Different battery storage technologies are considered as important flexibility option in the face of increasing shares of renewables in the grid. A challenge is to support decision-making by providing a broader perspective on battery technology development, choice, and implementation. The tailored approach in the frame of Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) in combination with system analysis allows it to explore actor visions and expectations about battery storage and to use this information to provide quantitative information about the consequences of these. Research results combine the perspectives of technology and non-technology related actors (enactors and selectors) to create new and broader knowledge to provide "better" technology. Major implications identified for battery storage are missing business models, uncertain regulations, and doubts about their techno-economic viability. A highlight is a proof that expectations about technology characteristics in orientation to sustainability criteria are settled within concentric perspectives by using the Analytic-Hierarchy-Process (AHP). Enactors focus on economic and technological criteria which reflect the concentric bias of this group. In contrast, selectors perceive environmental and social criteria as more important. The consensus among actors regarding criteria importance is not existent to moderate which indicates that more research is required here. System analysis is used to quantify actor preferences obtained through the AHP. Li-Ion-batteries (LIB), lead-acid-batteries (VRLA), high-temperature-batteries (NaNiCl and NaS), and Vanadium-redox-flowbatteries (VRFB) are evaluated through e.g. life cycle assessment and costing for four different application fields (decentralized storage, wind energy support, primary regulation and energy-time-shift (ETS-includes compressed-air-energy-storage (CAES) and pumped-hydro-storage (PHS)). Preliminary rankings indicate that most LIBs can be recommended for all application areas, wherein decentralized storage is considered to offer the highest potentials for battery storage. VRLA and NaS achieve rather low scores whereas ranking of VRFB is highly dependent on the considered use case. PHS and CAES dominate all assessed energy storage technologies in the ETS application case.