When assessing tech hype, things get complicated quickly.

Who decides what gets used? Whose problems are being solved? Where is it applied, and who benefits? These questions highlight the blind spots in traditional development models.

To move forward in a complex, connected world, we need new perspectives—ones that respect local voices, diverse knowledge, and the planet’s limits. Some areas have seen great progress; others have been left behind. That gap affects us all.

To explore underhyped frontier technologies in development, we need to rethink what attention and potential mean. This helps shift the focus from flashy trends to locally driven and truly impactful solutions—ones often missed by mainstream frameworks.

The attention a technology can capture shouldn’t just be defined in terms of the majority or the most powerful. That is why the question of ‘who’ becomes fundamental. Who is the technology important for? Who is paying attention to it? Who will pay for it? Who benefits from it?

That is why we consider that a better-suited form of attention should focus on the underserved. That is, the voices that do not represent those in traditional decision-making positions, or, in other words, those that truly benefit or suffer from new technologies being implemented. In many cases, this refers to local communities, as they know best what their needs are and how a particular technology can impact them.

In that sense, attention can be reformulated as:

“The degree to which a technology receives recognition and validation across diverse stakeholders and knowledge systems. It should consider a particular emphasis on communities, especially those it aims to serve.”

Such a view should point to narratives that consider different points of view, not just the traditional or the mainstream ones. This means giving a voice to local knowledge, just as it means understanding local contexts.

Commonly thought of as a technology’s ability to address development goals effectively, this definition falls short in the same way that development falls short. Some of its main critiques are that there should be greater consideration of locally defined priorities, contributing to plural visions of well-being, all while respecting ecological boundaries to truly create long-term sustainable impact.

Thus, we can think of the following definition of potential:

“A technology's capacity to create long-term systemic impact while responding to local needs. It should challenge the narrative about the ‘right’ way to do things.”

By adopting this perspective, thinking in terms of a technology’s potential becomes a way to bring closer communities and real-world solutions that address local needs.

“Frontier technology” refers to new, emerging capabilities like machine learning, drones, blockchain and the internet of things. But it’s also a term we use for established technologies when they’re being used in ways they haven’t been tried out before.

A frontier technology may not yet be fully mature, making it hard to predict how it will evolve. Some will be in the early application stage while others might already be mature in existing markets, offering offer new applications elsewhere.

They may also challenge conventional business models, requiring alternative approaches to scalability, ownership, and governance. To reach their full potential they may need to explore matters related to monetisation and adaptability.