This study is based on the concept of Kondratiev&rsquo ; s technological waves as an analytical instrument for examining the processes of technological evolution. It aims at setting feasible indicators for this evolutionary development in order to provide a regulatory instrument for policy makers. In order to do so, the authors analyze approaches used for resource efficiency improvement in several European countries (i.e., implementation of Best Available Techniques, BAT). They emphasize that in Russia, the BAT concept is seen primarily as an industrial policy instrument. While BAT-based legislation is enforced by the environmental authorities, technological innovations making it possible to achieve performance better than that required by BAT are supported by the industrial development authorities. In the conclusions, the authors state that BAT-based solutions could be used as drivers for developing and implementing new technological solutions (innovations) and should become the basis for working out state industrial and environmental policies. The results of policies currently being developed will be assessed by the end of 2024.
This study is based on the concept of Kondratiev's technological waves as an analytical instrument for examining the processes of technological evolution. It aims at setting feasible indicators for this evolutionary development in order to provide a regulatory instrument for policy makers. In order to do so, the authors analyze approaches used for resource efficiency improvement in several European countries (i.e., implementation of Best Available Techniques, BAT). They emphasize that in Russia, the BAT concept is seen primarily as an industrial policy instrument. While BAT-based legislation is enforced by the environmental authorities, technological innovations making it possible to achieve performance better than that required by BAT are supported by the industrial development authorities. In the conclusions, the authors state that BAT-based solutions could be used as drivers for developing and implementing new technological solutions (innovations) and should become the basis for working out state industrial and environmental policies. The results of policies currently being developed will be assessed by the end of 2024.
Latest issue consulted: May 1994. ; Description based on: July 1979; title from caption. ; None published, 1992. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; Vols for 19 -19 issued by: the Environmental Protection Agency; 19 - by: the Agency's Office of Technology Transfer; -19 by: the Agency's Environmental Research Information Center; -Sept. 1989 by: the Agency's Center for Environmental Research Information; June 1990-Sept. 1991, by: Office of Research and Development, Office of Technology Transfer & Regulatory Support; Apr. 1993-1996 by: Office of Research and Development, Office of Science, Planning, and Regulatory Evaluation.
This is a full set of PowerPoint lectures for a course in Water Technology currently given at Trinity College, University of Dublin by professor N.F. Gray. The lectures cover all aspects of water and wastewater treatment and are available for use to lecturers or those interested in the subject. The lecture series is to be used in conjunction with the new textbook ?Water Science and Technology? (4th edition) published by CRC Press in 2017. Lecture 1 is an introduction to the water industry and covers the structure of the water industry, the water services cycle, water governance and the Drinking Water Directive. Water pricing, consumption, reuse and conservation are covered as is water demand management, the water poverty threshold and water stress threshold. The lecture include active links and structured reading. ; 1
In this Introduction to the Symposium, we articulate a reframing of Larry Diamond's (2010) program of "liberation technology" around the idea of "deliberation technology." Although the liberation technology program has been useful in supplying dissidents with a basic communication infrastructure during the various revolutions of the 2011 Arab Spring, we briefly examine the cases of Tunisia and Egypt in order to show how deliberative vacuums have arisen after regime change. We then introduce each of the four Symposium submissions with the hopes that a program of deliberation technology might contribute to the strengthening of democratic practice around the world.
Technology plays a crucial role in the outcomes of war. The rifle, the railroad and the telegraph in 19th Century Wars, the machine gun, the airplane and the tank in 20th Century Wars, and information technologies in recent wars are at the forefront of examples of how technology changes the face of wars and influences their outcomes. History shows the armies that have managed to integrate new technologies have gained an advantage on the battlefield. However, technology is effective only when supported by relevant organizational structures, doctrines and only under the circumstances where the threat is well defined and the strategy well established. It was not the quality of German tanks but tactical innovation that brought them success at the beginning of WWII. And, even though the Germans improved the quality of the tanks throughout the war, it didn't secure them an ultimate win due to a deficit in their grand strategy. In today's contemporary wars like the war on terrorism or irregular wars demonstrate that technological superiority also might not secure victory if Allies do not have a well-conceived strategy including moral, economic and sociological aspects against adversaries. Acknowledging that technology is a force multiplier on the battlefield, this paper emphasizes the importance of assessing the technology within the confines of grand strategy and backing it with an appropriate war-making doctrine.
