H ,A1 11 03066542

QC100 .U57 NO.507, 1978 C.2 NBS-PuSrc 19

' SPECIAL PUBLICATION 507

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National Bureau of Standards

National Bureau of Starvdards

Library, E-Ol Admin. BIdg.

OCT 1 1981

1310G5

(QC

loo

.6/S7

standardization in

Support of Development

10

7

7

78

tSATlONAL BUREA

OF STANDARDS

Standardization in Support of Development ^"'^3""^^

Proceedings of a Seminar "^.^(Sl

Held at the National Bureau o f Standards (f^*? cf

Gaithersburg, Maryland

October 17-18, 1977

Edited by

H. Steffen Peiser and John A. Birch

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Organized by the National Bureau of Standards

with the cooperation of

The Agency for International Development

The American National Standards Institute, and

The American Society for Testing and Materials

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

IXcS. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

' t ,

Issued May 1978
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title:

Standardization in support of development

(National Bureau of Standards special publication ; 507)

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards, the Agency for

International Development, the American National Standards

Institute, and the American Society for Testing and Materials.

Includes index. Supt. of Docs, no.: C13. 10:507

1. Underdeveloped areas Standardization—Congresses. I. Peiser,

Herbert Steffen, 1917- II. Birch, John A. III. United States. National Bureau of Standards. IV. Series: United States. National Bureau of

Standards. Special publication ; 507. T59.AIS7 602M 78-7249

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 507

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Publ. 507, 163 pages (May 1978)

CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1978

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.50

Stock Number 003-003-01928-3
FOREWORD

National services in standardization, measurement technology, and

product quality control have come to be recognized as essential

elements of the technological infrastructure needed for economic and

industrial development. In the United States, the National Bureau

of Standards is an important component of that infrastructure,

working in a complex and ever-evolving relationship with the private

sector and with other agencies of the Federal government. Early in

the year 1971, our institution began an experiment in cooperation

with the U.S. Agency for International Development to explore ways

in which we might use our own capabilities to help strengthen the

infrastructure of the less-developed nations of the world.

In the intervening period, several different techniques have been

employed for this purpose. We have organized workshops such as the

one just concluded; we have conducted surveys of the needs and

capabilities of selected countries; we have provided written

standards of ANSI, ASTM, and other organizations; and we have

supplied Standard Reference Materials needed by laboratories in some

of the participating countries. This seminar was planned to review

and evaluate these and other elements of the NBS/AID program, and

also to consider the possible inclusion of standardization as a subject for examination in the forthcoming U.N. Conference on

Science and Technology for Development.

In the seminar we have been pleased to have the cosponsorship of the

American National Standards Institute and the American Society for

Testing and Materials. Participants from the governmental and the

private sectors have joined with officials of 14 foreign nations to

make our discussions representative of a wide range of views.

The record of the discussions that follows will be helpful to the

National Bureau of Standards as we pursue our joint program with the

Agency for International Development. Also, I trust, it will be

helpful to the officials of this and other countries as we strive to

apply the methodology of measurement, standardization, and quality

control to the betterment of the global society in which we all

1 ive.

Ernest Ambler

Director

• a • 1 1 1

ABSTRACT

The National Bureau of Standards held a two-day seminar in an effort

to appraise the benefits derived from six years of a cooperative

program with developing countries designed to improve their

standardization and measurement services. With financial support from

the Agency for International Development, participants came from

Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya,

Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand; from regional and international

organizations; from key U.S. standards writing bodies; and from

industries, professional societies and government in the United

States. The papers presented and the discussions were organized

around the session titles:

°Six Years of National Bureau of Standards and Agency

for International Development Programs, and

"Standardization in the U.S.A.--A Resource for Development.

It was concluded that the developing countries concerned with this

program had benefited in a variety of ways from the standards surveys

and workshops conducted by the National Bureau of Standards in

cooperation with them, and that efforts should be made to continue the

program with full support. Questions were raised, but no consensus

reached on the desirability of standardization being proposed as a distinct topic for the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for

Development.

Key Words: Africa; Agency for International Development (AID); Asia;

developing countries; engineering standards; industrialization; Latin

America; National Bureau of Standards (NBS); quality control;

standards; surveys; U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for

Development; workshops.

