What is Technology

Dr Kelvin Kemm

Over the last couple of decades, more and more, the public have been exposed to comment about which technology should be used, in applications ranging from energy production to climate control, to food additives, to motor car engines, and more. People are exposed to questions about which technology is best, usually with no reference to any datum line from which to measure. TV presenters ‘investigate technology options;’ and then pronounce on the ‘obvious choice.’ This trend has been particularly evident in environmentally-related issues, when one hears that solar technology or wind technology, is better than nuclear technology, and such like. Or one hears that large fields of big batteries are ‘clearly the solution,’ without fully understanding what the original question was.

Then people are advised or instructed, by a publication or TV channel, to choose the correct option. Frequently we are instructed that the correct option is obvious, and therefore needs very little thought. People are then told to do the ‘responsible thing’ and to do as they are told.

But before we decide on major issues, which can have huge financial implications, surely it is sensible for us to actually decide what the word technology means.

If one asks half a dozen University professors in science or engineering, to define the term technology, one is sure to get half a dozen different answers.

Wealth creation pulls

Technology is more and more becoming the fundamental wealth-creation mechanism of any country. Therefore, national skill in technology application is essential for competition in the international economy. Everybody just ‘knows’ that technology advance is dramatic and rapid.

The speed of technological change clearly makes the control of technology all the more difficult, particularly for developing countries. However, an extremely important consideration to contemplate is that technology is not only a technical discipline but relies heavily on the marketability and social acceptability of the final product. This concept demands a multidisciplinary approach across widely divergent disciplines.

So we had better decide what technology actually is.

Scientists should undoubtedly be very involved in promoting and driving multidisciplinary technology decision-making and implementation. Unfortunately, they are mostly not involved enough, and the reality is that much technology decision making is carried out by accountants, lawyers, and whoever else.

Aura of Mystery

Technology is a subject that creates a great aura of mystery around it. There are various reasons for this frame of mind, that range from the fact that technology is undoubtedly a difficult enterprise, conducted by highly-skilled people, to the fact that the general public don’t understand most of the technological devices and systems that enter into their daily lives.

The concept of technology is seen by the public as a technical activity only, which it is not. However, this narrow view of technology is not only encountered amongst the general public, but is also a view shared by many managers in business and industry. This limited vision of technology is particularly evident when high technology systems are considered.

Furthermore, this limited view is more dominant in developing countries, when both high and low technology is considered.

This attitude implies that often; in developing countries, technology is seen as a high-powered activity that is carried out by others in the sophisticated first world countries. This opinion, no doubt, means that many opportunities for technology advancement in developing countries are lost, as people view the endeavour as something not meant for them.

Technology – what is it?

Before pursuing the considerations of technology, and its role in various societies, it is instructive to ask the question: What is technology?

The written definitions of technology found in academic papers are wide and varying. Perhaps this fact signifies the complexity of the concept.

Let us now make the dramatic statement that it is not possible to write down an acceptable definition of technology in words, bearing in mind that a definition should be concise. Let us postulate that a picture is needed instead of the traditional set of words, using the principle of, ‘a picture is worth a 1000 words!’

Some people feel that it is not possible to make the statement that a definition of technology cannot be written in words, in a concise form. But let us now use a comparison, and consider the concept of ‘love.’ All people believe that they know what love is, but no universal definition of ‘love’ exists, despite the endeavours of writers such as Shakespeare, and philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, and the many poets and pop-singers who followed.

In 1955 a pop band, The Four Aces, sang to the world that ‘love is a many splendored thing.’ Yes, quite correct, but that does not actually help us solve the problem, does it?’

Go and ask anybody, “Do you know what love is?” and everyone will answer; yes. But then ask, “Please give me a definition of love.” Nobody can. A man can love his wife, mother, and his dog, but they do not compete in the same portion of his love. spectrum.

So if we accept that it is not possible to precisely define the concept of love, why can the same not be true of the concept of technology?

Now let us consider our definition picture, the Technology Triangle, shown in the diagram, in which the three vertices are Science, Economics and Rules.

And now we need to digress for a moment, for a fairytale;

Imagine a fairytale situation in which a homeowner discovers that his garden wheelbarrow is rusting. He visits his scientist neighbour and asks him to provide a good scientific solution. The scientist uses totally correct scientific principles and advises the homeowner to gold-plate his wheelbarrow! He points out that a good thick layer of goldplate will really work, the wheelbarrow will not rust. The scientist, quite correctly, came to a ‘scientific’ conclusion. His purest answer was at the S-Vertex of the Technology Triangle.