Technology plays a crucial role in the outcomes of war. The rifle, the railroad and the telegraph in 19th Century Wars, the machine gun, the airplane and the tank in 20th Century Wars, and information technologies in recent wars are at the forefront of examples of how technology changes the face of wars and influences their outcomes. History shows the armies that have managed to integrate new technologies have gained an advantage on the battlefield. However, technology is effective only when supported by relevant organizational structures, doctrines and only under the circumstances where the threat is well defined and the strategy well established. It was not the quality of German tanks but tactical innovation that brought them success at the beginning of WWII. And, even though the Germans improved the quality of the tanks throughout the war, it didn't secure them an ultimate win due to a deficit in their grand strategy. In today's contemporary wars like the war on terrorism or irregular wars demonstrate that technological superiority also might not secure victory if Allies do not have a well-conceived strategy including moral, economic and sociological aspects against adversaries. Acknowledging that technology is a force multiplier on the battlefield, this paper emphasizes the importance of assessing the technology within the confines of grand strategy and backing it with an appropriate war-making doctrine.
The concept of technology readiness levels (TRL) had become recently popular both in Europe and Canada to evaluate the maturity of a technology or product. The classification is mandatory both in the European Union Horizon 2020 Research Program and in the Industry Canada Technology Demonstration Program. The charming simplicity of the TRL1 to TRL9 classification helps to label the maturity of a certain product concept or technology especially in the early phases of R&D. On the other hand it gives no or very limited information aboutthe actual technology readiness. To overcome this limitation IKTS has adopted and refined the technology readiness evaluation of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Stacks. The fuel cell stack is the most crucial building block in a fuel cell system. Over the years Fraunhofer IKTS has developed three different SOFC stack concepts, one is commercialized by the company Sunfire in Germany, a second concept is used in eneramic systems and a third concept is about to be commercialized with other partners. The maturity of the concept is using three sets of parameters - technical performance and lifetime parameters, manufacturing and value chain parameters and market segment/commercialization aspects. It is used to compare stacks on the market or in the pipeline and to measure progress over time. Thus an indication of technology readiness, segment specific time to market and R&D needs can be developed.
Historically technology has been connected with the power and has been kept as a State secret. Until now the biggest technological developments come from the army research laboratories, invisible to the eyes of common people. To control the technology is to control the whole civilian population.In the 70´s Buckminster Fuller, an American architect, made a turning point. His main gift to society was the concept of «do it by yourself» (DIY). He opened up technology to the common people. His work was a revolution with the beginning of the «catalogue».From this idea comes the concept of «open technology» developed by Osamu Ishiyama at Waseda University, Tokyo. This idea is a continuation of the philosophy of Fuller and the main target is to democratise technology and make it accessible to the people of the xxi century. ; Históricamente la tecnología ha estado asociada a las estructuras de poder y mantenida como secreto de Estado. Hasta hoy los mayores desarrollos tecnológicos se producen a nivel militar y bajo estrictos programas reservados. El control de la tecnología asegura la dependencia de las masas a los exclusivos grupos industrializados.En la década de los '70 Buckminster Fuller un arquitecto norteamericano generaría un punto de inflexión. Su principal aporte a la sociedad contemporánea fue el concepto de «hágalo usted mismo» una estrategia que hizo posible la apertura de la información sobre tecnología a las masas, y marcaría el nacimiento de una nueva era con la aparición del «catálogo».A partir de esta idea surge el concepto de «Open technology» desarrollado por Osamu Ishiyama, en la Universidad de Waseda, Tokio. Esta idea es una continuación de la filosofía de Fuller y su principal objetivo es democratizar la tecnología y la industria disponible y hacerla accesible al individuo del siglo xxi.
In this Introduction to the Symposium, we articulate a reframing of Larry Diamond's (2010) program of "liberation technology" around the idea of "deliberation technology." Although the liberation technology program has been useful in supplying dissidents with a basic communication infrastructure during the various revolutions of the 2011 Arab Spring, we briefly examine the cases of Tunisia and Egypt in order to show how deliberative vacuums have arisen after regime change. We then introduce each of the four Symposium submissions with the hopes that a program of deliberation technology might contribute to the strengthening of democratic practice around the world.
This paper aims to propose a methodological lens to the assessment of technological innovations in healthcare based on the principles of social, economic, and political sustainability. Starting from the consideration of a lack of a unified interpretative framework of health technology assessment, using a content analysis of the relevant literature on the topic, we identified both the scientific perspectives adopted by the scholars and the most widely discussed topics. Consequently, the less explored scientific areas were framed, and, therefore, those more susceptible to further investigation came to light. The result is an overall picture which highlights the absence of unified and generally accepted approaches to evaluation, together with the lack of awareness on the fact that the multiplicity of methods adopted is essentially connected to the multiplicity of innovations, for each of which a method (or a set of methods) of preferable evaluation can be prefigured. Based on these observations, we propose a general reference framework for evaluation, based on the Viable Systems Approach (vSa), and a schematic outline of the connections between the complexity of innovations and the evaluation methodologies.
This paper analyzes the technology planning priorities of the government of Nepal. The analysis covers the last fifty years of the country's planned economy at one part and examines the organizational setting for technology diffusion on the other part. An overview of national plan documents determines the planning priorities and initiatives for technology diffusion in Nepal. An examination of the organizational setting in the country identifies the congruence between the planning priorities and organizational setting in the enduring process of technology diffusion. An analysis of the response of opinion leaders from selected organizations involved in technology works/projects supplements to the analysis and conclusion of the study. This study concludes with identification of unplanned organizational setting as a structural immunity to technology diffusion in the planned economy of Nepal.