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

Session 1 - Six Years of NBS/AID Programs

Chairman: Mr. Marcel o Alonso

Director

Department of Scientific Affairs

Organization of American States

Executive Secretary: John A. Birch

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

Paper 1.1 - Welcoming Remarks

Dr. E. Ambler

Director

National Bureau of Standards

Paper 1.2 - Welcoming Remarks

Mr. Henry Arnold

Director

Office of Science and Technology

Agency for International Development

Paper 1.3 - AID/OST Program Leading to Standardization

and Measurement Services for Developing

Countries

Dr. E. L. Brady

Associate Director for Information Programs

National Bureau of Standards

Discussion

Paper 1.4 - Nature and Value of NBS/AID Programs

Eng. Chaiwai Sangruji

Acting Director

Thailand Industrial Standards Institute

Paper 1.5 - Nature and Value of NBS/AID Surveys

Eng. Raul Estrada Albuja

Director General

Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normal izacion

Quito, Ecuador

vi i
Page

Discussion 35

Paper 1.6 - Workshops in the United States 41

Dr. Robert Oteng

Director, Development Program

International Standards Organization, Geneva

Paper 1.7 - Institution Building 47

Mr. Ricardo G. Florez

Institute de Pesquisas Tecnologicas

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Discussion 57

Paper 1.8 - Other NBS/AID Activities 67

Mr. H. Steffen Reiser

Chief

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

Discussion 73

Session II - Standardization in the U.S.A. - A Resource

for Development 79

Chairman: Mr. Hamilton Herman

Industrial Consultant

Executive Secretary: John A. Birch

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

Paper 2.1 - Standardization in the United States 81

Mr. Richard 0. Simpson

President

R. 0. Simpson Associates

Paper 2.2 International Standards Bodies and their

Relations with Developing Countries 89

Mr. Robert N. Johnson

Manager

Industry Standards and Systems

U.S. Steel Corporation

viii
Page

Discussion 93

Paper 2.3 - The Mechanism for the Development and

Use of Standards to Transfer Technology

and Develop Business 97

Dr. Leon Podolsky

President

U.S. National Committee of the International

Electrotechnical Commission

Discussion 103

Paper 2.4 - Measurement Science in the United States . . . 109

Dr. A. 0. McCoubrey

Director

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Discussion 117

Paper 2.5 - Standardization as a Tool for Science

and Technology Transfer in Support of

Industrial Development 119

Dr. Mahmoud Salama

Secretary General

Arab Organization for Standardization and

Metrology

Chairman, Development Committee of the

International Standards Organization, Geneva

Discussion 129

Paper 2.6 - Standardization as a Possible Topic for

the United Nations Conference on Science

and Technology for Development 133

Mr. Simon Bourgin

Senior Adviser to the U.S. Coordinator of

Preparations, for the United Nations Conference

on Science and Technology for Development

Department of State

Discussion 139

ix
Page

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Seminar Program on Standardization in

Support of Development 147

Appendix 2 - Seminar Participants 151

Appendix 3 - Workshop and Seminar Participants 159

Appendix 4 - Biographical Data of Seminar Authors .... 161

Appendix 5 - Author Index 167

Glossary 169

x
SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Chairman: Mr. Marcel o Alonso

1

SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Chairman: Mr. Marcel o Alonso

Paper 1.1 - Welcoming Remarks

Dr. Ernest Ambler

Director

National Bureau of Standards

Good morning, and welcome to what I consider to be a most important

seminar. We at the National Bureau of Standards are most pleased to

have you with us today. We especially look forward to your sharing

with us your impressions and ideas concerning standardization and its

impact on technology transfer and trade.

People in the United States, people in the nations you represent,

people throughout the world, share certain goals. These goals include

assurance of basic necessities of life, good health and medical care,

national independence and security, and increasing availability of

consumer goods. The only known way to meet these goals is through

industrial development. Therefore, most nations, including the United

States, give high priority to industrial growth.

No nation has the resources with which to be completely independent.

All nations need to import certain materials or products, and to

export other materials or products in order to help pay for its

purchases.

