The technological imperative: importance, flaws, and critical assessment

¶ … TI) in Info Tech (IT)

Sorry for the first draft. I guess I was a bit careless. See if this works any better. I think I had too many ideas running through my head when I was trying to put the piece together, so some of my editing got sloppy and I let some pieces in that shouldn't have been there. But since I did that, I tried to reorganize it a bit to put it into a format that seems to more closely follow your instructions. Your questions suggest that the tech imperative is a bad thing, but I don't find that from the materials & #8230; just a magical thing. I wrote it accordingly.

What is the technological imperative? In basic terms it is the propensity of people to want to use new and better tools to make it easier for them to accomplish the work that they have to do. It assumes that people have a natural draw toward the best of whatever tools function most effectively.

It's hard to know where the concept of the technological imperative got its start. Ancient philosophical arguments about it have been grounded in various conceptualizations of work and productivity (Francis 1). Overview articles also suggest that others have tied the idea to the search for knowledge and understanding or performance intelligence. Essentially this means that people believe we are smarter when we use good tools, so it makes sense that we try to find the best of the ones that work toward our advantage. No matter the justification, however, these viewpoints usually shared the idea that the tools themselves were basically inanimate objects; their importance was directly tied to the context of where they were used (Orlikowski 399) and less to anything about them as tools. It would not be until the pervasive switch toward computerized tools where the idea of the technological imperative would gain credence again since it became possible to find other capabilities within the technologies themselves. The magic of what computers have to offer provides something special to the mystery of the technological imperative.

People want progressively better computer technology because it brings about newer, faster capabilities. We have accepted that we can do more with these information technologies that we could do with other tools in the past, and we basically accept that they offer greater personal and work value. On the other hand, there are still some people who are attracted to the digital and other advanced technologies even if they don't know what the direct benefit will. They quite literally bet their future on possible concepts that they may want to achieve without even knowing if they are feasible. This adds an entirely new dimension to the idea behind the force for the use of the tools of technology. People have faith that the tools of the digital universe are so fundamentally special that it doesn't really matter whether there is empirical justification about them being good or bad. A 2003 comment in an article called the Virtue of Innovation and the Technological Imperative by Apel provides an interesting summary of this paradox:

In spite of its dubious origins and lack of formulation, the technological imperative actually exists in Western philosophy and jurisprudence. In ethics technological invention is a virtue and in law it is protected and encouraged; and in both, a duty exists to allow the dissemination and use of novel technology.

So what makes the technological imperative important?

The answer is not as clear as it might first seem. The appeal behind the force of the imperative could be something measurable or it could be, as some leading experts believe, more of a case of instinct -- the gut reaction of those who have a good handle on changes that are beginning to occur even if the professional or logical justification cannot easily been seen. The true pull of the imperative is the fact that it makes a strong case that it is a smart tool whose value cannot be denied. When this happens during a technology revolution, there are usually some significant skeptics, but even they may still try to use the new tools & #8230; just in case. It could well be that this is the true secret behind the motivation that the imperative provides innovation.

Two real life examples of how this plays out are poignant; they center on the fields of medicine and business planning and development. In regards to its medical application, a 2011 article on contemporary healthcare trends includes a discussion about the role of this phenomenon in the care and treatment of persons in ill health. It puts the issue in perspective by noting the historical origins of the entire concept: "The term 'technological imperative' was coined by economist Fuchs [in 1968] to describe the tendency within medicine to prioritize the development and use of new technologies regardless of their cost" (Fisher and Monahan, pg. 546; emphasis added). The authors' contention is that doctors use whatever tools they have within their so that they can prove, if asked, that they did all they could to try to save someone's life or health. The viability of the procedure for medical acceptance is secondary or not important at all; the action of "doing something" becomes the greatest force in that it make the technologies into a form of a professional or moral imperative.

Phillips demonstrates the same kind of tendency within his field of project management. New software and hardware advancement have the ability to capture a lot of data and undertake many tasks that give the impression that a system is better than someone else's. In reality, however, it is often the case that project managers adjust their recommendations to ensure that their work looks like it reflects contemporary trends. A particular quote from Phillips is as intriguing in this regard that noted above for medical professionals: "The Technology Imperative states that if a new technology exists, we need it. Logic and business school lessons don't matter."