Roger Clarke's Web-Site
© Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 1995-2025
Infrastructure
& Privacy
Matilda
Roger Clarke's Web-Site© Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 1995-2025 |
|
|||||
| HOME | eBusiness |
Information Infrastructure |
Dataveillance & Privacy |
Identity Matters | Other Topics | |
| What's New |
Waltzing Matilda | Advanced Site-Search | ||||
Review Draft of 5 March 2025
with an erratum inserted 6 March 2025 in
section 2
regarding the closure of the US OTA in 1995
© Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 2025
Available under an AEShareNet 
licence or a Creative
Commons 
licence.
This document is at http://rogerclarke.com/EC/TIAF.html
Technological Impact Assessment (TIA) is far more challenging than other related techniques, such as the financial evaluation of proposed projects, privacy impact assessment, regulatory impact assessment and even environmental impact assessment. The enormous diversity of technologies, cultural contexts and drivers makes it infeasible to specify a generic project method that will serve all needs. This article identifies and discusses the key dimensions of those challenges. A framework is presented that is intended to support the planning of TIAs of all kinds. A simple worked example is provided.
In the post-industrial era, new technologies are leveraging off a very strong and complex infrastructural base. This is resulting in greater rapidity of innovation, and even less transparency than has existed in the past. Information about them emerges too slowly to enable public evaluation of the features, and many of them are complex, and their operation obscure, both by their nature and by intent. Some benefits will doubtless accrue. On the other hand, negative consequences are likely to be much more substantial, to be hidden from view, and to fall inequitably on the less powerful and the disadvantaged. The importance of early assessment of new technologies is therefore even greater than it has been in the past.
This article adopts a set of terms for categories of technological effect whose boundaries may not be clear-cut, but which assist analysis:
Various kinds of impact assessment technique exist. Corporations prepare business cases for projects they are considering, and evaluate their prospects using net present value calculations and risk assessments. Government agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses. Large scale developments such as mines and large-scale transport infrastructure projects are subject to environmental impact assessments. Parliaments protect industries by conducting regulatory compliance impact assessments. Effects on social values are considered in privacy impact assessments and human rights impact assessments. This article is concerned with a category of assessment technique that has been referred to for at least the last 50 years as technology assessment (TA).
Rather than being limited to a particular intervention into a particular context, TA relates to a technology that may be applied in many contexts or as part of a wide range of interventions. Many stakeholders, values and value-sets may be in play. TA has been practised largely by specialist agencies reporting to a particular jurisdiction's parliament or government. In this article, the term Technological Impact Assessment (TIA) is used. This has a similar nature to TA, but leaves open the question as to what entity performs it, and who the primary audience is intended to be.
This article is motivated by the enormous impacts of many advanced and emerging technologies on human values, and the need for much more attention to be paid to them, and at earlier stages in technology life-cycles. The article's purpose is to present a framework for process design for TIAs of all kinds.
A TIA Framework (TIAF) is an abstract socio-technical artefact presenting a palette that can be used to generate project plans of many different kinds, depending on the choices made in relation to a defined set of elements. The methodological approach that has been adopted applies well-established guidance in relation to design science, which is applicable to the development of such a socio-technical artefact (Niederman & March 2012, Gregor & Hevner 2013, p.337). The process adopted reflects Peffers' Design Science Research Methodology (DSRM, Peffers et al. 2007). This distinguishes steps for problem identification and definition of objectives, followed by design and development, and demonstration.
The article commences by providing a brief history of TA, as practised initially by a specialist US government agency, and on an ongoing basis by government agencies in a variety of European countries. In section 3, a working definition for TIA is defined, and a set of a dozen elements is proposed that need to be considered when developing a project plan for assessing the consequences of any particular technology. The main body of section 3 then enlarges on each of those elements. In section 4, the framework is applied to create a tenable project plan for a simplistic instance of a TIA.
Since the mid-twentieth century, as organisations and nations have been confronted by rapid technologically-supported and -driven development, they have experimented with various techniques to identify, understand and evaluate the opportunities and the threats. The notion and techniques of Technology Assessment emerged with the US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). This was established in 1972 to evaluate the consequences of particular technical capabilities (OTA 1977, Garcia 1991, CRS 2020). The approach OTA adopted inherently reflected the needs of an economy, society and/or polity as a whole, or of all parties involved, or at least many of them, and reflected values across all of social, economic, political and environmental dimensions.
The OTA's establishment followed a period during which Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' had alerted the public to environmental impacts (in that case, the insecticidal impacts of DDT) and Ralph Nader's 'Unsafe at Any Speed' had sounded alarm bells about the designs of cars. The OTA was an organ of the US Congress, and requests for studies were made by Chairs of Congressional Committees. The agency's view was that "TA should be tailormade to fit each study. This makes the need for a flexible approach mandatory ... Although flexible, a TA possesses certain structural elements. It describes the technology; defines the issue and its current status; sets forth the issueÅfs ostensible future course; identifies policy actions; suggests alternative policy scenarios; and assesses the complete spectrum of potential impacts" (OTA 1977, pp.10, 5).
During the later part of its life, OTA conducted TAs on such varied topics as biotechnologies, recombinant DNA, atmospheric pollutants including acid rain, environmental impact of chip production, electromagnetic radiation, waste and recycling, 'lie detectors' / polygraphs, databanks, electronic surveillance and intellectual property rights. The index of OTA publications is rather long.
During the 1990s, however, US politics changed. Endeavours to balance economic
progress against its negative consequences gave way to dominance of economic
over social goals; policy came to be defined substantially in terms of
party-politics; corporate strategies became afflicted with short-termism; and
corporations' growth in size, in trans-nationalism and in power over
governments, resulted in regulation being downgraded to lightly-enforced
responsibilities in relation to self-governance and self-regulation.
Considerable progress had been made with TA, particularly in the area of
consequences for the physical environment; but the change in priorities
resulted in the debasement of Environmental Impact Assessment to mere
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). and the disestablishment of OTA
during the Reagan Administration,by a Republican-controlled Congress in
1995.
"In 2002, GAO [ the US Government Accountability Office ] began conducting TAs, and in 2008, established a permanent TA function" (GAO 2021, p.iv). "GAO performs work for Congress that is initiated through requests, legislation (i.e., statutory mandates), and ... GAO-initiated work" (p.4).
Meanwhile, from the 1980s onwards, many European countries had created similar agencies. Some have sustained their OTAs long-term, e.g. in France since 1983 (OPECST - Office Parlementaire d'Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques). In Denmark, on the other hand, a government agency called the Danish Board of Technology existed 1986-2011, then some time after its demise a similarly-named not-for-profit emerged. Generally, OTAs report more or less directly to the national parliament or a government minister or agency, and lack any power to ensure that the outcomes of TAs are acted upon. The European Parliament has a Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) panel and bureau. A European Parliamentary Technology Assessment (EPTA) network was formed in 1990, and links a dozen such organisations. Few, if any, OTAs appear to exist oustide Europe.
