Our process for identifying nine underhyped technologies for development
This is part of our deep dive into nine underhyped frontier technologies for international development. Check out the full, interactive webpage here.
Underhyped Frontier Technologies refer to technologies that are emerging or applied in new ways and receiving less attention than they merit.*
Having developed this conceptual framework, we defined a methodology for arriving at technologies that fit this definition.
On this page, we outline that method in greater depth.
*Learn more about what we mean by Underhyped Frontier Tech in our dedicated blog post, here.
Our methodology consisted of three phases:
Combining a literature review with quantitative approaches to develop and refine a long list of potential technologies
Building a Global Brain Trust of experts and community representatives to provide qualitative insights on the technical, ethical, cultural, and practical implications for international development.
Harnessing strategic foresight and in-depth research approaches to grapple with pathways to impact at scale for these technologies that prioritise accessibility, autonomy, scalability, social justice, and ecological balance.
Read on to explore each phase in more detail.
Combining a literature review with quantitative approaches to develop and refine a long list of potential technologies
A literature review identified 142 promising technologies spanning various technological domains, many of which are overlooked in mainstream innovation discussions.
These were taken from reports, including:
Additionally, we drew from existing tech radars, that capture and describe emerging technologies. These include:
Having identified promising technologies, we developed a scorecard to understand which technologies could be classified as underhyped. To do this, we scored each technology on two axes: potential for impact, and level of attention.
Technologies with a higher score on potential for impact, and lower score on level of attention, were underhyped. 31 out of 142 technologies met this criteria. These technologies loosely fit under three domains: sensors and internet of things (IoT), sustainable energy, and biotechnology.
Measuring low attention
Low attention, that is, a reflection of how much visibility a technology is receiving. We sourced attention metrics from McKinsey’s Technology Trends Outlook 2024, which assesses the interest, innovation, and funding for tech trends. It harnesses metrics for various technologies, including press reports, search engine queries, patent filings, research publications, and equity investment. We matched tech applications to the trend that best represents it, to approximate the attention for that tech application.
Measuring high potential for impact
High potential impact as understood by a technology’s ability to address development goals effectively. Initially, this was measured using indicators like economic, socio-political, and environmental impact sourced from GIZ’s techDetector.
To develop a more nuanced understanding of potential impact for the 31 shortlisted technologies, we added further criteria to deepen our understanding of their impact potential:
Affordability: In order for technologies to have impact at scale, overall cost could not be too high. We assessed the affordability, including both upfront and ongoing costs, to understand which technologies were most affordable.
Alignment with the UK’s International Technology Strategy: The UK’s International Technology Strategy emphasises leveraging technologies that are open, responsible, secure and resilient. Additionally, it proposes a focus on technologies that might bridge the ‘tech divide’ and enable democracy. Each technology was assessed on alignment with these principles.
Alignment with post-development principles: Ensuring that selected technologies supported autonomy, local adaptability, ecological sustainability, and relational ways of knowing.
🐚 Post-development is a critical perspective that questions dominant ideas of “development”, especially the focus on economic growth and industrialisation as universal goals. Instead, it promotes a pluralistic approach that respects local knowledge, cultural diversity, and environmental integrity. Rather than adhering to Western-centric metrics of success, it encourages communities to pursue autonomy and well-being on their own terms, guided by ecological balance and community worldviews.
Build a Global Brain Trust of experts and community representatives to provide qualitative insights
Technologies do not exist in a vacuum. Their impact depends on the people, cultures, and ecosystems in which they are embedded. The Global Brain Trust was designed to move beyond top-down assessments and instead centre the knowledge of those who live and work with frontier technologies daily.
Rather than treating technology as an external solution to be introduced into communities—often in ways that extract knowledge and resources—this process recognised that communities are already innovating, adapting, appropriating, and repurposing technologies in ways that mainstream narratives often overlook. The Global Brain Trust created a space for exchange, where insights from grassroots leaders, practitioners, and technologists could challenge conventional assumptions and shape new possibilities.
Who was involved in the Global Brain Trust?
The Global Brain Trust brought together a diverse group of voices, ensuring that both technical expertise and community experience shaped our exploration of underhyped technologies.
Community Leaders from Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: Offering vital grassroots perspectives, highlighting real-world challenges, local innovations, and relational worldviews.
Practitioners from the Three Technology Domains: Experts on the use cases and scalability considerations for the three technology domains: sensors and IoT, sustainable energy, and biotechnology.
Thematic Experts: Contributing insights into the theoretical and technical aspects of designing and implementing these technologies in the Global South.
The Brain Trust provided the project with a dynamic framework for exploring diverse perspectives around critical issues related to the underhyped technologies and development. This enabled us to structure our primary research in a way that captured both technical expertise and community-driven insights.
“It’s not just about inviting people to join. It’s about recognising, investing in, supporting, and respecting what people are already doing—rather than coming in with a model and then saying, ‘We’re empowering you to use our model.’”
Communities’ perspectives brought a deeper understanding of people’s needs across different territories. They also provided direct awareness of the impact that technologies can have through the lenses of political, economic, social, legal and environmental viewpoints.
Technology experts offered technical and practical knowledge related to the design, development, and implementation of projects. Their insights were crucial for understanding the opportunities and challenges when integrating technologies.
Global brain trust members distribution over a Dymaxion Projection, which was designed to show all of the inhabited world without centring on global powers. Credit: Pluriversa.
In total, we held five focus group sessions with the Global Brain Trust:
Three focus groups were held with experts in each of the three domains (sensors and IoT, sustainable energy, and biotech)
Two focus groups were held with community leaders, with one focusing on South Asia and one on Africa
These focus groups were complemented with 1:1 interviews.
Insights from the Global Brain Trust
Shifting the Role of Technology
The Global Brain Trust demonstrated that underhyped technologies cannot be understood in isolation—they are shaped by social, political, and ecological realities.
Rethinking innovation: Many impactful technologies are undervalued not because they lack potential, but because dominant frameworks fail to recognise them.
Relational approaches matter: Technology adoption is most effective when integrated into cultural and ecological contexts.
From top-down to co-creation: Communities are not passive recipients of technology—they are actively shaping its future.
This shift is not just about better technology adoption. It is about redefining how we imagine and build technological futures together.
Through our sessions with the Global Brain Trust, we filtered our list of technologies from 31 to 12.
Narrowing down our list of underhyped technologies in the biotech domain
Bringing it all together: finalising the nine underhyped technologies
Insights from the initial literature review, Global Brain Trust, and foresight approaches shaped both the final list of nine underhyped technologies, and the our analysis of the use cases, potential, risks, and enablers for each one to have impact at scale.
Further investigation and extensive desk research was conducted on each of the nine technologies. In particular, we explored existing research and applications of the technologies, to better understand their potential for impact at scale.
D️ig into this work further
⭐️ Explore the nine technologies on our interactive webpage.
👀 Explore our recommendations from this work
🔮 Explore the scenarios from our foresight phase.