to help manufacturing clients 

find existing technology solutions for their unmet company needs.”5

To allow for the wide range of activities discussed in this study, we do not provide an explicit 

definition of technology scouting. However, three characteristics of technology scouting 

provide a basis for questions within this study:

• Process: Technology scouting is a deliberate process that can either be systematic and 

formal or informal and opportunistic.

1 https://techport.nasa.gov

2 https://www.futuresplatform.com/blog/9-foresight-methodologies-successful-companies-use-stay-ahead

3 https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/technology-scouting

4 https://www.nist.gov/mep/technology-scouting

5 https://www.cis.tennessee.edu/advanced-manufacturing-solutions/technology-scouting
3

• Discovery: Technology scouting is focused on discovery and can include identifying 

emerging or disruptive technologies, identifying innovative companies and processes, 

or increasing understanding of technology trends. Several organizations use technology 

scouting to avoid or exploit “technology surprise.”

• Grounded in application: The technology scouting process is focused on meeting a 

known objective. It may include identifying new solutions, enabling strategic decisions, 

or supporting curation of a technology investment portfolio.

Given this basis, our study includes all processes of technology discovery that address a 

specific goal.

What Is the Value Proposition of Technology Scouting?

Technology scouting exploits the reality that innovation across the broader ecosystem dwarfs 

innovation within a single organization. NASA’s Center of Excellence for Collaborative 

Innovation (CoECI) uses a model, shown in Figure 2, to demonstrate the power of looking 

externally to accelerate and augment research and development activities. CoECI promotes 

collaboration because there is only so much expertise that an organization can realistically 

have in house, and because the level of that expertise 

is often overestimated.

Stephen Shapiro, a thought leader on innovation,

proposed a framework6for when organizations should 

look internally vs. externally to drive innovation. This 

framework encourages organizations to focus on those 

challenges that they are best equipped to solve and to 

look externally in instances where either the challenges 

have already been solved and may be available for 

purchase or license or where challenges are highly 

complex or outside of an organization’s area of 

expertise and may need a highly diverse solver group 

to address. The technology scouting process 

leverages this disparity by discovering and exploiting external ideas that apply to an 

organization’s mission, thereby allowing the organization to specialize in niche research or 

focus on internal processes that allow the organization to more rapidly adapt to and incorporate 

new ideas. The technology scouting process can also allow for identification of overarching 

trends that help inform strategic investments and realize the art of the possible.

6 https://stephenshapiro.com/are-you-smarter-than-a-phd/

Figure 2. Availability of expertise and skills

(credit to NASA CoECI)
4

The specific value and impact of technology scouting activities depend on the approach and 

how technology information is used. We consulted a range of organizations and captured 

different objectives of their technology scouting activities (See Figure 3 and Appendix A). These

organizations tailor their technology scouting processes to maximize impact and alignment with 

their intended objectives. The effectiveness of technology scouting activities appears to often 

be subjective, in that many of the organizations we consulted did not use metrics to quantify 

their activities. Whether this is due to organizational self-preservation, a lack of established 

procedure, or a general faith in the value of technology scouting may vary by organization. 

While some more operationally driven organizations did maintain metrics, being an operationsfocused organization did not seem to predicate the use of success metrics in technology 

scouting.

Why Should NASA Care?

As shown in Figure 1, NASA’s missions, and the gaps to meet those missions, drive decisions 

about specific capabilities and technology investment choices. NASA has many different 

pathways to match missions with relevant technologies, from developing the technologies in

house to procuring them from outside entities.

Technology scouting allows NASA to identify capabilities that address a mission need or other 

set of requirements. In some cases, these needs are expected to materialize in the near term 

(i.e., within the next five years). Technology scouting can identify mature solutions that are 

directly responsive to the known needs. For example, we frequently heard that when a center 

needs a specific technology to be advanced or available within a short time span, the team 

relies heavily on their networks to help find a solution. For example, Goddard Space Flight 

Center (GSFC) was able to quickly fill a remote sensing laser gap for a mission that relied on 

integrated photonics.

In other cases, technology scouting enables NASA to stay on the cutting edge of a particular 

field by identifying new opportunities and capabilities to integrate into NASA’s future mission 

set. For example, we heard from several organizations within NASA that use technology 

scouting to maintain awareness in cutting-edge developments for quantum sensors and 

quantum computing. They view these as areas that hold significant future promise, but where 

we need to process cautiously before making significant or sustained investment. In this 

instance, the organizations watch outside entities’ progress in this field, looking for when the 

capabilities are mature enough to include in future mission planning.

