Front Matter

Introduction

The Technology Question

The twenty-first century is increasingly characterized by rapid technological transformation. Technology is no longer simply a collection of tools designed to perform specific tasks. It has become an important component of the infrastructure through which modern societies communicate, produce goods and services, organize institutions, make decisions, educate populations, manage resources and construct social relationships.

Digital technologies have moved from being specialized organizational tools to becoming infrastructure for everyday social and economic life. Smartphones, cloud computing, digital platforms, artificial intelligence, automated decision systems, connected devices, robotics and data-intensive services now influence communication, commerce, education, healthcare, government, finance, transportation, entertainment and employment. In many settings, activities that previously required physical presence, manual processing or face-to-face interaction can now be performed through digital systems operating across geographical boundaries.

The transformation is not limited to the digital domain. Advances in biotechnology, materials science, nanotechnology, renewable energy, robotics, telecommunications, transportation and medical technologies are simultaneously changing the possibilities available to individuals, organizations and societies. Technologies increasingly interact with one another. Artificial intelligence depends upon computing infrastructure and data; autonomous systems depend upon sensors, communications networks and software; renewable-energy systems depend upon materials, manufacturing processes, storage technologies and electricity networks. Consequently, technologies should rarely be understood as isolated objects. They are components of larger technological, economic, environmental and social systems.

At the same time, technologies that were once considered experimental are increasingly moving toward commercial and institutional applications. Innovations can move rapidly from research laboratories into markets, workplaces, schools, hospitals and public institutions. This acceleration creates opportunities for productivity, innovation and social development, but it also creates challenges for organizations and policymakers because the consequences of technological adoption may emerge before institutions have developed adequate mechanisms for evaluation, regulation, governance and risk management.

Artificial intelligence provides perhaps the clearest contemporary example. Machine-learning systems can recognize patterns in enormous datasets, generate text and images, support scientific research, automate administrative activities and assist decision-making. Generative AI has further expanded the range of activities that can be partially automated or augmented, including writing, coding, information retrieval, translation, design, education and analytical work.

The growing capabilities of AI nevertheless raise a fundamental question: What should technology be expected to accomplish, and according to whose definition of value?

Technological capability does not automatically establish technological value.

A system may generate an answer without generating a reliable answer. An automated process may reduce labour requirements while increasing monitoring, reducing human autonomy or changing the distribution of responsibility. A digital platform may increase convenience while creating dependence on a particular provider. An AI system may achieve high aggregate accuracy while performing differently across demographic groups. A renewable-energy technology may reduce operational emissions while requiring substantial quantities of minerals, water and energy during extraction, processing and manufacturing.

Consequently, the evaluation of technology cannot be reduced to a single question such as whether a technology is innovative, efficient, profitable or technically sophisticated. A more meaningful assessment requires consideration of multiple dimensions simultaneously.

These dimensions may include technical performance, economic value, social consequences, environmental sustainability, ethical acceptability, organizational implications, security, privacy, human autonomy, accessibility and long-term resilience. The relative importance of each dimension may vary according to the technology, the context in which it is deployed and the stakeholders affected by it.

Technology as a Socio-Technical System

One of the limitations of conventional approaches to technology evaluation is the tendency to treat technology as a discrete physical or digital object. A smartphone, algorithm, industrial machine, medical device or AI model can be examined in terms of its technical specifications. However, the actual consequences of a technology emerge through interaction between the technological system and the social environment in which it operates.

Technology is therefore better understood as part of a socio-technical system.

A socio-technical perspective recognizes that technologies interact with people, organizations, institutions, cultures, regulations, markets, infrastructures and natural environments. The same technology may produce substantially different outcomes in different contexts because its effects depend upon how it is designed, implemented, governed and used.

For example, an AI-based decision-support system may improve organizational efficiency when appropriate data, human oversight, transparent procedures and qualified personnel are available. The same system may create significant problems when data quality is poor, users over-trust automated recommendations, accountability is unclear or affected individuals have no meaningful mechanism for review or appeal.

This distinction is important because technological outcomes are not determined solely by technological design. They are also shaped by institutional choices, human behaviour, economic incentives, regulatory structures and cultural expectations.

