IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v67y2021ics0160791x21002116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the method for Military Utility Assessment of Future Technologies provide utility?

Author

Listed:
  • Silfverskiöld, Stefan
  • Andersson, Kent
  • Lundmark, Martin

Abstract

The Military Utility Assessment of Future Technologies (MUAFT) method was developed as a cost-efficient alternative to methods such as NATO's Disruptive Technology Assessment Games, to be used as a part of the Swedish Armed Forces' long-term capability development process. The question addressed in this study is whether MUAFT can be considered to have validity in its context and thus if it has potential to be useful to other small to medium size states. The analysis was based on an operationalization of Clark's framework for science and technology intelligence analysis, combined with a military capability centric view of military utility. MUAFT reports from 2012 to 2018 were reviewed in terms of how they satisfy five key criteria. The study shows that MUAFT provides utility, if used by a suitably composed group of experts, who are aware of the method's limitations. The limitations mainly originate from a lack of explicit support for assessing the impact of forces for change, other than technological forces, on military capability development. The expert group serves as the synthesizing bridge between technology forecasts and military utility assessments. Therefore, comprehensive expertise is needed in various military technology specialisations, in the sponsor's military capabilities and in subjects necessary to master in order to assess other influential societal forces for change.

Suggested Citation

  • Silfverskiöld, Stefan & Andersson, Kent & Lundmark, Martin, 2021. "Does the method for Military Utility Assessment of Future Technologies provide utility?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:67:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x21002116
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101736
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X21002116
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101736?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kalbar, Pradip P. & Karmakar, Subhankar & Asolekar, Shyam R., 2012. "Technology assessment for wastewater treatment using multiple-attribute decision-making," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 295-302.
    2. Schnaars, Steven, 2009. "Forecasting the future of technology by analogy—An evaluation of two prominent cases from the 20th century," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 187-195.
    3. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    4. Daim, Tugrul & Yates, Diane & Peng, Yicheng & Jimenez, Bertha, 2009. "Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: The case of the Pacific Northwest," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 232-243.
    5. Linares, Ian Marques Porto & De Paulo, Alex Fabianne & Porto, Geciane Silveira, 2019. "Patent-based network analysis to understand technological innovation pathways and trends," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    6. Kott, Alexander & Perconti, Philip, 2018. "Long-term forecasts of military technologies for a 20–30 year horizon: An empirical assessment of accuracy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 272-279.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Undheim, Trond Arne, 2024. "In search of better methods for the longitudinal assessment of tech-derived X-risks: How five leading scenario planning efforts can help," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kimmel, Shawn C. & Toohey, Nathan M. & Delborne, Jason A., 2016. "Roadblocks to responsible innovation: Exploring technology assessment and adoption in U.S. public highway construction," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 66-77.
    2. Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Ouma-Mugabe, John, 2024. "A generic technology assessment framework for sustainable energy transitions in African contexts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Ana Beatriz Hernández-Lara & Juan Pablo Gonzales-Bustos & Amado Alarcón-Alarcón, 2021. "Social Sustainability on Corporate Boards: The Effects of Female Family Members on R&D," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Samira Shayanmehr & Jana Ivanič Porhajašová & Mária Babošová & Mahmood Sabouhi Sabouni & Hosein Mohammadi & Shida Rastegari Henneberry & Naser Shahnoushi Foroushani, 2022. "The Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources and Crop Production in an Arid Region," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, July.
    5. Yong-Jae Lee & Young Jae Han & Sang-Soo Kim & Chulung Lee, 2022. "Patent Data Analytics for Technology Forecasting of the Railway Main Transformer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, December.
    6. Eirini Triantafyllidou & Anastasia Zabaniotou, 2022. "From Theory to Praxis: ‘Go Sustainable Living’ Survey for Exploring Individuals Consciousness Level of Decision-Making and Action-Taking in Daily Life Towards a Green Citizenship," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 113-139, March.
    7. Yuan, Xueliang & Zuo, Jian & Ma, Chunyuan, 2011. "Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in China--End users' perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1031-1036, March.
    8. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Güleryüz, Sezin, 2016. "An integrated DEMATEL-ANP approach for renewable energy resources selection in Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 435-448.
    9. Sarvenaz Pakravan & Shahin Keynoush & Ehsan Daneshyar, 2022. "Proposing a Pedagogical Framework for Integrating Urban Agriculture as a Tool to Achieve Social Sustainability within the Interior Design Studio," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-32, June.
    10. Gruetzemacher, Ross & Dorner, Florian E. & Bernaola-Alvarez, Niko & Giattino, Charlie & Manheim, David, 2021. "Forecasting AI progress: A research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    11. Florin Mariasiu, 2013. "Consumers’ Attitudes Related to Biofuel Use in Transportation," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9.
    12. Weiss, Daniel & Nemeczek, Fabian, 2021. "A text-based monitoring tool for the legitimacy and guidance of technological innovation systems," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    13. Mumtaz Karatas, 2017. "Multiattribute Decision Making Using Multiperiod Probabilistic Weighted Fuzzy Axiomatic Design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 318-334, July.
    14. Indranil De & Rooba Hasan & Mubashshir Iqbal, 2022. "Natural Treatment Systems and Importance of Social Cost Benefit Analysis in Developing Countries: A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Saba Alnusairat & Jenan Abu Qadourah & Rawan Khattab, 2023. "Assessing the Future City Post COVID-19: Linking the SDGs, Health, Resilience, and Psychological Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, January.
    16. Karatayev, Marat & Hall, Stephen & Kalyuzhnova, Yelena & Clarke, Michèle L., 2016. "Renewable energy technology uptake in Kazakhstan: Policy drivers and barriers in a transitional economy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 120-136.
    17. Hempel, Corinna & Will, Sabine & Zander, Katrin, 2019. "Societal Perspectives on a Bio‐economy in Germany: An Explorative Study Using Q Methodology," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(01), January.
    18. Xinyu Liu & Daan Schraven & Mark de Bruijne & Martin de Jong & Marcel Hertogh, 2019. "Navigating Transitions for Sustainable Infrastructures—The Case of a New High-Speed Railway Station in Jingmen, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, August.
    19. Wang, Lei & Chen, Yangyang & Ramsey, Thomas Stephen & Hewings, Geoffrey J.D., 2021. "Will researching digital technology really empower green development?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Xia Cao & Chuanyun Li & Jinqiu Li & Yunchang Li, 2022. "Modeling and simulation of knowledge creation and diffusion in an industry-university-research cooperative innovation network: a case study of China’s new energy vehicles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3935-3957, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:67:y:2021:i:c:s0160791x21002116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.