Reference

NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH R.I.C.

A1110S 1D2S47

NBSIR 80-2021

Report to AID on an NBS/AID

Workshop on Standardization and

Measurement Services

Edited by: H. Steffen Peiser

Charles C. Raley

Penelope M. Odar

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

Held October 3-21, 1978

Issued April 1980

Prepared for Agency for International Development

r'*'partment of State

shington, D.C. 20523

100

.U56

no ,80-2021

1980

NBSIR 80-2021

REPORT TO AID ON AN NBS/AID

WORKSHOP ON STANDARDIZATION AND

MEASUREMENT SERVICES

RATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY JUN 5 1980

hot AC<Lr Bcf:

ac,

loo

.U5(o

So-2M\

iq^>o

Edited by: H. Steffen Peiser

Charles C. Raley

Penelope M. Odar

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

U S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

Held October 3-21, 1978

Issued April 1 980

The Workshop was conducted as a part of the program under the

US/NBS Agency for International Development PASA TA(CE) 6-71

Prepared for Agency for International Development

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20523

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity. Technology, and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
* '
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION, Mr. H. Steffen Peiser, Chief of the

Office of International Relations, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington, D.C., United States 1

PHOTOGRAPH AND IDENTIFICATION 3

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND ADDRESSES 4

AGENDA OF WORKSHOP 7

SUB-AGENDA—DETAILS OF VISITS TO:

Macy’s New Yopk Herald Square Training Department 13

Visit to Atlanta and Georgia Tech 14

Visit to Birmingham and University of Alabama 15

Southern Research Institute 16

Texas Instruments, Inc 17

CONTRIBUTED PAPER BY PARTICIPANT FROM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

STANDARDIZATION, Mr. Abdulla Fadlalla, Assistant Secretary

General, Arab Organization for Standardization and Metrology,

Amman, Jordan 19

EVENING DISCOURSES BY INVITED GUESTS

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF U.S. SCIENCE POLICIES,

Mr. John A. Birch, International Consultant 24

NOTES FROM THE DINNER TALK BY MR. DANIEL S. GREENBERG, EDITOR

AND PUBLISHER OF "SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENT REPORT" 31

IMPORTANCE OF A STANDARDS MEASUREMENT INFRASTRUCTURE IN A

DEVELOPING NATION, Dr. R. D. Huntoon, Consultant and

Deputy Director, Retired, National Bureau of Standards 32

EVALUATION OF THE NBS/AID WORKSHOP

EVALUATION OF THE NBS/AID WORKSHOP ON STANDARDIZATION

AND MEASUREMENT SERVICES, 1978 53

iii

INTRODUCTION

Once again during the fiscal year of 1979, the National Bureau of

Standards, with partial support from the U.S, Agency for International

Development, offered a workshop for study of the standardization and

measurement systems as they operate in the United States. These

workshops have been held once every fiscal year for the past nine

years. We have tried to limit each workshop to no more than one participant per country and have given strong preference for

representatives from AID countries nominated by the AID Missions

concerned. This year's participants showed a good balance of the

major regions and came from 16 countries (for a list, see page A).

The itinerary for these workshops differs from year to year but always

includes about a week within the NDS facilities and a second week at

outside governmental, academic, and private sector and industrial

organizations concerned with standardization, quality assurance, and

measurement for research, development, or enforcement.

This year's workshop was fortunate to be received at the American

National Standards Institute, the Polytechnic Institute of New York,

at R. H. Macy and Company (the large department store), the Technical

Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, the Georgia Institute of

Technology, Scientific Atlanta, the Southern Research Institute, the

University of Alabama, Texas Instruments, Inc.., the University of

Texas at Dallas, and NASA's Johnson Space Center in kouston (see

agenda on pp. 7-12). All these visits were most interesting and

enjoyable. It is perhaps permissible to single out the New York

Polytechnic Institute at Brooklyn where we were introduced to a thoughtful effort to make a high-level academic program relevant to

specific needs of students from less industrialized regions of the

world. We were all greatly impressed by the meaningful testing that

ilacy's conducts on behalf of its customers. The warmth of Southern

hospitality which the workshop group received in Atlanta and

Birmingham was equaled by the strong technical content of all visits.

The last two days in Texas gave a glimpse of the smallest and largest

scales of high technology at Texas Instruments and NASA.

Two special features of this NBS/AID Workshop need special mention.

First was the opportunity to attend the annual convention of the

National Conference of Standards Laboratories. It is a forum of

laboratories in the public and private sectors exchanging views and news on methods of testing and standardization with emphasis in the

high technology fields. By recent membership decisions, the NCSL has

opened its doors to interested laboratories abroad. It is the view of

the NBS staff that this membership could become a major mechanism for

transfer of infrastructure technology to less developed countries.

For the second year, the NBS/AID Workshop was itself host to a special

seminar designed to assist the preparation for the U.N. Conference on

1
Science and Technology for Development. This year's topic was "The

Technological Knowledge Base for Industrializing Countries," Its

proceedings are already in print (NBS Special Publication 543, April

1979). It contains the contributed papers of participants in the

Seminar from abroad including those of the Workshop, Their papers

would otherwise have been a feature of this report.

Special evening discourses presented to the Workshop outside the NCSL

and UNCSTD meetings are reported in this publication. The last and

longest is Dr. Robert Huntoon's paper (p.32). It is thought provoking

and is especially recommended for close study, Mr, John Birch's

remarks (p, 24) are those of a distinguished U.S. Foreign Service

Officer, who in recent years has made international relations in

science and technology his specialty. Assistant Secretary General of

the Arab League Organization for Standardization and Metrology,

Mr. Abdulla M, Fadlalla, is especially well qualified to write on standardization (p. 19) as seen from a group of nations that aim to

catch up rapidly into modern advanced technology, Mr. Daniel

Greenberg's remarks are only summarized (p, 31), He is a widely

respected, often critical, observer of the Washington scene concerned

with science and technology and their international ramifications.

I cannot conclude this introduction of this NBS/AID Workshop report

without expressing the appreciation of NBS not only to AID for having

partly supported these workshops for almost ten years, but also to the

more than 40 countries that have participated actively in this

program. Although they have been popular, well evaluated, and always

oversubscribed, these workshops are not likely to be repeated in the

years immediately following the workshop here reported. It remains my

hope that this or a similar activity will be reintroduced In later

years because the United States should in its own interests explain to

friends abroad how our complex standardization systems operate. Much

international trade depends on them, and that trade, if well

conducted, benefits all parties.

H. Steffen Peiser

February 1980

(contributed after his retirement from NBS)

2
Photograph identification: (left to right)

5th step:

(top row)

i

I 4th step:

3rd step:

Mr. R. Walleigh, Mr. C. Raley, Mr. B. Gutterman,

Adm. J. Waeny, Mrs. P. Odar

Dr. J. Tudor, Mr. H. Mazza, Mrs. L. Lawrence,

Mr. A. Fadlalla, Mr. S. Peiser

Dr. K. Chandra, Mr. T. Rajaraman, Mr. J. Owino-Okwero

,

Dr. K. Khalaf, Mr. D. Kim

2nd step: Mrs. M. de Chan

1st step: Mr. R. Bouhalila, Mr. R. Halteh, Mr. Gandi, Mr. A. Siiliman

(bottom row)

3
PARTICIPANTS

1978 NBS/AID WORKSHOP

ON STANDARDIZATION AND MEASUREMENT SERVICES

(alphabetical by country)

National Representatives

1. Mr. Horacio Federico Mazza

Chief, High Frequency Measurements

and Calibration

Electronic Metrology Division

Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Industrial (INTI)

Leandro N. Alem 1067, pisos 5°, 6° y

7° - 1001 Capital Federal

Buenos Aires, Argentina

2. Dr. Jose L. Tudor

Chief, Laboratory Section

Barbados National Standards Institute (BNSI)

Flodden, Culloden Road

St. Michael, Barbados

3. Adm. Jose Carlos de Castro Waeny

Measurement Assurance Officer

Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnologicas (IPT)

C.P. 7141

01000 Sao Paulo SP, Brazil

4. Mrs. Lorna Lawrence

Senior Scientific Officer

Guyana National Bureau of Standards

National Science Research Council Guyana

44 Pere St. Kitty (P.0. Box 689)

Georgetown, Guyana

5. Dr. Kailash Chandra

Scien tis t-in-Charge

Electrical and Electronic Standards

National Physical Laboratory

Hillside Road

New Delhi-110012, India

6. Mr. Gandi

Secretary, Yayasan Dana Normalisasi Indonesia

(Indonesian Standardization Funds Foundation)

Jalan Braga 40

Bandung , Indonesia

4
7. Mr* Remon Halteh

Head, Quality Mark Division

Directorate of Standards

Ministry of Industry and Trade

P.0, Box 2019

Amman, Jordan

S. Mr. J. E. Owino-Okwero

Senior Standards Officer

Civil Engineering Department

Kenya Bureau of Standards

P.0, Box 10610

Nairobi, Kenya

9.

Mr. Kim, Dong Ho

Chief, Electric and Electronics Department

National Industrial research Institute (NIRI)

Industrial Advancement Administration

Ministry of Commerce and Industry

219 Karibong-dong Yungdeongpo-ku

Seoul, Korea

10. Dr. M. M, Qurashi

Director General

Appropriate Technology

Development Organization

1-A, Street 47th, F. 7/1

P.0. Box 1306

Islamabad, Pakistan

11. Mrs. !Iaricela Ferrer de Chan

Director, Comision Panamena de

Normas Industriales y Tecnicas (C0PANIT)

Apartado Postal 9658 - Zona 4

Panama City, Panama

12. Dr. Khaled Y. Al-Khalaf

Director General

Saudi Arabian Standards Organization (SASO)

P.0. Box 3437

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

13. Mr. Abdel Gadir Suliman

Director General

Department of Standardization

and Quality Control

Ministry of Industry

P.O. Box 2184

Khartoum, Sudan

5
14, Mr, Thiagarajan Rajaraman

Technical Manager

Tanzania Bureau of Standards

P.0, Box 9524

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

15, Mr, Ridha Bouhalila

Director

Laboratoire Central

Montfleury, Rue Dr. Braquehaye

Tunis, Tunisia

International Representative

16.

Mr. Abdulla M. Fadlalla

Assistant Secretary General

Arab Organization for Standardization

and Metrology (ASMO)

P,0. Box 926161

Amman, Jordan

6
National Bureau of Standards

Agency for International Development

WORKSHOP ON STANDARDIZATION AND MEASUREMENT SERVICES

AS PRACTICED IN THE UNITED STATES

October 3 - October 21, 1978

October 3, Tuesday (Optional)

AM - PM Arrive Gaithersburg, Maryland, U.S.A.

October 4, Wednesday (Optional)

8:15 AM Greeting, Mr. II. S. Peiser

Chief, Office of International Relations

9:00 AM - 4:45 PMNational Conference of Standards Laboratories

7:00 PM - 9:00 PMConference Banquet

October 3, Thursday (Optional)

9:15 AM - 4:45 PM

National Conference of Standards Laboratories

October 6, Friday (Optional)

9:15 AM - 12:30 PM

National Conference of Standards Laboratories

1:30 PM - 5:00 PMExecutive Session, Mr, R. S. Walleigh

Senior Adviser for International Affairs

October 7, Saturday (Optional)

AM

PM

Travel to New York, New York

Free

October 8, Sunday

AM Free

8:00 PM Briefing Session

7
October 9, Monday

9:00 AM - 10:30 AM

American National Standards Institute

1430 Broadway

New York, NY 10018

(212) 354-3300

Host: Mr. D. L. Peyton, Executive Vice President

11:30 AM - 1:30 PM

Polytechnic Institute of New York

333 Jay Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(212) 643-5000

Host: Dr. G. Schillinger, Dean

Interdisciplinary Programs

2:30 PM - 5:15 PMBureau of Standards

R. H . Macy and Company

151 W. 34th Street, 15th Floor

New York, NY 10001

(212) 695-4400

Host: Mr. H. Ott, Manager

PM Travel to Gaithersburg, Maryland

October 10, Tuesday

8:30 AM - 8:35 AMWelcome, Dr. T. A. Dillon.

