+1443 776-2705 panelessays@gmail.com

1.words:3500

2.Emerging Technologies must write iPhone 

3.You need to write the report according to the PPT content

4.You need to write the report according to the contents of the Word document

5.This report is about the iPhone

TeessideUniversity

Emerging Technologies for the Enterprise

BIN3025-N-BF1-2021

ECA – PARt 2

Individual Assessment

Name & Surname

Student Number

SUBMISSION DATE

Word count

Table of Contents Acknowledgment 2 Conclusion 2 refrences 3

Table of figures

No table of figures entries found.

Acknowledgment

introduction

1. Tell the reader about your chosen digital technology.

2. Tell the reader why it is worth discussing your chosen technology.

3. Tell the reader about the structure of the essay and what is expected to be read in each of the sections below.

Name of your chosen digital technology goes here – 20%

1. Define your chosen technology.

a. Take two definistions and compare them and let the reader know which definition you choose and why?

2. Tell the reader why it is important to consider if the chosen digital tech is emergent or not.

3. In this section use the attributes introduced by Rotole, Heeks and Martin’s (2015) seminal paper and clrealy argue for and against on why your chosen digital tech is qualified to be known as emergent.

4. You can use other journal and conference papers to support your arguemnet.

context and use cases – 25%

1. Tell the reader about the context in which you would like to discuss the use cases of the chosen digital tech.

2. Discuss different use cases of the chosen digital tech.

3. What is the most common use case?

4. What are the values?

5. What are the issues?

6. Create a table of all values and issues.

Note: In this section you should demonstrate a deep engagemnet with the literature.

a socio-technical approach to the use case – 15%

1. Use Evans (2017) model to discuss the most common use case.

2. Provide a critique on Evans (2017) model.

a. First, by telling the reader how Evans Model could be seen from socio-technical perspective.

b. Second, by showing your awareness of critiques of the socio-technical approach.

c. Third, by arguing why socio-technical approach is not sufficient to understand all the values and issues.

A multi-modal approach to the USe CASE – 25%

1. Introduce a multi-modal theory.

2. Run a multi-modal analysis of all the issues and values.

3. Demonstarte the result of your analysis in one or two tables.

4. Compare and contrast the results.

implications for decision makers – 15%

1. Discuss the implications of your analysis from the previous section.

a. Discuss the implications for the decision-makers (politicians, managers, etc)

Conclusion

1. Tell the reader what have you discussed in this essay

2. What is the key takeaway?

refrences

1. Priority goes to journal articles, then to conference articles , then to the book chapters

Please Note: Avoid citing and referencing blogs and wikipedia

Page | 2

,

Emerging Technologies for the Enterprise BIN3025

Module Leader & Tutor

Dr Sina Joneidy

Lecture 8

Week 8

Structure of the session:

Aim of the session.

Linking your learning to the assessment.

A bit of lecture and watching videos.

Individual interactive activity.

A bit of hint for your assessment.

What is the aim of the lecture and workshop in Week 8?

To develop further of understanding of the moral and ethical concerns use of digital technologies

Linked to ECA Part 2

Link to the ECA Part 2 – 80%

What is Metaverse? What are some of the concerns around it?

5

AI Ethics: Dimensions of Autonomy in Intelligent Systems

6

AI Strategy, Policy and Governance

7

References:

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., … & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707.

Ashok, M., Madan, R., Joha, A., & Sivarajah, U. (2022). Ethical framework for artificial intelligence and digital technologies. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102433.

Thank you

9

,

Emerging Technologies for the Enterprise BIN3025

Module Leader & Tutor

Dr Sina Joneidy

Lecture 9

Week 9

What is the aim of the lecture and workshop in Week 9?

To discuss the notion of Digital Tech Policy

Linked to ECA Part 2 – where you need to discuss the implications for policy-makers

Emerging Digital Technologies Policy

Theories on the socio-economic significance

Areas of Digital Technology policy

Looking critically at Digital Technology policy case studies

Emerging Digital Technologies Policy

Why the study of Digital Tech policy is important for managers and professionals?