The homeowner is horrified and says, “I can’t afford to gold-plate my wheelbarrow.” The scientist says, “you could silver-plate it. That is cheaper. But it will still work.” That answer falls a bit lower down from the S-Vertex…not the ideal solution. But that is still too expensive for the homeowner, so the scientist keeps providing cheaper and cheaper answers, but is moving further downwards from his ideal S-Vertex answer in the Technology Triangle. The scientist proposes a second best, third best option, and so on, until they arrive at an economically viable solution – they decide to paint the wheelbarrow with enamel paint! That is the technology which they use.

This solution is now represented by a point somewhere in the middle of the triangle, where both the S and E balance out.  It  falls in the yellow shape in the triangle.

How does the Technology Triangle work?

So now we have discovered that the best ‘technological’ answer is one that is not only scientifically feasible but also includes viable economics.

So, what is the S for Science? Well, ‘Science’ is all the rules of Mother Nature and the Universe. You have zero ability to change any of these rules. They are things like; gravity, electricity flow, friction, magnetism, and so on. They are fixed. You have 0% ability to change those rules.

Now for the E. That is Economics, which means ‘all the rules of financial flows internationally.’ Let us speculate that your ability to change these rules is about 50%, that is a fair estimate. You can decide to change the economic policy of a country, or a company, but you can’t change the gold price or the oil price. Many financial rules change by themselves, in the sense that market forces and the actions of mankind cause them to follow standard economic principles, and so the Economics goes where these principles induces it to go.

Now let us look at the case of the R for Rules. We can assume that we have 100% ability to change these rules.

So where does the R for Rules fit in? This stands for the rules that society imposes in life. In other words, R indicates the people element. The R indicates such issues as, the law, safety regulations, quality standards requirements, health regulations, import/export policies and practices, etc. The Rules can also include company regulations, or even issues related to good manners and polite protocols. In other words; all the rules that groups of people decide to put in place to run an orderly society.

Continuing our analogy of the wheelbarrow, it is scientifically acceptable to paint a wheelbarrow. Additionally the painting process violates no economic realities in the marketplace. But if it turned out that the paint used was extremely toxic to animals and children, the authorities would soon arrive to tell the homeowner that he is not allowed to do that, even though it worked.

It should now be clear that the solution provided to our wheelbarrow problem is an example of technology. Although it has been stated that it is impossible to write down an adequate definition of technology in words, but that a picture is required, we can nevertheless now create a simple word definition which can be stated, as long as it is read in conjunction with the picture.

Simply stated, this definition says:

Technology is Science that makes Economic sense within the bounds of the Rules.

Put another way, technology is the economically viable and socially acceptable application of science to the benefit of the economic process.

So when the S, E and R all exert their magnetic push-and-pull on a set of possible solutions to a problem, the final technological answer is one which is Scientifically possible, is within the Ruies and Regulations formulated by people, and which, at the end of the day, is Economically viable, and therefore makes a profit for the company, and so adds to the GDP of the nation.

So in the Technology Triangle a technological solution is one which falls within the yellow shape in the middle. It will be noted that the yellow shape has an irregular boundary. In fact, the yellow shape should be visualised as something which is continuously moving, so that the boundary wall can differ from one week to the next. This is because something that did not qualify as a viable technology yesterday could be become viable technology tomorrow, because of some simple change, such as a change in the oil price, or some new law coming into effect. Similarly, something which is a viable technology today can become not viable technology tomorrow, because the legislation changes, or a price changes, or a science development occurs, and pushes the solution to the other side of the boundary wall.

Hardware and Process

It must also be noted that technology is not only Hardware, it is also Process. A smarter way of doing things, a shorter process, a less complex process, these are also all technology improvements, leading to increased profits. For example, something as simple as the company delivery vehicle delivering product to a number of retail outlets, is technology in action. If the driver discovers a shortcut, or a more efficient route, then the vehicle will save on fuel and on time. This will then enable more deliveries to take place, with no increase in costs. That will reflect as profits in the company bottom line. The technology system of delivery is improved.

Another example is; shapes being cut out of a wooden board on a factory production line. They can be cut out one at a time. Alternatively, a number of boards can be put on top of one another and then the pile is cut once, to deliver the shapes in batches. Such altered approaches are technology improvements.

A very famous example of this type of consideration is Henry Ford inventing the motor car production line. In his improvement; instead of the factory workers walking from car to car carrying their tools, the workers stayed in one place with all the tools nearby, and the cars were brought to the workers on a moving production line. This approach dramatically improved production, and consequently the financial bottom line of the Ford factory…and Henry.

Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.