Deputy Director, NBS

8:35 AM - 9:15 AMNBS Overview, Dr. E. L. Brady

Associate Director for International Affairs

9:15 AM - 10:00 AM

Executive Session

10:00 AM - 10:15 AM

Break

10:15 AM - 11:30 AMExecutive Session

11:30 AM Group Photograph

11:45 AM - 1:15 PM

Lunch and Talk, Mr. B. Gutterman

Director for Coordination, Food and Drug

Administration

8
1:30 PM - 5:00 PM

National Engineering Laboratory

Session I

7:00 PM - 9:30 PMDinner and Talk, Mr. D. S. Greenberg

Editor and Publisher, "Science and Government

Report"

October 11, Wednesday

9:00 AM - 11:30 AMNational Engineering Laboratory

Session II

11:45 AM - 1:15 PMLunch and Talk, Mr. F. Post

Consultant, National Technical Information

Service

1:30 PM - 5:00 PM

National Measurement Laboratory

Session I

7:00 PM - 9:30 PMDinner and Talk, Mr. J. Birch

International Science and Technology Consultant

October 12 t Thursday

9:00 AM - 11:30 AMNational Measurement Laboratory

Session II

11:45 AM - 1:15 PMLunch and Talk, Mr. J. Rabinow

Chief Research Engineer, NEL

1:30 PM - 2:15 PM

Library Information Services, Ms. F. Patrias

Chief

2:30 PM - 3:15 PM

Instrument Shops Division, Mr. D. S. Bettwy

Chief

3:30 PM - 3:45 PM

Break

3:45 PM - 5:00 PM

Cooperative Technology

Dr. H. E. Sorrows, Technology Adviser

7:00 PM - 9:30 PM

Dinner and Talk, Dr. R. D. Huntoon

President, Measurement, Evaluation and

Management Organization

October 13, Friday

9:00 AM - 11:30 AMInstitute for Computer Sciences and Technology

Mr. M. Z. Thornton, Acting Director

9
11:45 AM - 12:30 PM

Lunch

1:30 PM - 3:30 PMWeights and Measures Section

Department of Agriculture

State of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742

(301) 454-3551

Host: Mr. C. Stockman, Metrologist

October 14, Saturday

AM - PM Free

October 15, Sunday

AM - PM

October 16, Monday

Tree

9:15 AM - 5:00 PM

Seminar, "The Technological Knowledge Base for

Industrializing Countries"

5:30 PM - 8:00 PM

October 17, Tuesday

Seminar Reception and Dinner

9:00 AM - 5:00 PMSeminar, "The Technological Knowledge Base for

Industrializing Countries"

5:15 PM - 5:45 PMFarewell Reception, Dr. E, Ambler

Director, UBS

PM

October 18, Wednesday

Travel to Atlanta, Georgia

9:00 AM - 10:00 AM

Technical Association of the Fulp

and Paper Industry

1 Dunwoody Park

Atlanta, CA 30341

(404) 394-6130

10:45 AM - 1:45 PMGeorgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332

(404) 894-2308

Host: Dr. K. Stephens, Professor

10
2:15 PM - 4:15 PM

Scientific Atlanta

3845 Tleasantdale Road

Atlanta, GA 30340

(404) 449-2000

PM Travel to Birmingham, Alabama

October 19, Thursday

8:30 AM - 11:30 AMSouthern Research Institute

2000 9th Avenue South

Birmingham, AL 35205

(205) 323-6592

Host: Mr. J. It. Strickland, Manager

Public Relations

12:00 m - 4:30 PMIniversity of Alabama in Birmingham

Mortimer Jordan Hall

Birmingham, A.L 35294

(205) 934-4011

Host: Dr. R. W Trench, Assistant

to the President

PM Travel to Dallas, Texas

October 20 t Friday

8:30 AM - 1:00 PMTexas Instruments, Inc.

(13500 Horth Central Expressway)

P.O. Box 225474

Dallas, TX 75265

Host: Mr. M. Post, Manager, Financial Relations

1:30 PM - 4:00 PMUniversity of Texas at Dallas

Box 688

PM chard son, TX 75080

Host: Dr. F, S. Johnson

Executive Dean of Graduate Studies

and P.esearch

.PM Travel to Houston

9:00 PM - 10:00 PMClosing Dinner

11
October 21, Saturday

8:00 AM - 9:00 AM

Johnson Space Center

Calibration Laboratory

Houston, Texas 77058

(713) 483-2791

Host: Mr. Tilphman

9:00 AM - 11:00 AM

General Tour - Johnson Space Center

Conclusion of Workshop

12
(DETAILED AGENDA)

MACY*S NEW YORK

HERALD SQUARE TRAINING DEPARTMENT

Monday, October 9, 1978

TIME SPEAKER TOPIC

2:30-3:30 Mr. II* Ott Tour of Bureau

Manager,

Bureau of Discussion of:

Standards

- Testing methods for softgoods

and hardgoods

- Quality Control

- Governmental Regulations

Communicating to buyers

Paper work

- Merchandising Practices

Both good and bad

- Labeling

3:30-4:30 Ms. K. Brewster Tour of Macy*s Herald Square Selling

Manager, Floors:

II. S. Training

- Domestics on 6 - Children's on 5 - Misses on 3 - The Cellar

4:30-5:15 Mr. II. Ott Location: 15th Floor Conference R.oon

Ms. K. Brewster

- Questions and Answers

13
(DETAILED AGENDA)

VISIT TO ATLANTA AND GEORCIA TECH

Wednesday, October 18, 1978

9:00-10:15 a.m. , "Overview of TAPPl's Activities"

Technical Association of the Pulp and Taper Industry

7 Dunwoo4y Park, Atlanta, GA 30341 (404) 394-6130

Host: Mr. Ralph Klucken, Senior Division Administrator

10:45-11:30, "Appropriate Technology," Room 303, baker Bldg., Dalney St.

Speaker: Mr. Ross Hammond, Director

Office of International Programs

Engineering Experiment Station

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332 (404) 984-3800

11:30-12:15, "CPSC's Current Program"

Speaker: Mr. George Lester, Director of Operations

CPSC Atlanta Area Office

1330 W. Peachtree Street

Atlanta, CA 30309 (404) 881-2231

12:15-12:45, "Georgia Tech's MSIE (Industrialization) Program"

Speaker: Dr. David E. Fyffe, Professor

Industrial & Systems Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, GA 30332 (404) 894-2310

2:15-4:15, Tour of Calibration and Instrumentation Labs

Scientific Atlanta

3845 Pleasantdale Rd.

Atlanta, GA 30340

Guides: Ms. Ruby Erkkinen, International Marketing Coordinator

Mr. Bill Bonitla, Export Manager, Instrumentation Division

(404) 449-2239, 449-2000

Coordinator of Program: Dr. K. S. Stephens, Industrial & Systems

Engineering, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332

(404) 894-2308

14
(DETAILED AGENDA)

VISIT TO BIRMINGHAM AND UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

Thursday, October 19, 1978

Hosts: Dr. Robert W. French, Assistant to the President

University of Alabama in Birmingham

Mr. David tlunter. Trade Specialist, USDOC

Mr. J. H. Strickland, Manager Public Relations

Southern Research Institute

October 19, 1978

8:30-11:30 a.m. Southern Research Institute

12:00 Noon Luncheon at Plaza South Hotel, University Room

Host: Dr. Robert W. French, Assistant to the

President, University of Alabama in Birmingham

1:30 p.m. Presentation by Dr. Robert L. Settine, Associate

Professor of Chemistry and Director of the

Gas Chromatograph /Mass Spectrometer Center,

University of Alabama in Birmingham

2:20 p.m. Presentation by Dr. Louis C. Sheppard, Associate

Professor, Department of Surgery, University of

Alabama in Birmingham

3:00 p.m. Presentation by Dr. Seymour S. Uest, Chairman

and Professor, Department of Engineering Biophysics, University of Alabama in Birmingham

3:45 p.m. The group will walk to the 8th Floor Conference

Room of the Dental Building for a briefing by

Mr. J. Daniel Lynn, Special Assistant to the

Chairman, Department of Microbiology, University

of Alabama in Birmingham. Following the briefing, the group will tour the cell Culture

Facility.

15
(DETAILED AGENDA)

SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE

2000 Ninth Avenue South

Birmingham, Alabama 35205

(205) 323-6592

Thursday, October 19, 1978

—Introduction

James H, Strickland, Manager of Public Relations —Overview of Southern Research Institute;

Sabert Oglesby, Jr,, Vice President and

Director of Engineering and Applied Sciences Research —Particle Size Measurement, Other Air Pollution Control Research:

Kenneth M, Cushing, Head, Aerosol Physics Section

—Standards for Measuring Resistivity in Particulates:

Dr. Roy E, Bickelhaupt, Head, Ceramics Section

—Characterization of Materials:

H. Stuart Starrett, Head, Mechanics Division

—Metallurgy Research:

Dr. Charles E, Bates, Head, Metallurgy Section

—Cancer Research:

Dr, Salah El Dareer, Senior Pharmacologist,

Biochemical Pharmacology Division —Tour of Research Laboratories:

Including comments by:

Dr, Thomas H, Corbett, Head, Tumor Biology and Treatment Section

Dr. Herbert C, Miller, Head, Analytical Chemistry Section

Ruby James, Program Manager, Organic Analysis

16
(DETAILED AGENDA)

TEXAS INSTEUI IENTS , INC.

DALLAS, TEXAS

iriuay, October 20, 1978

8:30 a.n.

8:40

9:30

10:00

10:43

11:33

12:13

Introduction, L.S. Technology and Standards

li. Steffen 1‘eiser

Chief, office of International Relations

National bureau of Standards

Me leone to TI

Siax Dost

Corporate reference Standards Laboratory

James Tew

Standards Laboratory — Environmental Test

ILe Trachtenberg, Ralph NcCullough

CRL Materials Laboratory

l’nil l.ane, Gravdon LarraLee

S/C Tour, South building

l.'ayne liowse

Lunch

Richard Riggins

17

STANDARDIZATION

by

Mr. Abdulla Fadlalla

Assistant Secretary General

Arab Organization for Standardization and Metrology

Amman, Jordan

Member countries Of the International Standardization Organization

(ISO) will be celebrating the World Standards Day while we are participating in this NBS/AID Workshop on Standardization and

Measurement Services. In fact, I would like to stress that by

organizing this Workshop in October and by selecting some standardization personnel to take part, this in itself is a way of celebrating

World Standards Day.

When this day approaches, we usually receive some comments and views

questioning what standardization is and why standardization has

importance.

In an attempt to put a simple reply to these questions, one should

deal with the subject by considering the parts that comprise

standardization, namely:

1. Metrology

2. Standards

3. Quality Control and certification

1. Metrology

Metrology is the activity of making measurements by using physical

standards, and as such, it impinges both on all human endeavors and on all societies. It is essential to trade. It is fundamental to

science. So it is the basis of the whole subject of standardization.

Simply stated, the economy of the country is entirely dependent on metrology, the business of weighing or measuring. From the viewpoint

of the simple consumer, the importance arises from his wish to be

assured that equity exists in the marketplace, that he is getting the

right and correct quantity for the price he is paying; so metrology

must be the basis for any developmental body and for any attempt to

create an able standardization body in a developing country. In this

respect, I would like you to share with me the joy of reading just a small part of Mr. John Quincy Adams’ report to the U.S. Congress in

1821. This in part reads:

"Weights and measures may be ranked among the necessaries of life

to every individual of human society. They enter into the

economical arrangements and daily concerns of every family. They

are necessary to every occupation of human industry; to the

19
distribution and security of every species of property; to every

transaction of trade and commerce; to the labors of the

husbandman; to the ingenuity of the artificer; to the studies of

the philosopher; to the researches of the antiquarian; to the

navigation of the mariner, and the marches of the soldier; to all

the exchanges of peace, and to the operations of war. The

knowledge of them, as in established use, is among the first

elements of education, and is often learned by those who learn

nothing else, not even to read and write. This knowledge is

riveted in the memory by the habitual application of it to the

employments of men throughout life."

This quotation from the report of the Secretary of State to this U.S.

Congress in 1821 more than 150 years ago clearly illustrates the

importance and the application of weights and measures. I quoted this

paragraph to support my argument that weights and measures are not

only important in the marketplace but are also without doubt very

essential in all activities in life. The existence of a strong

metrological facility in every country is important for proper

development; it provides calibration services for industry,

facilitates commerce, and transaction of goods.

Metrology in relation to standardization activities forms the basis

for writing standards for specifications and quality control.