Among the many definitions available in the literature, the following contain value (in all cases, the emphases have been added):
Given the scale of the US federal public sector, any guidance that it publishes in relation to TIAs needs to be examined carefully. The relevant document is GAO (2021). The GAO's guidance uses the terms "effects, potentially both positive and disruptive" and "the present and foreseen consequences and effects [of significant primary, secondary, indirect, and delayed interactions of a technological innovation with society, the environment, and the economy]" (p.2).
There is reference to "Exploring ethical, legal, and social questions that may arise from the application of a technology" (p.9) and "Gather relevant information on legal, social, economic, equity or other relevant implications" (p.23). The document suggests that, in "Ensuring relevant external stakeholders are engaged ... Seek out stakeholders who have different points of view, where appropriate. This could include international perspectives as well as populations who could be affected by the technology in disparate ways" (p.28), and "stakeholders could include ... External stakeholders, such as ... nonprofit groups, and others who ... may be affected by the implications of the technology" (p.17), However, no guidance is provided as to appropriate circumstances or methods for such engagement.
As evidenced by the process summary (pp.3-4), the method used by GAO is 'authoritative', as that term is used in s.3.10 below. It provides little indication of a need for participation by, or engagement with, the public or public interest advocacy organisations. In a scan of exemplar reports on the GAO website, one instance of consultation with public interest advocacy organisations was found. This was in relation to federally recognised tribes, which is required under an Executive Order because of their inherent sovereignty. Even in a Report on the Internet of Things (GAO 2017), with consumer applications central to the assessment, neither the body of the Report nor the explanation of the project method provide evidence of engagement with the public or meaningful engagement with advocates for its interests. Of the 27 experts, who participated in just two meetings during the 18-month period of the study, one was from the Consumer Technology Association and one other from the Internet Society.
The GAO 's attitude to public participation is in marked contrast with that of the OTA, which wrote some years after it was established: "There is a difference among the various sectors in the way public participation is achieved. In the executive and legislative branches, there often is direct participation via the hearing process to which a wide range of parties-at-interest contribute. In the private sector, this type of public involvement is less frequent" (OTA 1977, p.6. See also pp.30-31).
The dominant emphasis in the GAO guidance document is on benefits. Across the 60-page document, "stakeholder impacts" is used three times, but only in passing; "risk" appears once; and "safeguards" does not appear. The word "mitigation" is used in multiple passages, but in relation to "challenges", not in relation to harm, negative impacts or implications, or risks. For GAO, the objective of mitigation features is to neutralise barriers to innovation and adoption, with limited attention paid to the amelioration of negative consequences. Reinforcing the strong emphasis on benefits of the technology and their achievement, there are references to 'problems', 'issues', 'challenges' and 'unintended consequences' (GAO 2021, pp.21-22). The checklists in GAO's internal guidance (pp.12-20) are relevant to the narrowest form of TIA; but the publication's value for other forms of TIA is disappointingly limited.
The European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Association (EPTA) does not publish guidance on the conduct of a TA. In EPTA (2013), however, it published explanations of the approaches used by each of the then 17 member organisations. (There are currently 14 members and 11 associates). No relevant occurrences of not-for-profit, civil society or advocacy were found. Searching for 'engagement' and 'consultation' found a single relevant instance, in the report of the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST): "POST's work lies heavily in the area of 'expert analysis' conducted by the staff and fellows but augmented by an intense dialogue with outside individuals and organisations with a relevance to the subject area. POST has, however, pioneered various methods of public engagement in the UK. It co-sponsored the first and second UK national 'consensus conferences' -- on genetically modified foods and radioactive waste management. A particular development was POST's first-time use of online consultations at the UK Parliament ..." (p.76). Poland's report is frank: "Methods involving citizens or any other forms of public consultation are not used" (p.91). The Danish Board (even though it is a not-for-profit) refers only to "education of the general public" (p.17), and a number of the other reports also make clear that the public is regarded as an audience rather than a participant.
A recent development in this space has been an OECD publication called a 'Framework for Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies' (OECD 2024). The organisation generally emphasises economic development and the extraction of benefits, underplays other values, particularly social wellbeing, and prefers a light-handed approach to regulation.
There are nonetheless some positive aspects of the document. It has the declared intention of being ahead of the game ('Anticipatory'), it recognises the need for stakeholder engagement, and it mentions "multi-stakeholder, consensus-driven development of technical standards and principles" and "participatory forms of ... technology assessment" (p.12). Its also declares a set of "foundational values": Respect for human rights, Safety and security, Privacy, Democratic values, Sustainable development and Equity and inclusion. Technology-specific values are declared as Trustworthiness (a welcome step beyond the conventional and inadequate 'Public Trust' notion), Responsibility, Transparency, Technology stewardship, Innovation for public good and Responsiveness (pp.15-16).
On the other hand, the sole substantive paragraph on TA says that it "Analyses through mixed methods potential impacts of a new and emerging technology. Interrogates hopes and concerns of various stakeholders through the lens of norms and values of particular communities" (p.21). The purpose is limited to "inform public opinion" (p.22) -- which is a classic 'Gain Public Trust' sentiment, not one intended to ensure outcomes equity, safeguards and harm mitigation. Similarly, the purpose of collaborative platforms is expressly to "nurture emerging technologies" (p.23). "Non-binding governance processes" are strongly preferred (pp.28-29). The OECD conception falls a long way short of a fit-for-purpose TIA. Like the GAO document, the publication contributes disappointingly little to a framework for generating project plans for TIAs.
The focus of TA has gravitated to being firmly on benefits and their achievement. Where impacts, implications and risks to stakeholders are mentioned, it is generally only as impediments, or as constraints on achievement of the objective of technology adoption. Trust is mentioned, commonly in relation to physical safety, data security, and privacy, and measures such as 'public education' are mentioned as means of achieving trust. The desirable attribute is trustworthiness; yet this is seldom declared as a requirement, and there is no priority for (and often even no mention of) constructive ways to ensure trust is earned.
The working definition of a TIA used in this work is as follows:
A Techological Impact Assessment is an examination of consequences of one or more particular applications of a particular technology, in one or more particular contexts, in order to provide guidance to policy makers on likely benefits, impacts, implications and contingent risks, and to thereby lay the groundwork for the consideration of policy alternatives
Literature searches uncovered only a modest number of academic publications that contribute to the objectives of the present article. For example, Moens et al. (2010) , which consolidates workshop participant's views on 'constructive TA' in developing countries, and Hennen et al. (2023). It is clear, however, that each particular TIA, at the outset, needs to establish sufficient clarity about its purpose, context, and intended deliverables, and develop, articulate and implement a project design that features task specification, scheduling, resource planning, implementation, planning, control, flexibility, and scope for adaptation as the project proceeds.
In the previous section, the US OTA's approach to TA method evidenced an endeavour to impose structure and rigour, while retaining sufficient flexibility to cope with the diversity of technologies the agency examined. The GAO and OECD approaches subsequently narrowed the catchment area to primarily technocratic sources, the scope to primarily economic objectives, and the role of the public, and of advocates for its interests, largely to that of a target audience to be educated and reduced to blind trust of authority. An effective TIA project method demands a far more open conception.
