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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Wilson, Christopher & van der Velden, Maja, 2022. "Sustainable AI: An integrated model to guide public sector decision-making," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Antoine Boche & Clément Foucher & Luiz Fernando Lavado Villa, 2022. "Understanding Microgrid Sustainability: A Systemic and Comprehensive Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-29, April.
    4. Taghizadeh-Hesary, Farhad & Rasoulinezhad, Ehsan & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Vinh Vo, Xuan, 2021. "How energy transition and power consumption are related in Asian economies with different income levels?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    5. Joshua Sohn & Pierre Bisquert & Patrice Buche & Abdelraouf Hecham & Pradip P. Kalbar & Ben Goldstein & Morten Birkved & Stig Irving Olsen, 2020. "Argumentation Corrected Context Weighting-Life Cycle Assessment: A Practical Method of Including Stakeholder Perspectives in Multi-Criteria Decision Support for LCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-23, March.
    6. repec:eco:journ2:2017-04-06 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. Ponce, Pedro & Polasko, Kenneth & Molina, Arturo, 2016. "End user perceptions toward smart grid technology: Acceptance, adoption, risks, and trust," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 587-598.
    9. Leezna Saleem & Imran Ahmad Siddiqui & Intikhab Ulfat, 2021. "The prioritization of renewable energy technologies in Pakistan: An urgent need," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2021(1), pages 81-103.
    10. Mikelis Grivins & Talis Tisenkopfs & Zaklina Stojanovic & Bojan Ristic, 2016. "A Comparative Analysis of the Social Performance of Global and Local Berry Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-20, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Daim, Tugrul & Cowan, Kelly, 2010. "Assessing renewable energy portfolio futures with multiple perspectives: The case of the northwest US," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 255-263.
    13. 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.
    14. Z. Goosen & E. J. Cilliers, 2020. "Enhancing Social Sustainability Through the Planning of Third Places: A Theory-Based Framework," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 835-866, August.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    20. Amrinder Kaur & Puja Chhabra Sharma, 2018. "Social sustainability in supply chain decisions: Indian manufacturers," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1707-1721, August.
    21. Florin Mariasiu, 2013. "Consumers’ Attitudes Related to Biofuel Use in Transportation," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-9.

    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.