Henry Ford
1863 – 1947

What all of this tells one is that technology, and particularly Technology Strategy, is a Boardroom issue. Technology is not something carried out only down in the lower ranks by the ‘engine room people’ who wipe their hands on greasy rags. It is Boardroom strategy, if not then the speed of change will beat the Boardroom.

This Technology Triangle definition of technology implies that technology decisions must be taken by multi-disciplinary teams, or at least in a multidisciplinary mode of thinking.

Note that, as per the definition used, one must emphasise a distinct difference between technology and science. Technology includes the aspects such as economics, law, marketing etc.

Hi tech and Lo tech

In considering Hi tech and Lo tech, it is important to ponder what these terms really mean, particularly in a developing world context. It is also important to contemplate the term Appropriate Technology.

First let us consider the term “Appropriate Technology,” which has been in use for some years. This term is generally used to mean that first world countries, or first world project groups, should pass technology down to unsophisticated people, and that the technology should be ‘appropriate’ for their lower-level needs or educational standards. In this mode, the term can be offensive, and it definitely should not be used in this way.

Instead, the term appropriate should be used to mean that the appropriate level of technology should be applied in each situation, whether it be Hi tech or Lo tech, or any combination thereof. In the same vein, high tech should not be seen as a higher order of low tech, but rather as one of an array of options. Also, as discussed with reference to the definition, the technology solution could be ‘high tech’ with a relatively low level of science complexity, but with a high level of economics and rules-based complexity.

So, a reference to Hi tech or Lo tech should not be made solely on the basis of the complexity of the science component. Many proposed technology solutions are successful or otherwise, mainly as a result of the non-technical factors. So to judge a technology on the basis of science alone is short-sighted. It is also important to note that one or more Lo tech options can form very important aspects of extremely sophisticated projects.

It is the case that low technology is, at times, implied as being ‘primitive technology.’ This is incorrect and gives a false image; it does not indicate that a sophisticated project can be made up intentionally of a mix of Hi and Lo tech components. The Project Mix diagram shows a symbolic large-scale project in which the project mix is an intentional combination of high technology and low technology components. Such a mix should be designed to give the optimum performance in terms of cost constraints and the consequent financial return on investment.

Problem analysis

It is axiomatic that a problem that presents itself needs to be analysed, but it is constantly surprising how frequently this important function is either not done, or is done badly. Any ‘problem’ usually started out as a social or philosophical problem, in that the reason why any ‘problem’ exists is because a group of people need a workable solution. This then means that to address such a problem there is a need to use a multidisciplinary approach. Many ‘engineering problems’ have significant social factors disguised into them. For example, how to reticulate water to a remote

rural area. Such a water problem can include issues such as; finding out that the proposed route, as determined by land surveyors and planners, using modern maps, goes through the ancient burial grounds of the indigenous people. That then would be a factor governed by the R in the Technology Triangle.

To ‘Problem Solve’ needs a multidisciplinary team approach. The result of carrying out such an analysis should result in a set of science-based tasks, and other tasks emerging. It is important to note that these tasks are not ‘the problem’ but are a subset of the problem. In the Problem Solving Approach diagram, an initial problem (with ill-defined boundaries) undergoes a multidisciplinary problem analysis, to generate a set of tasks to be individually tackled.

Undoubtedly, scientists must form part of the problem-solving team, but in this mode their thinking should be different to normal purist scientific thinking. When they are part of the task team, they need to pay attention to other non-scientific factors, in trying to establish a ‘technological’ solution. Sometimes subject specialists tend to want to force their own subject speciality onto the problem-solving team, as the correct solution, when in fact they should be approaching the problem with an open mind. Individual scientists can be part of both the problem-solving team and one or more of the specialist task teams, but the thinking approaches in each case are different. If a scientist is not able to switch his/her mind from the one mode to the other, then he/she should stay with the one function only.

Projects and Tasks

It is important to distinguish between:

A. Problem Solving, and

B. Advancing a new line of Technology.

In the case of A, an example would be: Why do the gearboxes of vehicles in a particular open-cast mine fail well before the specified engine-hours lifetime? An example of B would be: Introduce lead-free printing ink into a food packaging plant. In the case of A, the approach to be used is that of the ’problem’ being analysed into a number of tasks to be executed.

In the case of B, one would have to launch one or more projects. The term project

implies a much greater degree of control over the timeframes and the way in which the job can be laid out. A ‘task’ often has its timeframe and some practical constraints decided for you, as a consequence of the reality of the business.