In critiques of systematic literature review, Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014, 2015) argue that a constructively loose and iterative process is needed, to avoid undue constraints and unlock insight and creativity. Their approach enables emergent and changing understanding of relevant phenomena, and adaptability of the research question itself. Their process model accordingly embodies loops both of literature search and acquisition, and of analysis and interpretation. A TIA project method needs to exhibit a similar flavour.
TIAs evidence enormous diversity, reflecting not only the particular technology, but also many dimensions of the context within which they are to be performed. As a result, no single recipe or template can be put forward. The purpose if this contribution is to provide a TIA Framework (TIAF) within which a project design can be developed for each particular context. The means whereby that is achieved is by identifying a sufficiently rich set of contextual factors, referred to in Table 1 below as 'elements'.
The following sub-sections present an overview of each element, identifying relevant considerations, and suggesting alternatives that may be appropriate choices depending on the circumstances. The framework provides a checklist of aspects that project leaders may need to factor into their own analyses.
In some circumstances, a TIA project commences with a pre-defined Terms of Reference, which specifies the purpose, and most likely guides interpretations of some of the further elements below. In other cases, project leaders may have only an informal impression of the scope and intentions, and a purpose may need to be postulated and then iteratively adapted and refined as the further elements below are considered. Depending on the circumstances, preliminary project-work may need to be conducted prior to the purpose being formulated, in particular the gathering of sufficient information about:
Beyond literature reviews, such preliminary work may need to extend to consultations, discussions, and possibly surveys or focus groups.
The following key factors need to taken into account in formulating the definition of purpose:
Given the complexities of a TIA process, as discussed throughout this section, it is in principle highly desirable for the definition of purpose to be negotiable, flexible and adaptable, to reflect what is learnt during the early stages of the work. The extent to which those attributes can be achieved is of course dependent on real-world constraints.
The next element, which looms particularly large during the preliminary work, is of course the technology to be studied.
Careful definition is needed of the scope of the technology whose consequences are to be investigated. The term 'technology' is applied to "any product of knowledge dealing with the mechanical arts and applied sciences that is of practical application' (OED 4a-c). A variety of sources provide indications of potentially useful clusterings of technologies (e.g. DISR (2023), ASPI (2024) and the Wikipedia List of emerging technologies). DISR (2023) includes a potentially useful categorisation, and a sub-list of "enabling" or infrastructural technologies.
The term 'technology' can be used at varying levels of abstraction, at one extreme, and granularity, at the other. For example, electricity-generation technology may be from:
Some attributes may be common across multiple categories (e.g. all carbon-based sources generate harmful gaseous emissions). On the other hand, each category has very specific characteristics that give rise to its positive and negative consequences, and hence needs consideration independently of other, related categories.
In addition, sufficient depth of understanding of the technology is essential, to ensure that the features relevant to its benefits, impacts, implications and risks can be identified, and policy analyses can thereby be grounded rather than superficial. This understanding is not only needed by the team performing the TIA. It also needs to be conveyed, in short but accessible and reliable form, to the audiences to which the assessment is addressed.
A crucial pre-condition for an effective TIA is the identification and appreciation of the key features of the technology that give rise to opportunities and threats, and that therefore need close attention throughout the analysis.
It is commonly the case that a preliminary understanding needs to be achieved of these aspects of the technology, but that these topics need to be revisited iteratively both as the further 10 elements below are considered during the project initiation phase, and as the project itself is pursued. In the meantime, the next important element is clarification of what parties are affected by, and are likely to care about, the positive and the negative consequences the technology's adoption will or may give rise to.
Stakeholder theory provides valuable guidance in relation to the identification and evaluation of categories of parties that have an interest in the nature, applications and consequences of a new technology. The concept arose within management theory, and was created to provide a counterpoint to 'shareholders', whose interests are directly served by the legal framework created by corporations law (Freeman & Reed 1983).
The stakeholder notion has been applied not only in business enterprises, but across all organisational contexts. Entities are readily recognised as stakeholders when they are participants in a system, or users of information systems.
A vital category that organisations commonly overlook, however, is entities that are affected by the behaviour of a system even though not participants in it. This may be because they are merely objects that are impacted by it, or second-order implications affect them, or they bear the costs of contingent risks. The term 'usees' has been applied since at least 1990 to refer to those categories of stakeholder (Berleur & Drumm 1991 p.388, Clarke 1992, Fischer-Huebner & Lindskog 2001, Baumer 2015).
Stakeholder salience theory identified three key stakeholder attributes: power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell et al. 1997, Neville et al. 2011). Driscoll & Starik (2004) later proposed the addition of proximity. Sponsoring organisations commonly consider only those stakeholders with sufficient power, who are capable of affecting project success, with the interests of legitimate-but-not-powerful stakeholders perceived at best as constraints on the achievement of the sponsor's objectives.
An important consideration in the case of stakeholder categories with many members is the allocation of entities into groups or segments. This applies whether the entities are human or organisational. It has also become mainstream to recognise the existence of abstract stakeholders. Important examples are community, society, economy, polity, and environment in the sense of biosphere or nature (Jacobs 2003, Driscoll & Starik 2004).
For stakeholder categories that comprise large numbers of entities, and for abstract stakeholders, it is necessary to use stakeholder proxies in order to gain access to insight into stakeholders' interests and attitudes to particular technologies and their features. The closest approximations are generally representative advocacy organisations (such as large membership-based organisations for consumers) and competency-based advocacy organisations that specialise in particular areas, such as Environmental Defenders Offices, privay and digital rihgts associations, and civil liberties councils.
A further important insight is provided by researcher perspective theory (Clarke & Davison 2020). A large proportion of academic research, particularly in business disciplines, adopts the perspective of a single entity, and a large proportion of that is dedicated to the interests of the sponsor of technologically-based interventions. Dual-perspective research can reflect, in particular, both system-sponsor and user views, and inter-relate them, to the benefit of both; yet it is uncommon. Most relevantly for the present purpose, multi-perspective research is very challenging, and hence less common in academic research.
Recognition of the significance of stakeholders leads naturally to the need for a more expansive view of technology, as technology-in-use.
The previous two sub-sections have considered the two foundational elements of a TIA: the features of the technology and stakeholders' interests. The socio-technical systems approach provides ways in which inter-relationships between the two can be brought into focus (Emery 1959, Cherns 1976, Appelbaum 1997, Mumford 2006, Abbas & Michael 2023). Fundamental to the approach is recognition that the assumption that a singular 'truth' exists is inconsistent with the existence of multiple perspectives, interests and value-sets, and that different stakeholders interpret technical phenomena in different ways.
Further, the differences among stakeholder interests are likely to be significant, such that conflict exists among different stakeholders' interests, and competitive behaviours occur as the various stakeholders seek to advance their own interests. As a result, in contexts of any complexity, balance and compromise are difficult to achieve. The TIA process generally needs to make comparisons between factors that are not commensurate, that is to say that cannot be measured on the same scale.
