Technology Forecast

Project description

– There must be 10 of the restricted references and each citation must have 3 references dictating that it falls under the required restrictions of what is permissible for citation, such as technical documents.
– Please, please, please I cannot express enough to pay close attention to the level of detail of this assignment.

Technology Forecast (Emerging Technology)
For this assignment, you will perform all four stages of a technology scan: scoping, searching, evaluating, and recommending. To begin, you will identify a technology which is on the verge of exiting the research & development lab – a true emerging technology. Next, you will research the characteristics of this technology and how it is likely to be used in designs for new products or components which will eventually make their way into computers, digital devices, and other electronic / electrical technologies (this includes networks and network infrastructures). You must also research potential or reasonably anticipated security issues and concerns.
Your paper must present sufficient information for use by the company’s strategic planners to help them identify which emerging technologies should be tracked and/or incorporated into the company’s strategic plans.
SCOPING
The scoping phase of this technology scan has already been performed. For this paper, your scope is stage1 and early stage 2 as shown in the figure below.Your scope is further restricted to basic research or inventions which can be used in components which will eventually make their way into computers, digital devices, and other electronic / electrical technologies (this includes networks and network infrastructures).
Image Source: http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr02-841/chapt2.htm
SEARCHING
To begin, select a technology which is in the basic research or proof of concept / invention (stage 1 and early stage 2 in the diagram above) and which meets the scoping restriction. You may use news articles, press releases, and government or company Web sites to help you find an appropriate technology. (Remember to cite these sources in your paper.)
Suggested technologies include:
•   Graphene
•   Dielectric thin films
•   Magnetoelectric magnetic sensors
•   Nano imprinting
•   Nano machines
•   Neuromorphic computer chips
You are encouraged to look for and investigate additional appropriate technologies before deciding upon your technology choice for this assignment.
Survey of the Professional Literature
During your survey of the professional literature, you will identify 10 research papers or technical papers which provide technical information about your selected technology (see selection requirements for each paper). These papers must be dated 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014 (the past five years).
Allowable sources for research papers / technical papers are: (a) professional journals, (b) conference proceedings, (c) dissertations or theses, and (d) technical magazines (published by either the ACM or IEEE). If an article from one of the above sources does not have a reference list containing at least 3 references you may use it in your review paper but it WILL NOT COUNT towards the “10 research or technical papers” requirement.
The requirement to “survey the professional literature” must be met by using research papers/publications and technical papers which are available from the following UMUC online library databases:
•   ACM Digital Library http://www.acm.org/dl
•   Dissertations & Theses (Pro Quest) http://search.proquest.com/pqdtft/advanced?accountid=14580
•   IEEE Computer Society Digital Library http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/home
•   Science Direct http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/search

EVALUATING
In this stage, you will evaluate and report upon the information found during your survey of the professional literature. Read the abstract, introduction section, and closing sections for each of the sources identified in your survey of the professional literature. From this information, develop a summary of the technology that includes: (a) a description of technology and (b) planned uses of the technology (products, services, etc.). IMPORTANT: your technology review must incorporate information from each of your 10 “papers” from the professional literature.
*Note: You may use other sources in addition to the papers which comprise your surveyof the professional literature.*
Next, brainstorm the security implications of this technology (if these are not specifically discussed by your sources). You should consider use of the technology to improve cybersecurity and uses which will negatively impact the security posture of an organization or the security of individual consumers or users of the product. It is very important that you consider BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.
Note: The technologies in the suggested technologies list were chosen because they can be used to (a) improve the computational speed of computing devices, (b) reduce the weight or size of electrical components, (c) improve the external packaging for products based upon computing devices, and/or (d) reduce the power consumption of computing devices.
Write down your thoughts and ideas about the security implications of this technology using (a) the Five Pillars of Information Assurance and/or(b) the Five Pillars of Information Security.For your paper, you do not need to include all ten “pillars” but you must address a minimum of the five.
WRITING YOUR EVALUATION
Your paper must provide the reader with an overview of the technology followed by information about the potential security risks and/or benefits of its use(the security posture).You MUST use information paraphrased from the papers found during your Survey of the Professional Literature (with appropriate in-text citations).
Your Technology Review papers should be at least three pages in length but no more than 5 pages (excluding the title page and references page). Your papers must comply with the formatting guidance provided by your instructor. All papers in this course must also comply with APA Style for references and citations.You are expected to write grammatically correct English in every assignment that you submit for grading. Do not turn in any work without (a) using spell check, (b) using grammar check, (c) verifying that your punctuation is correct and (d) reviewing your work for correct word usage and correctly structured sentences and paragraphs. Together, these items constitute the professionalism category in the assignment grading rubrics (worth 20% of the assignment’s grade).