2 . Standards

The second subject is that of standard specifications. ISO defined

standardization as "the process of formulating and applying rules for an orderly approach to specific activity for the benefit and with the

cooperation of all concerned, and in particular, for the promotion of

optimum overall economy taking due account of functional conditions

and safety requirements."

It is clear that the approach laid by ISO in this definition is the same for every country, big or small, developed or developing,

although the interests may differ according to the degree of

development.

Standardization assists developing countries in several ways since it

supports foreign trade. As a number of the developing countries are still exporters of raw materials and may continue to be so for some

time to come, the existence of standards helps producers and exporters

to provide what is expected by the international market, thus

obtaining a better return.

In the case of industrial production, since standardization is the

outcome of the technological progress leading to better production, it

would be far better if developing countries could make use of this

advantage and acquire the experience of the industrialized countries

by giving priority and support to standardization efforts. It Is

20
understood that standardization bodies and societies in advanced

countries may be set up as a necessity to industrial development or as an outcome of industrialization, but in developing: countries, i t is

advocated that standardization bodies should be well recognized and

strengthened, not only to go in parallel with industry but also to

precede industrial growth.

In laying down national development plans, standardization should be

given its proper dimension and should be considered as an integral

part of the national plans. A strong and able standards body would be

of immense service to the planning authority as it will make sure that

what has been planned is really executed and implemented according to

the correct requirements, that purchase of material, services, and

production is done according to the set and agreed standards, thus

avoiding waste, surplus, or faulty materials and equipment. Products

will be readily acceptable both internally or externally.

According to reports from some developing countries, this picture

exists only in theory while in practice it is not so. Standards

bodies have not yet achieved full recognition by the concerned

authorities nor is use made of the standards produced. The obvious

result would be production and services of inadequate quality

resulting in an outcry of the public condemning local production,

hence, the importance of standardization arises then from the fact

that it has profound importance on the productivity and efficiency of

every producing concern, and without it, development is hampered. If we agree that standards assist developing countries in establishing a program for proper selection, imports, and adaptation of foreign

technology, that it reduces waste, and achieves overall economy in

production and consumption, that it is a safeguard against loc

quality, allows interchangeability, and helps in variety reduction,

then the subject matter need not be emphasized further.

3. Quality Control and Certification

Standardization will gain more recognition if it is associated with a program of quality. In industry the term quality control is now being

revised and a more accepted term tends to be preferred; the term is

quality assurance. The reason for such replacement is that the term

quality control implies a check alone on the final product while

quality assurance indicates that checks should take place at all the

different stages of production including the initial raw material.

For the desired standard planned from the start for the final product,

quality control remains the term in use.

The importance of quality control and assurance in developing

countries lies in giving a proper weight to the standards produced by

the standards body. The importers of either finished products or raw materials shall be confident of the quality of their imports, either

for direct sale to the market or for processing. It safeguards

quality during manufacture, in warehousing, and in distribution trade.

21
It assures safety in use of equipment, appliances, and also in foods,

drugs, and medicines*

4.

Standards Laboratories

Metrology, standards, and quality checks will only be effective and of

service to the economy of any one country if a well equipped

laboratory for testing and research is created. Then it will be

possible to have a third party assurance or what is accepted to be

called certification or kite.

5. Benefits of Standardization

The economy of any one country can draw a lot of benefits from

standardization if the whole subject of standardization is given

recognition.

The benefits that may accrue from standardization could be summarized

very briefly in the following:

Use of local materials —by application of standardization the local

material supplier shall be obliged to deliver his material in

accordance and conformity with the set standards, and there would be

no need nor justification for importation of this material from

outside the country. The adoption of this method in one activity will

encourage others to follow suit, and this, of course, will ultimately

lead to a wider use and utilization of the country's resources.

6 . Transfer of Technology

The role of standardization in the transfer of technology is a wide

subject for discussion, and as a matter of fact, it was dealt with in

many seminars and conferences. It is still and shall be an interesting subject for discussions. Transfer of technology may take

different shapes or forms. It may involve a complete transfer of a process or processes or part of it. It may involve just knowledge of

a product technology or knowledge of the process to be used with

details of the engineering practice. It may involve the training of

personnel for a certain job.

However, the role of standardization in such transfer remains to be an important factor to safeguard an adequate and effective flow of

knowledge from one country to another.

7 . The Benefit to the Consumers

Standardization helps consumers—when products intended for human use are put up for sale. It is not easy for an average consumer to judge

the quality of the goods he is intending to purchase. If it is an electrical appliance, he is not able to assure himself of its

reliability and safe use. Standardization solves this problem by

22
first of all assuring the material, the flow of production, testing,

and quality control. The following step which assures the buyer that

the quality he is buying satisfies the minimum requirements and that

it is safe and reliable, is what is called certification or the

quality mark. This puts the standardization body in the place of a guarantor for the quality and reliability.

Informative labeling is also another way of helping the consumer to

assure himself of the ingredients of which the product is made, the

date of manufacture, and in some cases, the expiry date. Informative

labeling also helpd consumers to follow certain instructions, e.g.,

keeping the product cold or warm, etc.

These are but a few remarks that are intended to clarify some questions that we are usually being asked. I thought of putting them

before the participants as headlines for discussion.

23
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF U.S. SCIENCE POLICIES

by

hr. John A. birch

International Consultant

My good friend and colleague, Steffen reiser, was Lind enough to ask

me to speak to you this evening briefly and informally on several of

my experiences as a retired officer of the United States Foreign

Service who came to the general field of science and technology after

30 years in a wide variety of foreign policy matters. These included

economic affairs, international finance, trade, and to some extent,

aid, shipping, and civil aviation. My job was, of course, to

represent the interests of the United States abroad in many of its

varied aspects.

Under these circumstances, I wondered what I could possibly say that

would be of interest to a distinguished group of scientists whose

individual disciplines and interests are, to put it mildly, usually

way over my head, but my decision to accept a post as foreign affairs

adviser to the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology at the

Jepartment of Commerce in 1970 was based on the feeling that I could

nake some contribution to the growing area of international sciencerelations. In today's circumstances, science has undergone an increasing trend toward "institutionalization," that is to say, many

countries, including the United States, have negotiated a number of

bilateral agreements which set a general framework for the conduct of

scientific cooperation in mutually agreed fields, such as joint

research and projects in selected areas, exchange of information and

results, sharing of certain types of facilities, exchanges of

scientists, symposia, etc.

If you will forgive a personal note, I have selected two areas in

which I have worked and interacted with scientists and policy-making

officials. These may well be outside your normal day-to-day

interests, but there may be times when your views will be sought (and no doubt have been sought) on issues relating to the matters I will

discuss. The areas selected for this discussion v/ith you are:

(1) the circumstances which led to United States membership in the

International urganization of Legal Metrology (OltIL), and (2) a review

of United States-Japan scientific and technological relations at the

government-to-government level.

The OIML was founded in 1955 largely on European initiative to promote

intergovernmental cooperation in the field of legal metrology, which

broadly relates to the compatibility of standards of measurement and

the legislation and government regulations which may affect such

standards of measurement. Possessing organizational status, oliiL has

24
a Secretariat in Paris which acts as a documentation center. Its

members meet periodically, establish expert committees, and recommend

uniform international requirements for scientific instruments used in

industry and commerce. OIML works out model laws and regulations for

consideration by member countries. By 1974 OIML had 43 members, and

I note that a number of you here this evening represent countries which

are active members of OIML, namely India, Indonesia, Korea, Tunisia,

and possibly others. But it is not my purpose to discuss OIML in detail. ' NBS is far more skilled than I to do this. My earlier participation in

helping to bring about United States membership is the subject of my

comments

By 1970, a good many years after OIML was founded, U.S. participation

was stalled on dead center. This certainly was not because of a lack

of interest, but mainly because L.S. policy had dictated that L'.S. representation in international technical organizations should be

established within the framework of the United Nations. When I accepted an international advisory position with the Department of

Commerce official concerned with matters of this kind, I found with

some misgivings that my first task was to attempt to secure a reversal

of this long-standing policy. It was rather like tilting at

windmills—and all of you have done this at times, I am sure.

First, it was clear that the Department of State, which bears

constitutional responsibility for the conduct of our foreign affairs,

really had little interest in changing the policy against membership

in new organizations outside the U.N. framework. The policy had been

established, and that was that. I do not mean this as a criticism.

After all, new organizations are costly. If they are formed by

treaty, advice and consent of the Congress must be sought, altogether

a rather formidable effort.

Second, in a L.S. domestic sense, OIML had tacit support but no vocal

constituency. A few organizations understood the value of U.S.

membership but had mounted no real effort to bring it about.

So we stood in 1970 at a standstill on OIML, notwithstanding solid

support from KBS and from a few private organizations which were

concerned with the effect of OIML recommendations on U.S. exports. We

felt that we knew the problem, but the solution seemed elusive.

I therefore chose a straight-forward, pragmatic effort. A lengthy

paper was developed for the Department of State explaining in detail

the advantages of U.S. membership, as well as its actual financial

costs. This was sent to the part of the State Department responsible

for international organizations. The result, I am sorry to say, was

no action, no response. We began to wonder if we had failed to make a convincing case. Perhaps we were simply overcome by our own rhetoric

and arguments. Again, I mean no criticism—a policy had been

25
established, and we were trying to change it. The ball, as it were,

was still in our court.

After considerable effort, many phone calls, etc., we found that our careful, and we thought, well-reasoned letter to the Department of

State had been relegated to the files, and there seemed to be no intention even to respond or to reiterate the long-standing negative

attitude toward U.S. participation in 0I1IL. We were obviously not

satisfied and decided to bring the matter to a head by a discussion,

or confrontation if that seemed to be necessary, with the most senior

official at State "who would be responsible for recommending a change

in policy. When the time arrived for our discussion, we found that

State not only did not regard OIML as a particularly important

organization, but it was not at all keen about undertaking the

considerable effort which would be involved in presenting the matter

formally to the Congress (in this case, the Committee on Foreign

delations of the Senate), since l.S. participation would involve a commitment by treaty. In addition, State was concerned about the

budgetary requirements of participation in yet another organization.

We countered with our strongest argument that the agency of the

Government most directly concerned with OIML should at least have an opportunity to present the entire matter to the Congress. If the

Congress turned us down, that decision would be final, but at least

the effort would have been made.

That final argument prevailed. The State Department shortly

thereafter agreed to seek Congressional approval, and on August 11,

1972, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the accession of the

United States to the Convention establishing OIML. The National

Bureau of Standards was subsequently delegated responsibility for

managing U.S. involvement.

I mentioned earlier the growth of our bilateral relations in science

and technology. The United States now has 18 or 20 bilateral

agreements with other countries governing in general the conditions

for scientific cooperation, exchanges of scientists, joint activities

and studies, etc. These agreements vary in scope and detail, of course—some provide for standing bi-national commissions, others do

not. Since time will not permit me to go into this subject in detail,

I have decided to talk to you about a relationship which we feel is

working well and shows promise for the future. This is an extensive

series of scientific and technological activities with Japan at the

government-to-government level—cooperative activities which date back

to the early 1960s.

Historically, I suppose it might be a little difficult to fix a precise date for the beginning of the intensified government-togovernment relationship with Japan. But for the purpose of my

remarks, the year 1961 seems to have been the year which witnessed the

establishment of a Japan-U.S. Committee on Scientific Cooperation,

26
brought about by agreement between the President of the United States

and the Prime Minister of Japan. Under the terms of this agreement,

each government appointed an executive agency to manage its own activities under the arrangement. The National Science Foundation

assumed this responsibility for the United States, cooperating, of

course, with other key agencies as well as universities and private

organizations

.

Categories of activities selected covered education in the sciences,

earth sciences, planetary and astronomical sciences, biology,

mathematics, physical and chemical sciences, engineering sciences, and

many others. Each side undertook to finance its contributions; no central fund was established for this purpose, nor was any overall

joint oversight commission established.

The years following 1961 saw a steady growth of cooperative activity.

Each new venture was based on a separate agreement tailored for the

purposes which the two governments had in mind, usually reached at the

highest level of government. Accordingly, by 1975 the United States

and Japan were carrying out a host of additional activities in such

fields as natural resources development, medical research,

environment, energy, space, transportation and building technology,

and urban affairs. Many of these areas had highly specialized

aspects.

