Some Aspects of Technology

1. The Concept of Technology

The word technology originates from the Greek teknologia (tekno is an art or a skill
while logia is a study). As a result technology was conceived as the study of the practical
or industrial arts.
With the development of formal science during the past 300 years this definition has changed
and can now be conceptualized as shown below.

Know-how

Investigation

Techniques

Management

Scientific Principles

Application

Equipment Artifacts
Structure
Organization
Systems
(Source: - Lowe, P. (1995) Management of Technology. Chapman and Hall)
This shows that technology includes not only knowledge that emanates from Science, but
also Know-how which may not have any underpinning in a Science such as physics,
chemistry, or biology. This is, at times, referred to as Tacit knowledge to indicate that such
knowledge is acquired through practice and experience. For example, two hundred years ago,
cross-breeding of sheep and cattle was done without any knowledge of genetics. This,
however, does not mean that they did not have an idiosyncratic conceptual framework to
guide their activities.
But today we regard technology as the structured application of scientific principles
and practical knowledge to physical entities and systems. Very roughly, this application is
carried out by three categories of persons.
Engineers/Technologists who extend and deepen the application of science to their field.
Technicians who apply science and practical knowledge.
Craftsmen who apply practical knowledge.

2. Classification of Technology
Generally, scientific knowledge is public knowledge available in hardcopy or softcopy form
from variety of publications. Technology, however, can be industry or firm specific and may
be kept secret for many years hence the prevalence of Industrial Espionage.
To understand the nature of technology it is useful to attempt a classification such as the one
given below.
Industrial engineering, quality assurance (and its derivative Total Quality Management) may
be regarded as technologies of management, or soft technologies. They are not visible
physical objects such as factories, or components that go into a product. They are intangible
and are referred to as Disembodied Technologies.
There are other technologies that are used across a vast array of products. Examples are
electronic circuit design, lubrication, robotics, optoelectronics etc. Any change or
developments in these are likely to affect widely disparate industries. Hence these are
referred to as Generic Technologies.
Convergence of technologies has been a defining characteristic of industrial development
during the recent past, and this has resulted in the integration of technologies formerly
thought to be separate. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is the classic
example and such technologies are known as Systems Technologies.
In todays competitive environment no firm can survive unless it has access to relevant
technical and other standards, published data, testing, measurement and calibration
procedures. These are essential for R&D and are referred to as Infratechnologies.
Emerging Technologies today are IT, Robotics, Nanotechnologies, Cognitive Science,
Advanced Materials, Biotechnology and AI. The conceptual underpinnings of some of these
may not be well understood, and to obtain an overview the interested reader may access the
entries in Wikipedia.
The concept of Disruptive Technologies has recently gained currency in several fields
ranging from the evolution of memory sticks to mini steel mills. The concept attempts to
explain how the low cost targeting of apparently unattractive market segments has resulted in
the rapid development of such firms to the detriment of established ones.

3. The History of Productivity Improvement and Technology

Sustained and rapid increase in industrial productivity commenced with the European
Industrial Revolution 250 years ago and different technologies played a seminal role in this
process. The lowest common denominator as it were, in this saga was how process control
continuously improved. Across these 200 years, process control improved through attention
to,
(a) Accuracy
(b) Precision
(c) Repeatability
(d) Reproducibility
(e) Stability
(f) Versatility
(g) Adaptability
These improvements took place over periods of such great significance that they have been
referred to as Epochs. Before the first epoch (the English System), what prevailed was the
Craft System where each industrial product had to be made to conform to a physical model
through manual filing and fitting. The concept of an Engineering Drawing, as we understand
it today, did not exist. The purpose of whatever drawings available was to give just an idea as
to the appearance, structure, and function of the end product. These drawings were neither to
scale nor were they dimensioned. Using a pair of calipers, dimensions were transferred from
the model to the work piece. Tools were very basic hand tools such as files and hammers.
The English system pioneered by that brilliant engineer Henry Maudsley focused on building
sophisticated tools, thus inaugurating the concept of a Machine Tool. The primary focus of
Maudsleys apprentices was the tools they used rather than the products they fabricated. In
no time the manufacturing process took on a life of its own, enabling process
improvements to be made independent of product constraints. This was an intellectual
leap in the technology of management as it freed the development of technology from the
constraints of the product. The result: within 50 years the technological landscape was
revolutionized.
The English System focused on Accuracy; that is, as close as possible to a universal
standard of measurement. The American System (the next epoch) focused on Precision,
where the latter was managed through the use of fixtures, tools, jigs, and gauges. The product
was made to fit the latter. In such a situation accuracy could be worse, but every part in a
batch was consistent with one another, and therefore interchangeable. The era of mass
production had dawned, and the problem had changed from the generation of perfection of fit
(English System) to managing clearances between components in large batches. This
naturally led to the mechanization of work. The American System introduced the concepts of
Reductionism and Reproducibility. It examined the process involved in the manufacture of
a product, broke them up into a sequence of simple operations, and mechanized the simple
operation by constraining the motion of the cutting tool with jigs and fixtures.

