market" when they have a major innovation; that is what we are doing at Commerce. In a year or so we should be able to tell whether we are in a position to meet a well perceived need or whether we have another Edsel. In sum, Mr. Chairman, both our on-going work in the area of impacted industries, and the proposed cooperative technology study which focus on disaggregated industries share a basic approach. Its essential element is to cooperate with industry and academia in the development of technology supportive of the industry. Cooperation for mutual benefit is the key to success. There will be no joint efforts unless the users and developers of technology identify the problems and opportunities and collaborate in the search for a solution. The objective of both efforts is, broadly stated-the preservation of jobs and the growth of our economy. I see the National Bureau of Standards playing a lead role in the impacted industry program and a similar role if our study leads to an additional program. The Bureau will manage the feasibility studies that precede initiation of tasks, identify and assemble resources, and manage a responsive technical program. In cases where NBS has unique resources, these tasks might be performed internally. In general, however, work would be done under contract to outside institutions. NBS will monitor the progress of all technical studies, and play a large role in the transfer of the resulting technology. I believe NBS is a logical choice for the functions I have mentioned-indeed it is the best choice I know of-because NBS has cooperated with industry and academia for 77 years. This new program would not be a radical departure for NBS; it would be a logical extension of its role and actions in providing technical services to industry and commerce. The Bureau understands the subtleties involved in the development and use of infratechnology as a result of its long experience in developing and providing infrastructure services. The Bureau is already coupled to the industrial, academic, and government communities and has their respect and confidence. NBS people are now collaborating with many of the scientists and engineers who will participate in this program. Many of the Bureau's outstanding scientists and engineers have had careers in industry too. This program could allow multiple use of their talents and provide all NBS researchers with new and exciting challenges. NBS already has in place a variety of mechanisms for collaboration. For example, under the research associate program over 75 people from industry are working at NBS on problems of mutual interest. Other interchanges take place through the postdoctoral program, the Intergovernmental Personnel Exchange Act, visiting scientists, and executive interchange programs. My point is that interactions, leading to diffusion of technology, are an everyday occurrence at the Bureau. The last sector of the NBS that I would like to address is the Institute for Computer Science and Technology (ICST). The ICST faces an immense tasknothing less than bringing to the Federal Data Processing system the economies of scale that it should be enjoying. In order to do that job-and do it rightwill require an ICST that looks and acts very differently from the ICST of the past. To clarify that point let me just include here our internal tasking memorandum. It outlines the major activities that are necessary if the Federal Government is indeed to get all the mileage out of standardization that it can, and it indicates our view of those activities. INTERNAL TASKING MEMORANDUM-TASKS REQUIRED FOR THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BROOKS ACT 1. Program Development and Evaluation (under Institute Director) a. Conduct impact analyses to determine potential benefits of standards families and individual standards. b. Conduct analyses to determine projected costs for standards families and individual standards. c. Analyze technological forecasts to evaluate potential for future standards (see 7e below). d. Collect and review (in coordination with OMB) operating costs to evaluate performance of standards and families. NOTE: This separate and independent office is necessary for two reasons: 1. it requires a set of business analysis skills not generally found in the techni cal centers; 2. it directly supports the institute director in the establishment of standards development priorities.] [NOTE: From our work with the ISETAP panel and others, it is likely that 2. Establishment of hardware and software standards for the procurement and use of computers in the Federal Government these standards will also be adopted by state and local governments.] a. Standards are to be mandatory and binding; b. Deviations (exceptions or waivers) from these standards must be centrally approved upon review and recommendation of the ICST; c. Standards must be pro-competitive; and d. ICST will use the voluntary system where practical and timely. 3. Enforcement a. Secretary of Commerce to approve deviations; b. On-site audit (including inspection and tests); c. Higher level language validation; d. Applications package validation; and e. Sanctions by GSA (procurement) and OMB (budget). 4. Assistance to agencies a. Adaptation, maintenance and operation of the Federal Software Exchange. The current GSA system is voluntary. It is our intent that application program submission (in standard language and with standard documentation) be made mandatory as is the case with publications under the G.P.O. There will be some minimum level on such programs. Such a procedure is also necessary for compliance determination. b. Training of other agency personnel in standards use and library use. c. Training of other agency management personnel in the management of facilities under the standards and in the procurement of new standard facilities. d. Consultation to other agencies on standards implementation, facilities specification and operation (OA funds or appropriations not yet decided). e. Establishment and maintenance of a capacity-smoothing facility (if necessary; see f below) to meet temporary peak needs of agencies or to serve agencies whose needs are too small to warrant a dedicated installation. f. Maintain inventory of predicted demands and capacity availability of other agencies to "broker" services where networking or transportation is appropriate. g. Conduct a simulation service to assist in procurement and software development. h. In cooperation with the Center for Applied Mathematics, develop models and general purpose statistical packages for other agency use. Such models must be requested and, depending on their generality, be cost shared by the other agency. i. Conduct validation and conversion centers as appropriate internally or on contract. j. Assist other agencies in evaluation and use of new types of equipment. 