The growth of this "special," and in some ways unique, relationship

brought its own problems. In the United States alone, 13 technical

agencies participated in a wide variety of activities with their

Japanese counterpart agencies, provided chairmen for numerous joint

committees and panels, and the Japanese, of course, matched this

effort in a complicated internal structure suited to their own needs.

Lacking a single overall agreement with Japan or a single joint

commission with the responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the

expanding relationship, it was felt by 1973 that an overall review of

medical, scientific, and technological cooperation between the

countries should be made in the light of the broader requirements of

the coming decade. The President of the United States and the Prime

Minister of Japan agreed that such a review should be undertaken, and

for this purpose, a Joint Ueview Panel was chosen consisting of six

eminent individuals (three from each side) who had no direct

responsibility for administering existing cooperative programs.

Through this arrangement it was felt that they would bring to the

review a sense of detachment and overall perspective.

Before the Commission could commence its work, each side had to

undertake extensive preparations, which included a careful inventory

of all of the bilateral activities in which the two countries were

engaged. I was fortunate enough to be asked to serve as the Executive

Secretary for the U.S. side of the Panel—a job which I, privately and

not entirely facetiously, like to refer to as being the Panel's

27
"slave." The Japanese also selected their Executive Secretary, and

the two of us began to plan the overall review, the scheduling of

meetings, on-site trips and inspections, etc.

At the outset we agreed that while we would take a good searching look

at existing programs and past accomplishments and be certain that

nothing important had been overlooked, we would look more to the

future and place greater emphasis on future areas of common problems

that could be tackled through joint action. The members of the Panel

sought to determine how scientific and technological cooperation

between the United/ States and Japan might be made more responsive to

current and future needs.

Having completed our preparations, which involved numerous consultations with all of the technical agencies in Washington

carrying out activities with their Japanese counterparts, we scheduled

a first meeting of the Panel in Tokyo in early 1975 where the two

sides reviewed all known programs in detail, came to some preliminary

agreement about relative areas of importance, compared notes on their

respective administrative structures, and on special problems.

Once this was all laid out for review, 1 think everyone was surprised

at the extent and variety of this cooperative endeavor. As only one example: The U.S. -Japan Committee on Scientific Cooperation, which I mentioned as probably the earliest activity in a variety of scientific

disciplines, reported that for one program year only (through Ilarch

31, 1975) the level of cooperative activity included 24 scientific

seminars attended by 711 participants; 53 cooperative research

projects, involving 505 participants; 117 visits of scientists to

their counterparts in the other country, of whom 73 stayed for periods

of longer than one month; a total of 1,236 participants in all aspects

of the program carried out under this particular Joint Committee; and

46 publications were produced.

This pattern of activity characterized other programs as well, but I will not attempt to cite all the statistics.

It is obvious, of course, that while statistics of this kind are useful they do not provide a qualitative measure of the value of these

programs. So, I will summarize the Panel’s conclusions, which were agreed upon by the two sides after a year of work, very extensive

discussions, and visits by each side to many of the other's scientific

laboratories and industrial institutions.

The Joint Panel concluded:

(1) Benefits had been impressive—"good science" had been conducted,

and the programs had developed a healthy, constructive attitude toward

bilateral cooperation among key members of the scientific communities

of the two countries.

28
(2) Both countries could improve the quality and decrease the cost of

their scientific research and technological development programs by

continuing interchange of ideas and by selected joint activities.

(3) It would be desirable for the two governments to agree on one or more joint research and development efforts in which combined staffs

would work together on a specific major project, each contributing in

manpower and money in relation to its interests and anticipated

benefits. Obvious savings would accrue from this kind of joint

effort

.

(4) The existing pluralistic structure was quite adequate to

accommodate broadened activity. No basic changes were considered

necessary. No "overall umbrella" agreement was recommended, nor any

permanent standing commission to oversee the entire program. An

independent review should be made each three to five years.

(3) An important conclusion was that more young scientists and

researchers should be drawn from industrial laboratories and research

institutions.

Looking to the future, the Panel endeavored to identify areas of

common interest where agencies of the two governments can continue to

work together effectively, and of course, within the limits of their

respective budgets. The Panel felt that the range of potential

cooperative research effort was very broad indeed. It identified some

20 new areas for cooperative research, which range over environmental

and occupational health, nuclear safeguards, clean energy resources,

earthquake prediction, transportation, development of new medical

tools, food sciences, marine sciences, and research of the sea-bottom,

and so on.

In closing, I would like to mention that the Panel recognized that

both countries have had experience in advising developing countries on how best to enhance their capabilities in applying science and

technology to development. The Tanel did not explore this subject but

expressed the view that the two governments should examine the

situation to determine whether additional ways could be found to

assist other nations in utilizing science and technology for their own development

.

29
i

I

I

I

I

I

'I

I

I

i

I

I

i

i

|

I

i
NOTES FROM THE DINNER TALK

BY MR. DANIEL S. GREENBERG,

EDITOR AND PUBLISHER

"SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENT REPORT"

(Summarized by Mr. H. Steffen Peiser from a tape recording.)

After an introduction by Dr. E. L. Brady, Dr. Greenberg contrasted his

experience in London with his view of the openness to reports of the

Washington scene. People here are anxious to obtain public attention;

congressmen wish to get their views into the news media. Bureaucrats

work with and have even learned to manipulate the press, and for those

who are disappointed in a competitive bid for public funds or justice,

the press can be an effective court of last resort.

The public, however, does not seek the news of real science, so scientific news coverage is poor. The first space shots were an exception, but even NASA experiences a declining interest.

By contrast, science policy is news. Science and politics do not

understand each other well. Scientists ask of other scientists'

statements, "Is it true?" Politicians wonder, "Why is he saying

that?" President Nixon's sudden support for cancer research is a striking example of a politically astute but scientifically

challengeable initiative. Scientists foresee disasters for lack of

U.S. political, industrial, and funding support, in comparison with

abroad where some feelings are expressed by comparison with the United

States. Mr. Greenberg seeks a balanced view to assure a harmonious

relationship between science and society. He hopes for science to

provide a realistic picture of what it can contribute to society. He

appeals to the audience as members of the scientific community for

openness in communicating about reports because of the cardinal

importance of science to the well-being of the world.

In a lively discussion, the difficulty of funding long-term goals even when they seemed technically achievable was brought out. The choices

that have to be made are intrinsically difficult, and scientists and

military advocates are not beyond trying to influence them by

startling revelations timed to precede a decisive budgetary decision.

The U.S. Congress is very open to advice. Most reporters oppose

nuclear energy because they feel strongly that scientists have

continually misled the public by understating the significance of

unsolved problems.

31
IMPORTANCE OF A STANDARDS MEASUREMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

IN A DEVELOPING NATION

by

Dr.

Consultant and

National

R. D. Huntoon

Deputy Director, Retired

Bureau of Standards

I. Introduction /

At the time H. Steffen Peiser asked me to prepare a lecture for this

occasion, he was himself thinking about a paper he was planning to

give at the first anniversary of K-SRI—the Korean Standards Research

Institute. His subject was "Quantitative Measurement, the Basis for

All Science and Technology."*

It was quite natural, therefore, that he should select my subject—

"The Importance of a Standards Measurement Infrastructure in a Developing Society"—as a possible extension of his thinking. This

makes his paper a proper beginning for the analysis to follow, and we

quote from it a number of interesting observations made by Mr. Peiser:

1) "The metrologist—the specialist skilled in making exact

observations by quantitative comparisons—has a key role,

but measurement alone cannot succeed in the objectives of

science." I add—unless as frequently happens, he is also an active scientist engaged in the traditional pursuits of

science.

2) "Unfortunately, a metrologist has to make another equally

important judgment. Often he will find that he cannot be most

accurate when he is most precise; nor most precise when he is

most accurate."

3) "In general, do not do too much metrology in terms of definitions directly, but focus on comparisons at or near the

highest precision between similar samples, one of which has

the desired attribute at a certified value closely comparable

with the second sample,"

4) "My conclusion is that, in science, the metrologist occupies

the function which the super craftsman performed in the trades

of former years. He is a key man; without him you cannot

succeed in science, but he should not expect to be seen in

the limelight of greatest fame ..."

*Peiser, H. Steffen, "Quantitative Measurement, the Basis for All

Science and Technology," Metrology in Industry and Government: How

to Find Out Who Needs What Services, NBS Special Publication 539,

pp. 19-28, April 1979.

32
Observation No. 3 above sounds like heresy coining from a member in

good standing of the staff of a national metrological standards

laboratory. Yet in the proper context, for reasons which will emerge,

it is a wise and cautious observation with which I fully agree.

Before arriving at observation No. 4, Mr. reiser used some real life

examples to make his point: the conservation of parity experiment,

the measurements of the atomic weights of leads by T. W. Richards, the

discovery of screw dislocations in crystal growth, and the precision

weighing of mass standards. These examples lead me to a somewhat

different conclusion than that reached by Hr, Peiser,

I see the course of science as a collaborative cooperative development

between theory and experiment. Sometimes the experiments verify a theoretical leap; sometimes they provide the factual basis for the

advance in understanding. In any case, experimental science is

founded upon and draws essentially upon precision measurements in the

laboratory. The metrological infrastructure provides an essential

tool to the experimenter, who then proceeds to make creative use of it

to achieve his own ends. The conservation of parity experiment is an outstanding example of measurement in a difficult environment. In

this case, the experimenters had themselves, as metrologists,

developed the state of the measurement infrastructure to the point

where this crucial measurement could be made. They then switched

hats, so to speak, and became experimental scientists posing a fundamental question to nature which could be answered by a measurement

.

It is important, however, in this case, and for an understanding of

the discussion, to avoid confusion between tool and job. Metrology is

a tool for which one important use is measurement in the experimental

laboratory. Others such as mass production of piece parts will occur

to the reader.

Thus, metrologists are in a sense toolmakers. They provide the tools

for others to use, and as we know, the jobs we can undertake are determined and limited by the availability and sophistication of the

tools. It is a confusing happenstance that the metrologist, in

developing the tools, also works in the laboratory making measurements

to determine the capability of the tools. This metrological

infrastructure, which is of concern to us, must be assessed in terms

of the important systems of society, their interactions and their

dependence upon an appropriate pool of technology, coupled with a metrological infrastructure, itself a system of national extent. The

scope and implications of all these interactions go far beyond the

intent of this discussion, which must therefore be limited to some general observations which are designed to stimulate further

examination of the details of your own special systems in each of your

countries.

33
II. The Systems Point of View

As has been indicated, use of metrology is to provide the tools for

the professional activities of scientists and engineers. Since their

work is useless unless the measurements and data can be exchanged

freely and compatibly with their colleagues, the provision of the

measurement base to all of them implies the existence of an organizational structure of national scope which we call the national

measurement system (NMS) . To understand it and use it effectively, it

is helpful to think of it as a subsystem which is part of a larger

system, the society itself. This implies, of course, that the society

is made up of a number of interacting subsystems that are themselves

complex systems. We must examine the NMS in this context.

In this larger context, we will be better able to understand the

nature, value, and importance of the NMS. The roles of organizations,

measurement stations, and individuals as elementary subsystem elements

will also become piore easily described and understood. Once we accept

this approach to my assignment as one which offers the best hope of

basic understanding, we see the vast extent of that assignment and the

need within the compass of a single lecture to limit my scope to the

description of principles at work. Lach of you will then have to

apply them in your own nation as a special case. You will be enriched

by the exercise in the form of a better understanding of how to plan

for appropriate development of your own subsystems. It is far better

that way than for an outsider like myself to provide a detailed plan.

Only natives who really know your national systems, mores, customs,

values, and goals will be in a position to think things through. Even

though well meaning, the overenthusiastic outside expert may well

deliver more harm than good. I am sure each of you can bring to mind

examples of such mistakes which should convince you of the truth of

this observation.

III. Social Systems

The social systems which comprise a society such as ours in the United

States fall into two main classes which we call socioinstitutional and

socio technical. The former are the ones brought to mind when one speaks of the institutions of a society. The latter are the

technologically based ones. They have been formally recognized in our own National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council which has a commission to evaluate and express views on sociotechnical systems.

We can best characterize each class by enumerating the subsystems

which comprise it, without any attempt to present a complete list:

SOME SOCIAL SUBSYSTEMS

A. Socioinstitutional

Religious, legal-judicial, governmental, fiscal-monetary,

security (military, fire, and police), and educational

(including science and engineering)

34
B. Sociotechnical

Food* shelter, communication, transportaion, consumer products,

power-energy , weapon development, standards and measurement,

science, engineering, and weather analysis.