The United States has made good use of its national resources to

provide a good life for most of its citizens. Our vast capacity for

material goods leads us to import both raw materials and manufactured

products. Our purchases from many of the developing countries give

them the foreign currencies they need to buy goods in the world

market.

Because of the tremendous increase in the price of oil, which has

resulted in a large trade deficit, we in the United States see an

urgent need to accelerate our economic growth. The National Bureau of

Standards plays an important role in this process by providing the

measurement competence that is so vital to the smooth functioning of

an industrial society. Over the last six years, NBS has played

another important role--that of helping developing nations become more

active trading partners.

In order for two nations to trade successfully, they must each

understand the requirements placed upon the goods being traded. The

most rational way to achieve this is through standards that clearly

3
quantify those requirements. Standards provide a solid foundation on

which to build a trade relationship.

But setting useful standards is not an easy task. Rather, it is a job

that calls for strong and effective measurement, standards, and

quality control efforts on the part of each trading partner. Over the

years the United States has developed broad competence in these areas.

The goal of our program through the Agency for International

Development is to help developing countries create their own

competence. With a broad foundation in metrology and standardization,

developing nations can enter the world market with firm knowledge of

what is required of products they buy and sell.

We have worked with developing nations for six years, helping them

build the supporting structure needed for industrial growth and

international trade. At this time we would like an appraisal of how

successful our program has been. We particularly seek the

observations of participants from developing nations. We want to know

how useful the program has been, what lessons have been learned, and

what can be done to improve our efforts. In this way more effective

trade relations can be established between our nations.

Thanks for coming, and we look forward to your contributions during

the next two days.

4
SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Paper 1.2 - Welcoming Remarks

Mr. Henry Arnold

Director

Office of Science and Technology

Agency for International Development

It is a pleasure, once again, on behalf of the Agency for

International Development, to welcome the distinguished participants,

both from the United States and abroad, to this meeting dealing with

standardization in support of development. Many Washingtonians like

myself have watched with great pleasure the growing appreciation and

interest of developing countries in standardization and metrology. It

is a special pleasure to share the platform with Mr. Reiser who, I think, has become "Mr. U.S. Standards" around the world, and thus to

mark the six years of association between AID and our National Bureau

of Standards in this field.

All fields of science and technology are assuming increasing stature

as tools of economic development. A dispatch to the New York Times

from Hong Kong last month quotes a directive of the Central Committee

of the Peoples Republic of China as identifying "four modernizations"

that China wished to achieve: agriculture, industry, national defense

and science. The Committee said that of these four, priority should

be given to science.

Looking back over the three decades that have passed since the end of

World War II, one sees that science and technology were among the

first fields referred to when the United States committed itself to

the cause of economic development for the non-industrialized

countries. In President Truman's 1948 "Point IV" speech there was

great emphasis on bringing to the developing world the fruits of our

knowledge of science and technology so as to hasten their progress

toward higher living standards.

But, with notable exceptions, that 1948 dream has still to be

realized. Somehow the "third world" did not rapidly become

industrialized, and per capita national income in scores of countries

remains far below that of the United States, Western Europe, Japan,

and a handful of other developed countries. (While per capita income

is certainly a measure of industrialization, it is certainly not an

adequate measure of development. I will speak of this point again

later.

)

We can express this failure to industrialize in two ways: we can look

at the World Bank Atlas ratings of countries in terms of average per

5
capita income between $4,000 and $7,000 per person per year in the

United States, Japan, and many of the countries of Western Europe, as

contrasted with less than $200 per person per year in some of the

countries in Africa and Asia.

But that does not tell the whole story.

The "averages" can conceal broad disparities within developing

countries between a limited number of relatively wealthy persons, and

a mass of the urban and rural poor.

Even in some developing countries where there have been respectable

rates of growth in the "average" per capita income, the gap between

the well-to-do and the poor seems to be as great as or greater than it

was before.

It has even been argued that U.S. foreign aid contributed to widening

the gap between rich and poor. Certainly this was never the intent of

the program. But it is easy to visualize how, as part of the dynamics

of economic development, this could have been the unforeseen result.