Technology scouting fits well into NASA’s competitive model, as the Agency does not have the 

resources to duplicate expertise readily available elsewhere. Scouting of internally developed

technologies helps NASA centers and mission directorates partner more effectively. NASA can 

also identify externally developed technologies that are readily available or that industry can 
5

develop more cost-effectively. For longer term needs, technology scouting recognizes that 

external ecosystems move at more accelerated timescales than government procurement 

cycles. NASA can use effective technology scouting to maximize traditional vehicles’ 

effectiveness in the absence of major contracting refits. NASA can also incentivize commercial 

development of certain capabilities by using information gathered through technology scouting 

activities to inform future Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) calls or Requests for 

Proposals (RFPs). For example, NASA can create SBIR subtopics to incentivize industry 

partners to produce technologies that are a stretch beyond current terrestrial applications.

Our research has shown that technology scouting is often a labor-intensive process that can 

rely heavily on personal networks to be effective, particularly in the absence of dedicated 

organizations. Most people within NASA who perform technology scouting do so as part of their 

day-to-day jobs to maintain currency in their particular field, rather than as a discrete duty.

Other work responsibilities and resource limitations can constrain the effectiveness of these 

technology scouts. As NASA considers issues related to its workforce, including workload for 

current employees and composition of the future workforce, questions regarding who conducts 

technology scouting on behalf of the Agency and how they perform this work should be 

addressed.

Study Questions and Key Assumptions

The overall intended outcome of all three phases of the technology scouting study is identify if 

there is a need for a more robust technology scouting capability at NASA, and if so, develop a 

strategy and implementation plan to improve the current approach. The intended outcome for 

Phase 1 is to validate whether NASA’s technology scouting capability is consistent with best 

practices from industry, academia, and other government organizations and to identify whether 

there is the appetite for adopting a more rigorous technology scouting capability across the 

Agency.

Phase 1 of the study had two main elements: benchmarking and a gap analysis. For the 

benchmarking assessment, the team sought to answer the following questions:

• How do industry, academia, and other government organizations conduct and structure 

their technology scouting activities? 

• What are the characteristics of effective technology “scouts” and how are they

developed? 

• Are there any best practices from industry, academia, and other government 

organizations that NASA should adopt?

For the gap analysis, the team sought to answer the following questions:
6

• What is the current state of technology scouting at NASA (i.e., centers and mission 

directorates)? In particular, how do “end users” use the products that emerge from 

technology scouting activities?

• Do “end users” believe a more rigorous technology scouting capability will be useful for 

them?

Methodology

For the Phase 1 study, the team conducted a literature review and held discussions with key 

stakeholders to understand how technology scouting is done at NASA and elsewhere.

Appendix A lists the consulted individuals and organizations by date. We prepared a series of 

open-ended questions and shared these with the individuals ahead of time, our discussions

were typically 30 to 60 minutes in length.

External to NASA, the team conducted a literature review and held discussions with 

representatives from industry, academia, and other government organizations to understand 

how they currently perform technology scouting activities and any lessons learned to improve 

this capability. The team met with three representatives from other government organizations, 

five representatives from international space agencies, six representatives from industry, and 

five representatives from other organizations (e.g., FFRDCs, academia, and nonprofits). 

Within NASA, the team met with 27 individuals, including the chief technologists from several 

mission directorates and all NASA centers, including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and 

conducted a roundtable with Principal Technologists (PTs) and Systems Capability Leaders 

(SCLs) to understand whether they currently conduct any technology scouting activities, what 

institutional practices support or hinder these activities, and what types of technology scouting 

activities or capabilities might benefit their work. Of those consulted, 44% had a mission pull 

role in their organization.

In this report, we share aggregated results from these data collection efforts to present trends 

rather than individual responses.

Findings from Outside of NASA

Finding 1: Among the wide range of approaches to technology scouting outside of NASA, we 

identified three basic models, based on the relevant time horizon and goals for the 

technologies. 

In holding discussions with 15 external organizations, we captured a wide range of technology 

scouting definitions, approaches, and timelines. However, a few trends in approaches to 
7

technology scouting emerged from the team’s benchmarking discussions and research across

government, industry, nonprofits, and international organizations.

Often the definition provided was tied to the organization’s objectives and its intent for the 

“scouted” information. For example, organizations looking to address specific gaps through a 

technology pull process saw technology scouting as a tool to match needs and solutions.