ABSTRACT: The concept of digital social innovation (ISN- new social innovation) is mobilized in various contexts and its retention is possible through several complementary levels. First, at the social level, ISN covers perimeters of collective use, involving a multitude of actors in order to co-create social value (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014, 42-51). Second, at the technological level, they generate an open operating process based on an innovative hardware and software architecture, as well as on specific functional mechanisms. Finally, at the ecological level, ISNs focus on responsible innovation (Van Der Yeught and Bon, 2016, 27-40) and the desire to respond to social and environmental issues. This study falls more precisely in the field of Information and Communication Sciences (ICS). Indeed, this is not a purely technological reflection, but an understanding of the wider integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) and their use in an environment, the context that covers the area of citizen participation in government and the level of involvement of the latter. KEYWORDS: technology, digital social innovation, public authority, civic involvement, electronic participation
Regulation may inhibit or stimulate technological change. The relationship depends on the technology of regulation - the design and instrument choice of regulatory policy. This essay examines the history of economic and social regulations over the last three decades, the explanatory power of theories of regulatory politics, the choice of regulatory instruments, the assessment of regulatory impacts, and the influence of each of these on the innovation and diffusion of technology (and of regulation). It concludes with recommendations for the future of regulation and technology.
Technology education and the programs from which it evolved have a unique history. The emphasis on practical learning that formed the foundation for the field in the 1800s did not fit well with the concurrent liberal education movement and its focus on classical languages, philosophy, rhetoric, literature, and mathematics applied learning simply did not connect with liberating the mind from the toil and drudgery of the workplace that existed once the industrial revolution had occurred. With the huge influx of immigrants seeking a better life, albeit survival, in the New World, the United States found that skilled workers were essential if the momentum of an increasingly healthier economy was to be maintained. Once again the field had to wrestle with how to increase its vitality, this time while trying to keep its general education values in light of increasing support for vocational education. The vision was to become a required subject in the education of all, encouraged by how science had successfully done so using political influence and backing in the early 1900s. Though admirable progress was made, the field simply did not have any analogy to the clout that scientists had nor the influence of politicians and the dollars they could garner and, as is still true today, the field simply does not have the numbers. Perhaps the biggest impediment, though, was the lack of regard among those in power for the hands-on, practical experiences that represented the hallmark of the field. It could be argued that the emphasis on practical learning was carried too far. Masters and doctoral programs in the field became allied with graduate programs in education that emphasized practice rather than research, thereby forfeiting the requisite research competencies and exposure to the culture of research. Even at this higher level of education, some degree programs allowed, or even encouraged, the completion of courses and independent studies that involved the development and honing of technical skills over theory. A culture developed whereby even professors did not value research and consequently passed this thinking on to their students. This attitude is still promulgated today to some extent as evidenced by those entering higher education aspiring to be exclusively teachers, hoping to leave the research to others, whoever those others might be. In many cases the doctoral dissertation becomes the best, and only, research the terminal degreed person will do. The climate of higher education has changed dramatically over the past few years. Even those institutions that thought of themselves as teaching universities have shifted their focus in light of the need to garner external funds through research grants to replace lost resources at the state level. Moreover, the rankings that are bestowed upon universities by a growing number of organizations have become more important in the competition for students and those rankings, in turn, are becoming increasingly linked to research activity and the scholarship that comes with it. As expectations for accountability rose, technology educators were increasingly being asked to support the value of programs based on research rather than testimonials and logic. It was within the foregoing context that this yearbook came about and influenced its organization. First, we realized that our field will not, at least in the foreseeable future, have enough qualified and motivated professionals to conduct the research that is needed, the lack of which scholars and leaders have reprimanded the field for decades. Short of doing the research in isolation, technology educators at least need to be able to extrapolate and generalize from the research of other disciplines that have a link to our own. Moreover, becoming aware of the research in other disciplines will enable technology educators to set priorities for our own research agenda, constrained by our limited human resources. Second, we believed that an investigation into research must necessarily be international in scope. The advantages of electronic technology facilitate international collaboration and enable technology educators to realize accomplishments never before possible. Globally, our numbers are sufficient and our challenges similar enough that we should move a collaborative research agenda forward. Third, we were committed to involving chapter authors who were scholars of high repute as well as those who were just embarking on a career in higher education and might be mentored into research and scholarship through the experience. With guidance from the Yearbook Committee of the Council for Technology Teacher Education, we identified experts in the topics addressed. However, the bottom line is that the authors demonstrated a passion for what we were asking them to do. The passion, commitment, and effort of the authors represented by the pages within are deeply appreciated.
