VORAUSSCHAU UND REGULIERUNG VON INNOVATIONSPROZESSEN IM BEREICH DER UBIQUITÄREN INFORMATIONS- UND KOMMUNIKATIONSTECHNOLOGIE

On the one hand technological innovations can create new markets and can provide for solutions of current social problems; on the other hand the can raise questions concerning environmental and/or social adequacy on short-, middle-, and long-range time scales. In or-der to strengthen the positive outcomes of innovations and to reduce or even prevent nega-tive effects, the task of technology assessment is to predict the positive as well as the nega-tive effects and repercussions of innovations as early as possible. However, it must be pre-supposed that first, it must be possible to make to a certain extent reliable predications about the future development and second, that regulatory measurements in order to strengthen the positive outcomes of innovations and to reduce or even prevent negative effects will find their respective addressees. But if one takes, for instance, ubiquitous information and com-munication technology into account it can be demonstrated that those conditions rarely can be met. This is the result of the types of innovation which take place in case of ICT as well as of the so-called Collingridge dilemma. Both factors reduce the reliability of predictions. Furthermore, regulatory measurements often do not find their addressees since the borders of the societal subsystems in which innovation take place are blurring and therefore, these subsystems often cannot be reached with mainstream regulatory approaches like laws.

Full text (pdf)

[1] Beigl, M.; Gellersen, H.-W.; Schmidt, A. (2001): Mediacups: experience with design and use of computer-augmented everyday artefacts. In: Computer Networks 35(4), S. 401-409.
[2] Brereton, M. (2001): Drawing lessons in the design of tangible media from a study of interactions with mechanical products. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian conference on User interface. Queensland: IEEE Computer Society, S. 124-131.
Vorausschau und regulierung von innovationsprozessen im bereich… 201
[3] Campbell, N.; O’Driscoll, A.; Saren, M. (2010): The posthuman: the end and the beginning of the human. In: Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9(2), S. 86-101.
[4] Christensen, C.M. (1997): The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston.
[5] Collingridge, D. (1980): The social control of technology. New York.
[6] Drews, S. (2004): Ubiquitous Media – Vision des Digital Home der Zukunft und Anforderungen hinsichtlich seiner Realisierung. München.
[7] Fiore, F. Dal (2007): Communities Versus Networks: The Implications on Innovation and Social Change. In: American Behavioral Scientist 50(7), S. 857-866.
[8] Fleisch, E., Mattern, Fr. (Hrsg.) (2005): Das Internet der Dinge – Ubiquitous Computing und RFID in der Praxis. Berlin.
[9] Frank, Chr.; Bolliger, Ph.; Mattern, F.; Kellerer, W. (2008): The Sensor Internet at Work: Locating Everyday Items Using Mobile Phones. In: Pervasive and Mobile Computing 4(3), S. 421-447.
[10] Kabisch, E. (2008): Datascape: A Synthesis of Digital and Embodied Worlds. In: Space and Culture 11(3), S. 222-238.
[11] Kang, J.; Cuff, D. (2005): Pervasive Computing: Embedding the Public Sphere. In: Washington and Lee Law Review 62, S. 93-146.
[12] Latzer, M. (2009): Information and communication technology innovations: radical and disruptive? In: New Media & Society 11(4), S. 599-619.
[13] Neitzke, H.-P.; Calmbach, M.; Behrendt, D.; Kleinhückelkotten, S.; Wegner, E.; Wippermann, C. (2008): Risks of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies. In: GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 17(4), S. 362-369.
[14] Pallas, F. (2009): 4 Thesenzu RFID, Cookies & Co. In: Aufderheide, D.; Dambrowski, D. (Hg.): Internetökonomie und Ethik. Wirtschaftsethische und moralökonomische Perspektiven des Internets. Volkswirtschaftliche Schriften, Heft 556. Berlin, S. 167-178.
[15] Park, S. H.; Won, S. H.; Lee, J. B.; Kim, S. W. (2003): Smart home – digitally engineered domestic life. In: Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7(3), S. 189-196.
[16] Pitts, V.L. (2003): In the flesh: The cultural politics of body modification. New York.
[17] Rekimoto, J., Ayatsuka, Y. (2000): CyberCode: designing augmented reality environments with visual tags. In: Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing augmented reality environments. Elsinore/Denmark: ACM, S. 1-10.
[18] Shaer, O.; Leland, N.; Calvillo-Gamez, E. H.; Jacob, R. J. K. (2004): The TAC paradigm: specifying tangible user interfaces. In: Personal Ubiquitous Computing 8(5), S. 359-369.
[19] Shang, Y.; Fagan, M. (2006): Catalysing institutional innovation. In: International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2(3), S. 340-361.
[20] Weiser, M. (1991): The Computer for the Twenty-First Century. In: Scientific American 265(3), S. 94-104.