I mention this point particularly because AID Administrator Gilligan

has forcefully committed our Agency to

" growth with equi ty " and this

is the keystone of our present Congressional mandate. "Growth with

equity" as defined by the Administrator means trying to raise the

economic growth rates of the poorer countries while ensuring that the

poorest people within those countries share in the increase.

Let me now bring standards into the picture.

One of my colleagues told me of the "culture shock" he experienced on

his first foray into a local market in North Africa. He bargained for

a kilo of fruit only to see the merchant produce a crude balance and

use, for his kilo weight, a rock, a rusty bolt, and an old sparkplug!

Let's face it. There are still certain parts of the world where the

rock, the bolt, and the spark plug may still be tools of measurement

for some time to come. Indeed they may be quite adequate within this

merchant's immediate communi ty--provided he uses the same rock each

time!

But to move beyond village commerce, one needs more widely accepted

standards

.

It's only fair to note that countries in some instances have gone a long way with relatively little attention to the achievement of

particular levels of quality. For example, in the decades preceding

World War II, Japan had become a major supplier of cheap, low-quality

goods for the American market, but, as everyone knows, Japan made a sharp change shortly after the war. Japanese scientists and

engineers, facing the enormous task of reconstruction, and hobbled by

6
their nation's prewar reputation for shoddy goods, asked for help.

They invited Dr. W. Edwards Deming to give a series of lectures to

Japanese research workers, plant managers and engineers on the

achievement of quality control through the more effective use of

standards.

What happened after that is also well-known history. Japanese exports

expanded from $2 billion in 1955 to over $19 billion in 1970. Export

of engineering products--which depended critically upon the use of

standards and quality control --grew from $340 million in 1 955, or only

one-sixth of total exports, to almost $10 billion in 1970, close to

half of all exports.

Returning to the question of "what are the indices of development," we

can cite just a few other statistics on how growth in Japan reached

the majority of the people. Between 1950 and 1970 life expectancy

jumped from an average of around 60 years to about 70 years; infant

mortality dropped from 60 per thousand live births to 13; public water

supplies which reached only 25 percent of the population in 1950,

reached over 80 percent in 1970; health insurance, available to only

50 percent of the population in 1950 covers everybody today; and

pension plan participation grew from only 10 percent to over 50

percent.

The Japanese "miracle" has been and is being repeated now by many

additional countries--Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Mexico and Brazil. For

these countries, exports have been an "engine of growth" that has

helped move their peoples rapidly toward economic development and

industrialization. It can do the same for other developing countries.

But will this "engine of growth" reach down to improve the lot of the

majority of people in the developing countries? We need to give this

question increasing attention. I believe specifically that we all

have to relate standards to the achievement of this goal. We need to

relate standards to urban and rural employment, to the things people

eat and wear, the places they live, and their opportunities for

leading meaningful and rewarding lives. We need to think in terms of

the lot of the average person, not just the professional involved in

the most advanced sector of the economy.

For example: Standards and their effective adoption in developing

countries not only can help industry but can penetrate to every

element of life in these countries--in building homes that can

withstand storm or earthquake, in designing better schools and other

public v;orks, in giving the urban and rural consumer better value for

his hard-earned money, in protecting the health of the children and

adults through sanitary facilities, drugs and clinics.

This type of thinking is needed in the standards field. It is

required not only in terms of fairness and justice, but in terms of

7
our ability to convince key decision makers in all of our countries

that the effort is worth the investment we wish to put into it.

I invite all of you--whether from the United States or from any other

country--to join us in meeting the challenge of proving that better

standards can benefit al

1

of the population in the developing

countries. I know that the extent to which we are successful will, to

a large extent, determine the future of AID support for assistance

programs for standards and metrology.

Thank you, and again--welcome to our friends from abroad.