Innovation accelerators noted that their definition of technology scouting is closely tied to the 

identification of innovative companies with solutions likely to survive the process of creative 

destruction.

7 Large firms may look to technology scouting to identify underlying or hidden 

trends that inform how to invest research funds. Many organizations noted that they did not 

have a defined technology scouting role and may instead look to related horizon scanning or 

foresight activities; however, broadly speaking, most organizations we consulted see value in a 

forward-looking effort that informs technology investment.

While nearly all organizations we consulted came to their processes through organic 

approaches, with gradual improvements guided by unique organizational cultures, three

models of approaching technology scouting shined through: near-term gap filling, needs 

incubator, and horizon scanning. The primary differentiator of these models was a combination 

of the time horizon for the scouting and how narrowly the model focused on addressing a 

specific gap or mission need. These factors tended to drive the structure of the technology 

scouting approaches of the organizations we consulted.

Table 1 details the three basic models that emerged from the benchmarking. Later, Figure 5 

shows how the organizations we consulted fall into these models.

7 The Theory of Creative Destruction was proposed by Joseph Schumpeter in his 1942 book "Capitalism, 

Socialism, and Democracy" as a way to describe disruptive technologies that can revolutionize markets, 

driving out the old and replacing with the new.
8

Criteria Near-Term Gap Filling Needs Incubator Horizon Scanning 

Time Horizon 1 to 5 Years 5 to 10 Years 10 Years + 

Technology Type 

Critical technologies to 

fill a near-term and 

well-defined need

Enabling technologies 

anticipated to fulfill an 

anticipated future need

Disruptive 

technologies that 

represent a 

significant leap

Description 

Focused on finding

existing or emerging

technologies from new 

sources to meet a need 

for a defined mission 

Finding and supporting

organizations pursuing 

low-TRL technologies 

that have the potential 

to fill future gaps

Foresight activities

often focused on 

emerging and longterm technology trends

Guidance Focus 

Areas 

Direct interaction with 

developers based on a 

specific request

Long-term needs

statements, strategies, 

roadmaps, concepts of 

operations. Forecast of 

likely future weakness 

or strategic need 

Emerging concepts 

that could have broad 

applicability looking 

across multiple 

domains

Primary Tools 

Technology calls, 

focused searches from 

nontraditional sources, 

advancements from 

new sectors, crowd 

sourcing

Focus on finding 

promising new 

technologies, 

incubating and 

fostering companies

that may build a new 

market to address 

future needs

Data analysis of leading 

indicators of 

technology 

advancements, 

patents, publications, 

interactions with 

academia. Big data 

tools, data analytics, 

and developing watch 

lists for long-term 

tracking

 

Table 1. Features of three basic technology scouting models

Finding 2: Despite the wide range of approaches to technology scouting outside of NASA, we 

identified two distinct cadences for conducting these activities.

The overall approach to technology scouting varies from opportunistic/ad hoc to very 

structured and defined. In general, the organizations we consulted from industry tended to be 

the most organic in their approach, while FFRDCs, nonprofits, and academia tended to be 

most structured.
9

As described in more detail in Finding 4, many of the organizations we consulted viewed 

technology scouting as one of many roles for employees across the organization and therefore 

focused technology scouting activities on opportunities to gather useful information, such as 

technology conferences and conversations at workshops. On the other end of the spectrum, 

some organizations had the defined purpose of identifying, incubating, sourcing, supporting, or 

fostering new technologies for a specific need. These organizations worked with a regular 

cadence, using strong processes, tools, and approaches for their scouting. We also identified a 

few organizations using a blended approach: periodic focused scouting activities around 

strategic planning or project initiation activities and opportunistic scouting in between.

While identifying these two distinct cadences, we found that organizations might benefit from 

lessons learned from organizations with different processes. Those organizations with 

opportunistic/ad hoc scouting frequently mentioned plans or preferences to add structure to 

their processes for technology scouting when asked about what they would change about their 

current approach. Organizations with structured technology scouting programs noted the need 

for keeping the door open for serendipitous opportunities to identify technology advancements.
10

Figure 3: Representation of all the organizations we consulted, which scouting model they primarily fell within, and how 

structured their processes were, by type of external organization.

Finding 3: Disruptive technology scouting was a deliberate activity undertaken by a few 

organizations specifically tasked with that type of work. 