Managers are at the frontier of tech innovation with their organisations and often play advisory role in policy making at a macro-level.

They need to understand the broader issues of concerns.

Effective Digital strategy formulation and Digital Transformation require broader understanding of the context within which the organisation is embedded. So understanding national and international policies are important. New liberation of X or New regulation of Y!

Messages from international Development Institutions

UNDP 2001: Making new technologies work for human development.

Fundamental interrelation between technological innovation and the development of human capabilities in order to live a fulfilled life.

Messages from international Development Institutions

UNDP 2001: Making new technologies work for human development.

Tech innovation enhance human capabilities

To live a health life.

To acquire knowledge.

To be creative.

To participate in social, economic and political life of a community.

Messages from international Development Institutions

UNDP 2001: Making new technologies work for human development.

At the same time, human capabilities are an important means of achieving technological innovation.

Messages from international Development Institutions

UNDP 2001: Making new technologies work for human development.

Question for policy makers:

“How to foster such a virtuous circle of associating tech innovation in business and government organisations, as well as in the everyday life of individuals, with the enhancement of human capabilities for longer and more prosperous lives, better educated citizens and social and political freedom?”

Complex issues that need policy attention

Why the interrelation between tech innovation and human development is hardly felt in some countries, some cities, some region and towns?

Ability to translate tech capabilities to human development effect.

Tech innovation on its own does not produce any effect for anyone.

How to use it? how to design it? how to implement it?

Even in most advanced economies tech innovation does not necessary help productivity.

Deployment of tech means redesigning business processes

Change of jobs

Social mechanism

Change of education

Gathering more information about individuals:

lead to more freedom or more control?

Avoiding technology-deterministic conception

Technology does not define your destiny – it is just one of the pieces of the puzzle

It is not enough to foster and deploy latest tech.

Business and government must pursue appropriate organisational change.

Business and government must pursue appropriate organisational adaptation.

The “Information Society”

For the purpose of Digital Tech policy, a better understanding of the information society concept is needed.

Webster provided us with five different definitions of information Society:

Technological – ICT innovation signals a major socio-economic transformation.

Economic – Shift from tech to information and its impact on economic growth.

Occupational – related to information-based activities in all industries.

Spatial – geographical location of businesses does not matter anymore.

Cultural – circulation of cultural messages by media.

References:

"UNDP. 2001. Human Development Report 2001: Making New Technologies Work for Human Development. http://www.hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2001."

Thank you

13

,

W

D a

b

c

U

a

A R R A A

K E C D A O D F S I S

1

i i p i m g t c e b i c 2

S

d

h 0

Research Policy 44 (2015) 1827–1843

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research Policy

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / r e s p o l

hat is an emerging technology?

aniele Rotolo a,b,∗, Diana Hicks b, Ben R. Martin a,c

SPRU – Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9SL, United Kingdom School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta 30332-0345, United States Centre for Science and Policy (CSAP) and Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QA, nited Kingdom

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history: eceived 11 December 2014 eceived in revised form 15 June 2015 ccepted 16 June 2015 vailable online 9 August 2015

eywords: merging technologies onceptualisation efinition ttributes of emergence

a b s t r a c t

There is considerable and growing interest in the emergence of novel technologies, especially from the policy-making perspective. Yet, as an area of study, emerging technologies lack key foundational ele- ments, namely a consensus on what classifies a technology as ‘emergent’ and strong research designs that operationalise central theoretical concepts. The present paper aims to fill this gap by developing a definition of ‘emerging technologies’ and linking this conceptual effort with the development of a frame- work for the operationalisation of technological emergence. The definition is developed by combining a basic understanding of the term and in particular the concept of ‘emergence’ with a review of key innovation studies dealing with definitional issues of technological emergence. The resulting definition identifies five attributes that feature in the emergence of novel technologies. These are: (i) radical novelty, (ii) relatively fast growth, (iii) coherence, (iv) prominent impact, and (v) uncertainty and ambiguity. The

perationalisation etection and analysis ramework cientometrics ndicators cience and Technology Studies (STS)

framework for operationalising emerging technologies is then elaborated on the basis of the proposed attributes. To do so, we identify and review major empirical approaches (mainly in, although not limited to, the scientometric domain) for the detection and study of emerging technologies (these include indica- tors and trend analysis, citation analysis, co-word analysis, overlay mapping, and combinations thereof) and elaborate on how these can be used to operationalise the different attributes of emergence.

© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Emerging technologies have been the subject of much debate n academic research and a central topic in policy discussions and nitiatives. Evidence of the increasing attention being paid to the henomenon of emerging technologies can be found in the grow-

ng number of publications dealing with the topic and news articles entioning emerging technologies (in their headlines or lead para-

raphs), as depicted in Fig. 1. Increasing policy interest in emerging echnologies, however, must be set against a literature where no onsensus has emerged as to what qualifies a technology to be mergent. Definitions proposed by a number of studies overlap, ut also point to different characteristics. For example, certain def-

nitions emphasise the potential impact emerging technologies are apable of exerting on the economy and society (e.g. Porter et al., 002), especially when they are of a more ‘generic’ nature (Martin,

∗ Corresponding author at: SPRU – Science Policy Research Unit, University of ussex, Brighton BN1 9SL, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1273 872980.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Rotolo), [email protected] (D. Hicks), [email protected] (B.R. Martin).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006 048-7333/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1995), while others give great importance to the uncertainty asso- ciated with the emergence process (e.g. Boon and Moors, 2008) or to the characteristics of novelty and growth (e.g. Small et al., 2014). The understanding of emerging technologies also depends on the analyst’s perspective. An analyst may consider a technology emer- gent because of its novelty and expected socio-economic impact, while others may see the same technology as a natural extension of an existing technology. Also, emerging technologies are often grouped together under ‘general labels’ (e.g. nanotechnology, syn- thetic biology), when they might be better treated separately given their different socio-technical features (e.g. technical difficulties, involved actors, applications, uncertainties).

The lack of consensus over definitions is matched by an ‘eclec- tic’ and ad hoc approach to measurement. A wide variety of methodological approaches have been developed, especially by the scientometric community, for the detection and analysis of emer- gence in science and technology domains (e.g. Porter and Detampel, 1995; Boyack et al., 2014; Glänzel and Thijs, 2012). These methods,

favoured, because they take advantage of growing computational power and large new datasets and allow one to work with more sophisticated indicators and models, lack strong connections to well thought out concepts that one is attempting to measure, a basic

1828 D. Rotolo et al. / Research Policy 44 (2015) 1827–1843

Year

N u

m b

e r

o f p

u b lic

a tio

n s

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

0 5

0 1

0 0

1 5

0 2

0 0

2 5

0 3

0 0

Year

0 5

0 0

1 0

0 0

1 5

0 0

2 0

0 0

2 5

0 0

3 0

0 0

3 5

0 0

N u

m b

e r

o f n e w

s a

rt ic

le s

News articles Publications in all disciplines Publications in social sciences

Fig. 1. Publications (left axis) and news articles (right axis) including the variations of the term “emerging technologies”. Publications were retrieved by querying SCOPUS: “TITLE(“emerg* technol*”) OR TITLE(“emergence of* technolog*”) OR TITLE(“techn* emergence”) OR TITLE(“emerg* scien* technol*”)”. Publications in social sciences were defined as those assigned to the SCOPUS categories “Business, Management and Accounting”, “Decision Sciences”, “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”, “Multidisciplinary”, “Psychology”, and “Social Sciences”. News articles were identified by searching for “emerg* near2 technolog*” in article headlines and lead paragraphs as reported in FACTIVA. F conc 1 ly gro

S

t c f t o I a d n

g a a n

o c t n c u o t o g o c s i a a

i r

rom 1980 to 2013, the average yearly growth rates of the number of publications 2.5% and 23.8%, respectively. The total number of publications in SCOPUS has year

ource: search performed by authors on SCOPUS and FACTIVA.

enet of good research design. Often no definition of the central con- ept of an emerging technology is provided. It is no surprise there- ore that approaches to the detection and analysis of emergence end to differ greatly even with the use of the same or similar meth- ds. The operationalisation of emergence is also in a state of flux. t changes as new categorisations (e.g. new terms in institution- lised vocabularies, new technological classes) are created within atabases. This, in turn, makes less clear the exact nature of the phe- omena that these scientometric methods enable us to examine.