8
SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Paper 1.3 - AID/OST Program Leading to Standardization

and Measurement Services for Developing Countries

Dr. Edward L. Brady

Associate Director for Information Programs

National Bureau of Standards

Dr. Ambler has pointed out that the long range objective of the

NBS/AID program is to make the United States and the less developed

countries better trading partners through the application of metrology

and standards. He pointed out that being good trading partners

requires that each party understand what the other has to offer. Each

must know what performance will be delivered by the products that are

offered for sale, and each party must have the ability to satisfy

himself independently that the specifications for those products are

met. Henry Arnold pointed out that for internal purposes within a nation a rock and a sparkplug may be quite adequate standards for

measurements. Typically, however, a developing country begins to feel

the need for a more sophisticated and elaborate system of standards

when it engages in international commerce. The need is felt very

rapidly after a few sales are lost because the product doesn't meet

specifications or when a product is made and delivered, but is

rejected as the purchaser finds it doesn't meet his requirements.

Typically, then, the Government passes a law or issues an official

decree, and a national standards body is established. Someone is put

in charge of that national standards body. Being new in the business

naturally his first reaction is, "Well, I've got this job. I had

better find out what other countries do. How do they manage this

assignment?" A prudent official will want to know how both developed

countries and less developed countries manage their own problems.

First he has to analyze the assignment that has been given to him by

the government. In most countries, including this one, a national

standards body will be assigned one or more of the following tasks:

1. Metrology

2. Standardization

3. Qual i ty control

4. Technological research and development.

Let me clarify briefly what I mean by each one of these terms.

9
Metrology includes the basic standards of measurement and also the

methodology of measurement to ensure that industry can make the

measurements that are needed as accurately as the intended application

requires. Excessive accuracy is expensive and unnecessary.

Standardization means the development of written engineering and

product standards, to ensure that manfacturers and purchasers can have

a common understanding of the characteristics and the performance of

goods in the marketplace.

Quality control means the operation of a system to ensure that

standards are actually followed. Many countries operate such a system

primarily to protect the health and safety of their people and to

ensure that exports are of suitable quality. The quality control

system ensures that the quality mark has quantitative significance.

By technological research and development we mean R&D on new products

or processes, or R&D to adapt to local condition technology acquired

from other countries. Both kinds of technological research are

important in all countries.

Our contacts with other countries show that each country of the world

organizes its institutions differently. Each country gives a unique

mixture of assignments and organizes its institutions differently to

provide these four types of services. Some give all four tasks to a single organization. Some give technological research and development

to a separate institution, or the implementation of quality control to

a separate institution, and some divide the responsibilities according

to the sector of technology rather than according to a particular

function.

In the United States, the assignment of the National Bureau of

Standards includes some of all of these elements. These assignments

are shared with many other institutions of the government and the

private sector in a rather complicated pattern. This is the reason

that we always say to the standards officials who come here for the

annual workshop: "Here is what the National Bureau of Standards

does." And we also take them to the private sector and say: "Here is

what the private sector does in the United States. We are confident

that you will want to provide similar kinds of services in your own

country. We are also confident that you will want to organize your

system differently from the way we are organized. Take back what you

learn here and adapt it to your own circumstances."

We certainly do not recommend that any other country follow the U.S.

pattern. Indeed, the U.S. pattern is so complicated that if it didn't

exist no one would ever dream of inventing it.

So, taking into consideration the typical assignment given to a national standards body, we have developed a program in collaboration

10
with AID which is designed to help the standards officials of the

participating countries improve their own institutional capabilities

(Table 1).

The elements of the NBS/AID program are shown in Table 1. I would

like to look at each of these one by one and give a brief review of

them.

First, the surveys (Table 2). In the survey program we send a team of

NBS people plus a team of people from the participating countries

themselves to selected target countries. Surveys have been conducted

in all of these countries during the past several years and

representatives of some of them are participating in the program

today. In these surveys the team examines the needs for a metrological and standardization capability in a particular country,

and evaluates the ability of existing organizations in that country to

provide the services needed. An important element of this program is

the inclusion in the survey team of representatives of the standards

bodies of the participating countries concerned. They can themselves

see how other people have solved problems similar to their own and

they can sometimes contribute their own solutions to help the problems

of the country being surveyed. A report has been written on each one

of these surveys, and the reports are available to those of you who

would like to have them.