READ ALSO : Environmental issues

Student Name:    Assignment: Tech Forecast   Due Date:
Date:    Grade: x out of 100 points   Raw Score:    Late Penalty: x points (2 points per business day)
Identified a technology which is 5 to 10 years away from wide-spread use or adoption (the “technology forecasting time horizon”) and provided an overview of the technology
(10 points)   9-10 points
Provided an excellent overview of an emerging technology or emerging application of technology for a time horizon 5 to 10 years in the future. The overview appropriately used information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites.    8 points
Provided an outstanding overview of an emerging technology or emerging application of technology for a time horizon 5 to 10 years in the future.The overview appropriately used information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites.   7 points
Provided an overview of an emerging technology or emerging application of technology for a time horizon 5 to 10 years in the future.The overview provided some details about how the technology is used. The overview drew some information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers or from authoritative Web sites.   5-6 points
Identified an appropriate technology. Provided an overview or introduction that was lacking in detail and/or did not cover a time horizon 5 to 10 years in the future. Information from the survey of the professional literature was used in the overview.   3-4 points
Identified an appropriate technology but the overview of that technology lacked detail, was not within the required time horizon, and/or was not well supported by information drawn from the survey of the professional literature.   0-2 points
The introduction and/or overview sections of the paper were off topic or failed to provide an overview of the emerging application of technology for a time horizon 5 to 10 years in the future.
Surveyed Professional Literature (10 or more papers identified and cited)
(20 points)   18 – 20 points
Identified 9 or more papers from the professional literature. All papers used in the survey were from the four approved sources (ACM Digital Library, IEEE Computer Society Digital Library, Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses, and Science Direct). Appropriately used 9 or more papers from the survey of the literature throughout the discussion (as demonstrated by correctly formatted and placed citations).   16 – 17 points
Survey of the literature was based upon eight papers from one or more of the four approved sources (ACM Digital Library, IEEE Computer Society Digital Library, Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses, and Science Direct). Appropriately used at least 8 papers from the survey of the literature throughout the discussion of the technology (as demonstrated by correctly formatted and placed citations).   13-15 points
Survey of the literature was based upon six or seven papers from one or more of the four approved sources (ACM Digital Library, IEEE Computer Society Digital Library, Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses, and Science Direct). Appropriately used at least 6 papers from the survey of the literature throughout the discussion of the technology (as demonstrated by correctly formatted and placed citations).   10 – 12 points
Survey of the literature was based upon four or five papers from one or more of the four approved sources (ACM Digital Library, IEEE Computer Society Digital Library, Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses, and Science Direct). Appropriately used at least 4 papers from the survey of the literature throughout the discussion of the technology (as demonstrated by correctly formatted and placed citations).   5 – 9 points
Survey of the literature was based upon three or more papers from one or more of the four approved sources (ACM Digital Library, IEEE Computer Society Digital Library, Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses, and Science Direct). Appropriately used at least 3 papers from the survey of the literature throughout the discussion of the technology (as demonstrated by correctly formatted and placed citations).   0-4 points
Survey of the literature was based upon two or fewer papers from one or more of the four approved sources (ACM Digital Library, IEEE Computer Society Digital Library, Pro Quest Dissertations and Theses, and Science Direct). Did not appropriately use papers from the survey of the literature throughout the discussion of the technology (as demonstrated by correctly formatted and placed citations).
Reported on how tech could be used to improve or support cybersecurity in the future (5 to 10 year time horizon)
(15 points)   13-15 points
Provided an excellent discussion of how the emerging technology or emerging application of technology could be used to improve or support cybersecurity. Discussion fully described how the technology could provide support to or improvements incybersecurity in the future (5 to 10 year time horizon).The discussion appropriately used information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites.    12 points
Provided an outstanding discussion of how the emerging technology or emerging application of technology could be used to improve or support cybersecurity. Discussion included support or improvements to cybersecurity in the future (5 to 10 year time horizon).The discussion appropriately used information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites.   10-11 points
Provided a discussion ofhow the emerging technology or emerging application of technology could be used to improve or support cybersecurity. Discussion included support or improvements to cybersecurity in the future (5 to 10 year time horizon).The discussion drew some information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers or from authoritative Web sites.   5-6 points
Discussion provided few details in regards to how the emerging technology or emerging application of technology could be used to improve or support cybersecurity. OR, discussionprovided few details in regards to support or improvements for cybersecurity in the future (5 to 10 year time horizon). Information from the survey of the professional literature was used in the discussion.   3-4 points
Discussed cybersecurity benefits from the use of theemerging technology but the discussion lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from the survey of the professional literature.   0-2 points