From Technological Progress to Technological Responsibility

The historical development of technology has frequently been associated with the concept of progress. New technologies have contributed to longer life expectancy, improved communication, increased productive capacity, expanded access to information and significant improvements in transportation, medicine and scientific knowledge.

However, technological progress is not synonymous with universal progress.

Technologies can distribute benefits and costs unevenly. Some individuals and organizations may gain substantially from technological change while others experience displacement, exclusion, surveillance, dependency or loss of economic opportunity. Technological systems may also create unintended consequences that become visible only after widespread adoption.

The central issue is therefore not whether societies should accept or reject technology. Such a binary approach is insufficient for understanding the complexity of technological development. The more important question concerns how technologies can be designed, selected, implemented and governed so that their benefits are maximized while foreseeable harms and unintended consequences are identified and managed.

This requires a shift from technological enthusiasm or technological pessimism toward technological responsibility.

Technological responsibility involves asking questions before, during and after implementation:

What problem is the technology intended to solve?

Who benefits from its implementation?

Who may bear its costs or risks?

What resources are required to develop and operate it?

What environmental consequences occur throughout its lifecycle?

What happens to workers and professional roles?

How does the technology affect human autonomy and decision-making?

What information is collected, stored or shared?

Who controls the resulting data and infrastructure?

What happens when the technology fails?

Who is accountable for errors or harmful outcomes?

Can affected individuals challenge or appeal automated decisions?

What happens when the technology reaches the end of its useful life?

Can the system be repaired, upgraded, reused or recycled?

What forms of dependency or technological lock-in may emerge?

These questions demonstrate that responsible technology assessment must extend beyond the moment of technological deployment.

The Lifecycle Problem

A particularly important consideration is that the consequences of technology begin before a user interacts with a technological product or service and continue after that interaction ends.

A digital device, for example, requires raw materials, component production, energy, transportation, assembly, software development, deployment, operation, maintenance and eventual disposal or recycling. Similarly, an AI system requires computational infrastructure, data, electricity, hardware, software, human expertise and continuous maintenance. Its environmental and social implications therefore cannot be understood solely by examining the final application.

This introduces the concept of lifecycle thinking.

Lifecycle thinking considers technology as a process rather than merely as a finished product. A simplified technology lifecycle may be represented as:

Raw Materials → Manufacturing → Transportation → Deployment → Operation → Maintenance → Reuse → Recycling/Disposal

Each stage may create benefits, costs, risks and dependencies.

The lifecycle perspective is particularly important because improvements at one stage may create unintended consequences at another. A technology that consumes less electricity during operation may require more energy-intensive manufacturing. A device designed for high performance may have a shorter useful life. A cloud-based service may reduce the need for local hardware while increasing dependence upon large-scale data centres. A product designed for rapid replacement may generate greater volumes of electronic waste.

Thus, technological sustainability requires consideration of the whole system and its lifecycle, rather than focusing exclusively on operational performance.

The Human Dimension of Technology

Technology ultimately exists within human societies. Even highly automated systems are created, financed, designed, implemented, maintained and governed by people.

The human dimension therefore remains central to technological evaluation.

Technology can augment human capabilities by extending memory, improving access to information, increasing physical capacity, supporting complex calculations and enabling communication across distance. It can also change the nature of work by reallocating tasks between humans and machines.

This creates an important distinction between automation and augmentation.

Automation seeks to transfer particular activities from humans to technological systems. Augmentation, by contrast, seeks to strengthen human capabilities through technological assistance. In many professional environments, the future of work may involve combinations of both processes rather than complete replacement of human labour.

The implications are consequently broader than employment numbers alone. Technological transformation may influence professional identity, skills requirements, organizational structures, decision-making authority, employee autonomy and the relationship between expertise and technology.

Education illustrates this particularly clearly. AI-assisted learning can provide individualized explanations, feedback and learning resources. At the same time, excessive dependence upon automated systems may affect critical thinking, independent reasoning, academic integrity and the development of human expertise. The educational question is therefore not simply whether AI can perform a particular task, but how AI can be incorporated without undermining the educational purposes that the task is intended to serve.

The Governance Dimension

As technologies become more powerful and interconnected, governance becomes increasingly important.

