Measuring Organizational Readiness for Quantum Technology Adoption: Scale Development and Validation
This study develops and provides initial psychometric validation for the Quantum Technology Readiness Scale (QTRS), a two-factor instrument measuring Implementation Capacity and Perceived Benefits, which reveals that while Japanese firms broadly anticipate the value of quantum technologies, their actual adoption is driven primarily by implementation capacity rather than perceived benefits.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Quantum technology is no longer just a theory confined to physics laboratories; it is a set of emerging tools that promise to solve problems in finance, medicine, and logistics that are currently too complex for standard computers. As these tools move from the realm of scientific promise toward real-world use, companies are beginning to ask a critical question: are they actually ready to adopt them? This question is not simply about whether a business knows what quantum technology is or believes it will be useful. True readiness involves a much more practical side: does the organization have the people, the money, the leadership support, and the specific experimental environments needed to turn that belief into action? Without a clear way to measure this readiness, leaders might mistake general excitement for genuine preparedness, potentially investing in a future they cannot yet build.
To answer this, a team of researchers at the University of Osaka set out to create a reliable tool for measuring how prepared Japanese companies are to embrace quantum technology. They developed a survey called the Quantum Technology Readiness Scale, designed to separate two distinct ideas that are often confused: the belief that a technology will bring value, and the actual capacity to implement it. The researchers mailed surveys to every publicly listed company in Japan, a total of 3,890 firms. They received 154 responses, a number that, while small, represented a significant portion of the companies that were actually relevant to the study. By analyzing the answers from these companies, the team discovered that the two concepts they were measuring—belief in value and ability to act—were not the same thing at all.
The study revealed a striking gap between what companies think and what they can do. When asked about the potential benefits of quantum technology, the companies were overwhelmingly optimistic. On a scale of one to five, the average score for perceived benefits was nearly four, indicating that most firms strongly agree that quantum technology will improve their operations or give them a competitive edge. However, when the same companies were asked about their implementation capacity—their actual resources, staff, and infrastructure to work with the technology—the average score dropped to just over two. This means that while almost every company believes in the promise of quantum technology, very few possess the organizational muscle to start using it. The researchers found that these two feelings, optimism and capability, were only weakly linked, suggesting that a company can be fully convinced of a technology's value while having almost no ability to use it.
The most important finding of the study was that this gap in capacity, not the level of belief, was what actually separated companies that were taking action from those that were merely watching. The researchers looked at which companies had moved beyond simple interest to actually planning or running experiments, known as proof-of-concept projects. They found that companies with higher scores on the implementation capacity scale were far more likely to be in these advanced stages. In contrast, the level of belief in the technology's benefits was high across the board, regardless of whether a company was just thinking about the technology or actively building it. This suggests that the barrier to entry for quantum technology is not a lack of interest or a failure to see the future value; the barrier is a lack of resources, specialized staff, and governance structures.
The researchers also checked how their new scale compared to real-world data, such as how much money a company had budgeted for quantum projects and how many people were dedicated to the field. They found that the capacity score strongly correlated with these concrete indicators. Companies that reported higher implementation capacity had larger budgets and more dedicated personnel. The belief score, however, showed no such connection. This confirmed that the new scale was successfully measuring something real and distinct: the actual organizational ability to engage with the technology. The study concludes that for companies to move forward, the focus must shift from simply raising awareness about quantum technology to building the specific internal capabilities required to use it.
This work provides a clear, evidence-based way for leaders to diagnose their own position. Instead of assuming that high enthusiasm means a company is ready, the new scale allows them to see that they may be enthusiastic but unprepared. The researchers noted that their study was a first step and that the tool needs to be tested with larger groups of companies to confirm these results. However, the initial evidence is strong enough to suggest a new path forward. For the quantum revolution to move from promise to practice, the focus must turn to the practical work of building teams, securing funding, and creating the environments where these complex technologies can be tested and learned. The future of quantum adoption depends less on convincing companies that the technology is valuable, and more on helping them build the capacity to make it real.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.