The socioinstitutional systems express the social nature and

administrative patterns of the society, its values, mores, etc. In a sense, these systems determine or display the needs of the people and

arrange for the meeting of such needs. Many of these needs require

the development and exploitation of technology in order to satisfy

them. They lead us to the sociotechnical systems.

The first eight of the sociotechnical systems listed above are also

commonly called industries, and the remainder can be called technical

support with the science system taking a special place. It leads and

paces often ahead of a recognized need, but it also supports and is at

the same time a part of an educational system meeting the social need

for dissemination of knowledge.

Having displayed and classified the subsystems comprising the overall

system of society, some important observations immediately follow.

III. a. Interdependence

There is a natural tendency to think of each subsystem as an independent entity and to study it abstracted from all of its

interrelationships. A little thought shows immediately the fallacy of

this. As we all know from sad experience, the working of the fiscal

monetary system coupled with the governmental system determines in

great measure what can be undertaken and accomplished in the

educational system, and the religious system sets bounds on the very

nature of the undertakings.

A more detailed example of more limited scope, but with important

bearing upon our interests, is found in those societies which operate

upon the understanding that government service employees should get a major portion of their income direct from satisfied clients. The

establishment of a satisfactory functional measurement system in such

a society, without some fundamental change in this understanding,

seems practically impossible to those of us familiar witli the workings

of our own NMS.

Many more examples could be easily found, and I am sure each of you can bring some to mind which demonstrate the close interdependence of

the socioinstitutional and the sociotechnical systems. We can sum it

up by observing that there is tight coupling between and among the

system*.

35
Ill.b. Interlocking Components

A little thought indicates that the following statements apply:

1. The subsystems we describe have no clear boundaries between

them.

2. Moreover, other listings with other names would be just as effective in describing the social system of our society,

3. Each of us is an elementary component of each subsystem;

each constrains or stimulates our individual actions in some degree.

4. Any one system cannot be changed without a corresponding

change in the other, if for no other reason at least because the common elements function in both systems. A developing society

setting out boldly to change one subsystem should not be

surprised by changes in another.

III.c. Coupling Coefficients

Every system identified here can be considered to have a coupling

coefficient to each of the others, and even the lower level subsystems

have coupling coefficients to other subsystems. Some coefficients are strong, some weak, and some may even be negative. The resulting

complexity seems overwhelming, as indeed it is. Yet there are ways of

approach which in some cases lead to useful analysis.

The Leontieff input-output matrix gives numerical values of useful

validity among the industrial systems and their components as identified in the Standard Industrial Code (SIC). The transactions

matrices prepared by Dr. Raymond Sangster of NBS describe the coupling

coefficients of the NMS to the SIC components. This may be useful in

estimating roughly the cost effectiveness of measurement undertakings

as seen by those system components. You may thus optimize the choice

between alternative projects in the face of limited resources.

Ill.d. Pool of Technology

Perhaps the most striking and important observation that comes from

looking at this whole set of coupled subsystems which comprise the

society (the overall super system) is that all the sociotechnical

systems and many of the socioins tit utional systems contribute to and are at the same time nurtured by a vast pool of technology. This pool

is a kind of storehouse containing all past technical developments

which, if accessible, can be drawn upon for the support of new developments, the maintenance of currently used ones, and as a source

of ideas and devices for new applications.

36
This pool consists of:

0 Information and methodologies

0 Facilities in being

0 Skilled personnel

0 The vast market of technical products

0 Communication and mechanisms to provide for

its availability

Of the many characteristics of the pool, two are pertinent at this

phase of the analysis.

1. The pool is, and should be, national in scope and

available to all the society. An important function of

the patent subsystem, for example, is to encourape and

enhance this national availability. A major fraction of

each nation's pool should be available as a sort of world

pool to serve similar purposes worldwide.

2. The status, health, availability, and utilization of this

pool both reflects and determines the state of sophistication of the national sociotechnical systems, and in an important way, the socioinstitutional systems.

IV. Implications of the System Structure

IV. a. Continuing Process

The development process for industrial-technological societies is a continuing one with no terminating state. In fact, the natural

tendency seems to be one of almost exponential growth. The larger the

base of technology, the greater the activity and the more

possibilities for more innovation. This sequence leads to an ever- increasing expansion of the base. The so-called developing nations

are embarked upon a course already traversed by some nations, but all

are traversing the same route toward similar goals, and all must be

concerned with similar system problems at different levels of

complexity. However, the newer nations have the potential of

achieving faster progress by learning from the nations that have

previously traversed the same levels. This accelerated growth is

often endangered by the danger, real or imaginary, of losing a national identity.

IV. b. Harmonized Development

The tightness of the coupling among systems discussed earlier implies

that they should develop together in a sort of mutual harmony, Each

system, if it develops too rapidly, becomes constrained by the

inadequacies of associated systems. Pressures develop to speed a matching development in these associated systems. It is the

37
responsibility of national planning to ensure that all systems develop

together in a somewhat harmonized way.

In our U.S. society, these harmonizing forces have been at work

without much national consciousness or awareness, because of our constitutional background and its basic interpretations allowing for

checks and balances. This social system typically operates only by

permitting delays which appear unacceptable to most developing

countries. An interesting problem arises when a nation in a hurry

decides to set national goals for the enhanced development of one of

its major systems 'by a sudden infusion of technology, without the

corresponding development of associated systems that would have

transpired in the slower harmonized evolutionary process. This has

been called leapfrogging. Harmonization processes become broken down,

and mismatches are sure to develop with unexpected consequences.

In these circumstances, it is natural to call upon one or more of the

nations with more advanced development for consultation. However,

their "experts" have matured with systems during harmonized

evolutionary development. They will have no experience with

leapfrogging development, so their "advice" may well exacerbate the

dislocations due to the non-evolutionary development created by the

infusion of advanced technology.

These considerations definitely apply to the standards infrastructure.

Attempts to speed development of the NMS by sudden infusions of

specific technology can lead to disappointment and even failure if

attention is not given to the interaction with closely associated

soclotechnical subsystems.

IV. c. Layering of the Pool

When we trace the beginnings of our pool of technology, we see first

very elementary technologies: manufacture and use of plows, bricks,

nails, screws, etc.

These now seemingly simple products of technologies continue to be

produced for consumption in the marketplace supplying all systems so long as they fill a need in competition with newer or higher quality

products. Most importantly, the elementary products serve as a basis

for more complex technologies, which require them as a basic starting

point.

Products of more complex technologies in turn fill market needs and

make it possible for the development of still more sophisticated

technologies. The process is repeated over and over in the course of

time, leading to a pyramidal structure of technologies in layers of

complexity and sophistication. Each layer draws upon the technologies

of earlier layers finding their existence necessary to the

development. Consider, for example, what we call the vacuum tube

technology, which is already unable to maintain itself in the

38
marketplace. It depended upon the existence of a glass technology,

vacuum technology, alloy technology, and metals fabrication

technology. These in turn are based upon extractive metallurgy,

mining, precise measurements, (for instance, of chemical composition,

temperature voltage, current, etc.) transportation, communication, and

so on.

The process also involves returning to the earlier technologies to

redevelop them into more complex, more efficient ones. Mining

technology, for example, is far different now from its state of

development a generation ago. Leapfrogging by an infusion of a new

technology creates difficulties when supportive technologies are not

present in the local pool. Arrangements have to be made also to

import the underlying technologies or continue to draw upon help from

other nations. Less developed countries need to make careful,

farsighted decisions to determine whether to buy the necessary

products or to import an indigenous technology.

Leapfrogging, the forced acceleration of one subsystem in a developing

nation’s development process, is a highly complex process not to be

undertaken lightly. It involves a periodic follow-up of infusions of

additional help to correct deficiencies not apparent at the outset.

Yet the pressures to try to leapfrog rather than to accept slower

evolutionary processes of development are tremendous. The rewards in

standard of living seem so great, the national vitality is stimulated

by ambitious goals, and the pride of achievement of a high technology

is a significant factor even when the cost was too high for short-term

economic benefit.

IV. d. Scope of Systems

The nature and benefits of the sociosystems are such that they tend to

expand to encompass the whole society. Think of the benefits of a communication system or transportation system that covers the whole

country (or the world). All those outside want to join in when

feasible. Moreover, economies often can be achieved by enlarging the

scale. Thus, these sociosystems need to be nationwide to be fully

effective, but we need not plan it that way when a technology is first

introduced. So, we find that they will become nationwide as a result

of inherent pressures. There is no need to force the growth from a modest start.

All such growth requires as a fundamental necessity the development

and use of standards, the arrangements by which agreement is reached

about the sizes, configurations, and processes for realization of the

technological products or services to be supplied to the marketplace

from the pool of technology.

These agreements are reached on the basis of physical measurements and

are expressed in terms of them. Measurement is the language which

makes standards possible, useful, and verifiable. In fact, it is so

39
essential that we have identified the measurement infrastructure as one of the sociotechnical subsystems characteristic of a technologically-based society from its outset to development.

IV. e. Awareness

Educational preparation of the system users is essential to its full

utilization. This is particularly true for the infusion of a sophisticated measurement system and infrastructure. Unless

measurement awareness is developed, the new system will languish while

the potential users proceed with their habitual ways of doing things,

with damaging economic loss as a common consequence.

Growth of the system requires familiarity and awareness of

opportunity. The user must become familiar with its capabilities to sense how he can apply it to do things habitually done by less

effective means and how he can undertake new things never before

practical with the old tools. Awareness starts utilization. As

creativity is applied, new applications emerge to bring additional

growth and awareness. Therefore, when leapfrogging is attempted,

careful attention must be given to user awareness.

Surprisingly, there is a danger to a sound utilization of a system.

Habitual patterns of utilization develop and then often lead to a tendency to take it for granted. Calls upon the system may then

become unthinkingly automatic. In this process, the importance of

nurturing and improving the system tends more and more to be

neglected.

There is yet another danger in false utilization of a subsystem.

Today in the United States we tend to take the communication system,

power system, and yes, the NMS, so much for granted that we recognize

their existence and usefulness only when they fail through some form

of breakdown which curtails the service. We have grown to expect

these systems to function reliably all the time. When they fail, the

entire socioeconomic system seems in jeopardy.

V. Extended Look at the Pool of Technology

We now turn attention to further general observations and implications

of the pool of technology oriented to demonstrate some aspects of the

measurement-standards infrastructure. We have already noted that the

pool must be at least national in scope if the system utilization is

to involve the whole society, and that use and awareness contribute to

the growth of the pool. They lead to a positive feedback, which

implies exponential growth, with two main components: awareness for

exploitation and innovation by user creativity and span of coverage

with opportunities to stimulate more ideas and innovation. Each

effective innovation becomes an addition to the pool of technology to

increase its content.

40
V.a. Economies of Scale by Restraints on Diversity

An important benefit that accompanies the pool of technology in an industrial nation is the economy of scale achieved when proper limits

are placed upon the diversity of sizes, colors, or other parameters of

products so that large quantities of identical items can be

manufactured. To illustrate, consider the case of fasteners. Nuts

and bolts could be made in an infinite variety of sizes and shapes.

Every product might have its own individual fasteners not

interchangeable with those of any other product. The logistics of

manufacture, supply, and storage would be so complex and costly that

industries would be handicapped from sheer cost considerations. By

mutual agreement to make only certain sizes with specified thread

dimensions, the logistics become practicable and large-scale

manufacture becomes possible. Development costs for processing

machines can be spread over large numbers, and automation becomes a viable option. The cost per item drops as quantities increase.

Agreement upon standards for a product avoids infinite diversity and

achieves uniformity across the whole country to provide

interchangeability and large-scale market. Labor in most countries is

apprehensive of the decrease in labor cost per item manufactured.

This fear is unjustified because the salary and wage costs per dollar

spent by consumers does not decrease in a higher technology society,

V.b, Measurement Implications

The basic importance of product standards and interchangeability is at

the beginning of an understanding of the importance and role of the

NMS. Cogent arguments for standardization can equally be made on behalf of manufacturers to assure uniformity of raw materials or on behalf of ultimate consumers on a quantified measure of product life

expectancy and performance. Standards are equally needed to prevent

part of a society from damaging the interests of another. To reach

agreement upon product standards (from piece parts to systems)

requires quantitative specification of sizes, materials, their

properties, and often the processes by which the manufacture is to be

accomplished and the methods by which the products are to be tested.