Now let's go on to the workshops (Table 3). We have held seven

workshops here in the United States, consisting of one week at the

National Bureau of Standards, followed by a week of visiting

institutions in the private sector to show the participants the

distribution of responsibilities within the United States. These

workshops have been attended by people from all parts of the world

(Table 4). Sixteen Latin American countries have been represented,

with 30 participants altogether. From Asia and the Middle East there

have been 36 participants from 16 countries (Table 5); Africa, 13

participants from 5 countries (Table 6); and we have had 3

international organizations represented (Table 7).

Another important element of the program is the distribution of

literature (Table 8) to the less developed countries. The American

National Standards Institute is the overall umbrella organization in

the United States that coordinates the preparation of engineering and

product standards. Through its cooperation, we have distributed a complete set of ANSI standards to six countries. ASTM standards--

either a complete set or a partial set--have been distributed to 29

countries. But these are not the only organizations that have

participated in this part of the program. We have received

cooperation from many of the approximately 400 standards bodies in the

United States.

n
Table 1

Elements of NBS/AID Program

Workshops

Surveys

Regional seminars

Standards literature

SRTI distribution

Long-term institutional development

Laboratory training

Consultation

Equipment specification

Table 2

NBS/AID Surveys

May 1 - 12, 1972

June 19 - 30, 1972

October 14 - 28, 1972

May 22 - June 1 , 1973

June 9 - 22, 1974

May 4 - 17, 1975

July 11 - 17, 1976

May 29 - June 11, 1977

(Planned)

Table 3

Workshops

7 held

82 standards officials participated

37 countries represented

3 international organizations represented

12

Ecuador

Korea

Turkey

Thailand

Bol ivia

Phi 1 ippines

Guyana

Indonesia

Sudan
Table 4

Workshop Participants

Latin America:

Argentina 2

Bolivia 5

Brazil 4

Chile 2

Columbia 1 Costa Rica 1 Dominican Republic 1 Ecuador 5

Guyana

Honduras

Jamaica

Mexico

Nicaragua

Panama

Venezuela

West Indies

Participants

Countries

Table 5

Participants Workshop

Asia and Middle East:

Afghanistan 2

Bangladesh 2

China, Republic of 1 India 1 Indonesia 4

Iran 2

Jordan 2

Korea 9

Malaysia 1 Pakistan 1 Philippines 4

South Vietnam 2

Sri Lanka 1 Thailand 1 Turkey 2

Yemen Arab Republic 1

Participants 36

Countries 16

13

30

16
Table 6

Workshop Participants

Africa:

Egypt 2

Ethiopia 1

Ghana 3

Kenya 3

Nigeria 4

Participants 13

Countries 5

Table 7

Workshop Participants

International Organizations:

OAS 1

ASMO 1

ISO 1

Participants 3

Table 8

Standards Literature

ANSI standards to 6 countries

ASTM standards to 29 countries

Other standards writing bodies participating

IEEE

FDA

NEMA

ISA

and many more

14
We have also conducted Regional Seminars on special topics related to

standards (Table 9). We have conducted three of these, one on a System of Standardization and Metrology for Latin America, held in La

Paz, Bolivia, one on Testing and Certification for Export Products in

Singapore, and a third seminar has been held on OMNITAB II--a special

programming language developed here at NBS which has turned out to be

quite versatile and useful. It has been adopted by many universities

and industrial organizations in the United States and was selected as

an appropriate application of computer technology for the developing

countries of Latin America. Another regional seminar is planned for

Khartoum in March of next year.

One of the important outputs of the National Bureau of Standards is

standard reference materials (Table 10). These are well characterized

samples of materials, for example, glass, cholesterol, steel, rubber,

and many other substances. We have approximately a thousand in all.

They are used for tying a laboratory measurement into the national

measurement system of the United States in order to be sure that the

laboratory is making high quality measurements and that its

measurements are compatible with the national standards.

Approximately one-third of the sales of these standard reference

materials are made outside the United States. Within the AID program,

we have distributed approximately 3000 samples to 11 participating

countries, with a dollar value in excess of $53,000.

With two institutions, one in Korea and one in Brazil, we have

developed long term institutional development arrangements (Table 11).

In these programs, we are providing opportunities for the staff of

these institutions to come to the National Bureau of Standards to

learn about our special capabilities, and to develop their own

abilities to provide some of the services that we provide. We are

also helping these institutions by providing consultation on such

matters as general program directions, building facilities, instrument

procurement, and the like. Most of the laboratory trainees represented

here (Table 12) have come from these two institutions.