Most organizations we consulted focused on fairly mature capabilities for meeting near- to midterm technology needs. A few organizations looked toward more disruptive capabilities 

available further in the future, but only those organizations with specific mandates to be that 

forward-leaning. The model for disruptive organizations placed a high value on regular calls for 

new ideas or new participants or employees in order to encourage innovative thinking.

Organizations that did not have such a mandate rarely, if ever, actively looked towards 

disruptive capabilities, but were interested in maintaining awareness.

Finding 4: Most technology scouting work is done in house or through specialty organizations 

created for this purpose. 

Most organizations we consulted considered technology scouting an intrinsic part of the job 

function of their employees, performed as part of normal responsibilities. Most training to 

perform this work is done on-the-job rather than formally. As a result, organizations generally 

felt that the best matches for technology scouting come from individuals who can understand 

the technical aspects of the technology and the design criteria for its application (e.g.,

engineers working on a program, systems engineers, or technologists) and that this 

understanding was gained over time. Early-career employees are more often assigned 

technology scouting activities as developmental assignments.

In some cases, government organizations established standalone entities to conduct 

technology scouting activities as a precursor to more substantial partnerships with outside 

organizations. This model provides greater flexibility because these entities often have faster 

contractual mechanisms and can interact directly with organizations that the government 

cannot. In particular, this approach enables proactive outreach. By establishing accelerated 

procurement timelines and enabling recurring engagement with small companies or companies 

that have not previously worked with the government, this approach lowers barriers to 

participation.

We found a few instances where organizations engaged with outside entities to support 

technology scouting activities. In general, this pathway was used in limited situations based on 

a specific need, such as hiring a consulting firm to provide an assessment on a particular area 

of interest.

Finding 5: Many organizations, particularly nonprofits supporting the government and in 

industry, use Customer Relationship Management (CRM) tools and databases for knowledge 

management of their scouting. 
11

There is a great diversity of knowledge management tools used by external organizations.

Although no organization had one tool that solved all their technology scouting needs, a few 

functions were improved with off-the-shelf tools referenced in our discussions. Many 

organizations mentioned using CRM tools, such as Salesforce, HubSpot, and Pitchbook, to 

track information about companies and contacts and generally as a knowledge management 

tool for the scouted information within a distributed team. Several organizations also mentioned 

using databases that consolidate information from across many sources as tools for

researching emerging technologies or companies. Examples mentioned include Crunchbase 

and Ratio Exchange for identifying companies.

For several of the organizations, doing outreach is a critical component of their overall process. 

Social media and survey tools such as SurveyMonkey are useful in those activities.

Findings from Inside of NASA

We assessed both the current state of technology scouting within NASA and opportunities for 

improvement in the future.

Current State

Finding 1: NASA’s technology scouting process is generally aligned with that of other 

government organizations but varies from that of industry. 

As previously discussed, we identified three models to characterize how outside organizations 

approach technology scouting. In general, these three models were recognized by NASA and

other organizations in government and industry. While the approaches and processes within 

these models varied, we found that NASA’s overall approach was more consistent with that of

organizations in government than in industry. Table 2 summarizes the major process 

differences we noted.
12

Criteria NASA 

Other Government 

Agencies 

Industry 

Purpose Mission-driven Mission-driven Customer-driven 

Primary 

Mechanism 

Individual expertise Individual expertise Tools

Primary Data 

Sources 

Personal networks

Conferences/workshops

Literature reviews

Personal networks

Conferences/workshops

Literature reviews

Databases

Websites/social 

media

Availability of 

Resources 

Low Low

Scales with size of 

organization

 

Table 2. Comparison of NASA’s technology scouting activities with organizations in other government and industry. 

The remaining findings in this section provide additional detail on the current state of NASA’s 

technology scouting activities.

Finding 2: Technology scouting activities at NASA are generally mission-driven, to identify 

either a specific technology to fill an unmet need or an area of opportunity for future 

investment. The nature of the technology scouting and the relevant time horizon varies across 

the Agency. 