Technological governance concerns the structures, principles, policies and processes through which technological systems are developed, deployed, monitored and controlled. It includes questions of accountability, transparency, privacy, security, safety, regulatory compliance and stakeholder participation.

Governance is particularly significant where technological decisions can affect fundamental interests such as employment, financial access, healthcare, education, personal information or public services.

A technically functional system may therefore still be institutionally inappropriate if responsibility is unclear, oversight is inadequate or affected stakeholders have no meaningful opportunity to understand or challenge decisions.

This suggests that technological evaluation should incorporate not only the question “Does it work?”, but also:

“For whom does it work, under what conditions, at what cost, with what risks, and with what mechanisms of accountability?”

Beyond the Innovation Imperative

Contemporary organizations often operate under pressure to innovate. Innovation can create competitive advantage, improve productivity and enable new forms of value creation. However, innovation for its own sake is not necessarily beneficial.

The existence of a new technological capability does not establish that the capability should be implemented. Organizations must distinguish between technical possibility and organizational necessity.

A technology should therefore be evaluated in relation to the problem it is intended to address. If a problem can be solved more effectively, economically or sustainably through a simpler intervention, technological complexity may not be justified.

This principle is especially relevant in the age of AI. The appropriate question is not simply whether an organization can introduce AI, but whether AI creates meaningful additional value in the particular context. Such evaluation requires consideration of organizational objectives, user needs, available alternatives, implementation costs, risks and long-term consequences.

The Central Technology Question

The technology question can therefore be expressed more broadly:

How can technological capabilities be developed and used in ways that create meaningful human, organizational and societal value while managing economic, environmental, ethical and technological risks across the entire lifecycle?

This question moves the discussion beyond the traditional opposition between technology as progress and technology as threat.

Technology is neither inherently beneficial nor inherently harmful. Its consequences emerge through relationships among technological design, human purposes, organizational decisions, institutional structures, economic incentives, environmental conditions and patterns of use.

The task, therefore, is not simply to ask what technology can do.

It is to ask what technology should do, under what conditions, for whom, with what safeguards, and with what consequences over time.

These questions provide the foundation for a broader framework of technological evaluation—one that integrates capability, value, sustainability, ethics, human agency, governance, risk and lifecycle thinking. Such a framework is increasingly necessary as emerging technologies become more powerful, more interconnected and more deeply embedded within the structures of contemporary society.

From Technology Adoption to Technology Evaluation

Historically, organizations frequently approached technology through a relatively linear sequence:

Technology development → testing → investment → implementation → use.

Contemporary technological systems require a more sophisticated approach:

Problem identification → technology identification → evidence gathering → multidimensional evaluation → stakeholder analysis → risk assessment → pilot implementation → monitoring → reassessment → adaptation.

The difference is significant.

The first approach treats technology primarily as a solution.

The second treats technology as an intervention within a wider sociotechnical system.

A sociotechnical perspective recognizes that technologies interact with people, institutions, organizational structures, cultural expectations, economic incentives, laws, infrastructure and environmental systems. Consequently, the effects of technology cannot always be understood by examining the technological artefact in isolation.

This principle is particularly important for artificial intelligence. UNESCO's Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence emphasizes human rights and dignity, transparency and explainability, fairness, human oversight, environmental considerations and broader societal responsibilities in the development and use of AI (UNESCO, 2021).

The implication is that AI evaluation cannot be reduced to accuracy or computational performance.

The same principle applies to other emerging technologies.

What Is an Emerging Technology?

There is no single universally accepted definition of an emerging technology.

The term generally refers to technologies that are new, developing, rapidly advancing, gaining significance or likely to produce substantial future impacts. Some technologies are technically new; others represent new combinations of existing technologies.

Examples include:

generative artificial intelligence;

autonomous systems;

advanced robotics;

quantum computing;

synthetic biology;

gene-editing technologies;

digital twins;

Internet of Things systems;

advanced batteries;

hydrogen technologies;

carbon-capture technologies;

extended and augmented reality;

decentralized digital infrastructures;

advanced materials;

precision medicine; and

increasingly autonomous software systems.

Emergence is therefore not simply a matter of age.

A technology can be decades old but become “emerging” because a new application, business model, infrastructure development or technological breakthrough changes its potential.