We believe that procurement of proper instrumentation is an important

element of the program. Procurement assistance is provided under the

long term arrangements previously mentioned, and we have also tried an

experiment of running a course at the Denver Research Institute to

give selected participants basic training in how to write

specifications for complicated equipment (Table 13). It is not a simple task. You do not just sit down and write out something, you

have to specify in detail exactly what you want and what it must do.

Now we must ask the questions, "What have we learned from conducting

this program? What benefits have we and the other participants

received?" I think we have learned a good deal about the operation of

the program. We have learned how to plan, organize the activities,

and how to make good use of moderate resources. We have learned how

15
Table 9

Regional Seminars NBS/AID

° Regional Seminar on a System of Standardization

and Metrology for Latin America

La Paz, Bolivia June 24 - 25, 1974

"Testing and Certification for Export Products in

Industrializing Countries

Singapore May 19 - 20, 1975

"Regional Seminar on OMNITAB II

La Paz, Bolivia May 12 - 25, 1976

"Planned - Khartoum, Sudan March 1978

Table 10

SRM Distribution

Approximately 3,000 samples to 11 countries

Dollar value approximately $53,000

Table 11

Long-term Institutional Development

"Institute for Technological Research

Sao Paulo, Brazil 1974 - 1978

"Korea Standards Research Institute

Seoul , Korea 1975 - 1978

Table 12

Laboratory Training

32 trainees

3 countries represented

Table 13

Training Course on Instrument Purchasing

11 trainees

n countries

16
to use NBS resources in this kind of program. We have learned that

the experience of the United States is indeed relevant to the

developing countries and that our experience can be adapted by the

participants to their own conditions. And we have learned that the

impact of this program upon activities of the participating countries

varies greatly and depends to a large extent on the internal

circumstances in that particular country. Some of the countries that

have participated have seemed to be on the verge of major action in

their standardization programs and the stimulus from the National

Bureau of Standards was all that was necessary to get these countries

moving rapidly. Other countries apparently have not been ready

internally for that takeoff and very little has happened inside the

country as a result of the NBS/AID program.

Also we have learned that an important aspect of the NBS effect, when

there is one, is the impact on Ministers and other high government

officials in the country. In many countries the government officials,

and I include this country as well, who have a great deal to say about

the development of the programs of the standards bodies, have never

focussed on standards problems. They are just not aware of this large

infrastructure of activities that is necessary to insure the quality

of manufactured products. The program is increasing the level of

awareness in the participating countries of the significance of

standards and metrological activities. In our own country we would

like to be more effective in increasing the level of awareness in

Congress and the Administration on the importance of NBS services.

And we have learned a great deal about the developing countries

themselves, about their economies, about their problems, their

aspirations, their physical resources and perhaps most of all, their

resources of competent and dedicated people.

Now, just a few comments on what we have not learned. I believe the

most important thing that we have not learned is whether the United

States and the developing countries really are better trading partners

because of this program. There is no doubt, looking at the

statistics, that there has been during the past six years an enormous

increase in trade between the United States and many of the

participants. How much of this increase could we attribute to the

activities of the National Bureau of Standards? It would be very

helpful if we could find that some of this increase was due to the NBS

program but I don't know how we can trace a causal relationship. If

anyone has any suggestions or any qualitative or quantitative

information, we would be very pleased to hear it.

In these days of increasing interdependence, and of increasing

reliance on international trade to maintain economic growth, there is

a growing realization that international equity requires more

industrialization in less developed countries. We are confident that

17
in this program we are making a modest but important contribution to

world economic and social development.

Thank you.

18
Discussion

Mr. Alonso

I certainly agree with Dr. Brady's comment that it will be difficult

to establish a causal relationship between NBS programs to assist in

the development of standards capabilities and the growth of trade that

has occurred between the United States and many of the participating

countries. Strengthening of these programs will be most useful for

the United States and other countries concerned.

