It was entirely

Thank you for your kind letter of March 10, 1983. my pleasure to appear before your subcommittee. My response to the questions posed in your letter are as follows:

In regard to Mr. Henry M. Levin's article in the January 30, 1983 issue of The Washington Post. As you noted, part of Mr. Levin's article suggests that many new jobs within the data processing industry will not require an "extensive" background in math and science. Mr. Levin is correct. There are indeed many data processing support and spin-off jobs where "extensive" math and science is not a mandatory requirement. Within my own company, I would estimate that each "high tech" position generates approximately four other less technical positions. While these less technical positions do not require the depth of math and science knowledge you would expect of an engineer or a scientist, they do require a sound basis in those disciplines.

If we use Mr. Levin's data and logic, it is possible to argue that each new computer programmer position will generate the need for nine other unskilled (non technical) jobs, i.e., janitors, fast-food workers, etc. The economic result then is that one high tech position creates four other less technical jobs which, in turn, generate 36 unskilled jobs. In my opinion, that's a pretty good argument for your Bill.

I think that the principal item in Mr. Levin's article that distrubs me is the inference that unskilled labor should be relegated to their fate. Mr. Levin is apparently unconcerned with providing the educational opportunity which would permit them to improve their situation. Having personally worked my way through 17 years of night school to earn a Bachelors and a Masters Degree, I am comforted that Mr. Levin had no control over my destiny.

I would not suggest that everyone be trained as a mathematician, scientist, or an engineer, but as those professions advance and influence our daily lives through technology, there is a proportional need for a sound basis in the tools of technology at all other levels, i.e., science and mathematics.

Today's high technology is tomorrow's norm and education must keep pace with technological growth or our society and economy will certainly become stagnant. I have attached an article by Louis A. Girifalco from the Fall 1982 issue of The Wharton Magazine entitled "The Dynamics of Technological Change" which addresses this issue in greater detail.

Your second question related to Legislative encouragement to create a mutually beneficial relationship between education and industry. I believe this could occur in several forms ranging from Government sponsored programs to informal contacts between Legislators, educational institutions, state bodies, individual industries, and affiliated associations. Some possible examples of such encouragement might be:

a) Encourage industry to seek accreditation of its suitable training programs, at both the high school and college level.

b) Recognize that the cost of training in industry is, in some cases,
related to the social goals of educational institutions and
perhaps should receive some tax credit for its cost.

c) Recent industry retirees should be encouraged to enter education
not to supplant the teacher's role, but to enhance it. A program
to permit these retirees to participate in their field of expertise,
without having to become certified teachers, could bring pragmatism
to the classroom in all fields of study and relieve overworked
teachers at minimal costs. This suggestion is similar to existing
Junior ROTC programs where military retirees teach and administer
the ROTC programs at minimal costs to the High Schools involved.
d) Consideration might be given to a non-attributed scholarship
program sponsored by the Government but funded by donations from
industry who would receive an equitable tax write-off based on
their contributions. Administration of this program would be by
a committee made up of representatives from education and industry.
This committee would award scholarship funds to those institutions
that either maintain, or are attempting to establish, strong
curriculums to support current technology.

e) Where appropriate, exchange programs between industry and education
should be encouraged. Primarily this encouragement should be in
the form of personal influence on the part of Legislators. Tax
benefits and grants-in-aid may also be appropriate in some instances,
especially where the exchange program supports Federally sponsored
research and development or contractual obligations.

f) Finally, I would not overlook the impact of personal appeals on
the part of Legislators to industry and education to form informal,
cooperative partnerships at the local level.

I want to thank you and your subcommittee for the opportunity to offer my testimony and respond to your questions. I am pleased to be of any assistance in your endeavors to improve the quality of education.

Sincerely,

Ellent D

Gilbert D. Johnson
Manager

Training and Education

Ofe

The Dynamics Of Technological Change

Technological change is frequently discontinuous. The major challenge we face as a technological society is to learn how to navigate these discontinuities.

ECHNOLOGY is as old as
the human race. The bow.
the first flint knife, and even
the stick are technological
devices developed by man
over the millennia to extend
human capabilities. But
within the last century or two
- a very short time on a his-
torical scale. the barest in-

stant by evolution's clock something new has appeared. Since the coming of industrialization, not only the rate but the very nature of technological advance has changed.

Pre-industrial technology was little more than technique. Lacking any extensive scientific base. its growth was slow and incremental. and it depended on muscle human or animal - for motive power Modern technology, on the other hand, is characterized by rapid and often dramatic growth. It has its roots in widespread and vigorous scientific research. and it uses extraordinarily powerful energy sources.

Above all. modern technology represents a new way of seeing the world. For us, nature is something to be known and controlled, time and space things to be explored and conquered. Humanity is no longer a slave of fate or a servant of

Louis A. Grifalco is University Professor of Materials Science at the University of Pennsylvania This article is based on a lecture he delivered for the Herbert Spencer lecture series at the University of Pennsylvania.