This means that technology evaluation must consider technological maturity as well as technological novelty.

The Problem of Uncertainty

One of the central difficulties in evaluating emerging technologies is that evaluation frequently occurs before sufficient evidence exists.

An established technology may have years of operational data, known maintenance requirements, relatively predictable costs and extensive user experience.

An emerging technology may have:

limited longitudinal evidence;

uncertain costs;

changing technical specifications;

incomplete safety information;

uncertain regulatory treatment;

limited interoperability;

unclear environmental impacts;

changing business models;

rapidly evolving competitors;

uncertain user behaviour; and

unknown unintended consequences.

Consequently, decision-makers must often act before certainty is available.

The objective of technology evaluation is therefore not to eliminate uncertainty.

It is to make uncertainty visible and manageable.

This distinction is fundamental.

An evaluation that falsely presents uncertain information as certain may be more dangerous than an evaluation that explicitly identifies what is known, what is estimated and what remains unknown.

Technology Assessment and the Development of the Field

Technology assessment developed partly from the recognition that technological innovation can create consequences extending beyond the original intentions of developers and users.

Traditional approaches included technological forecasting, impact assessment and policy analysis. Later approaches expanded toward constructive technology assessment, participatory approaches, real-time assessment and responsible innovation (Smits et al., 1998).

The OECD's contemporary discussion of technology assessment similarly emphasizes evidence, interaction, societal consequences and decision-making under uncertainty (OECD, 2023).

The field has therefore progressively moved from asking:

“What technology will emerge?”

toward broader questions such as:

“What might this technology change?”

“Who may benefit?”

“Who may bear costs?”

“What risks could emerge?”

“What assumptions are embedded within the technology?”

“What governance arrangements are required?”

“How should society respond if outcomes differ from expectations?”

These questions form the intellectual foundation of this book.

The Adams Multidimensional Technology Evaluation Framework

The central conceptual contribution of this book is the Adams Multidimensional Technology Evaluation Framework.

The framework proposes that technology should be evaluated across ten dimensions rather than through a single measure of performance or financial return.

Dimension 1: Technical Performance

Does the technology work as intended?

Evaluation includes:

accuracy;

reliability;

speed;

scalability;

robustness;

resilience;

interoperability;

maintainability;

security;

performance under different conditions; and

technological maturity.

Dimension 2: Functional Effectiveness

Does the technology actually solve the problem for which it is being introduced?

A technologically sophisticated product can still be functionally ineffective if it does not address the underlying need.

Dimension 3: Economic Value

What are the costs and benefits?

Economic evaluation may include:

capital expenditure;

operating expenditure;

total cost of ownership;

return on investment;

productivity;

efficiency;

opportunity cost;

revenue generation;

cost avoidance;

social value; and

strategic value.

Dimension 4: Organizational Readiness

Can the organization successfully implement and sustain the technology?

Relevant factors include:

leadership;

culture;

infrastructure;

skills;

financial resources;

change-management capacity;

governance;

data maturity; and

employee readiness.

Dimension 5: Human Impact

How does the technology affect people?

Questions include:

Does it increase or reduce human autonomy?

Does it change employment?

Does it increase workload?

Does it reduce repetitive work?

Does it create new forms of surveillance?

Does it improve accessibility?

Does it create psychological or social pressures?

Does it preserve meaningful human agency?

Dimension 6: Social Consequences

How might the technology affect society?

This includes:

inequality;

inclusion;

access;

social cohesion;

public trust;

digital exclusion;

community structures;

social relationships; and

distribution of benefits and costs.

Dimension 7: Ethical Responsibility

Is the technology consistent with relevant ethical principles and human rights?

Evaluation may include:

fairness;

accountability;

transparency;

privacy;

dignity;

autonomy;

non-discrimination;

informed consent;

responsibility; and

human oversight.

Dimension 8: Environmental Sustainability

What environmental resources does the technology consume, and what environmental effects does it create?

This requires lifecycle thinking.

A technology should not be considered environmentally sustainable merely because its operational phase appears environmentally beneficial.

The assessment may include:

energy;

carbon emissions;

water;

raw materials;

mineral requirements;

biodiversity;

pollution;

waste;

recycling;

repairability; and

end-of-life management.