Specifications are expressed in terms of measurements of size, of

parameters (resistance or ductility, etc.), of material properties

(density, viscosity, etc.). If this is to lead to interchangeable

parts and products, the measurement language, units, and measurement

processes must be objective, quantitative, and compatible throughout

the society.

The term, compatibility of measurements, is a most important concept,

which we give a very specific meaning in this NMS context. We say

that two measurement stations give compatible measurements if they

obtain results which differ from each other by only statistically

evaluated small amounts when they measure the same thing (measurand).

The proper functioning of the sociotechnical systems through the pool

of technology requires the presence of a nationwide NMS , whose

41
function is to provide an infrastructure that will permit the making

of compatible measurements everyplace in the nation.

The various sociotechnical subsystems will be no more effective than

their means of providing the necessary compatible measurements. If

each subsystem has to put its measurement infrastructure in place

independently of an NMS, it would not only be expensive but problems

would soon arise from the all-important coupling with associated subsystems .

Thus, our systems approach shows the larger scale need for an NMS and

its functions. We remember also that all the technological products

follow as end items of a sequence we call scientific research,

engineering, and development. These three activities should use the

self-same measurement language as the basic means of quantitative

expression and communication of ideas, results of investigations and

product designs. Aside from minor departures from agreed terminology

and measurement units (like barrels of oil and bushels of grain in the

United States), technology finds it very natural and convenient to

cooperate with the NMS.

VI. Product Standards

Let us discuss a little further the standards for industrial products

to which we can give the generalized name "hardware," They are physically realizable entities made by a man-devised and mancontrolled process from substances and materials to perform some function for a user. They are to be distinguished from the products

of the agricultural , forest, and service industries.

The hardware to be produced is described in terms of plans and

processes to be used by the manufacturer. These descriptions or specifications are commonly recorded in writing. These paper

descriptions and plans to realize the product we give the generic name

of "software." The software of the kind that states agreements to

produce and realize standardized products we call product or engineering standards. Thus, the standards are software which when

used lead to standardized hardware. These standards are of four | important kinds: configuration (agreements about specific dimensions,

materials to be used or specific parameters, material properties or even subproducts already themselves standardized) process,

characterizations (displayed by the product or substance concerned),

and performance (ability to function in a specified manner without

restriction on materials or design).

i VII,

—

Realization of Standards

j Means must be available for the realization of the standard and of the

products it describes. This is where the measurement capability

42
enters. We identify eight major steps in the development of a product

1) Research adds to the body of knowledge from which inventions

can be made.

2) Invention conceives the idea for a device which based upon

the body of scientific knowledge will perform some useful

and desirable function. (It could itself be a measuring

instrument.

)

3) Engineering develops the idea into a practical, useful form by

repeated measurements of components, performances, configurations, and environments until the device can be fully and

quantitatively specified.

4) Production development modifies design to fit the production

process making trade-offs between cost and acceptable

performance, all based upon quantitative measurement.

5) Setting the standards consists of the determination of the

values that must be obtained when the product is tested if it

is to be acceptable.

6) Process control and quality assurance is introduced by

specified measurements along the stages of manufacture to ensure

that the final product will meet final specifications (or is

rejected or adjusted before too much costly work is done), all

being part of the process.

7) Verif ication/quality control provides for the product when

completed to be measured with respect to all parameters

established in the standard for clearance to market. If the

measurements are not compatible with those elsewhere in the

whole country, the products may be rejected by the intended

users. The manufacturer therefore has a self-interest in

having his measurement stations adjusted, that is, harmonized

to the NMS

8) Market (pool) acceptance follows when it can be demonstrated

that the standard leads to a useful product. A company which

adheres to the standard achieves product acceptance by all

relevant sociotechnical systems.

In a modern industrial nation such as the United States, there are some 100,000 product standards in the pool of accepted

standards. They function through measurement on myriad of

products of the sociotechnical systems. The NMS provides the

necessary measurement infrastructure.

43
VIII. The Compatible Measurement Base

This brief look at the system environment of the NMS allows us to

state with some understanding the major functional requirements of the

measurement infrastructure if it is to fulfill its essential role in

the operation of the other sociotechnical systems.

VIII. a. Uniformity

The nationwide span of the other systems in the sociotechnical family

requires that the NMS must likewise span the entire society.

Moreover, since our countries interact on the world scene with all

other industrial nations, there is strong pressure for a worldspanning uniformity in measurement. This means that our own nationwide system must be modified to fit into a uniform worldwide

measurement system (WMS) if we are to be fully effective as part of

the worldwide pool of technology serving the sociotechnical systems of

the other nations. This world uniformity requirement is responsible

for the present U.S, national undertaking despite some misgivings

among our citizens to become a metric nation, since all other

technically based nations are now metric or in the process of becoming

so.

The required uniformity includes:

° The units of measure for all physical quantities.

° The corresponding physical reference standards,

° Coupling processes to establish measurement chains.

0 Software relating to measurement processes,

° Internationally recognized product standards insofar

as practicable.

VIII. b. Availability

The measurement hardware and software must be available to all users,

who desire it, across the society. Means to incorporate new members

into the system must be available as it grows and diversifies. There

is a need for differentiated services at a level of accuracy matched

to each realistic need. It also introduces problems in which

confidential defense systems have leapfrogged ahead of the other

domestic subsystems. Spare parts and service functions must then be

provided from abroad without end in sight.

VIII. c. Compatibility

Measurements of any given measurand at any measurement station in the

system should give identical results, within appropriate

uncertainties. In other words, the system should provide to every user the ability to make compatible measurements suited to his needs.

44
VIII. d. Stability

By analogy with VIII. c, the measurement of a given measurand at

different times should also give identical results within appropriate

uncertainties, provided the reference measurand itself did not change

with time. In other words, the measurement system must be compatible

across time. There are physical constants of nature that are, as far

as we know, invariant in time. All modern measurement systems

undertake to define and relate units of measure to appropriate

physical constants such as the speed of light, the wave lengths of

certain atomic spectral lines, nuclear hyperfine transitions in

certain atoms, fundamental crystal lattice spacings, or atomic masses

of single nuclides.*

IX. Master-Slave Chains

Briefly, the system works through master-slave chains. Consider the

elemental situation of two stations, each of which uses its

instruments to measure a given measurand. If they have not previously

been harmonized, they can be expected to obtain significantly

different results, i.e., incompatible measurements. Some adjustments

must be made by either or both stations to achieve harmony. If one of

the two stations has already been harmonized with another which is an accepted member of the NMS, the latter is commonly given the role of

master and the new station is slaved to it.

It follows that if several stations are harmonized with and thus

slaved to a common master, all the slaves of this master will be

compatible. If two masters are themselves slaved to a supermaster,

then all slaves will be compatible. This leads to a hierarchical

structure of master-slave chains with a top-master station for the

whole system (for one particular physical quantity such as length, all

within a stated range). Such a complete chain is needed for each

physical quantity for each range of interest.

It is important to notice that the top master of every chain controls

and is responsible for the entire chain. If he is in error, the whole

compatible structure is in error. Commonly, the top master resides in

a national laboratory and the reference measurands it uses to

establish control over the chain are the National Prototype Reference

Standards. These are established at the national laboratory to be in

accord with the uniformly agreed-upon definition of the unit of

measure (meter, kilogram, ampere, second, etc,). Note also that some

*A more detailed examination and explanation of compatibility will

be found in "Compatibility in Measurement Systems," R, D, Huntoon,

Report on an NBS/AID/OAS Workshop on Standardization and Measurement

Services in Industrializing Economies, NBSIR 75-769, held Nov, 1974.

45
stations may be slaved directly to the top master and some through

several intermediate masters. The nature of the chain depends upon

the economics of the situation and the needs of the user-slave.

When a system is thus coupled to a top master, the responsibility for

proper measurement becomes enormous. This responsibility becomes

easier to bear if the load is shared in a "round robin" among the top

masters of several nations as is now done at the International Bureau

of Weights and Measures (BIPM) established in Sevres, France, by the

Treaty of the Meter.

The uncertainty of measurements at a lower slave station can be

defined as the uncertainty of a local measurement coupled with those

of the successive higher level master stations for a given measurand

and with that to be given by the top master for the realization of the

unit in terms of the definition (the coupling recommended is the

square root of the sum of the squares of the individual

uncertainties)

This leads to an interesting anomaly alluded to by Mr. Peiser in his

paper referred to in the introduction. A tightly harmonized masterslave chain can yield subsystem compatibility with less uncertainty

than that between the standard of the master in the subsystem and the

defined unit, thus leading to the situation he describes as "He cannot

be most accurate when he is most precise ..." and vice versa.

This is a real anomaly. So often, metrologists can and should aim to

be far more precise than they can be accurate. For example, in

measurements of atomic masses, compatibility of one part in 10® has

been achieved but the rest mass of the reference nuclide -^C in terms

of the kilogram is known only to about 1 part in 10®, Another example

occurs in the measurement of voltage. Compatibility of one part in 10®

has been achieved by the use of Josephson junctions, but the knowledge

of the volt as maintained by NBS in terms of the definition is no better than some few parts in 10® as determined by international

comparison at BIPM.

The means by which the NMS makes harmonization available to any

measurement station vary from physical quantity to physical quantity

and according to the needs of the user. They fall into four general

categories.

IX. a. Passive Calibration

The slave sends his instruments or standard to the master where

identical measurands are measured against both master and slave

devices to arrive at harmonization adjustments. Unfortunately, this

older and widely-used mode does not involve the operators and

environment at the slave station in the process, and therefore fails

to assure measurement control at the slave station.

46
IX. b. Active Calibration

1) The maater sends a premeasured measurand to the slave who

measures it and reports back and returns the measurand with

the results. The master checks the measurand to be sure it

did not change during the trip and sends liarmonization

adjustments back to the slave. The measurands can be some artifact or a sample of a standard reference material.

or 2) The master sends his instrument or standard to the slave who

makes comparison measurements on identical measurands, lie makes his own harmonization adjustments and returns the master

instrument. The master rechecks the instrument to be sure it

did not change.

or 3) The slave obtains from the literature the value of an appropriate physical constant or material property, lie then

measures this property at his station and makes his own

harmonization adjustments. This slaves him to the station

which measured and published the data. At least one country

(Brazil) has considered this procedure to be potentially

disruptive of its NMS t if an in-country laboratory other than

the national standards body slaves itself to a foreign master

station. It is a law therefore, though in practice not

enforced, that unauthorized SRM's must not be used.

IX. c. Absolute

The slave becomes his own master by starting from the basic

definitions to arrive at his own prototype realization of the unit.

This is possible in principle for all quantities except mass and those

units for other quantities which derive from it. The mass unit is

still defined as that of a particular platinum cylinder, and

therefore, mass standards can only be harmonized by direct or indirect

reference to it. In general, absolute harmonization is less accurate

than through a compatibility measurement chain and much more time

consuming and costly.

IX. d. Unique

The calibration of clocks and time scales and frequency meters is

unique for two reasons. First, time interval measurements nowadays

are by far the most accurate measurements that can be made by science.

Secondly, by means of radio broadcasts, standard frequencies and time

signals are made to cover the earth and become inexpensively available

to anyone with proper receiving and recording equipment at accuracies

in excess of virtually all contemporary needs.

IX. e. Ceneral

This examination of the compatibility modes is a major functional

requirement of the NMS . With such understanding, one can provide

47
hardware, measurands, and software for product standards and

measurement processes to the pool of technology as well as for use by

all the other sociotechnical systems. These sociotechnical systems

evolve along with the JIMS with such tight couplings to it that they

exist and function only to the extent that the JIMS fulfills its

functional requirements. This latter statement compresses into one brief sentence the fundamental importance of and the responsibility

placed upon the NMS in a technology based society. Yet the NMS is

generally taken for granted, as it should be if it is healthy and

growing. If it fails, tragic circumstances arise with major economic

consequences or in some other noticeable way.

And now we reach the point for understanding of the observation by

Mr. Peiser which I labeled as heresy in the introduction. His

question can now be paraphrased in the terms of this system analysis

by saying:

Compatibility usually should take priority over accuracy in

newly developing systems. The accuracy, as far as it is

necessary, can be acquired by harmonization with top masters

in other nations which have realized the units from the

definitions and reached harmonization agreements via the

International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM)

X. Human Factors

The NMS infrastructure is dependent upon the human components in a crucial and unique way. In fact, as will become apparent, operator

integrity is absolutely essential to successful function of the

measurement infrastructure.