5. Research and Development a. Develop prototype hardware or software technology to prove feasibility of proposed standards where necessary. b. Procure, adapt or develop on request from other agencies special purpose equipment that can be connected to standard installations. c. Procure, adapt or develop the necessary software to permit standardized operation of the above. d. Develop and establish privacy-protecting and security protocols to facilitate networking among standard facilities (see 4f above). e. Coordinate with the Center for Electronic and Electrical Engineering, the Center for Applied Mathematics and the Center for Mechanical Engineering and Process Technology (automation) see 6d below. f. Conduct in cooperation with OMB and other appropriate agencies an annual review of the accomplishment of and programs for research in computer services and techniques to assess accomplishments and to provide guidance for programs. 6. Diffusion a. Assist State and local governments in the adoption and use of Federal Standards. b. Assist State and local governments (via NACO, NLA, USCOM, etc.) in establishing a central applications program library for their use (similar to 4a above) and provide library interchange services with the central library. c. Publish and publicize the results of impact analyses (see la) to encourage maximum comment on some and maximum use of Federal standards. d. Review Federal Computer Science and Technology and maintain a computerbased inventory of same to assist in diffusing it through the public and private sector. 7. Research Conduct research as needed to: a. Develop test and standardization methodologies. b. Open areas for new or revised standards as in the onset of new equipment architectures, new software developments or new protocols. c. Support specific standards under development or to be developed. d. Evaluate the potential and usage factors of new equipment or software. e. Perform technological forecasts in both the hardware and software areas. f. Maintain competence and ties with the outside. I think it is clear that while some of these activities may be done outside of ICST, whatever remains is large. To ensure its accomplishment, the ICST has been established as an organization on a par with the NML and NEL within the Bureau. Whether this structure is sufficient, time will tell. Mr. Chairman, I have gone on too long. Clearly the Bureau is on the move along several fronts. Such motion, of course, causes some strain but the overall effect looks very promising. With everyone's help this major national resource can be counted on to attain new levels of greatness. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1978. Hon. ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is the study plan for our Cooperative Technology Program which you requested that I furnish the Subcommittee during my testimony of April 6, 1978. Please note that this study, although it represents our current thinking, may be modified. Sincerely, Enclosure. FRANCIS W. WOLEB, (For Jordan J. Baruch). GUIDE TO FISCAL YEARS 1978 AND 1979 ACTIVITY ON THE COOPERATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM STUDY PLAN The Department has requested $2 million for fiscal year 1979 which will support a study to determine: the potential of a cooperative program with the private sector, the feasibility of effective cooperation, and the policy and management issues necessarily involved in organizing and designing a program. Work has already begun along several interrelated tracks on the above tasks and sufficient results should be available by August of 1978 to present a sound justification for an fiscal year 1980 submission. These tracks involve: intensive work with the private sector to determine both its support for the program and opportunities for significant cooperative projects; systematic review of similar programs, both domestic and foreign, to define key issues and impacts; management of programs with a similar thrust that are part of the existing mandate of the Department; and comprehensive analysis of the governmental policy system affecting in dustrial innovation. Introduction TRACK I: SURVEY OF PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology has actively contacted organizations representing the private sector concerning their interest in a cooperative program. Meetings have been held and will continue with a wide variety of industrial associations, universities, public interest groups, and companies concerning projects which would make significant contributions and which require appropriate government action. This outreach effort to the private sector constitutes a quasi-experimental study to determine the potential impact of such a program. That is, interactions start with the question: If a cooperative program were available, what specific needs could it fill? In coming months, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology will focus interactions on leaders from one or two specific industries (e.g., machine tools and textiles, and areas of technology (e.g., composite materials, corrosion, and lubrication). An intensive schedule of visits to factories, research laboratories, technical institutes, key spokesmen, labor leaders and academics will provide the depth of mutual understanding needed to identify creative projects which will provide both significant results and realistic prospects of success. Activity in fiscal year 1979 should continue on both the general and specific surveys of technologies with the aim of obtaining: a full range of prospective projects