Speed of change

Real-time industrial technology development and adaption invariably does not have the luxury of unpressured time constraints, as is the desired situation with academic research in a laboratory investigation. The modern speed of technology adaption is illustrated In the Table. The Table indicates the time taken from the discovery of the basic physics of the system to the commercial implementation of that system. In the case of the introduction of telephony, the time which elapsed was equal to the working lifetime of a person, but today a single person’s working lifetime covers a stunning variety of new innovations.

Time taken for technology commercialisation   This list illustrates the time taken to develop product to its commercial exploitation, from the date of the understanding of the basic physical phenomena.   112 years for Photography 56 years for telephony 35 years for Radio 12 years for TV 3 years for the Transistor Approximately 3 years for engineering plastics

In the case of technology adaption, it is frequently the market competition which dictates the speed of adaptions. Companies usually have no option but to adapt rapidly when their business competitors introduce new products into the marketplace. It is interesting to note a comment of the legendary Formula One racing driver, Mario Andretti.

If everything seems under control, you’re just not going fast enough.

Mario Andretti,
1940 –

Public perception

It is important to note the increasing role that public perception is playing in technology development. In the advertising industry it is well known that perception is reality. If the public latch on to an idea that some chemical is dangerous, or that cell phone radiation causes brain tumours, then the resulting public pressure becomes a major issue in determining the progress of the technology, even if the public opinion is wrong or irrational. This public opinion aspect falls under the Rules-Vertex of the Technology Triangle.

This public perception factor has been very evident in the whole international response, to the perceived threat of climate change. So, it is necessary to look at the Fact/Emotion Balance.

The Fact/Emotion Balance

The Fact/Emotion Balance diagram illustrates that a story can be projected to the public from anywhere in the diagram, from the E-Ring to the F-Ring, or from the D-Ring. The E stands for Emotion, the F for Fact, and the D for Decision.

Frequently a scare story that is lacking in fact but is high in emotion gets featured in the press, such as a claim that some chemical food additive is maybe potentially harmful to pregnant mothers. A public reaction can then rapidly result in the E-Ring of the diagram. This is a fast-response, high-emotion, reaction but with minimal care for the facts. The Diagram shows a high proportion of Emotion with minimal Fact.

Invariably professional scientists then publicly respond, almost entirely in the F-Ring. They produce documents for the press that consist of pages of scientific fact or computer printout, material that is highly factual but has almost zero human emotional content. A predictable result is that the vast majority of the public pay almost no attention to the scientists. What is actually required, as a response to a highly emotional attack, often launched from people intent on distorting the truth, is a response from scientists which emanates from the D-Ring. In other words, enough genuine fact to support the argument, but also a type of response that means something in the day-to-day layman’s frame of reference.

The D-Ring is the correct Decision-Making area for an informed public reaction.

Beware of Common Sense

Einstein said that Common Sense is that collection of prejudices and misconceptions that you pick up by the age of eighteen.

The intent of that comment was to say, don’t simply use your version of Common Sense when trying to solve a genuine problem. Common Sense has its place, but it is only to be used for a quick answer to a reasonably simple question, asked within a well-known frame of reference.

So, when an answer is required for a complex problem, with major implications, then don’t use Common Sense, rather use your brains and figure out the correct answer. The application of technology is ultimately a money-making economics exercise, and one must take care to ensure that a variety of science common sense issues do not destroy, or undermine, the overall technology endeavour. Technology application is a multidisciplinary enterprise which needs careful planning and should not be clouded by scientists promoting only their common sense approach. On the other hand, technology projects and technology decisions should not be formulated without significant science input. All too often, governments or company decision-making bodies, make major technological decisions without the adequate participation of suitably skilled scientists and engineers. Frequently because their version of common sense clearly shows the correct path…so they tell the public.

Over the last couple of decades, fast-response decision-making in the scientific sphere, by the general public and by many governments, has been particularly evident in the Climate Change debate. There have been all sorts of claims of new types of environmentally-friendly energy production techniques, from sea-wave motion, to high-flying balloons carrying wind turbines, and other exotic ideas. The fact that an experimental model may work for a few days at the research laboratory level, is not at all an indication that a viable commercial technology system can be implemented in the real world.

Furthermore, many of these supposed bright new ideas for energy production have been known to scientists for centuries, and were never introduced for very sound reasons.

Modern technology decisions should be taken skillfully and correctly, otherwise future generations are going to suffer the consequences of ill-considered moves.

By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

Confucius
551 BCE – 479 BC

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and is Past Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa). He is currently Chairman of Stratek Global, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. The company carries out strategy development and project planning in a wide variety of fields for diverse clients. They are working towards building an HTMR-100 Small Modular Reactor in Pretoria.  

He is also a Seniour Advisor of the Washington DC based Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).