Socio-technical thinking emerged in the period of intra-organisational systems, but is also applicable to inter-organisational systems that involve individuals operating within multiple organisational contexts (Abbas et al. 2021), and extra-organisational systems which affect individuals beyond organisations' boundaries (Clarke 1992). Critical aspects include the capacity of affected individuals to not only be aware of the design intentions, but also to influence the design and operation of technology-based systems. This depends on participative and consultative arrangements, flexibility to recognise and deal with variations and exceptions, and adaptability to cope with changes both environmental and social in nature.
An important element within the socio-technical space is the distinction between a feature and an affordance. From the technical perspective, features of a system are designed-in, with the intention of providing particular capabilities. From the psychosocial perspective, on the other hand, affordances are potential or emergent properties of a system that individuals discover or perceive, or perhaps appropriate, contrive or subvert. A novellist's graphic depiction of the notion is "the street finds its own uses for things" (Gibson 1982).
A TIA process needs to have its sights set well beyond technical design of artefact features, encompassing the psychology and psychopathology of artefact use (Norman 1988). In the IT context, design frameworks such as human-computer interface (HCI), and the more contemporary areas of user interface (UI) and user experience (UX), need to be conducted in an open-minded manner (Lamprecht 2025), and extended to usee or non-participant experience (NPX).
The next sub-section moves beyond the interactions between technology and people to consider socio-technical systems' interactions with the polity.
A further consideration in some contexts is the extent to which the power of one or more particular stakeholders may weigh very heavily in decision-making about whether and how technology may be applied. Institutional power may be exerted, particularly by governments and government agencies. Market power may be exercised by large corporations or industry lobbies.
The long-apparent drift from subcontracting, via comprehensive outsourcing, to public-private partnerships, and on towards the corporatised state, gives rise to linkage and cross-leveraging between the two types of power (Schmidt & Cohen 2014). The phenomenon has spectacularly exploded into life in the senior executive appointments by US President Trump on his second coming in 2025. In the USA, and in countries that follow its lead, such TAs as may be performed by government agencies are likely to be wholly benefits-oriented, without even OECD-style offerings in such areas as participation in standards-setting, and trustworthiness as a goal for technology and its providers.
The design of effective TIA processes needs to embrace the full breadth of the original notion of TA, rather than its contemporary, debased form. On the other hand, project leaders need to appreciate that the products of the TIA process may be injected into a world hostile to objectives beyond the economic aims of the corporatised state, and policy contributions may have to be navigated through the moral morass of a 'post-truth' world.
After considering both social and political factors relevant to a TIA, two further aspects of the technology under study need to be further considered.
Although each technology follows its own path of development, some commonalities can be identified, and models exist that assist in analysing the possible paths that the technology under study might follow.
A starting-point is to establish a baseline description of the technology as it is understood at the commencement of the study. This exercise may encounter challenges. One is the novelty and perhaps foreignness of the technology and the terminology used to explain and promote it. Another is vagueness about its nature and features. This can extend to secrecy justified by desire on the parts of the inventor and innovators to be able to exploit their ideas commercially. Obstructionism may also arise where the claims made for the technology are exaggerated, baseless or fraudulent.
A further important aspect is the technology's stage of maturity within the technological life-cycle. The Gartner consultancy group's populist 'hype cycle for technology' postulates five key phases, beginning with a 'technology trigger', a period of 'inflated expectations', followed by a trough of 'disillusionment', leading to a slope of 'enlightenment', and ultimately a plateau of 'productivity'. Case studies of the first three phases may provide insights into patterns of behaviour relevant to the technology under study.
Caution is expressed by some, both about the Gartner cycle, and about strongly-hyped technologies: "Tracing breakthrough technologies over time, only a small share -- maybe a fifth -- move from innovation to excitement to despondency to widespread adoption. Lots of tech becomes widely used without such a rollercoaster ride. Others go from boom to bust, but do not come back. We estimate that of all the forms of tech which fall into the trough of disillusionment, six in ten do not rise again. Our conclusion is ...: "An alarming number of technology trends are flashes in the pan" (Econ 2024).
A considerable academic literature exists in relation to lifecycles for manufactured products, but the body of theory at the more abstract level of technology life-cycles is more limited. In the case of new, substitutive technologies (e.g. engine propulsion mechanisms, or music recording technologies), a useful review article is Taylor & Taylor (2012). It summarises the process in such cases as comprising a succession of 'paradigms' (e.g. steam, petrol, diesel; or vinyl records, magnetic tape, optical disk, solid-state digital storage), each of which passes through stages the authors refer to as an 'era of ferment', 'emergence of dominant design'; and an 'era of incremental change'; with sub-stages they refer to as 'generations'. Successive paradigms are separated by 'discontinuities' (pp.550-551 and Fig.6).
That model is not applicable to what might be termed 'emergent' or 'emerging' technologies. Nano-technology and successive waves of genetic technologies have created new areas of application, so there is no predecessor paradigm that acts as a reference-point and that needs to be overrun or subsumed. These are more thorough 'shifts', or 'discontinuities' in that term's more common sense of redefinition of the space, throwing into doubt previous assumptions and graphical projections. Another example is, of course, the various, to date mostly aspirational, quantum technologies.
In Verhoeven et al. (2025, p.22), a distinction is drawn between the the trajectories of 'architectural' technologies (relying on "a new configuration of (existing) technologies, resulting in at least partially novel functionality", and hence comparable with 'substitutive' in the previous paragraph), and 'radical' technologies (involving "a completely new technological principle", comparable to 'emerging').
In Rotolo et al. (2015), the defining attributes of an 'emerging technology' are proposed. The first, "radical novelty", embodies the discontinuity notion. However, the other four (fast growth, coherence, prominent impact, and uncertainty and ambiguity) appear not to qualify as definitional. Moreover, the important definitional feature of 'immaturity' is missing. ("Uncertainty and ambiguity" is an attribute that derives from immaturity). As regards impact, prominence cannot yet be judged, and some term such as 'apparent (and/or claimed) impactfulness' would be more appropriate. That factor affects the technology's interestingness to researchers and investors, and its potential relevance to technological impact assessors. That, and the rate of accretion of knowledge and the coherence of the propositions, are relevant factors in gauging the technology's maturation trajectory, and likelihood of progressing through the technology lifecycle.
Also of relevance is the technology adoption life-cycle. For example, the widely-adopted theory of diffusion of innovation (Rogers 1983) contends that the important characteristics of an innovation that influence its adoption are:
The Rogers theory includes many ideas on pioneer and early-adopter patterns. These are likely to affect the directions in which the technology is articulated, and may provide insights into the adoption lag, and the degree of steepness of the adoption curve.
In deliberating about possible trajectories that the technology under study may follow, it is important to distinguish between:
The following section considers the related question of the fields to which the technology is applied.
