Twenty years hence it may be as unlikely for individual users, even big companies, to have their own large computers as it is today unlikely for an individual manufacturing plant to have its own power station. Sixty years ago, a plant had to have its own power station if it wanted electricity. Now it gets power through "time-sharing" from a central station. Similarly, information a few years hence may be primarily on some "timesharing" basis, in which a great many users have their data on one and the same computer, with complete privacy but also with complete and immediate access at all times. Already the cost of information is going down drastically. A few years ago one hour of computer time cost several thousand dollars. It now costs perhaps one hundred to two hundred dollars. Ten years hence it may cost as little as a dollar or two. Eventually it should cost no more than an hour of lighting, that is, a penny or less.

In one important respect the computer differs greatly from the electric generator: an information industry can function without a computer. This shows clearly in the field of education.

Learning and teaching are going to be more deeply affected by the new availability of information than any other area of human life. There is great need for a new approach, new methods and new tools in teaching, man's oldest and most reactionary craft. There is great need for a rapid increase in the productivity of learning. There is, above all, great need for methods that will make the teacher effective and multiply his or her efforts and competence. Teaching is, in fact, the only traditional craft in which we have not yet fashioned the tools that make an ordinary person capable of superior performance. In this respect, teaching is far behind medicine, where the tools first became available a century or more ago. It is, of course, infinitely behind the mechanical crafts where we have had effective apprenticeship for thousands and thousands of years.

We need a new concept of information and a new understanding of learning and of teaching. But while the "information revolution" will have its most dramatic impact on education, teaching and learning may not use computers at all or may use them only marginally. The materials, while certainly quite different from what we have been using as different as the printed book of 500 years ago was from the oral tradition of the earlier schools-probably do not need to be big machines with huge memories. The amount of information needed throughout all the years of formal schooling is actually quite limited and hardly requires anything as complex as an electronic memory. "Programs" can be a great deal simpler than anything the computer uses. An ordinary desk calendar is, after all, also a “program," and a highly effective one. Information systems without computers, in others words, are perfectly possible and may indeed be as important as the systems built around the computer.

Yet without the computer we would not have understood that information, like electricity, is a form of energy. Electricity is the cheapest, most plentiful, and most versatile energy for mechanical work. But information is energy for mind work. This is indeed the first era when energy for mind work has been available. Information through the ages has been all but completely lacking. At best it has been expensive, late, and quite unreliable. Most people in responsible positions today, whether in government, in hospitals, in research labs, or in business, spend most of their time scratching to get a little incorrect and unreliable information on what happened yesterday.

The impact of cheap, reliable, fast, and universally available information will easily be as great as was the impact of electricity. Certainly young people, a few years hence, will use information systems as their normal tools, much as they now use the typewriter or the telephone. Yet the telephone eighty years ago evoked somewhat the same panic the computer now does. In another generation, it is safe to predict, people will have learned that the computer is their tool and not their master, and that it enables them to do the mind work they want to do and are unable to do today for want of cheap, reliable, and fast information.

The information industry will create tremendous employment opportunities. The United States needs, for instance, around a million computer programmers between now and 1975-as against the 150,000 to 200,000 we have had to date. The computer programmer is to the information industry what the worker on the assembly line was to the mass production industry of yesterday: the semiskilled but highly paid, highly productive worker. But at the same time, the information technology also creates a great many more highly skilled and demanding jobs, systems engineers, for instance, of whom we might need up to half a million or so within the next ten years. Yet these are only beginnings [6].

References

[1] Bedford, Norman M., Onsi, Mohammed, Measuring the Value of Information: An Information Theory Approach, taken from Management: A Book of Readings (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1968), p. 529. [2] McDonough, Adrian M., Information Economics and Management Systems (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1963), p. 76.

[3] Bedford, Norman M., Onsi, Mohammed, Measuring the Value of Information: An Information Theory Approach, taken from Management: A Book of Readings (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1968), p. 529.

[4] A widely distributed humorous saying of unknown origin.

[5] Bedford, Norman M., Onsi, Mohammed, Measuring the Value of Information: An Information Theory Approach, taken from Management: A Book of Readings (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, 1968), p. 530.

[6] Drucker, Peter F., The Age of Discontinuity (Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 49 East 33rd Street, New York, New York, 1968), pp. 24-28.

THE ACCREDITATION OF

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES JURISDICTIONS

by R. T. WILLIAMS, Director, Consumer Service Division, Texas Department of Agriculture

Within the past four years, most of our states have received valuable equipment and standards to develop and maintain weights and measures laboratories. Texas received this equipment only last year, and the program in the remaining states is in its final stages.

This has made possible the establishment or upgrading of first-class laboratory facilities in all our 50 states. These laboratories can provide a standard of services for the benefit of consumers and industry alike. And the public has

the right to expect and demand a high level of performance from these facilities.

But perhaps something is lacking at this stage. While we have the equipment to do the job, do we have a measure by which to gage our own excellence in the performance of these duties? We deal in weights and measures every day. By what means may we measure ourselves?