Life-cycle assessment is particularly relevant to emerging technologies because early-stage technologies often have uncertain environmental profiles and incomplete data (Moni et al., 2020).

Dimension 9: Risk and Security

What could go wrong?

Risk assessment may address:

operational failure;

cybersecurity;

privacy;

financial loss;

safety;

environmental harm;

legal exposure;

reputational damage;

supply-chain disruption;

systemic dependency; and

malicious use.

Dimension 10: Governance and Regulatory Compatibility

Can the technology be governed effectively?

This includes:

legal compliance;

regulatory requirements;

standards;

accountability;

institutional responsibilities;

auditability;

documentation;

oversight;

procurement rules; and

mechanisms for redress.

A Conceptual Model of Technology Evaluation

The Adams Multidimensional Technology Evaluation Framework

Figure 0.1 — The Adams Multidimensional Technology Evaluation Framework,

Conceptual Explanation

The Adams Multidimensional Technology Evaluation Framework conceptualizes technology evaluation as a structured, evidence-based, multidimensional, and cyclical process. The framework begins with the technology itself and the identification of the problem or need that the technology is intended to address. This initial stage establishes the purpose and context of evaluation before evidence is collected and assessed.

Evidence collection forms the foundation for the multidimensional assessment. Rather than evaluating a technology through a single technical or financial criterion, the framework examines several interconnected dimensions. These include technical performance, economic value, human impact, functional effectiveness, organizational readiness, social consequences, ethical responsibility, environmental sustainability, and risk and security. Together, these dimensions recognize that the value of a technology depends not only on whether it works technically, but also on whether it is economically viable, organizationally feasible, socially responsible, ethically defensible, environmentally sustainable, and appropriately managed in relation to risk and security.

The multidimensional evidence is then considered within the broader context of governance and regulation. This stage recognizes that technology decisions are influenced by laws, policies, institutional governance arrangements, professional standards, regulatory requirements, accountability mechanisms, and other contextual constraints. Governance and regulation therefore provide an important decision-making boundary within which technology adoption and implementation should occur.

Following the evaluation, decision-makers have three principal options: adopt, adapt, or reject. Adoption represents proceeding with the technology in its evaluated form; adaptation represents modifying, redesigning, restricting, or otherwise adjusting the technology or its implementation to address identified issues; and rejection represents deciding not to proceed where the evidence, risks, constraints, or contextual conditions do not support implementation.

A central feature of the framework is that the decision does not represent the end of evaluation. Once a technology is adopted or adapted, it should be monitored and reassessed. Implementation generates new evidence concerning performance, costs, user experiences, organizational effects, unintended consequences, ethical considerations, environmental effects, and emerging risks. This evidence should feed back into the evaluation process, thereby creating a continuous cycle of learning, reassessment, and decision-making.

Accordingly, the framework is intentionally cyclical rather than strictly linear. It treats technology evaluation as an ongoing process in which decisions remain open to review as new evidence, changing circumstances, emerging technologies, regulatory developments, and stakeholder experiences become available. The model therefore provides a conceptual basis for evaluating technology not simply as a product or technical artefact, but as a complex intervention operating within economic, organizational, human, social, ethical, environmental, regulatory, and risk-related systems.

Core Principle

Technology evaluation is cyclical: evidence informs decisions, implementation generates new evidence, and new evidence feeds continuous evaluation.

Figure 0.1. The Adams Multidimensional Technology Evaluation Framework — Technology Evaluation as a Research Problem

Technology evaluation is also a research problem.

Researchers studying emerging technologies may ask:

What problem does the technology address?

What evidence demonstrates technical effectiveness?

What are the direct and indirect economic effects?

What organizational capabilities are required?

What human behaviours may change?

What social groups may benefit or experience disadvantages?

What ethical concerns arise?

What environmental impacts occur across the lifecycle?

What risks and security vulnerabilities exist?

What governance mechanisms are necessary?

What uncertainties remain?

How should the technology be monitored after implementation?

These questions can support qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods research.

Why a Multidimensional Approach Is Necessary

A technology may satisfy one evaluation dimension while failing another.

Consider a hypothetical AI recruitment system.

Technically, the system may process applications rapidly.

Functionally, it may reduce administrative workload.