As a mission-driven agency, nearly all of the examples of technology scouting we discovered at 

NASA were to support a specific mission need. Furthermore, different organizations have 

different needs for technology scouting depending on where in the project lifecycle the need 

arises, as shown in Table 3. While this approach makes sense in theory, our team identified few

success stories to validate whether it meets NASA’s needs in practice.
13

Criteria Near-Term Need Project 

Formulation

Incubation Horizon 

Scanning 

Time Horizon 1 to 5 Years 5 to 10 Years 10 Years + 10 Years + 

Lead 

Organizations 

NASA Centers, 

Programs and 

Projects

NASA Centers, 

Programs and 

Projects, Mission 

Directorates

Mission 

Directorates

Mission 

Directorates

Technology Type 

Technology

needed now, 

either to support 

real-time 

operations or 

mature mission 

development 

work

Mission-enabling 

capabilities that 

are state-of-theart and mature 

enough for 

inclusion in a 

new project

Low TRL 

technologies 

that could be 

applicable to 

future mission 

concepts but 

are not yet 

ready for 

adoption

Disruptive 

technologies 

that could be 

applicable to 

future mission 

concepts but are 

not yet ready for 

adoption

Description 

Focused on 

finding existing 

technology from 

new sources to 

meet a defined 

need for a 

mission in 

development

Identifying 

technologies 

relevant to new 

mission 

concepts

Early-stage 

investments in 

technologies 

that could 

enable future 

missions

Forward-leaning 

efforts to inform 

future mission 

architectures 

and transform 

what is possible

Guidance Focus 

Areas 

Project 

Requirements, 

Gaps

Announcements 

of Opportunity, 

Requests for 

Information

Architecture

Studies, 

Decadal 

Surveys

Envision Futures

Table 3: Needs for technology scouting relative to NASA project lifecycle

Some but not all centers create technology strategies that focus on particular areas of interest 

based on long-term mission needs. For example, every five years JPL produces a Strategic 
14

Technologies report8that identifies technology thrust areas of interest to JPL. However, most 

centers rely on StarPort and the expertise of PTs and SCLs to identify gaps. Additionally, STMD

relies on non-NASA experts to inform technology planning and engages with other Mission 

Directorates to gauge interest in developing programs in new technology areas.

Given the disparate needs for technology scouting, a single one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely 

to address everyone’s needs.

Finding 3: Most technology scouting activities at NASA are done organically and 

opportunistically, as part of employees’ everyday jobs, as a way to maintain currency in a 

particular field. 

Most people we consulted viewed technology scouting as an activity performed as part of one’s 

regular responsibilities, not as a standalone responsibility, and few routinely conduct 

technology scouting outside their area of expertise. The most common ways that employees 

conduct technology scouting are through routine interactions with members of the relevant 

community, such as attending conferences and workshops, and staying current with recent 

publications. This approach is generally consistent with other government organizations.

Several consulted individuals expressed concerns about lacking resources to attend enough 

conferences or workshops in a given year.

Other organizations are considered an important source of information about new 

technologies. In some instances, consulted individuals participated in other organizations’ 

review panels, such as those of the National Science Foundation (NSF), as a way to learn 

about emerging ideas. The Department of Defense (DoD) was often cited as an important 

partner, with employees actively tracking new technologies for potential NASA applications.

We heard from several centers that they provide a small amount of funding to employees 

through efforts such as the Center Innovation Fund (CIF), Internal Research and Development 

(IRAD) Program, Convergent Aeronautic Solution (CAS) Program, and other calls for innovative 

proposals. These awards enable employees to stay current with their subject area and bring 

that information back to their home center.

Finding 4: There is little information-sharing once someone has conducted a technology 

scouting activity. 

Given that technology scouting is primarily done organically, this activity often relies on an 

individual’s personal networks and personal knowledge. Most frequently, people had files 

8 For the most recent report, see the 2019 JPL Strategic Technologies: 

https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/JPL_Strategic_Technologies_2019.p

df
15

stored on their computers to capture what they learned, to refer to at another time. This was 

identified as an area for improvement in many discussions.

As noted in Finding 3, attendance at conferences and workshops is one of the most common 

ways that technology scouting is currently done. While we found that some Center Chief 

Technologists created information-sharing mechanisms within their home center after a major 

conference (e.g. trip reports), this practice is not universal and the information is typically not 

shared more broadly.

We found a few examples of where people implemented formal mechanisms to capture and 

share knowledge, most notably the effort underway in STMD and ESDMD to document in 

StarPort technology areas of interest as they relate to the Envision Futures Priorities, sharing

this information within the PT and SCL community and beyond. The CoECI Program, discussed 

in more detail in Finding 6, posts information from technology scouting activities on the NASA 

Engineering Network, accessible through the OTPS-funded Innovation Portal.

Finding 5: NASA is starting to host focused workshops, competitions, and other discussions as 

a way to bring attention to emerging technology needs. 