Some technologies have a very specific purpose, within a specific field. (The word 'field' is intended not just figuratively but also literally: The Australian invention of the late 19th century called the stump-jump plough was designed solely for fields where it had not been feasible to remove all the tree-stumps when clearing land for agriculture). Some technologies begin with a narrow purpose, but one or more further areas of application are found (as occurs with some pharmaceuticals, which are later discovered to have beneficial effects in relation to additional medical conditions). Some, however, such as steam, spark-ignition, compression-ignition and rotary engines, have a great many domains of use.
As with the technology itself, at the commencement of the study it is valuable to establish a baseline description of applications for which the technology was conceived and designed, or at which the technology has been targeted.
Similarly, it may be useful to distinguish claims about the domains of application by inventors, investors and enthusiasts, from those of more sober commentators, and to allow for the possibility of redirection of effort towards, or adoption in, additional or alternative domains that may or may not have been foreseen.
Building on the consideration of foundational techno-social factors in an earlier sub-section, there is a need to consider a further, more abstract aspect of the societies into which technologically-based interventions are inserted.
The term 'culture' is used here to refer to "the distinctive ideas, customs, social behaviour, products, or way of life of a particular nation, society, people, or period" (OED III.7.a). Culture could be regarded as merely a higher level of abstraction. However, a culture is both more pervasive and deeper than common-interest groupings. The interests of people who identify with a culture are often embedded in value-sets that have considerable persistence over time. A longstanding categorisation of aspects of culture is in Schwartz (1992), and is combined with an ideological dimension in Ralston et al. (2007).
In many countries, a dominant culture exists, variously complemented and challenged by minority cultures. Cultures are in most cases delineated along racial / lingual / religious lines, and are sometimes regionally concentrated, although some, such as 'hippie culture',. have arisen as reactions against a dominant culture.
In some cases, a TIA will accordingly need to take account of the value-set of a dominant culture, and in most cases some degree of recognition of the notion of cultural diversity will be necessary.
Many cultures evidence conservative attitudes towards some aspects of social behaviour, and this can result in conflicts with particular technologies. This is commonly the case with technologies that interfere or interact with human biology, or with animal or plant biology, or that grant degrees of autonomy to artefacts, particularly where the actions taken by artefacts directly affect humans. Conservative attitudes are also commonly evident in cultures that lie towards one end of the theocratic-secular and authoritarian-democratic dimensions. The contentiousness of some technologies may 'fly beneath the social radar'. For example, cyber-physical technologies such as industrial control, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), 'fly-by-wire' in aircraft and cars, and the emergent smart grid, are hidden from view and offend few people. Those examples can be contrasted with the sophisticated prostheses and orthoses that underlie cyborgisation (Clarke 2005, 2011). These are more likely to trigger controversy by being perceived to conflict with the prevailing social values of a dominant culture, or even of a vociferous minority culture.
Analyses may rely on racial / lingual / religious cultural foundations. Another alternative is to evaluate consequences on the basis of where on particular cultural dimensions a country, or a country's dominant culture, is seen to lie. A well-established model to support such analyses is the Hofstede/Minkov Dimensions of Culture (formally described in Minkov 2012), which in its current form identifies six dimensions:
To this point, this section has worked through the framing of a TIA, and factors affecting the project plan. The remaining sub-sections consider features of the TIA process.
TIA is a process. Some payback from that process is likely to arise from changes in insights and attitudes among participants. However, in order to influence and perhaps even drive outcomes, it is usually necessary to have some degree of focus on products. A tome containing a summary, a report body and appendices may be required, but that may be primarily of symbolic value and as a historical record or a contribution to the literature. More direct contributions are likely to arise from shorter, accessible documents relating to such matters as:
Under some circumstances, it may be appropriate to envisage TIA activities as extending to experimental design and pilot implementations.
A further consideration is the pattern to be adopted in the conduct of the project.
A TIA may be performed in a number of different modes:
The appropriate choice among these alternatives is likely to be driven primarily by the institutional and socio-political context. A TA conducted by a division of a government agency is likely to define its objectives and constraints, and devise its project process, very differently from one conducted by a public interest advocacy association or an open collaboratory.
A further aspect of project process that needs to be considered is the research techniques that are appropriate to apply during various phases of the overall TIA project.
The large majority of established research techniques assume that relevant phenomena exist, are capable of being observed, and exhibit reasonable stability. In the context of emergent technologies, none of these assumptions hold. Hence, in many TIAs, observational methods are infeasible or heavily constrained, Further, little reliable information is available, and hence survey and focus group methods are limited in their applicability.
The world into which new technologies are introduced commonly feature emergent phenomena, unstable phenomena, a high degree of interdependency among elements which means that sub-setting and simplification of the problem-space is difficult or infeasible, large numbers of stakeholders with diverse perspectives, and value-conflicts.
Many 'futures studies' techniques have been formulated, but they require careful moulding to context and purpose, and their rigour is subject to challenge. Some techniques such as forecasting based on historical trends are inapplicable because they cannot cope with the discontinuities that are common in technological invention and innovation. This section identifies key examples of techniques applicable to TIA projects.
Even if empiricism per se is precluded due to the absence of phenomena to observe, imagination can be applied in disciplined ways. The following techniques are quasi-empirical in nature, in the sense that they are apparently, but not really, oriented toward the observation of phenomena:
The last sub-section addresses the question of whether any particular TIA should restrict itself to providing a basis on which policy analysis can be undertaken, or should make direct contributions to policy analysis.
The position adopted in this article is that policy analysis may be defined as being either within or beyond the scope of a TIA, depending on the circumstances. The decision may be externally imposed, through institutional structures, or it may be decided by project leaders.
Policy considerations need to take into account the considerable body of regulatory theory (Braithwaite & Drahos 2000, Drahos 2017). The applicability of existing regulatory regimes to new technologies is at best questionable, because they were designed for a previous technological landscape. They require continual 'reconnection' as technology changes (Brownsword 2008). A theoretical lens to assist in evaluating the fit between an existing regulatory regime and a new technology is provided by Bennett Moses (2007). Other regulatory aspects of significance are:
A discussion of regulatory framework considerations for AI is at (Clarke 2019b).
As discussed earlier, technologies evidence diverse features relevant to the assessment of their consequences. The meta-principle of 'technology neutrality' appears attractive. On the other hand, energy-production processes from each of coal, gas, sunshine, wind, tides, methane, hydrogen, fission and fusion need to be subjected to protective measures that are specifically relevant to those particular materials and processes. Policy expressed as principles that are abstract enough to apply to all of those forms is likely to be so vague as to deliver very little protection. An approach that avoids the blithe assumption that 'technological neutrality' is achievable involves the design of policy interventions at two levels:
The following general guidance is also suggested, arising from discussions above:
This section has presented a framework within which appropriate program plans for a wide variety of TIAs can be devised. The following section provides a small-scale, indicative application of the framework.