These problems in the effort to understand emerging technolo- ies limit the utility of the research and so may hamper resource llocation and the development of regulations, which, in turn, have

major role in supporting and shaping the directionality of tech- ological emergence.

The present paper addresses both the conceptual and method- logical gaps. We aim to elaborate a framework that links what is onceptualised as ‘emerging technologies’ with its measurement, hus providing guidance to future research (e.g. development of ovel methods for the detection of emergence and analysis of its haracteristics) and to policy-making (e.g. resource allocation, reg- lation). To do so, we first attempt to clarify the conceptualisation f emerging technologies by integrating different conceptual con- ributions on the topic into a more precise and coherent definition f ‘emerging technology’. We begin with the definition of ‘emer- ence’ or ‘emergent’, which is the process of coming into being, or f becoming important and prominent. This is then enriched and ontextualised with a review of major contributions to innovation tudies that have focused on technological emergence, highlight- ng both their common and contradictory features. Conceptual ttempts to grapple with emergence in complex systems theory are

lso discussed where relevant to the idea of emergent technology.

The result is the delineation of five key attributes that qual- fy a technology as emerging. These are: (i) radical novelty, (ii) elatively fast growth, (iii) coherence, (iv) prominent impact, and

erning emerging technologies in all disciplines and in social sciences have been of wn on average by 4.9%.

(v) uncertainty and ambiguity. Specifically, we conceive of an emerging technology as a radically novel and relatively fast growing technology characterised by a certain degree of coherence persisting over time and with the potential to exert a considerable impact on the socio-economic domain(s) which is observed in terms of the compo- sition of actors, institutions and patterns of interactions among those, along with the associated knowledge production processes. Its most prominent impact, however, lies in the future and so in the emergence phase is still somewhat uncertain and ambiguous.

Second, the framework for operationalising emerging technolo- gies is developed on the basis of the attributes we identified. The scientometric literature forms the core of the methods dis- cussed because, as mentioned, this field has been remarkably active in developing methodologies for the detection and analysis of emergence in science and technology. The reviewed methods are grouped into five main categories: (i) indicators and trend analysis, (ii) citation analysis (including direct citation and co-citation anal- ysis, and bibliographic coupling), (iii) co-word analysis, (iv) overlay mapping, and (v) hybrid approaches that combine two or more of the above. Because scientometric techniques cannot address all the attributes comprehensively, we also discuss approaches developed in other fields.

The paper is organised as follows. The next section introduces the concept of emergence and its various components. In Sec- tion 3, these elements are integrated with key innovation studies proposing definitions of technological emergence, and a definition of emerging technologies is then elaborated. Section 4 reviews methods to both detect and analyse emergence, and then examines the use of those approaches to operationalise the proposed defini- tion and the various attributes of emerging technologies. Section

5 discusses the limits of current methodologies for the detection and analysis of emerging technologies and identifies directions for future research. Section 6 summarises the main conclusions of the study.

U0033385
Highlight

U0033385
Highlight

U0033385
Highlight

U0033385
Highlight

D. Rotolo et al. / Research Policy 44 (2015) 1827–1843 1829

Table 1 Dictionary definitions of the concept of emergence.