Verification of performance through the use of simple gauges ensured reproducibility. Each
operation could now be separately studied and optimized.
Both the English and American Systems concentrated on the machines and parts being
processed. It was left to Frederick Taylor of America (another brilliant engineer) to realize
that equal attention should be paid to associated human activities, particularly at shop floor
level. This was the beginning of Taylorism. His assumption was that human activities could
be measured, analyzed, and controlled using methods analogous to those that had been
successfully applied to machines. The idea was to reduce the variance (variability of quality
parameters) that crept into work by eliminating worker discretion and making the task
reproducible. The English System separated the process from the product; The American
System standardized the product; Taylor separated the process from the procedure of
manufacture and concentrated on optimizing the latter. For instance, how one sets up a tool
on a machine was conceptually regarded as being largely independent of the process of using
the tool. Such separation gave rise to the field of Industrial Engineering which is quite
distinct from its parent, Mechanical Engineering.
The three epochs discussed above were periods of relatively slow change. By the first quarter
of the twentieth century this had changed with high product variety and rapid product
introduction. Monitoring unacceptable deviation from specifications and tolerances become
critical, and with this came the epoch of Statistical Process Control (SPC). Using the
mathematical fact that a large number of small random changes changes that may or may
not have a discernible probability distribution adds up to one that has a Normal
Distribution, SPC was able to identify out-of-control situations. Attention, therefore, was
directed to the performance of a process, and with SPC there was, for the first time, the
explicit recognition and separation of information about operating process parameters from
the physical processing of material: In other words, separation of information about a
procedure from the procedure itself.
This separation was complete with Numerically Controlled machines. Increased
microprocessor control of activities and on-line analysis of tool wear and tool compensation
provided feedback, thereby enabling cybernetic control of machining. With Numerical
Control, operators no longer monitor the performance of machines: rather, they control the
performance of a group of machines run by computers. The principal medium of
communication is no longer the blueprint, but the printout.
With the convergence of technologies, the next logical step was the integration of all these in
the form of Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM), the ultimate goal of which could
be untended manufacturing. This requires a complete Science of Manufacturing as every
contingency has to be thought of and provided for.

(5)

CAD

CAM

CAD/CAM

AGV

Loading, Scheduling, Monitoring

FMS

CIM

The net outcome of these six epochs spanning two hundred years is a five hundred (500) fold
increase in productivity and transformation of manufacturing from an Art towards a Science.
(The above on the six epochs has been adapted from the late Prof. Ramchandran Jaikumars
monograph, From Filing and Fitting to Flexible Manufacturing available in the public
domain).
4. Technology Strategy (Summarized from, Ford, J.D. (1988) Develop your technology
strategy. Long Range Planning, 21(5), 85-95)
From the perspective of an organization, Technology refers to what it knows and what it
can do. Therefore, Technology Strategy, therefore, may be thought of as Policies, Plans,
and Procedures for acquiring, exploiting, and managing knowledge and ability. How
best should a company set about this task? To resolve this question into manageable
proportions, one could think of it as,
1. Technology acquisition
2. Technology management
3. Technology exploitation
Acquiring technology can vary from purely internal (internal R&D) to the purely external
(fully outsourced R&D). Decisions pertaining to technology depend on the stage a particular
technology is with respect to its life cycle.
Any viable organization has the following technology categories.
1. Distinctive (order winners)
2. Basic (order qualifiers)
3. External (can be outsourced without compromising competencies)

(6)
For example, for Black and Decker, production technologies in the assembly of electric hand
tools would be Basic, though design and manufacture of fractional horsepower electric
motors would be distinctive (in this area, the company considers itself the most sophisticated
manufacturer in the world). Plastic parts and painting work are External.
Technology acquisition decisions would have to consider Methods of Acquisition (Internal
R&D, JV, Outsourced R&D, Licensing-in, Buying final product), and these have to match
internal factors (The firms standing in respect of the Acquisition method, Urgency,
Investment feasibility, Technology life cycle, Technology category).
Similar considerations apply to Technology exploitation. Methods of exploitation (Use in
own products/production, Contracted out manufacturing/marketing, JV, Licensing-out)
should be matched to relevant Internal factors (Company standing, Urgency, Need for
support technologies Lifecycle consideration, Category of Technology, Potential
applications).
The following points should be kept in mind when Managing technology.

1. Companies must have procedures for internal transfer of technologies between

divisions.
2. Product technologies must develop alongside associated production technologies.
3. A companys portfolio of technologies must be developed and maintained on a
continuing basis.