X.a. Statistical Mature of Measurement

The critical nature of the human component arises from the statistical

nature of the measurement process itself. Repeated measurements, in

what seem to be identical situations, give observably different, i.e.,

a spread, of results if the precision of the equipment is being fully

utilized. So long as the situation is not changed in some material

way, the population of measurements shows stable statistical

parameters. In this stable condition, the measurement process is said

to be under control. However, the operator himself is an important

element in the statistical distribution of the measurements. Changing

from one operator to another often changes the distribution. Changing

physical environments commonly brings changes, too, and experience is

a crucial factor in recognizing and avoiding these disruptive changes.

Experienced metro logists seem to develop, through continued

experience, a sort of sixth sense which tells them if the measuring

system is stable or if some subtle change has taken place. The

inexperienced blame themselves, and worse still, wishing to hide their own supposed lack of skill, adjust data to look more self-consistent.

I

1

48
If the measurement station is functioning properly with operators of

integrity and any bias has been recognized and allowed for, the

distribution of differences from the mean will be of a random nature,

each deviation being independent of the others and impossible to

predict, except in a probabilistic or statistical sense. That is, one

can give odds about how large an interval will contain the next

measurement but not where it will fall.

X.b. Next Measurement Sequence

The operator of a measurement station can by repeated measurements

assure himself, with readily available statistical algorithms, that

his measurement station is in control and performing reliably. If,

then, he Is given another similar measurand and asked to measure its

value, he can do so and obtain an answer. But questions immediately

arise:

1) How do you know the measurement station did not change since

the last measurement?

The answer is that there is no way to tell for sure,

A repeat of the measurement or one on a known reference

standard will very greatly reduce the doubt but not eliminate

it. Practical considerations in working measurement stations

do not permit the operator to make many measurements of each

item. He must rely upon judgment based upon experience and

be alert to notice deviations from the expected statistical

parameters.

2) How do you know where this measurement will lie in the expected

statistical variations?

There Is no way to tell from a single observation. The mean

of two or several measurements can be used, but this does not

reduce the higher level master errors.

3) llow do you know that your result is compatible with the rest

of the NMS, i.e., that another station would obtain the same result on your measurand if asked to measure it?

The answer is that my station has been harmonized with an acceptable compatible station of the system within a certain

stipulated statistical variation. One can only give confidence

intervals, not absolute certainty,

4) How do you know that your station has not changed in some significant way since the last harmonization for compatibility?

The answer is I do not know and I cannot, but I can arrange

for the risk of departure outside the range to be very small.

I do know that the pattern of harmonizations indicates stability

49
of the station, and I can be, say, 95 percent sure that it lias

not changed significantly. Also, my experience over time tells me it is still in control.

All the above answers depend upon proper performance of the operator

metrologist—as well as his equipment.

X.c. Human Operator Requirements

We are now in a position to indicate with some measure of

understanding that there are important human requirements that apply

to the station operator. The operator must have the requisite

education and considerable exposure to measurement equipment suited to

the function of his measurement station, to the maintenence of the

equipment, to the software available to him, including that from his

master station and the rest of the NKS, to the capabilities and

deficiencies of his equipment, to the expected stability and

requirements for reharmonization, and to the whole measurement process

reliably operated over a long period all to build an awareness of the

system within which the concepts of measurement assurance govern his

performance on his job. Given these attributes, the operator will

function with a quiet but easily apparent confidence. He will not

present one system for harmonization and use another. He will not

substitute systems, but run the system with great care for

harmonization and never relax the controls for normal operations.

The operator then can and must be trusted to obtain honest

harmonization and not use another system or another set of criteria.

The whole structure and its effective operation depend upon the

integrity and long-term reliability of the operators of the

measurement stations which comprise the network.

Staffing a measurement system, therefore, with station operators who

meet all of these human requirements is no mean undertaking. Even

then it is impossible to avoid all mistakes; judgments will not

always be correct; lapses will occur, but if the interest is there

and the staff is always willing to search, for one another's errors and

acknowledge their own, problems will become self-correcting.

There are external requirements, too. neither the social order nor

the governmental systems must reward cover-up of errors failure.

Evolutionary growth can then be expected to reap the rewards of a successful system.

Here again we see the interplay of checks and balances which

characterize the harmonious evolutionary development of a set of

closely coupled sociotechnical systems. A sudden infusion of

measurement technology into a nation, whose other sociotechnical

systems and socioinstitutional systems do not yet offer the requisite

awareness needed to maintain the measurement system in its suddenly

augmented form, can generate problems which reduce the rewards.

50
Disappointment is likely if the evolutionary process is hurried too

much. Careful planning and understanding of what to expect will allow

a maximum pace of the advance.

XI. I'lnal Observations

Let us look back over the picture in large perspective to "wrap up"

our present understanding.

/ We have seen:

a) That the measurement infrastructure in the form of a sociotechnical system exists in our society as one of a set of

tightly coupled systems.

b) That all these systems contribute to and draw upon a pool

of technology which is a common part of all of them.

c) That the NMS provides the following all-important services for

the use of all the other systems which comprise the society:

1. Software about measurements.

(a) Descriptions of and standards for measuring instruments.

(b) A structure to permit harmonization of all

measurement stations,

(c) Coupling to the world measurement system.

(d) Education for metrologists

.

(e) Working language of quantitative nature for

interchangeability in the pool, which consists

of formulation of specifications and standards

for industrial products, process control to give

manufacturing capability and quality assurance,

and verification that specifications have been

met so that quality policing is effective.

2. Promulgation of measurement awareness and relevant information:

(a) That this language and hardware of measurement

are essential to the functioning of all the

systems and for the interchangeability of parts

and processes which makes the pool of technology

useful on a nationwide basis,

(b) That compatibility across space and time is the

foundation stone of the NMS.

51
(c) That Hr. reiser' s heresy is well founded, that is

to say, that under some circumstances it is best

to strive for optimum precision even at the expense

of accuracy.

(d) That all systems should evolve together in harmonious

evolutionary development.

(e) That sudden infusion of technology to speed up unduly

the process of development in one sector or system

may seriously disturb the equilibrium of joint

evolution. Careful plans must be laid to handle the

expected problems in any unevenness of the evolution

of systems. The IMS is especially sensitive in this

regard.

In short, we could paraphrase the old adage "For want of a nail . , ." to read:

For want of compatibility the measurement was lost, for want of

the measurement the products were faulty, for want of confidence

the company failed, for failure of companies the industrial development failed, for want of systems the country reverted to a non- industrial, poverty-stricken, isolated agrarian society,

Hence, we can sum up the importance of the NHS as "no measurement system,

no industrial society as we know it."

52
EVALUATION OF THE NBS/AID WORKSHOP

ON STANDARDIZATION i\ND MEASUREMENT SERVICES, 1978

RELEVANCE TO YOUR PROGRAMS IN YOUR COUNTRY

1. What portion of the presentations had any relevance to your

a. present needs ?

AL-KHALAF: Measurement, library.

CIIANDRA: ANSI, NBS Overview, National Engineering Laboratory,

National Measurement Laboratory, National Technical

Information Service, Scientific Atlanta, Texas Instruments.

DE CHAN: First week of Workshop.

FADLALLA: NBS.

GANDI: NCSL, NBS, Seminar, New York, Atlanta.

1IALTEH: NBS and other specialized organizations,

KIM: National Engineering Laboratory of NBS.

LAWRENCE: Library and Information Service, organization and

operation of ANSI and sister organizations, dealing with

practical development of standards through laboratories,

research.

MAZZA: Accuracy ratio (NCSL Conference) and visit to

AC-DC difference laboratory.

OWINO-OKWERO : Laboratory facilities for metrology,

appropriate technology for industrialization in developing countries, standardization and calibration.

QURASHI: Sessions I to IV of NBS/AID/UNCSTD Seminar.

RAJARAMAN: ANSI, NBS Overview, Measurements, Engineering

Laboratory, Technical Information Service, Library

Information Service, visits to technical institutes

and industrial units.

SULIMAN: NBS presentation.

TUDOR: Basic concepts of all visits, in particular, Macy’s,

WAENY: NCSL, ANSI, Macy's, Texas Instruments, Johnson Space

Center, Maryland Weights and Measures, TAPPI.

53
b . future needs?

AL-KHALAF: Research and development.

CHANDRA: Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology,

computer operated machine tool shop,

FADLALLA: NBS.

GANDI: NCSL, NBS.

t HALTEH: Laboratory facilities.

KIM: Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology,

Library Information Service.

LAWRENCE: Advanced technology,

MAZZA: Measurement assurance programs.

OWINO-OKWERO : All lectures and visits to industries,

QURASHI: Sessions V to VII of the NBS/AID/UNCSTD Seminar.

RAJARAMAN: Macy's, Institute for Computer Sciences and

Technology, Scientific Atlanta, Texas Instruments,

University of Alabama, instrument shops.

SULIMAN: Nearly all.

TUDOR: NBS equipment.

WAENY: NBS, other laboratories, universities.

2, Which presentations could have been omitted

a. at the National Conference of Standards Laboratories?

SULIMAN: Workshop sessions,

WAENY: Legal metrology,

b . of the NBS presentations?

AL-KHALAF: Tour of basic research laboratories.

CHANDRA: Cooperative Technology,

54
c. at the Seminar, "The Technological Knowlege Base for

Industrializing: Countries1

*' ?

CHANDRA: Experience of a major U.S. firm in a newly

industrializing country; the role of licensing

negotiations.

GANDI: National and international standards that must be

satisfied by industrializing countries,

t LAWRENCE: Historical and non-practical proposals,

highlight trends.

MAZZA: Knowledge required to enable a country to acquire

commercial, industrial technology.

UAENY : Short, sketchy presentations.

d. in New York, Atlanta, Birmingham, Dallas, and Houston?

CHANDRA: TAPPI, Molecular Biology and Cell Culture at

University of Alabama.

GANDI: Macy’s, Scientific Atlanta, Southern Research

Institute, University of Texas,

HAZZA; TAPPI, Health Center in Birmingham.

SULIMAN: University of Texas.

TUDOR: Birmingham and Dallas presentations.

Which presentations could have been expanded

a. at the National Conference of Standards Laboratories?

GANDI: Accreditation, enforcement and monitoring of

laboratories.

RAJARAMAN: Accreditation of laboratories with reference

to international development.

TUDOR: Measurement assurance program, legal metrology.

WAENY : Measurement assurance programs, accuracy ratios,

b , of the NBS presentations?

AL-KKALAF: Library tour.

CHANDRA: National Measurement Laboratory, National Engineering Laboratory.

55
DE CHAN: Dr. Huntoon’s presentation.

CANDI : All.

KIH: National Engineering Laboratory.

OWINO-OKWERO : Quality control, process control.

RAJARAMAN: NBS help to developing countries for metrological

needs, basic and conventional calibration services,

SULIMAN: National Measurement Laboratory, Library

Information Service.

WAENY: NBS internal measurement assurance program,

c. at the Seminar, "The Technological Knowledge Base for

for Industrializing Countries"?

AL-KHALAF: Short contributions, discussion time.

DE CHAN: Dr. Qurashi's presentation.

HALTEH: Three days needed.

LAWRENCE: Workshop participants’ presentations,

OWINO-OKWERO: Trade agreements, training technical

managers, industrial engineering.

OURASHI: Sessions IV to VII,

RAJARAMAN: Experiences of U.S. corporations in

developing countries,

SULIMAN: Time too short.

TUDOR: Presentations of delegates from developing countries.

WAENY: Croup papers.

d. in New York, Atlanta, Birmingham, Dallas, and Houston?

AL-KHALAF: ANSI.

CHANDRA: ANSI.

DE CHAN: Macy's.

CANDI: ANSI.

56
LAWRENCE: Texas Instruments,

SULIMAN: Southern Research Institute, University of Alabama,

and Texas Instruments,

TUDOR: Johnson Space Center,

Which presentation was most valuable for you

a, at the National Conference of Standards Laboratories?

GANDI: Measurement assurance program, accreditation of

laboratories,

MAZZA: Accuracy and accuracy ratios.

RAJARAMAN: Measurement assurance program, training of

personnel for metrological needs.