An illustration has been contrived, in order to demonstrate the use of the TIA Process Design Framework to create a tenable, preliminary project plan for a simplistic instance of a TIA. Rather than considering a 'bleeding-edge technology' example, a technology has been sought that is far enough along its developmental path that author and reader alike can quickly grasp the technology, context and issues. Examples of candidate technologies include Internet of Things (IoT) applications (such as passing-handset beacon-detection used to customise displays on on-street screens); a new form of water cleansing for water supplies in developing countries, and risky forms of treatment for medical conditions more common in poorer countries than rich ones, resulting in under-investment in research in the area. The candidate technology selected was the use of drones to deliver goods to consumers (Clarke 2014, p.239).
Examine consequences of delivery drones, in remote, rural, regional, suburban and CBD locations, to identify likely benefits, impacts and implications, and contingent risks, that have policy implications
The vehicle for the TIA is an incorporated public interest advocacy association which has a track-record of making submissions to parliaments and regulatory agencies, and which has gained modest financial support from a donor.
The project is timed to take advantage of trials being run by a service-provider. These will be limited to tight geographic areas (perhaps a single suburb), and hence most likely suburban but possibly also regional in terms of population-density.
The target-audience comprises relevant Parliamentary Committees, Ministers, regulatory agencies, aerial service providers, retailers, the media and the public.
Relevant artefacts comprise drones of sufficient size to carry a payload, both those with capabilities of hovering and VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) and fixed-wing/STOL (short take-off and landing), together with the supporting infrastructure.
Initial sources have been refereed publications on drone technology, drone delivery capabilities and characteristics, the opportunities and consequences of various use cases for drones, and existing regulatory regimes, together with media republication of a service-provider's briefings on the trial project, media reports on the trials, and comments from members of resident advocacy associations.
The categories identified in a preliminary analysis are:
Initial research is to keep an open mind on the trade-offs and balances, and use open-ended questions to elicit views of interviewees / focus group participants / survey participants, and avoid selective or biased responses.
It is anticipated that interests among stakeholder groups will vary, and to a considerable extent conflict. In particular, novelty, convenience, delivery-speed, and perhaps cost appear likely to conflict with concerns about noise, safety of individuals and property, and surveillance.
Initial research is to keep an open mind about the perceptions of the technology and its use among politicians, councillors and lobby groups, in order to gain insight into pre and post attitudes towards the issues and their importance.
Drone technology, including moderately automated navigation, guidance and collision avoidance is reasonably well established. The robustness and resilience of behaviour under various conditions relating to weather, traffic and disruption of electronic communications appears to be much less mature. Drone pickup and delivery is not a mature technology, as evidenced by the conduct of trials.
Some regions and consumer segments commonly evidence high adoption rates for technologies that are interesting, convenient and cheap; other regions and segments less so. It is unclear what region and segment categories will evidence what attitudes.
As the intention is to learn from a trial, rather than to conduct broad attitudinal surveys, the TIA is dependent on what suppliers participate in the service-provider's trials, and what goods-categories they offer to deliver.
Segmentation by supplier or by category-of-goods is an unknown, e.g. pizzas to IT staff working from home cf. pharmaceutical supplies, particularly for the infirm.
Insights into additional categories by population-density, in particular rural, remote and CBD, will need to be gained through means other than the trials, and may be limited to secondary data and conceptual analysis.
As the intention is to learn from a trial, the TIA is dependent on where the service-provider conducts the trials.
The endeavour will be made to gather culturally-indicative profile data of the area and of the players who voice opinions. This requires careful data-collection design, communication with participants, and reporting, taking into account cultural sensitivities and guidelines for ethical conduct of human research.
Reflecting resource limitations, it is intended to conduct the project primarily as a study performed by a small internal team. However, interviews (especially with the service-provider and retailers), and surveys and/or focus groups (with consumers and any activists who come to attention) will be conducted using open-ended questions in the preliminary study, and in the later stages will commence with open-ended questions, before asking structured questions. It is envisaged that an open call for comments will also be published.
It is intended that ex ante visionary depictions will be composed, one utopian and another dystopian. Once more evidence is available, they are likely to require refinement and/or supplementation with a balanced depiction. Where sufficiently reliable evidence exists in relation to particular activities or events, vignettes or fuller case studies will be prepared.
The data is intended to assist in evaluating the suitability of existing regulatory arrangements, including any unnecessary impediments to the achievements of benefits, and particularly in relation to the identification of impacts, implications and risks, and the formulation of safeguards and mitigation measures to address negative consequences.
The design needs to be alert to differential consequences for particular user and usee segments, such as the aged or otherwise infirm or less mobile, and those living in remote and rural areas.
The purpose of this article was declared as being the presentation of a TIA Process Design Framework that offers intellectual support for the drafting of a preliminary TIA project plan. The approaches adopted by government agencies to Technology Assessment adopt too narrow a frame of reference to be of direct relevance to the contemporary need of teams conducting TIAs. The working definition of a TIA, as distinct from a TA, encompasses consequences of all kinds, not just positive impacts, avoids limiting the scope of technologies, applications and contexts, and applies nomatter what organisational vehicle is used to perform the assessment.
A TIA Framework was presented, comprising a dozen elements, some of which Frame the activity, some of which are key Factors in the conception and scoping of the work, and others of which are Features of the mechanics of the TIA process.
Having followed through the design science method steps of problem identification and definition of objectives, followed by design and development, a demonstration of the Framework's use was provided, using a simple setting of delivery drones trialled in a suburban area.
The next step in the process is 'armchair' evaluation of the TIA Framework by colleagues with expertise and experience in the performance of TIAs. After adaptation to reflect feedback from reviewers, the Framework needs to be applied in practice, to a variety of technologies at different levels of abstraction and granularity, in different application domains, and in diverse social, political and cultural contexts. Evaluation of the Framework will be aided if some uses extend to policy analysis, and others expressly limit their scope to laying the groundwork for others to consider policy alternatives.
The tool may be a disappointment for practitioners who are seeking a recipe or checklist, because it expressly demands considerable intellectual effort, and consideration of many sub-choices, before a preliminary project plan will emerge. On the other hand, this greatly reduces the likelihood of a project being commenced prematurely, before major challenges have been identified and confronted. A further possible use for the Framework is by individuals and teams seeking funding for a TIA, who may find it a valuable tool in workshopping the funding bid, debating alternative orientation, scope and project mechanics along the way.
The article has implications for researchers, because it poses challenges to existing bodies of theory relevant to TIAs. The level of intellectualisation of academic contributions in the area is admirable, but much of it does not bring the intellectual insights down to a level at which they offer value to practice. Of particular importance in this regard is the lack of distinction made among the various alternative scope definitions that TA processes can adopt. The guidance available for the conduct of TAs has contracted to the very narrow worldview of the government bureaucrat (or, in some cases, perhaps technocrat), with economic motivations dominant: The consequences that are prioritised are the benefits, the stakeholder-sets considered are narrow, the social and environmental dimensions and the impacts, implications and risks, are under-emphasised, especially for less-powerful stakeholders, including users and particularly usees. If it is to service public needs in a period of extremely powerful technologies, the body of theory available from which to articulate guidance for the conduct of TIAs needs to address these deficiencies.