Over the past few years, NASA has created several new mechanisms to bring together thought 

leaders from within and outside NASA for focused conversations on emerging technology. In 

some cases, these workshops have highlighted a particular technology of future interest to 

NASA (e.g., NASA Engineering & Safety Center (NESC) Quantum Sensing Workshop in 

September 2022), while others promote dialog and build connections in support of near-term 

mission concepts (e.g., SMD Technology Showcase for Planetary Science in January 2023).

Competitions have engaged academia and others in imagining and designing future 

technologies to meet existing needs (e.g., Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate’s 

Gateways to Blue Skies: Airports of Tomorrow).

Finding 6: Several NASA organizations have invested in pilot tools to support technology 

scouting activities. 

All NASA employees currently have access to the CoECI mechanisms for technology scouting, 

which are most commonly used by JSC and for human spaceflight applications. CoECI can 

conduct technology scouting on behalf of NASA customers, while also supporting NASA’s 

prizes and challenges.

CoECI is currently operating near capacity due to constrained resources. NASA customers 

represent about half of the total CoECI business. CoECI also provides end-to-end service to 

assist other government organizations in the use of crowdsourced challenges through the 

NASA Tournament Lab.

We consulted several organizations developing tools to support technology scouting, 

particularly to help with the scouting process, but we found limited commonality between the 
16

tools being piloted, which generally used different data sources for their reports. The NASA

Library has access to some tools, such as Quid, that could support this type of work, but it is 

not clear how widely these tools are used. Developers want their tools adopted NASA-wide, but 

there does not seem to be a significant amount of collaboration. The utility of these tools has 

not yet been demonstrated.

Future State

Finding 1: There is broad interest in having more robust technology scouting capabilities at 

NASA, including centralized coordination of these activities. 

People we consulted acknowledged that current technology scouting activities are highly laborintensive and that people often have limited resources or bandwidth to perform this work. They 

were generally supportive of more robust and more centralized capabilities as a way to 

increase transparency and promote collaboration. In addition to a centralized tool to conduct 

technology scouting activities, there was also interest in a centralized repository to store 

information collected during the technology scouting process. However, we did not find such a 

capability being piloted at this time, despite previous efforts as part of NASA’s innovation 

portfolio and framework. We are concerned that people would not regularly populate a 

standalone tool.

As previously discussed, most of the technology scouting activities we identified were to 

support specific mission needs, and the people doing the scouting often had a close affiliation 

with the missions. We found limited examples of where technology scouting was to address a 

NASA-wide gap, primarily coming from STMD. We also heard from several people that the 

NASA Chief Technologist would be the appropriate person to manage technology scouting 

capabilities on behalf of the Agency and to identify emerging technologies that can contribute 

to the fulfillment of NASA’s mission.
17

Conclusion and Next Steps 

Our study has shown that technology scouting is an important tool used by many organizations 

in government, industry, and academia. For a mission-driven agency such as NASA, 

technology scouting activities are generally aligned to support mission needs, either based on 

current gaps or to inform future investment choices.

Despite this importance, technology scouting activities are generally organic and highly laborintensive. While some organizations, primarily in industry, rely on consultants or tools to 

conduct their technology scouting activities, most of the people we consulted described 

technology scouting as something that was done as part of their day-to-day jobs to maintain 

currency with their field. As a result, there is typically little information-sharing. Data is collected

and knowledge is retained only by the person doing the scouting. NASA organizations 

recognize that there are limitations to the current approach to technology scouting and see 

value in adopting a more robust approach.
18

Appendix A: List of Consulted Individuals and 

Organizations 

The team thanks the following individuals and organizations for speaking with us during the 

study. Discussions were held in the September – December 2022 timeframe.

• Mike Ahn, Senior Administrator, International Cooperation Office, KARI 

• Reginald Alexander, Manager, Partnerships and Formulation Office, NASA MSFC

• Jonathan Bowie, Deputy Director, Strategic Planning and Integration, NASA STMD

• John Carr, Deputy Chief Technologist, NASA MSFC

• Brad Chedister, Chief Technology & Innovation Officer, DefenseWERX

• Teresa Cicerone, NRO

• Ronald Clayton, Deputy Chief Technologist, NASA JSC

• John Dankanich, Center Chief Technologist, NASA MSFC

• Yann Denis, Manager, Planning, Engagement and Innovation, Space Science and 

Technology, CSA

• Andre Doumitt, Director of Innovation Development, Aerospace Corporation

• Steve Eckersley, Head of Mission Concepts Group, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd

• Bernard Edwards, Chief Communications Systems Engineer, NASA GSFC

• Guillaume Faubert, Manager, Governance, Integration and Tech Scouting, Space 

Science and Technology, CSA

• Terry Fong, Senior Scientist for Autonomous Systems, NASA ARC

• KiMar Gartman, Program Director, Catalyst Accelerator

• Daniel Gillies, Senior Space Technology Policy Analyst, NASA STMD

• Mark Hilburger, Principal Technologist for Structures, Materials, and Nanotechnology, 

NASA STMD

• Jason Hyon, Chief Technologist for Earth Science, JPL

• Michael Interbartolo, Human Lunar Lander Crew Module SE&I Team, NASA JSC

• Amy Kaminski, Program Executive for Prizes, Challenges, and Crowdsourcing, NASA 

STMD

• Angela Krenn, Thermal Principal Technologist, NASA KSC

• Ron Litchford, Principal Technologist for Propulsion, NASA MSFC

• Alesyn Lowry, Director for Strategic Planning & Integration, NASA STMD

• Jeremy Lui, Head of R&D, ExoLaunch

• David Marsh, Space Station Strategy Lead, Nanoracks

• Joshua Mehling, Principal Technologist for Robotics, NASA JSC
19

• Carolyn Mercer, Chief Technologist, NASA SMD

• Michelle Munk, Acting Chief Architect, NASA STMD

• Bo Naasz, Senior Technical Lead, Rendezvous and Capture System Capabilities, NASA

GSFC

• Charles Norton, Acting Chief Technologist, JPL

• Masami Onoda, Director, Washington D.C. Office, JAXA

• Harry Partridge, Chief Technologist, NASA ARC

• Anne Peek, Chief Technologist, NASA SSC

• Thomas Prince, Director, Keck Institute for Space Studies

• Philip Root, Director, Strategic Technology Office, DARPA

• Kurt Sacksteder, Deputy Center Chief Technologist, NASA GRC

• Gerald Sanders, ISRU System Capability Lead, NASA JSC

• John Scott, Principal Technologist for Power and Energy, NASA JSC

• Ryon Stewart, CoECI Challenge Coordinator, NASA JSC 

• Kohei Tani, Deputy Director, Washington D.C. Office, JAXA

• Caleb Wehrmann, Research Engineer, NRO

• Julie Williams-Byrd, Chief Technologist, NASA LaRC

Note: Three companies were consulted on a non-attribution basis and their names are not 

included in this list.
20

Appendix B: Future Forum’s Foresight Analysis 

Methodologies

Forecasting is about making projections or estimations of the future whose outcomes are 

uncertain. Prediction refers to precise estimations.

War Game Simulations mostly deal with competitive operations of various kinds. In a business 

context, these strategic games simulate different competitive settings and competitor actions 

and responses.

Roadmaps are often seen in technical contexts. Technology roadmaps literally map out 

projected milestones in the development of new technologies or products.

Backcasting starts with defining a plausible and desirable future. After that, the team works 

backwards to identify actions and programs that will connect that future with the present.

Wild cards are low-probability, high-impact events. They are also generally referred to as “black 

swans,” though they can refer to positive events. Weak signals are lower impact or more 

distant events. Their observation attempts to link small developments and phenomena to the 

potential occurrence of emerging issues or changes in current trends.

Trends and Emerging Issues Analysis: 

Trends analysis is the practice of collecting information and attempting to spot patterns. It also 

deals with the impact of these patterns over time. Emerging issues, on the other hand, are 

“events” that do not seem to fit into any existing patterns but may develop new ones.

Horizon scanning is the systematic gathering of information to detect early signs of potentially 

important developments. It’s also used to identify new and emerging trends. This activity is 

often based on desk research, assisting in the development of the big picture of future 

changes. A solid horizon scanning process can help develop strategies to align with future 

changes. It can also be a way of identifying new trends that are later used in scenarios.