Economically, it may lower recruitment costs.

Organizationally, however, employees may lack the skills necessary to monitor the system.

From a human perspective, applicants may have limited understanding of how decisions are generated.

Socially, the system could create unequal outcomes if historical recruitment data contain systematic biases.

Ethically, questions of fairness, transparency and accountability may arise.

From a security perspective, applicant data may become a target for cyberattacks.

From a governance perspective, the organization may need documentation, audit procedures, human review and mechanisms for appeal.

Consequently, “the system works” is only one part of the evaluation.

The Difference Between Evaluation and Promotion

A central principle of this book is that technology evaluation should not become technology promotion.

Evaluation begins with questions rather than conclusions.

It does not assume that newer technology is better than older technology.

It does not assume that digital technology is automatically more efficient.

It does not assume that artificial intelligence should replace human work.

It does not assume that technological disruption is inherently desirable.

Equally, it does not assume that technological change is inherently harmful.

The purpose of systematic evaluation is to examine evidence.

This principle is especially important because technological narratives are often influenced by commercial interests, institutional incentives, media attention and social expectations. Technology assessment therefore requires methodological discipline.

Technology Evaluation and Decision-Making

Technology evaluation does not eliminate judgment.

Instead, it improves the information available for judgment.

A manager may ultimately decide not to adopt a technology because implementation risk is too high. Another organization may determine that the same technology is appropriate because it has stronger infrastructure, greater expertise or different strategic objectives.

Similarly, a government may permit a technology under specific regulatory conditions rather than simply approving or banning it.

This suggests that evaluation should produce decision options rather than predetermined answers.

The principal decision categories used in this book are:

These categories should be applied transparently and supported by evidence.

Structure of the Book

The book consists of nineteen chapters organized into five major parts.

Part I establishes the conceptual foundations of technology evaluation.

Chapter 1 examines emerging and new technologies.

Chapter 2 traces the evolution of technology assessment.

Chapter 3 explains why technology evaluation is difficult.

Chapter 4 introduces the Adams Multidimensional Technology Evaluation Framework.

Part II examines the principal evaluation dimensions.

Chapter 5 addresses technical and functional evaluation.

Chapter 6 examines economic and business value.

Chapter 7 examines human, social and ethical effects.

Chapter 8 examines environmental sustainability and lifecycle evaluation.

Part III applies evaluation principles to risk, governance and major technology categories.

Chapter 9 addresses risk, security, governance and regulation.

Chapter 10 examines artificial intelligence and intelligent technologies.

Chapter 11 evaluates digital, connected and data-driven technologies.

Chapter 12 examines biotechnology, healthcare and human-centred technologies.

Part IV examines energy, organizational adoption, research methods and education.

Chapter 13 addresses energy, climate and sustainable technologies.

Chapter 14 examines organizational readiness and technology adoption.

Chapter 15 presents research methods and practical evaluation tools.

Chapter 16 applies the framework to education and higher education.

Part V addresses global application and the future.

Chapter 17 examines technology evaluation in developing and emerging economies.

Chapter 18 presents a responsible technology evaluation system.

Chapter 19 considers the future of technology evaluation.

The book concludes by integrating the framework and proposing directions for future research.

Intended Contribution

The intended contribution of this book is both conceptual and practical.

Conceptually, it proposes that technology evaluation should be understood as a multidimensional, interdisciplinary and continuous process.

Practically, it provides researchers, managers, educators and policy makers with tools that can be adapted to specific technological contexts.

The framework is deliberately designed to be flexible.

The relative importance of each dimension may vary according to the technology.

For example, environmental sustainability may receive substantial attention when evaluating energy technologies. Human safety may be central to healthcare technologies. Cybersecurity may receive greater emphasis when evaluating critical digital infrastructure. Ethical considerations may be particularly important for AI systems involved in consequential decision-making.

The ten dimensions therefore function as a comprehensive evaluation architecture rather than a rigid formula.

The Central Proposition of the Book

The central proposition can be stated as follows:

Emerging technologies should be evaluated not only according to whether they are technically feasible, but according to whether they create sustainable, economically meaningful, organizationally achievable, human-centred, socially responsible, ethically defensible, environmentally sustainable, secure and governable outcomes within their intended context.

