Revisiting the WEF Quantum Computing Governance Principles

The World Economic Forum published its Quantum Computing Governance Principles in January 2022. Some things have changed in the intervening three years, while others haven’t, but one thing that has changed is that FSE is now actively working with our clients on quantum resilience planning, so I thought it would be a good time to revisit these principles.

Assumptions

Let’s start with the assumptions.? The WEF bases its governance principles on three assumptions:

A. It will be possible to build a fully programmable universal fault-tolerant quantum computer.

B. Quantum computing will make the computation of certain specific problems more efficient and/or precise (e.g. optimization problems etc.).

C. Quantum computing will accelerate computation towards solving problems currently deemed intractable with classical machines (e.g. breaking of currently deployed public-key encryption schemes etc.).

At LEAP this year, I had the opportunity to speak with people working on a number of different qubit technologies; the sense I get is that Assumption A is still a matter of considerable debate—the definitions of fully programmable, universal, and fault-tolerant are very much open to interpretation.

Assumptions B and C, however, are looking increasingly solid.? A lot of people have been experimenting with quantum algorithms using Braket, Qiskit, and similar tools, and every indication seems to be that quantum computing can indeed deliver on its potential once the tech for spinning up stable qubits has been refined and scaled (a non-trivial consideration to be sure).

Back in the 1950s, economist Milton Friedman made the famous assertion that as long as a theory makes accurate predictions, it doesn’t matter whether the premises the theory is based on end up being valid or not.? This assertion is not universally true – an accurate understanding of underlying causes may not matter in terms of short-term usefulness, but it does form the framework on which we can further deepen our understanding.? Nevertheless, in this context Friedman’s maxim is quite useful: if a new form of computing successfully allows us to do useful things we cannot do now (Assumptions B and C), then it doesn’t matter as much whether it meets the threshold of being a true quantum computer (Assumption A).

Stakeholder Map

In its report, the WEF identified seven kinds of stakeholders that can potentially be impacted by quantum computing; they are shown in this figure…

This is an awesome stakeholder map.? There is nothing about it that is explicitly linked to quantum computing at all; it is a great way of thinking about the impact of pretty much any emerging technology.? I have made use of it repeatedly since it came out, not only for quantum computing, but also for the public policy work we do on AI and blockchain as well as the solution design and delivery work we do for individual clients.

Structure

Having mapped the stakeholders that quantum computing will impact, the WEF then proceeds to put forward a framework for its principles:

There are many governance frameworks for working with technology, including some very credible and useful ones from organizations like ISO, NIST, ISACA, and the like. Most of them have a structure that resembles this one, and I don’t have a marked preference. I would say, however, that this structure still seems fit for purpose in that it provides a solid framework for identifying risks and issues, taking actions, and establishing traceability.

Core Values and Themes

Using the structure and stakeholder map, the report then makes its main assertions: the set of core values that the WEF should underlie the way all work in the quantum space should be governed, and a set of themes, or areas of topicality upon which to apply those core values for the purpose of identifying goals, risks, actions, etc.

Three years ago, it would have been safe to depict these core values and assertions as a global consensus about what society globally holds to be important.? This is no longer the case; some of these values are being actively called into question by non-trivial segments of global society.? This doesn’t mean that the core values should be abandoned just because they are being challenged, but if our goal is to arrive at a universal framework for quantum governance, we need to ensure that the framework can handle differing priorities with resilience, or we run the risk that the framework will simply not be adopted by anyone who doesn’t agree with those values.? Which leads us to the most important consideration: how to put these principles to work.

Putting it to Work: A Mini Case Study on the UN SDGs

While the 2022 report suggests a perfectly serviceable framework operational use, it was still just a statement of principle (as the title suggests), rather than a blueprint for taking action.? So how do we apply these principles and put forward an actual framework that can serve as a working model for quantum computing governance?? And how do we build in the right level of resilience and flexibility that allows that framework to serve as a common standard even though different stakeholder groups will have different priorities?

In considering these questions, it is worth taking a deeper look at the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).?

There are two things about the SDGs that make them a good case study for developing an adoptable quantum governance model.

The first thing is that the SDG framework provides a resilient framework for competing priorities. Very few if any initiatives either public or commercial assert that they address all 17 SDGs.? Instead, they focus on the subset of goals that their work will directly impact.?

The second thing the SDG framework provides is a set of KPIs to use in measuring actual progress.? Underneath the 17 high-level goals, the SDG framework sets out 169 specific targets and 232 measurable indicators.? These concrete measures provide a common baseline for evaluation, a way for widely divergent stakeholder groups to communicate, and most of all, an agreed set of methods for measuring real progress.?

Applying the Lessons of the SDGs to Quantum Governance

Quantum computing is, of course, a very different solution domain than sustainable development, but many of the underlying needs are the same:

• Individual quantum initiatives need to communicate to divergent stakeholders the values they are focusing on and how they intend to deliver against those values
• Customers, investors, regulators, and the general public need a common baseline for evaluating the results of quantum computing initiatives
• Whenever possible, these results should be measurable, quantifiable, and evidence-based

?While reflecting on the SDGs highlights the above similarities, it also brings into sharp focus a key difference.? The SDGs were to a large extent to reflect aspects of the human condition that don’t change much over time. It is hard to envision a future in which good education and clean water won’t matter, so the KPIs designed to measure those things are likely to remain useful over time, even as we adjust the target thresholds to reflect ongoing progress.? A useful governance framework for quantum computing will still need concrete KPIs, but it will also need a mechanism to reflect that the definitions of those KPIs are likely to change as rapidly as the target thresholds, if not more so.

In Conclusion

Taken as a whole, the quantum computing governance principles that the WEF put forward in 2022, as well as the structure that supports them, are still a very useful framework for thinking about quantum computing governance. Implementing these principles in a working governance framework, will need to address three requirements:

• Resilience and flexibility to account for competing priorities
• Concrete measures to provide a common baseline of communication and evaluation across widely divergent stakeholder groups
• A mechanism for rapidly evolving those measures over time as quantum technology evolves

Arriving at a useful and adoptable model will that meets these requirements will require the coordinated efforts of leaders from industry, government, and academia.?? Done right, it can reduce uncertainty and be a catalyst for investment rather than a hindrance to innovation. I look forward to taking part.

?