Dictionary definition of ‘emerge’/‘emergent’ Attributes

“the process of coming into being, or of becoming important and prominent” (New Oxford American Dictionary)

come into being; important; prominent

“to become manifest: become known [. . .]” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary) become manifest; become known

“to rise up or come forth [. . .] to become evident [. . .] to come into existence” (The American Heritage Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus)

evident; come into existence

“move out of something and become visible [. . .] come into existence or greater prominence [. . .] become known [. . .] in the process of coming into being or prominence” (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

visible; prominent; become known; come into being

“starting to exist or to become known [. . .] to appear by coming out of something or out from behind become known; to appear

S

2

i A e D o t i d t e l t

O c e p d i t L a s s s i a n f

g s e G n p o d p t ( i o (

( s c

to identify those that develop or provide definitions of emerg- ing technologies — we searched for ‘defining’ sentences within the publication full-text by using the keywords listed above. This

1 The terminology of ‘emerging technologies’ has become central to a number of research traditions and especially to the scientometric, bibliometric and tech- mining domains (cf. Avila-Robinson and Miyazaki, 2011), which, as discussed, have

something” (Cambridge Dictionaries Online)

ource: search performed by authors on major English dictionaries.

. The concept of emergence

The word ‘emerge’ or ‘emergent’ means “the process of coming nto being, or of becoming important and prominent” (New Oxford merican Dictionary) or “to rise up or come forth [. . .] to become vident [. . .] to come into existence” (The American Heritage Desk ictionary and Thesaurus). Table 1 presents dictionary definitions f emergent. The primary attribute of emergence is ‘becoming’ — hat is, coming into existence. Emergent is not a static property; t is a label for a process. The endpoint of the process is variously escribed as visible, evident, important or prominent. Thus, among he dictionaries there is some disagreement as to whether acknowl- dged existence is enough for emergence, or beyond that, a certain evel of prominence is needed in order to merit application of the erm emergence.

There is a second definition of emergent given the by the New xford American Dictionary as: a property arising as an effect of omplex causes and not analysable simply as the sum of their ffects. An additional definition is: arising and existing only as a henomenon of independent parts working together, and not pre- ictable on the basis of their properties. This concept of emergence

s used in the study of complex systems. It can be traced back o the 19th Century in the proto-emergentism movement when ewes (1875) referred to ‘emergent effects’ in chemical reactions s those effects that cannot be reduced to the components of the ystem, i.e. the effects for which it is not possible to trace all the teps of the processes that produced them. Its application in the tudy of the dynamics of complex systems in physics, mathemat- cs, and computer science gave rise to other fundamental theories nd schools of thought such as complex adaptive system theory, on-linear dynamical system theory, the synergetics school, and

ar-from-equilibrium thermodynamics (see Goldstein, 1999). A number of studies focusing on the definitional issue of emer-

ence were produced by scholars in complex system theory — ee Table A1 in Appendix for an overview of the definitions of mergence proposed by major studies in complex system theory. oldstein (1999), for example, defined emergence as “the arising of ovel and coherent structures, patterns, and properties during the rocess of self-organization in complex systems” (1999, p. 49). An ntological and epistemological definition of emergence is instead eveloped by de Haan (2006). Ontological emergence is “about the roperties of wholes compared to those of their parts, about sys- ems having properties that their objects in isolation do not have” 2006, p. 294), while epistemological emergence it is about “the nteractions between the objects that cause the coming into being f those properties, in short the mechanisms producing novelty” 2006, p. 294).

Though research on complex systems may have a certain cachet and perhaps for this reason scholars of emerging technologies ometimes attempt to work with the meaning of emergent as onceived by the complex system approach), we maintain that

questions about emerging technologies are not fundamentally about understanding the origins and the causal nature of full system interaction; rather they are about uncertainty, novelty, identifica- tion at an early stage, and visibility and prominence. It is true that some technologies in themselves may be complex systems in the sense of exhibiting adaptation, self-organisation, and emergence, an example being parts of materials science (Ivanova et al., 1998). However, other technologies exhibit ‘complicatedness’ rather than ‘complexity’ as defined in complex system theory — for example, engineering systems. These systems are designed for specific pur- poses, but they do not adapt and self-organise to changes in the environment (Ottino, 2004). It is also true that emerging tech- nologies may arise from complex innovation systems (Katz, 2006), but we would contend that in the phrase ‘emerging technology’, ‘emerging’ is generally understood in the standard sense, not the complex system usage.

3. Defining emerging technologies

To further clarify what is meant by emerging technology, we reviewed