This proposition provides the foundation for the chapters that follow.

How to Use This Book

The book can be used in several ways.

For students, each chapter provides conceptual explanations, examples, research questions and discussion questions.

For researchers, the framework can be used to construct conceptual models, research instruments and mixed-methods evaluation designs.

For managers, the evaluation matrices can support technology investment and implementation decisions.

For policy makers, the framework can support technology governance, regulatory analysis and strategic technology assessment.

For educators, the chapters can provide material for courses in technology management, innovation, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, sustainability, research methodology and higher education.

For organizations, the framework can be adapted into a technology evaluation committee process.

A practical implementation sequence is:

Define the problem.

Identify the technology or technology alternatives.

Establish the evaluation objectives.

Identify stakeholders.

Define the ten evaluation dimensions.

Establish measurable criteria.

Gather evidence.

Identify uncertainties.

Conduct the multidimensional assessment.

Compare alternatives.

Identify safeguards and implementation requirements.

Conduct a pilot where appropriate.

Monitor outcomes.

Reassess periodically.

The final step is particularly important.

Technology evaluation should never be regarded as permanently completed.

Concluding Statement to the Introduction

Technology has become one of the principal forces shaping contemporary society. The challenge facing organizations, governments, universities and communities is therefore not whether technological change will occur. Technological change will continue.

The more important question is how technological change should be understood, evaluated and governed.

A society that evaluates technology only through economic return may overlook social consequences. A society that evaluates it only through technical performance may overlook ethical risks. A society that evaluates it only through environmental impact may overlook organizational realities. A society that evaluates it only through regulation may fail to recognize innovation opportunities.

Comprehensive evaluation requires integration.

The objective of this book is to provide such an integrated approach.

The Adams Multidimensional Technology Evaluation Framework begins from a simple principle: every technology exists within a wider human, organizational, economic, social and environmental system.

Understanding that system is essential to understanding the technology itself.

The chapters that follow develop this principle into a practical and research-oriented framework for evaluating emerging technologies in an era characterized by rapid innovation, uncertainty and technological convergence.

Suggested Chapter Research Orientation

The following overarching research questions emerge from the introduction and can guide the research architecture of the entire book:

RQ1. How can emerging technologies be evaluated systematically across technical, economic, organizational, human, social, ethical, environmental, risk and governance dimensions?

RQ2. What methodological approaches are most appropriate for evaluating technologies characterized by uncertainty, rapid development and incomplete evidence?

RQ3. How can technology evaluation incorporate the perspectives of diverse stakeholders affected by technological adoption?

RQ4. How can organizations distinguish technological capability from technological value?

RQ5. How can technology evaluation support responsible innovation while preserving opportunities for technological development?

RQ6. How can evaluation frameworks be adapted to different technological sectors, organizational contexts and national environments?

RQ7. How should emerging technologies be monitored and reassessed after implementation?

Key Terms Introduced in the Book

Technology assessment: A systematic process for examining the consequences, implications and potential impacts of technologies to support informed decision-making.

Emerging technology: A developing or evolving technology whose capabilities, applications, impacts or significance are not yet fully established.

Technology evaluation: The systematic assessment of a technology against defined technical, economic, organizational, human, social, ethical, environmental, risk and governance criteria.

Sociotechnical system: A system in which technology interacts with human beings, organizations, institutions, social structures and environmental conditions.

Responsible innovation: An approach to innovation that considers broader societal values, impacts, responsibilities and stakeholder perspectives.

Technology readiness: The degree to which a technology has progressed toward reliable and practical deployment.

Technology governance: The structures, processes, rules and responsibilities through which technology is directed, monitored and controlled.

Technology lifecycle: The sequence from technology conception and development through production, deployment, use, maintenance and eventual retirement or disposal.

Multidimensional evaluation: Evaluation using multiple complementary criteria rather than a single performance measure.

Responsible technology evaluation: An approach that integrates evidence, uncertainty, stakeholder interests, ethical considerations, sustainability, risk and governance into technology decision-making.

End of Front Matter and Introduction

The next section of the manuscript begins with Part I: Foundations of Technology Evaluation, starting with Chapter 1, “Understanding Emerging and New Technologies.”