The discussion of cybersecurity improvements / support from use of the emerging technology wasnot relevant to the required time horizon (5 to 10 years) and/or did not apply to the identified technology. OR, discussion of improvements / support for cybersecurity was missing.
Reported on how tech could be used in the future (5 to 10 year time horizon) by attackers, criminals, terrorists, etc. (OR, discussed types of vulnerabilities to attack which may be seen in future uses of this technology)
(15 points)   13-15 points
Provided an excellent discussion of how future applications of the selected technology could be used by attackers to further their own goals and/or how anticipated vulnerabilities might be exploited. The discussion appropriately used information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites.    12 points
Provided an outstanding discussion of how future applications of the selected technology could be used by attackers to further their own goals and/or how anticipated vulnerabilities might be exploited. The discussion appropriately used information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers and authoritative Web sites.   10-11 points
Provided a discussion of how future applications of the selected technology could be used by attackers to further their own goals and/or how anticipated vulnerabilities might be exploited. The discussion drew some information from the survey of the professional literature in addition to information from other sources, i.e. news articles, industry or government white papers or from authoritative Web sites.   5-6 points
Discussion provided few details in regards to how future applications of the selected technology could be used by attackers to further their own goals and/or how anticipated vulnerabilities might be exploited. Information from the survey of the professional literature was used in the discussion.   3-4 points
Discussed attacks against the selected technology but the discussion lacked detail, was outside the required time horizon (5 to 10 years in the future), and/or was not well supported by information drawn from the survey of the professional literature.   0-2 points
Did not report on how the technology could be used by attackers, criminals, terrorists, etc. Did not discuss specific vulnerabilities to attack which are present or anticipated in the identified technology.
Addressed security issues using standard terms (e.g.5 Pillars IA, 5 Pillars Information Security)
(10 points)   9 – 10 points
Demonstrated excellence in the use of standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of the technology. Appropriately used terminology from five or more pillars of IA/IS.   8 points
Discussion showed an outstanding understanding and integration of standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of the technology. Appropriately used terminology from five or more pillars of IA/IS.   7 points
Correctly used standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of the technology. Appropriately used terminology from five or more pillars of IA/IS.   5- 6 points
Correctly used standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of the technology. Appropriately used terminology from three or more pillars of IA/IS.   3-4 points
Used standard cybersecurity terminology to support discussion of the technology. Appropriately used terminology from two or more pillars of IA/IS.   0-2 points
Did not integrate standard cybersecurity terminology into the discussion OR misused or incorrectly defined standard terms from the pillars of IA/IS.
APA Formatting for Citations and Reference List
(5 points)   5 points
Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. Reference list entries and in-text citations are correctly formatted using the appropriate APA style for each type of resource.    4 points
Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. One or two minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.    3 points
Work contains a reference list containing entries for all cited resources. No more than 3 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries   2 points
Work has no more than three paragraphs with omissions of citations crediting sources for facts and information. Work contains a reference list containing entries for cited resources. Work contains no more than 5 minor errors in APA format for in-text citations and/or reference list entries.    1 point
Work attempts to credit sources but demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand and apply the APA formatting standard as defined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).   0 points
Reference list is missing. Work demonstrates an overall failure to incorporate and/or credit authoritative sources for information used in the paper.
Professionalism Part I: Organization & Appearance
(5 points)   5 points
Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type.
4 points
Submitted work has minor style or formatting flaws but still presents a professional appearance. Submitted work is well organized and appropriately uses color, fonts, and section headings (per the assignment’s directions).
3 points
Organization and/or appearance of submitted work could be improved through better use of fonts, color, titles, headings, etc. OR Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Professional appearance could be improved.   2 points
Submitted work has multiple style or formatting errors. Organization and professional appearance need substantial improvement.   1 point
Submitted work meets minimum requirements but has major style and formatting errors. Work is disorganized and needs to be rewritten for readability and professional appearance.   0 points
Submitted work is poorly organized and formatted. Writing and presentation are lacking in professional style and appearance. Work does not reflect college level writing skills.
Professionalism Part II: Execution (10 points)   10 points
No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.
8-9 points
Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.   7 points
Errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which detract from professional appearance of the submitted work.   5 – 6 points
Submitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Work is unprofessional in appearance.   3 -4 points
Submitted work is difficult to read / understand and has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage.    0 – 2 points
Submitted work is poorly executed OR does not reflect college level work.