By Louis A. Girifalco

A central fact of modern technology is this: It came upon us suddenly and without warning. We were unprepared for it, and we must quickly learn a new mode of living. It is no wonder that we see so much concern and suspicion about new technological developments, and that doomsaying is a growth industry. Yesterday we were grubbing for roots and hunting with clubs: today we travel in jet planes, are surrounded by computers. and have the power either to destroy our world in a matter of minutes or to create a new one of great glory. We are crossing a discontinuity and are not sure that we can handle it.

It is clearly vital that we understand as much about technological change as possible. not only for its intrinsic interest. but because the extent to which it can be properly controlled and guided depends on our knowledge of its nature and its dynamics the rates of technological change and the forces that impel those changes.

At present, our knowledge of technological dynamics is quite rudimentary. We do not even have a clearly defined methodology for coming to grips with the subject. Nevertheless, a certain amount of information is available. and work has been done that is highly suggestive We are able to make some statements which. while they do not quite deserve to be called conclusions, yet are more than just speculations:

The flow of technology is not continuous. Far from being a steadily expanding stream, technological growth is a series of bursting tides with each crest higher than the last. This seems to hold at every level, from specific research and development projects to the worldwide technological enterprise as a whole

The pace of technological change is as so many of us feel in our bones-getting faster. Both the number of innovations and their rates of development are increasing.

The time scales of technological progress do not match the time scales of our decision-making processes. with disastrous results for our ability to design rational policies.

As a particular technology is exploited, the time comes when either its potential is exhausted or it is superseded by a better technology. Too often, the transition occurs in a discontinuous manner with poor preparation and severe dislocations.

The traditional picture of the flow of technology starts with a discovery made by someone pursuing science for its own sake, which is then taken up by engineers, entrepreneurs, and businessmen to create a new product or service that can be sold. This goes on at an ever-increasing rate, giving us exponential technical growth. Although the reality is much more complex, this picture suggests a number of questions that are important for the dynamics of technological change.

These questions are of two kinds. The first are of a descriptive nature and ask 31

what is going on and how fast it is hap-
pening. For example: What is the time
lag between scientific discoveries and their
commercial application? What is the fre-
quency of new technological develop-
ments, and how does their frequency
change over time? What is the rate at
which new technological developments
spread, and how long does it take for a
new technology to supersede an older one?

The second kind of question is more
profound and concerns the reasons the
changes are taking place and the factors
controlling their rates of development.
Questions at this second, explanatory level
would include: What determines the time
lags between scientific discovery, inven-
tion, and commercial application? What
are the forces that inhibit or encourage
technological change? What determines
the rate of technological innovations and
the rate at which they spread?

We can say more at the descriptive level than at the explanatory one-where the really critical issues lie. But even at the descriptive level there are serious problems of carefully defining terms. of choosing measures for rates of growth. and of finding or selecting appropriate data. In other words, the conceptual groundwork even for the description of technological dynamics is still uncertain. And the second. explanatory. level is much harder to handle, including a host of technological, economic, regulatory, and social factors that are intertwined in complex and varying ways.

Still, some progress can be made by examining the available descriptive information on technological change, and trying to generalize it in the hope that we will then be led to some insight about the basic controlling forces.

There are four kinds of data useful to us in this endeavor: 1) the rate of technological diffusion (the spread of a new technology through a given industry). 2) the rate of technological substitution (the replacement of one technology or prod uct by another). 3) the frequency of technological innovation (the number of new developments introduced per year), and 4) the innovation time lag (the time be

tween an invention and its commercialization).

The work of gathering and analyzing this data can seem prosaic and even dull. After all, there is nothing intrinsically exciting about the number of steel companics that adopt the basic oxygen furnace, or the number of television sets purchased, unless you happen to be in the business of selling oxygen furnaces or television sets. However, analysis of the empirical data can lead to far-reaching conclusions with the most profound implications not only for the world's present condition but also for its future.

A Look at the Data

The seminal work on technology diffusion was done by Edwin Mansfield, a pioneer in the quantitative analysis of technological change. For each of four industries (bituminous coal, iron and steel. brewing, and railroads) he examined the time it took for a new technological development to spread from company to company within its industry. His results indicated that after a new technology was adopted by one or two companies, it spread to other companies at an initially slow rate. This rate increased rapidly for a time, then slowed once more, leveling off as all the companies that would adopt the new technology did so.

Studies of this type have been done for a number of new technologies, ranging from catalytic cracking to numerically controlled machine cutting, and also for the international diffusion of technology as a whole. The results are all similar. When the number of firms that have adopted a new technology is plotted as a function of time, we get the S-shaped curve that is shown in Figure 1.

Before considering the meaning of this. let us look at the somewhat different but related phenomenon of substitution: the displacement in the marketplace of one product by another of superior technology. Examples would include the substitution of transistors for radio tubes, of jet engines for piston engines in aircraft. and of synthetic fibers for natural ones.

Fall 190 33