TUDOR: Measurement assurance program.

WAENY: Measurement assurance program and accuracy ratios.

b. of the NBS presentations?

AL-KHALAF: Library, applied research.

CHANDRA: National Measurement Laboratory, National Engineering Laboratory.

DE CHAN: National Measurement Laboratory,

FADLALLA: All.

GANDI: All.

HALTEH: All.

KIM: National Engineering Laboratory,

LAWRENCE: Overviews and laboratory visits.

MAZZA: Measurement assurance program.

RAJARAMAN: National Measurement Laboratory, National

Engineering Laboratory.

SULIMAN: All.

TUDOR: Solar water heating.

WAENY: All, especially Dr, Huntoon’s presentation.

57
c. at the Seminar, "The Technological Knowledge Base for

Industrializing Countries" ?

AL-KHALAF : All.

DE CHAN: Dr. Qurashi's presentation.

FADLALLA: All.

GANDI: Dr. Somer's presentation.

HALTEH: All.

LAWRENCE: Those of a non-historical nature.

MAZZA: Dr, Lee's presentation, "High Technology Quality

Control in a Newly Industrializing Society,"

OWINO-OKWERO: Industrial engineering and investments.

QURASHI: Keynote and Sessions II and III.

RAJARAMAN: Knowledge required for industrial quality

control,

SULIMAN: All.

TUDOR: Dr. Qurashi's presentation, "Management of Development of Technical Knowledge in Pakistan."

WAENY: All keynote speakers,

d. in New York, Atlanta, Birmingham, Dallas, and Houston?

CHANDRA: ANSI, Scientific Atlanta, University of Alabama,

Texas Instruments, Johnson Space Center.

DE CHAN: Macy's, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Southern Research Institute, Texas Instruments,

GANDI: ANSI, Georgia Institute of Technology, University

of Alabama, Texas Instruments.

LAWRENCE: Macy's, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Southern Research Institute.

MAZZA: Scientific Atlanta, Texas Instruments, Johnson

Space Center.

OWINO-OKWERO: Research and development for indigenous

services (e.g,, electrification systems), Georgia

58
Institute of Technology, development of new drugs (UAB)

,

both visits in Dallas.

QURASHI: Georgia Institute of Technology, University of

Alabama, Texas Instruments.

RAJARAMAN: ANSI, Scientific Atlanta, University of Alabama,

Texas Instruments, Johnson Space Center.

SULIMAN: Macy's, Georgia Institute of Technology, Scientific

Atlanta, University of Alabama, Southern Research

Institute, Texas Instruments,

TUDOR: New York and Birmingham presentations.

WAENY : All.

5. What presentations could have been added?

CHANDRA: Visit to NBS/Boulder,

DE CHAN: Sears Quality Control Department.

KIM: ASTM.

RAJARAMAN: NBS/Boulder, ASTM.

TUDOR: Time and frequency,

6, General comments on the overall benefits of this Workshop to you

and your country.

AL-KHALAF: The Workshop in general was very beneficial. It is

very intensive which sometimes caused inconvenience. Since

the program details are prepared ahead of time, the participants should be given a chance to choose some parts of it

which are of interest to them,

CHANDRA: The Workshop has given an opportunity to overview the

present system of standardization and measurement services

in the United States and also some idea about the on-going

advanced research programs in several areas.

DE CHAN: Gave me and my country the whole view of the measurement and technological progress in the United States.

There was good contact with persons and institutions.

FADLALLA: Although the program showed us highly sophisticated

research and instruments, yet it clearly demonstrated to

me the future planning of my work. The program also

revealed that even the United States could be faced by

59
problems which may be of special interest to developing

countries. The way such problems are solved is very

important to us.

GANDI: Seeing the voluntary system in operation; broadening

the view into the problem; and access to information base.

HALTER: It gives a general picture about all the activities

of standards work and legal metrology as well as measurement and calibration. In general, it is a very good

program.

KIM: This Workshop has given me a greater knowledge base

professionally and technically. Applying the knowledge

thus acquired to my practical work, I believe I could make

a contribution towards technical improvement and development in my country. This Workshop reminds me of the

proverb: "Seeing is believing,"

MAZZA: I have established contacts with the NBS staff, and

I have an idea about how and in what they are working now,

OWINO-OKWERO: Experience on how to cover and carry out activities of standardization, especially involvement of industry,

government, university, and other organizations. Also, that

an efficient communication system is a major facility

in meeting this level,

QURASHI: Certainly provides insight into the applications of

standards and quality control procedures and their

management.

RAJARAMAN: Coming as I do from a developing country with a new Bureau of Standards which looks forward to international

assistance for the initiation of its work program, I feel

that the Workshop has enabled me to appreciate the role NBS can play for the building of the standards body through USAID.

SULIMAN: There is no doubt that I have benefited from the

Workshop greatly technically, and it will be of great help

to me in my work in the field of standardization or in

industrialization. It was indeed a great chance to attend

the Workshop at this time as we are now trying in Sudan to

evaluate the standardization work and reorganize the Department.

TUDOR: I am sure that the Workshop has furnished excellent guidelines on setting up a Measurement Service at BNSI.

WAENY; Very interesting, very helpful, and informative for all

connected with metrological work. For my specific case,

it allowed further opportunity to question on MAP's and SRM's.

60
B. PERSONAL QUESTIONS

1.

Did you

a. enjoy the Workshop ?

All answered yes,

b, regret attending the Workshop?

All indicated no.

2. Did you profit professionally and technically?

All answered yes, although two indicated professionally only,

3. Do you feel you have established personal and useful

contacts with

a. NBS staff ?

All answered yes, except one person who reserved judgment.

b. other U,S, colleagues from the States?

Eleven persons answered yes, two no, and one reserved

judgment.

c. other Workshop participants?

All answered yes.

4. Do you feel your country should have sent someone else of

a. greater position seniority?

Two persons answered yes, six no.

b. lesser position seniority?

Two persons answered yes, five no.

c. greater technical experience?

Two persons answered yes, six no,

d. lesser technical experience?

One person answered yes, five no.

61
5. What suggestions would you make for the possible organizational

arrangements of future NBS/AID programs?

AL-KHALAF : 1.

2 .

Increase the services you offer to participants

(i.e., pick up at airports, employ better means

of transportation—especially in the New York

part of the program).

Divide your tours into two groups according to

the choice of participants. This has the advantage of decreasing the load on participants and

giving them the choice of seeing what they want

to see.

CHANDRA: The presentations may have been more exhaustive in some selected areas. More time should have been allotted to

visit8 to the laboratories and presentations could have

been made there. Fewer lectures and more visits would be

desirable,

DE CHAN: The organization of this Workshop was wonderful.

I think that it couldn't have been better.

FADLALLA: The course, although very well organized, had too

many long days of work that fatigued the participants, making

it cumbersome to them. It is suggested that in the future

you cut the number of hours and perhaps allow some free time

in the evenings.

GANDI: 1. U.S. -Indonesia agreement for scientific research

and technological development be materialized,

2. More contact with Indonesian Embassy, e.g.. Industry

cultural division.

3. Arrangement for possible access to NBS information

base.

HALTEH: The last four days of the program were very crowded in

activities and travel; either extend the period of time for

the same activities or cancel some of the program which is

not directly related to the standardization activities.

KIM: It would be much better if the number of participants

could be reduced to 10.

LAWRENCE: Present organizational arrangements were good. Any

inconvenience I suffered was due to my not having traveled

sufficiently light as was advised by NBS.

MAZZA: To extend the time for the visits out of Washington (NBS)

62
and, for Instance, to travel once each two days with only

two presentations for each day.

OWINO-OKWERO : 1. For personal convenience, participants should

have at least 48 hours at every station of

visit.

2. More time for discussions.

3. Although it is required that participants

must know English, standardization has no such barrier, and I think colleagues from

French-speaking Africa should also be

invited.

QURASHI: It would be a help for more informal contacts if an occasional afternoon could be left free during each week

of the Workshop.

RAJARAMAN: The program should beforehand indicate the flexibility of accommodating 3 or 4 days' duration of the visit at a place of his special interest and particular needs (relating

to standards work)

SULIMAN: The tour in the States was very useful and important,

but living could be made easier if all participants could

return to Washington (NBS) and hold the closing session

there before going home.

TUDOR: A little more time in between presentations should be

provided to grant participant a chance to explore in

greater depth areas of particular interest.

WAENY: Try to restrict the range or divide into various groups,

as for example:

a) Basic mechanical and electrical

b) Industrial measurements

c) Basic standardization and traceability to primary

standards

d) MAP's and SRM's accuracy

e) Industrial standardization

f) Measurement and standardization in other areas

(chemistry, etc.)

g) Other advanced measurements in different areas

h) Quality control, quality assessment, and other

related areas

In some cases, a course (formal) would be interesting and a prerequisite could be established. For example, a special

case—MAP's, where in two or three weeks could be covered:

63
a) Basic statistics and error analysis

b) Accuracy and ratios

c) Traceability

d) Design of procedures and experiments

e) Establishment of routines

f) Establishment of controls for computer program

(A minimum of previous reading should or could be

required.

)

OTHER COMMENTS

CHANDRA: Excellent arrangements were made.

DE CHAN: The only problem is that if possible, give us more

time to better analyze and understand what has happened

day by day.

Thank you very much.

FADLALLA: In general, the Workshop was very useful. I liked very

much the Seminar and its timing. Again, I would like to

stress the necessity of cutting the number of hours per day to

allow a little free time for participants.

My thanks and appreciation to the NBS staff for the excellent

arrangements and dedication shown to us.

GANDI: More free time desirable during the program for studying

documents and seeing the people of the United States.

KIM: Three or more presentations in a day are apt to exhaust

participants, especially when you consider the participants

are travelers abroad.

MAZZA: I appreciate very much what you have done for me and my

country.

OWINO-OKWERO : NBS/AID should recommend the establishment of

standardization organizations to countries which do not have

such organizations since the effect, by way of trade, will

benefit both countries.

QURASHI: Some of the field visits were very illuminating and

instructive. The breadth of the topics represented was

satisfying.

RAJARAMAN: The Workshop has been well planned and thoughtfully

prepared to have the optimum utilization of time and resources

spent by the participants and NBS staff in the characteristic

American way of life.

64
SULIMAN: 1. I think the Workshop was very well organized and

planned, but it will be of great use if some visits

to industries are included. This will give a good

idea of how the standards prepared are used or implemented in practice.

2. It would be useful to have some presentations

from expert industrial personnel who could talk about

quality control systems in their production units,

TUDOR: NBS perhaps could develop a program by which developing

countries may be informed of training possibilities at

various levels and in differing fields at NBS.

65
,

H

.

s
NBS-114A (REV. 8-78)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 80-2021

Z.Cw'tAceession No.

'

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

REPORT TO AID ON AN NBS /AID WORKSHOP ON

S STANDARDIZATION AND MEASUREMENT SERVICES

5. Publication Date April 1980

6. Perfoiwng Orgamzation Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

H. Steffen Peiser, Charles C. Raley, Penelope M. Odar

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No. PASA TA (CE) 6-71

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Agency for International Development

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20523

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) From October 3-21, 1978, a Workshop was held at the National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg, and at selected universities, research institutes, standards

developing organizations, test centers, and industrial companies, under the

sponsorship of AID. The object of the Workshop was to give standards officials

of industrializing nations insight into the standards and measurement systems

of the United States and the role of the National Bureau of Standards, so that

( these officials might consider what parts of the U.S. system might usefully be

adapted to conditions in their home countries. In addition, the participants

had the opportunity of attending the National Conference of Standards Laboratories

and a special seminar designed to assist the preparation for the U.N. Conference

on Science and Technology for Development (UNCSTD). During the Workshop, papers

were presented to exchange standardization experience from each participant's

country. (These papers were previously published in NBS SP-543, the report on the

UNCSTD seminar.) The presentations of the special evening speakers for the

Workshop are featured in this report and also a special contribution by the

representative from the Arab Organization for Standardization and Metrology.

The other participants were from Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Guyana, India,

Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Pakistan, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,

Tanzania, and Tunisia.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries ; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

AID; assistance; developing economies; foreign relations; industrializing

nations; international relations; LDC's; measurement services; standardization

18. AVAILABILITY QS Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCLASSIFIED 66

| | Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

fXI Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 UNCLASSIFIED $7.00

USCOMM-DC
..

-

f