Perhaps this void can be filled by a self-devised program of accreditation of our weights and measures jurisdictions. Now, accreditation is not a word we frequently use in everyday conversation; but it is a process by which we recognize and judge competence in many endeavors. Accredit, in its simplest terms, means "to give credit to" or "to have confidence in." It further means "to authorize or stamp with authority." From whom may we, as state and local weights and measures officials, obtain this stamp of approval? The logical answer is "from ourselves, operating as an organized body on a national level." Accreditation of weights and measures jurisdictions has been considered in past years; but the press of other duties and obligations has pushed its serious consideration into the background. Now that nearly all the 50 states have the facilities and new standards on which to build up a comprehensive program, is it not time to give another look to the possible accreditation of our efforts?

The idea has immense appeal to me personally; and I cannot take any credit for the revival of the proposal at this time. It was submitted to me shortly after I took over as President of the Southern Association last year, in a letter from Marion Kinlaw of North Carolina. Marion made a simultaneous inquiry of the National Bureau of Standards, asking, in effect, "Why is this not possible?"

And I am here today to ask you, as representatives of weights and measures jurisdictions throughout the nation, "Why not?" Why cannot we devise an accreditation plan as a means for the evaluation of our programs with respect to laws, regulations, standards, test methods, equipment, and performance? Could not this be the vehicle by which we can promote and encourage uniformity and excellence of weights and measures administration and enforcement throughout the United States? What better way to create motivation and incentives among jurisdictions and officials? If ever the need existed, and if ever the time was ripe, I believe it is now!

I recognize that perhaps not every jurisdiction is ready immediately to launch a self-evaluation and improvement plan by reason of budgetary limitations or other considerations. To shoot for goals takes time and money. Yet, it is not too early to establish these goals. And may I stress that this would be a voluntary program which a jurisdiction could enter into at any time it appeared to be ready. But the goals must be set and the plans established beforehand.

Certainly I do not have a full-blown structure of national accreditation to present to you this afternoon. This is a project for all of us to delineate in a methodical, practical fashion. Basic to such a plan, however, is the establishment of a model weights and measures program to which other programs may be compared and rated by an impartial organization or body. Criteria must be developed which would serve as guidelines to weights and measures administrators for evaluation of their own program structures and operations.

Now, a Certificate of National Accreditation on my wall in Austin can be just another piece of paper in a nice frame if it does not have some real meaning behind it. I do not need another piece of paper on my wall. But I would like to earn a certificate, awarded by my professional peers, which indicates that certain standards of professionalism have been met. Or if our Texas activities do not quite conform to certain proposed standards, I would like to be able to go before my superiors in Austin, or before the Texas Legislature, and say, "Look! Here are the national recommendations by which my work is judged. In order to render this maximum service, I need additional funds, a more adequately trained staff and field force."

I believe that a universal accreditation program would be an excellent lever in helping me obtain my needs. And certainly it could eventually help elevate the reputation and status of all of us in our profession.

Well, by whom will we be judged? When I received Marion Kinlaw's letter, my first reaction was that this would be a good plan to put into effect within the Southern Weights and Measures Association. Let the accreditation come from the Association itself, and be awarded to the member states who qualify. But on reflection, it

was immediately apparent that it has greater potential and is more meaningful if it is national in scope.

It seems more logical to have the program centered within the National Conference on Weights and Measures. A committee of qualified men with good regional distribution could study the feasibility of such a program and lay the groundwork. Or perhaps much of the administrative burden and detail could be shifted to the Office of Weights and Measures, which has the physical capability to handle much of the evaluation work which would be necessary.

I have no set plan to recommend, nor suggested procedures to offer. I think this properly belongs with this body if you agree that we can benefit from an accreditation program. I merely lay the subject open to you, and I invite and encourage your discussion and suggestions.

FORUM DISCUSSION

MR. M. GREENSPAN (New York City, N. Y.): Mr. Stabler, most of us here, I believe, can be considered middle management. The biggest constraints placed upon us in the management process is that many of our superiors are political appointees or elected officials and, in some cases, are not experienced managers. How can we develop the kind of information we have heard about today in a meaningful manner so that our superiors can provide greater assistance to us in the management process?

MR. STABLER: That is a problem that is faced by nearly everyone in weights and measures administration. Every weights and measures jurisdiction is a separate entity, and each has its own peculiar set of problems. However, it is a necessity for each jurisdiction to develop and compile effective and complete information concerning its program and to show the benefit of its operations in relation to economic impact.

MR. GREENSPAN: In recent years consumer protection has overshadowed weights and measures. The keyword today is impact. I have made presentations, not on the basis of the number of devices tested or the number of condemnations, but on the economic impact upon the consumer due to lack of increased weights and measures enforcement. And yet, these reports have had literally no effect, and the feedback that I get is, "It has little or no impact."

MR. STABLER: There is no guarantee of a certain or immediate success. However, the percentages for success are greater with the type of operation and management information that was suggested by the panel speakers.

MR. D. I. OFFNER (St. Louis, Mo.): Mr. Mattimoe and Mr. Edgerly both made reference to the fact that savings to the consumer