across the broad spectrum of U.S. industry; guidelines on policy and procedure abstracted from the analysis of prospective opportunities; and indications of the depth, breadth and conditions of private support for a cooperative program. Milestone Plans Select sample fields for test market analysis by consultation with private sector organizations (May 1978). Assess, with participation of the selected industries: Technology opportunities and corresponding business strategies for meeting market needs, Capacity to develop and use technology, Shortfall in the capacity of private organizations to produce and use technology, and Extent and feasibility of possible impact by a cooperative program (July 1978). Analyze, integrate and report on results (August 1978). Indentify industries and technical fields requiring special interaction in developing proposals for cooperative projects (September 1978). Assess the opportunities for cooperative projects proposed across the full range of technical fields (April 1979). Assess the potential impacts of cooperative technologies on the operations of state and local governments (May 1979). Analyze, integrate and report results (June 1979). Introduction TRACK II: REVIEW OF PROGRAMMATIC EXPERIENCE The concept of the Cooperative Technology Program is an outgrowth of an analysis of past programs of the U.S. and other governments in support of industrial technology. Efforts have continued to locate, describe and analyze these programs to: identify policy options for providing governmental assistance on critical technologies; define specific issues, problems, and strengths of programs; and While a more rigorous review will extend into fiscal year 1979, sufficient analytical work should be complete by late summer of fiscal year 1978 for a sound submittal for a fiscal year 1980 budget request. Two meetings are planned for the summer of 1978 to validate and integrate the preliminary findings of the above studies. These meetings will be held with academic, governmental and industrial experts in (a) the econmics of industrial technology and (b) the management of the innovation process. Funds requested for fiscal year 1979 will be allocated to a systematic plan to continue the above process of location and analysis. In particular, efforts will be made to study the programs of: other industrial nations in the free world, other mission agencies of the U.S. government, state governments within the U.S., and private organizations organized into cooperative consortia. The review of these programs will include published and unpublished program reviews, interviews with key personnel associated with the programs, analyses of theoretical literature dealing with general principles relevant to the programs, analytical comparisons of key characteristics, and systematic collection of descriptive and evaluative data. Milestone Plans Select primary examples of Federal and state government programs which have similar goals and structures (June 1978). Select primary examples of foreign government programs which have similar goals and structures (May 1978). Evaluate the effectiveness of exemplar programs in promoting balanced growth (July 1978). Specify and assess the strengths and weaknesses in order to develop procedural and policy options in cooperative programs (July 1978). Conduct conferences with economists, industrialists and experts on innovation to air, synthesize and validate conclusions about other programs (July 1978). Complete the search of similar programs and of alternative options for influencing the advancement of critically needed technologies (October 1978). Evaluate alternatives to cooperative R&D for accomplishing the goals of the program (December 1978). Evaluate the effectiveness of other programs (March 1979). Specify and assess the strengths and weaknesses for procedural and policy options on cooperative technology programs (July 1979). Introduction TRACK III: MANAGEMENT OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS Existing missions of the Department of Commerce (namely those focused on providing industry-wide, technical assistance to impacted industries) require the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology to be involved in the management of government/industry cooperation on specific technologies. For example, throughout fiscal year 1978, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology has been actively involved in a cooperative analysis of the trade impaction problems of the American footwear industry. This analysis will assist the footwear industry and the Department to specify a technical program which will encourage technologies capable of supporting a competitive advantage for American industry. During the summer of fiscal year 1978, cooperative projects will be organized to provide the needed knowledge for industry to undertake subsequent commercial projects. This effort and others like it will provide many lessons of general value to the Cooperative Technology Program, such as: delineation of the need for, and the structure of, a business analysis process necessary to relate technologies to viable, long-term strategies; indication of the willingness for, and capability of, government and industry to cooperate together; definition of the policies, procedures and assurances necessary to obtain full and effective cooperation; clarification of the constraints of other agency policies (e.g., Department of Justice) on cooperative, technical work; and projections of the value of cooperative projects. Milestone Plans Preliminary analysis, integration and reporting of lessons from cooperative projects (July 1978). Evaluate the early response of the industries dealt with (July 1978). Analysis, integration and reporting of lessons from the full set of cooperative projects to date (February 1979). Evaluate the response of the private sector to the cooperative projects initiated (March 1979). TRACK IV: POLICY ANALYSES ON INDUSTRIAL INNOVATION A comprehensive analysis of the impact of Federal policy and program activities upon industrial innovation is being initiated by the Department of Commerce in conjunction with the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It is |