Abbas R. & Michael K. (2023) 'Socio-Technical Theory: A review' In S. Papagiannidis (Ed), TheoryHub Book, at https://open.ncl.ac.uk/theory-library/socio-technical-theory.pdf
Abbas R., Pitt J., & Michael K. (2021) 'Socio-technical design for public interest technology' IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 2,2 (2021) 55-61
Appelbaum S.H. (1997) 'Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organizational development' Management Decision 35,6 (1997) 452--463
ASPI (2024) 'List of technologies' Australian Strategic Policy Institute, August 2024, at https://techtracker.aspi.org.au/list-of-technologies/
Avin S., Gruetzemacher R. & Fox J. (2020) 'Exploring AI Futures Through Role Play' Proc. AAAI/ACM Conf. AI, Ethics, and Society, 2020, pp.8-14, at https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3375627.3375817
Banta D. (2009) 'What is technology assessment?' Int'l J of Technology Assessment in Health Care 25: Supplement 1 (2009) 7?9, at https://www.inbit.gr/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2009-What-is-technology-assessment.pdf
Baumer E.P.S. (2015) 'Usees' Proc. 33rd Annual ACM Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'15), April 2015, at https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2702123.2702147
Bennett Moses L. (2007) 'Recurring Dilemmas: The Law's Race to Keep Up with Technological Change' University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 7 (2007) 239-285, at http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/archives/moses.pdf
Berleur J. & Drumm J. (Eds.) (1991) 'Information Technology Assessment' Proc. 4th IFIP-TC9 International Conference on Human Choice and Computers, Dublin, July 8-12, 1990, Elsevier Science Publishers (North-Holland), 1991
Boell S.K. & Cecez-Kecmanovic D. (2014) 'A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches' Communications of the Association for Information Systems 34, 12, at http://tutor.nmmu.ac.za/mgerber/Documents/ResMeth_Boell_2014_Literature%20Reviews.pdf
Boell S.K. & Cecez-Kecmanovic D. (2015) 'On being 'systematic' in literature reviews in IS' J. Infor. Techno. 30 (2015) 161-173
Bradfield R., Wright G., Burt G., Cairns G. & Van Der Heijden K. (2005) 'The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning' Futures 37 (2005) 795-812, at http://www.academia.edu/download/46103896/The_origins_and_evolution_of_scenario_te20160531-12850-l6xpls.pdf
Brailsford S., Churilov L. & Dangerfield B. (Eds.) (2014) 'Discrete-event simulation and system dynamics for management decision making' Wiley, 2014
Braithwaite B. & Drahos P. (2000) `Global Business Regulation' Cambridge University Press, 2000
Brownsword R. (2008) `Rights, Regulation and the Technological Revolution' Oxford University Press, 2008
Cecez-Kecmanovic D. (2001) 'Doing Critical IS Research: The Question of Methodology' Ch.VI in 'Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends: Issues and Trends' (ed. Trauth E.M.), pp. 141-163, Idea Group Publishing, 2001, at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/37b1/e4c060b93fcfa04d81f03b750e746ba42f2d.pdf
Cherns A. (1976) 'The principles of sociotechnical design' Human Relations 29,8 (1976) 783-792
Clarke R. (1992) 'Extra-Organisational Systems: A Challenge to the Software Engineering Paradigm' Proc. IFIP World Congress, Madrid, September 1992, at http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/PaperExtraOrgSys.html
Clarke R. (1997) 'Instrumentalist Futurism: A Tool for Examining I.T. Impacts and Implications' Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, October 1997, at http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/InstFut.html
Clarke R. (2005) 'Human-Artefact Hybridisation: Forms and Consequences' Proc. Ars Electronica 2005 Symposium, Linz, Austria, 2-3 September 2005, PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/HAH0505.html
Clarke R. (2011) 'Cyborg Rights' IEEE Technology and Society 30,3 (Fall 2011) 49-57, PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/CyRts-1102.html
Clarke R. (2014) 'Understanding the drone epidemic' Computer Law & Security Review 30,3 (June 2014) 230-246, at https://rogerclarke.com/SOS/Drones-E.html#ALD
Clarke R. (2019a) 'Risks Inherent in the Digital Surveillance Economy: A Research Agenda' Journal of Information Technology 34,1 (Mar 2019) 59-80, PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/DSE.html
Clarke R. (2019b) 'Regulatory Alternatives for AI' Computer Law & Security Review 35, 4 (2019) 398-409, PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AIR.html
Clarke R. (2021) 'A Simulation Model for COVID-19 Public Health Management: Design and Preliminary Evaluation' Proc. Bled eConference, 27-30 June 2021, PrePrint at http://rogerclarke.com/EC/CVMP.html
Clarke R. (2025) 'Principles for the Responsible Application of Generative AI' Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, January 2025, at http://rogerclarke.com/EC/RGAI-C.html
Clarke R. & Davison R.M. (2020) 'Through Whose Eyes? The Critical Concept of Researcher Perspective' J. Assoc. Infor. Syst. 21, 2 (March-April 2020) 483-501, PrePrint at http://rogerclarke.com/SOS/RP.html
CRS (2020) 'The Office of Technology Assessment: History, Authorities, Issues, and Options' US Congressional Research Service, Version of 29 April 2020, at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46327/6
DISR (2023) 'List of Critical Technologies in the National Interest' Australian Dept of Industy, Science and Resources, May 2023, at https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/list-critical-technologies-national-interest
Drahos P. (ed.) (2017) 'Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications' ANU Press, 2017. at http://press.anu.edu.au/publications/regulatory-theory/download
Driscoll C. & Starik M. (2004) 'The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment' Journal of Business Ethics 49 (2004) 55-73
Econ (2025) 'Artificial intelligence is losing hype' The Economist, 19 August 2024, at https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/19/artificial-intelligence-is-losing-hype
Emery F. (1959) 'Characteristics of socio-technical systems' In 'The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology' Volume 2. pp. 157-186), University of Pennsylvania Press
EPTA (2013) 'Parliamentary Technology Assessment in Europe. An overview of 17 institutions and how they work' European Parliamentary Technology Assessment Association, 2013, at https://eptanetwork.org/database/policy-briefs-reports/882-parliamentary-technology-assessment-in-europe-an-overview-of-17-institutions-and-how-they-work-epta
EPTA (2017) 'What is Technology Assessment?' European Parliamentary Technology Assessment, 2017, at http://www.eptanetwork.org/about/what-is-ta
Fischer-Huebner S. & Lindskog H. (2001) 'Teaching Privacy-Enhancing Technologies' Proc. IFIP WG 11.8 2nd World Conference on Information Security Education, Perth, Australia, 2001
Freeman R.E. & Reed D.L. (1983) 'Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance' California Management Review 25, 3 (1983) 88-106
GAO (2017) 'Technology Assessment: Internet of Things: Status and implications of an increasingly connected world' US Government Accountability Office, GAO-17-75, May 2017, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-75.pdf
GAO (2021) 'Technology Assessment Design Handbook: Handbook for Key Steps and Considerations in the Design of Technology Assessments' US Government Accountability Office, GAO-21-347G, February 2021, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/712502.pdf