Scenario planning helps organizations anticipate change, prepare responses, and create 

robust strategies. The process typically starts with the combining of known facts about the 

operating environment with uncertain factors about the future context. Then, one selects a 

number of these “uncertainties” or “drivers of change” in the future and converts plausible 

paths of development into two or more alternative stories, or “scenarios.” As the future unfolds, 

some paths generally begin to emerge as more plausible and others as less plausible. Often, 

the future involves a combination of paths.
21

The Delphi Method is a structured and interactive forecasting activity that relies on a panel of 

experts. The experts answer questionnaires and argue different positions. This is usually done 

over a few rounds. During this process, the range of answers narrows down. This is based on 

the reassessment of given arguments and consensus-building. In the final round, the group of 

experts converges toward a final “correct” answer about the future.
22

Appendix C: Technology Scouting Tools

The list below includes 13 tools referenced by consulted individuals that can be used for 

technology scouting and could be leveraged by NASA. This list is not meant to be exhaustive

and inclusion does not constitute endorsement by the study.

• Crunchbase: prospecting platform with detailed business information on companies, 

including investment and funding data, mergers and acquisitions, leadership team, 

news, market segmentation, and industry trends. (link)

• Goldfire: cognitive search platform leveraging AI algorithms for sorting through large 

quantities of data. (link)

• HubSpot: CRM software platform for storing and managing information. (link)

• Lucy: AI-powered knowledge management platform that uses natural language 

generation to synthesize search results, directly answer users’ questions, mine previous 

research, and recall files and data. (link)

• PitchBook: A suite of products including research services and software tools for 

collecting, organizing, analyzing, and visualizing industry data. (link)

• Planview Spigit (now Planview IdeaPlace): Innovation management software to combine 

market information, including speed to market, cost to impact, crowdsourced input, 

metrics, and other data points to identify needs and trends. (link)

• Quid: web-based tool that uses sentiment analysis and artificial intelligence to help 

answer strategic questions by supporting search, analysis, and visualization of the 

world’s collective intelligence. (link)

• Ratio Exchange: sourcing platform for consolidating information to help manage and 

analyze data. (link)

• Salesforce CRM: cloud-based software to collect, manage, and analyze industry 

information, including trends. (link)

• TechPort (NASA): NASA resource for locating information on NASA-funded technology

to identify existing technologies and gaps. (link)

• Vulcan (DoD): innovation scouting platform used to track and collect information on 

technologies of interest, assess solutions collaboratively, and share technology scouting 

reports. (link)

• Wellspring: web-based technology scouting software with tools to search over 400M 

records, use machine learning to scan organization portfolios, and draw landscape 

insights in different technology areas. (link)

• Yet2: technology scouting and crowdsourcing services and tools for identifying and 

analyzing technology solutions and market opportunities, including customized open 

innovation portals. (link)
23

Appendix D: Acronyms

Acronym Definition 

CIF Center Innovation Fund

CLPS Commercial Lunar Payload Services

CoECI Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation 

CRM Customer Relationship Management

CSA Canadian Space Agency

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DoD Department of Defense

FFRDC

GSFC 

Federally Funded Research and Development Center

Goddard Space Flight Center

IRAD Internal Research and Development

JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

JSC Johnson Space Center

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NESC NASA Engineering & Safety Center

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NSF National Science Foundation 

OCHCO Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer

OTPS Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy 

PT Principal Technologist

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research 

SCL Systems Capability Leader 

SMD Science Mission Directorate

STMD Space Technology Mission Directorate
24

Acronym Definition 

TechPort Technology Portfolio Management System 

TRL Technology Readiness Level
25

References

Bibliography

National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. 2019. “The 11th Science and Technology 

Foresight: S&T Foresight 2019 - Summary Report.” Tokyo, Japan.

https://nistep.repo.nii.ac.jp/index.php?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_acti

on_common_download&item_id=6657&item_no=1&attribute_id=13&file_no=15&page_id=13&

block_id=21

National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. Accessed November 22, 2022. “Science 

and Technology Foresight and Science and Technology Trends.”

https://www.nistep.go.jp/en/?page_id=56#target01

Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning. Accessed November 22, 2022. “Foresight and 

Future Strategy for S&T.” https://www.kistep.re.kr/menu.es?mid=a20201000000

European Defence Agency. Accessed November 22, 2022. “Technology Watch & Foresight.”

https://eda.europa.eu/what-we-do/all-activities/activities-search/technology-watch-foresight#

Scapolo, Fabiana. “Foresight as an instrument for research priorities identification.”

Presentation, European Commission Joint Research Center, Vienna, June 2011. 

http://www.foresight-platform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Scapolo-EC-JRC.pdf

Center for Strategic Futures. Accessed November 22, 2022. “Our Approach.” 

https://www.csf.gov.sg/our-work/our-approach/