Garcia L. (1991) 'The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment' Chapter in Berleur J. & Drumm J. (eds.) 'Information Technology Assessment' North-Holland, 1991, at pp.177-180
Gibson W. (1982) 'Burning Chrome' Omni, 1982
Gregor S. & Hevner A. (2013) 'Positioning Design Science Research for Maximum Impact' MIS Quarterly 37,2 (June 2013) 337-355, at https://ai.arizona.edu/sites/ai/files/MIS611D/gregor-2013-positioning-presenting-design-science-research.pdf
Grunwald A. (2009) 'Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods' Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science 2009, pp.1103-1146, at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444516671500446
Hennen L., Hahn H., Ladikas M., Lindner R., Peissl W. & van Est R, (Eds.) (2023) 'Technology Assessment in a Globalized World' Spinger, 2023, at https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/60800/978-3-031-10617-0.pdf?sequence=1
Herpe M. & Linner B.O. (2009) 'Utopian and dystopian thought in climate change science and policy' Futures 41 (2009) 234?245
Jacobs M. (2003) 'The Environment as Stakeholder' Business Strategy Review 8,2 (February 2003) 25-28
Lamprecht E. (2025) 'The Difference Between UX and UI Design: A Beginner's Guide' Career Foundry, 2025, at https://careerfoundry.com/en/blog/ux-design/the-difference-between-ux-and-ui-design-a-laymans-guide/
Laplume A.O., Sonpar K. & Litz R.A. (2008) 'Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us' Journal of Management 34,6 (2008) 1152-1189
Manwaring K. (2019) 'Surfing the Third Wave of Computing: Consumer Contracting with eObjects in Australia' PhD Thesis, UNSW Faculty of Law, November 2019
Minkov M. (2012) 'Cross-Cultural Analysis: The Science and Art of Comparing the World's Modern Societies and Their Cultures' Sage, 2012
Mitchell R.K., Agle B.R. & Wood D.J. (1997) 'Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts' Academy of Management Review 22, 4 (1997) 853-886
Moens N.P., Broerse J.E.W., Gast L. & Bunders J.F.G. (2010) 'A Constructive Technology Assessment Approach to ICT Planning in Developing Countries: Evaluating the First Phase, the Roundtable Workshop' Information Technology for Development 16,1 (2010) 34-61
Mumford E. (2006) 'The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential' Info Systems J 16 (2006) 317--342, at https://executiveinsight.typepad.com/files/the-story-of-socio-technical-design.pdf
Myers M.D. & Klein H.K. (2011) 'A Set Of Principles For Conducting Critical Research In Information Systems' MIS Quarterly 35, 1 (March 2011) 17-36, at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2ecd/cb21ad740753576215ec393e499b1af12b25.pdf
Neville B.A., Bell S.J. & Whitwell G.J. (2011) 'Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool' Journal of Business Ethics 102,3 (Sep 2011) 357-378
Niederman F. & March S. (2012) 'Design Science and the Accumulation of Knowledge in the Information Systems Discipline' ACM Transactions on MIS 3,1 (2012) 1
Norman D. (1988) 'The Design of Every Things' Basic Books, 1988, rev. ed. 2013
van Notten P.W.F., Rotmans J., van Asselt M.B.A. & Rothman D.S. (2003) 'An Updated Scenario Typology' Futures 35 (2003) 423-443, at http://ejournal.narotama.ac.id/files/An%20updated%20scenario%20typology.pdf
OECD (2024) 'Framework for Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies' OECD, 24 April 2024, at https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/framework-for-anticipatory-governance-of-emerging-technologies_0248ead5-en.html
OTA (1977) 'Technology Assessment in Business and Government' Office of Technology Assessment, NTIS order #PB-273164', January 1977, at http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7711_n.html
Peffers K., Tuunanen T., Rothenberger M. & Chatterjee S. (2007) 'A design science research methodology for information systems research' Journal of Management Information Systems, 24,3 (2007) 45-77, at https://wise.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/thesis_info/Design_Science_Research_Methodology_2008.pdf
Ralston D.A., Holt D.H., Terpstra R.H. & Kai-Cheng Y. (2007) 'The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China' Journal of International Business Studies, 1?19 & 2007 Academy of International Business, at https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d45e206980f2974389acb011b100fd3f7e7c1527
Rogers E.M. (1963) 'Diffusion of Innovations' The Free Press, New York, originally published in 1962, 3rd Edition 1983
Rotolo D., Hicks D. & Martin B.R. (2015) 'What is an emerging technology?' Research Policy 44,10 (2015) 1827?1843
Schmidt E. & Cohen J. (2014) 'The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business' Knopf, 2013
Schwartz P. (1991) 'The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World' Doubleday, 1991
Schwartz S.H. (1992) 'Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries' In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), 'Advances in experimental social psychology' Academic Press, 1992, pp. 1?65, at https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid%20=rep1&type=pdf&doi=dc49e27d0ed890cd3ed2e80ca0b0107207f12a64
Tapio P., Rintam?ki H., Rikkonen P. & Ruotsalainen J. (2017) 'Pump, boiler, cell or turbine? Six mixed scenarios of energy futures in farms' Futures 88 (April 2017) 30?42
Taylor M. & Taylor A. (2012) 'The technology life cycle: Conceptualization and managerial implications' Int'l J. of Production Economics 140,1 (Nov 2012) 541-553, at https://farapaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Fardapaper-The-technology-life-cycle-Conceptualization-and-managerial-implications.pdf
Verhoeven D., Kovacs A., Marullo C., Di Minin A. & Van Looy B. (2025) 'More or the same? Radical, disruptive, discontinuous, and breakthrough innovation' MSI Discussion Paper No. 2413, Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, 24 Jan 2025, at https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/784646
An early version of this paper was prepared and presented at a Workshop of the Program on Australia India Joint Impact Assessment of Critical Technologies for Peace and Stability.
Roger Clarke is Principal of Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra. He is also a Visiting Professorial Fellow associated with UNSW Law & Justice, and a Visiting Professor in Computing in the College of Systems & Society at the Australian National University.
| Personalia |
Photographs Presentations Videos |
Access Statistics |
 |
The content and infrastructure for these community service pages are provided by Roger Clarke through his consultancy company, Xamax. From the site's beginnings in August 1994 until February 2009, the infrastructure was provided by the Australian National University. During that time, the site accumulated close to 30 million hits. It passed 75 million in late 2024. Sponsored by the Gallery, Bunhybee Grasslands, the extended Clarke Family, Knights of the Spatchcock and their drummer |
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd ACN: 002 360 456 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 6916 |
Created: 8 February 2025 - Last Amended: 6 March 2025 by Roger Clarke - Site Last Verified: 15 February 2009
This document is at www.rogerclarke.com/EC/TIAF.html
Mail to Webmaster - © Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 1995-2024 - Privacy Policy