Dr. Goldman

I would like to ask Mr. Arnold whether there are criteria relating to

success of the programs, such as an increase in the standard of living

in the assisted country or an increase in trade? Are both necessary

or is one sufficient?

Mr. Arnold

The objective of the AID programs is to promote the social and

economic development of the country, as well as the quality of life of

the people. The emphasis is not on trade except as it has an impact

of these basic factors.

Dr. Oteng

Mr. Arnold mentioned in his talk a number of factors having to do with

the requirements of development. How can one determine that all

elements of society can benefit from the programs of assistance? What

are the criteria?

Mr. Arnold

I know of no magic formula to deal with this question. To start with,

there must be an awareness of the problems by the United States and

the country receiving assistance; there must be willingness to aim the

assistance program in the direction of all elements of the population.

We can apply standards broadly used in the United States, that is the

satisfaction of basic human needs as well as the industrialization

process. If people enjoy better homes as a result of better

metrology, standards, and quality control, this has a direct impact on

equalization of the factors involved. I would like to appeal to all

of you to think on this problem of how we can determine whether an AID

program is reaching all elements of the population.

Mr. Pineda

An individual from a developing country working in the field of

standardization can make a real contribution to the knowledge and

19
development of his country. In standardization one is drawing on a very wide field of knowl edge--not just a narrow aspect of science or

technology. Standardization will facilitate any field of science or

technology for everyones ' benefit. Germany was particularly

aggressive in expanding its trade in Latin America and used German

standards to facilitate the development of markets.

20
SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Paper 1.4 - Nature and Value of NBS/AID Programs

Eng. Chaiwai Sangruji

Acting Director

Thai Industrial Standards Institute

I have been asked to talk to you about the NBS/AID programs and I am

both flattered and alarmed. Clearly, the best people to do this are

the NBS specialists, so in that sense it is flattering that such a comparative newcomer to standardization and certification should be

asked to comment. It is also alarming in that my experience is

concerned only in collaboration on the Thai survey and as a full-time

participant in the Indonesian survey. On the other hand, it is a tribute to the characteristic attitude of both the NBS and AID

officials that they would prefer my observations rather than direct

statements from themselves.

I think one should recognize that this approach has been appreciated

by the countries involved. From the outset, the NBS in its surveys

and workshops has shown that it is concerned with helping but has not

approached us in a spirit of a large nation of undoubted technological

skill bringing its high-powered knowledge to the less sophisticated,

but has taken great pains to draw on existing skills in the receiving

countries and has even placed the surveys under the direction of a national. It seems to me that these surveys have been conducted with

a good balance of highly experienced specialists from the United

States and participants from developing countries experience in their

various ways in the problems of their own countries. Furthermore, a glance at the members of these survey teams will show that those

invited from other countries have been from various nations at more or

less similar stages of development.

I thought it worth acknowledging this enlightened outlook before I go

on with this paper.

The reasons for these surveys and workshops are self evident to most.

They are to bring the fresh light of an independent team of

specialists to the problems of industrialization with which most of

our countries are engaged; to add another dimension to experience

already gained; to emphasize the importance of standardization and

measurement stability as a basis for technical development; and, in

short, to cooperate with the host nation in identifying priorities in

this vexed business of developing technologically but rationally. You

may feel as I do, that with the amount of technological transfer being

affected, either through the work of foreign multinational companies

21
or through mul ti and bilateral aid that the last of these--rational

development- -sometimes seems to be the most elusive of all.

On acquaintance with the work of these American surveys, the first

reaction may be that there is an overlap in intention. Most of us

here, I believe, have experienced some sort of assistance in the form

of resident experts, consultancies and the like and, in all fairness,

someone living in the country and working with us may perhaps have a better grasp of what we are trying to do and the national methods we

employ to do it. But I believe that these visiting survey teams do

have a place in our devel opment--that they can, on occasions, reveal

new courses to take, or to avoid, if only for the fact that they look

at us objectively and with a fresh mind. The better the resident

experts the more they become deeply involved with us and, I might add,

just as susceptible to the views of comparative strangers.

The National Bureau of Standards, with the financial support of the

United States Agency for International Development has now carried

out, if my information is correct, eight surveys of standardization

and measurement services in Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Korea, Turkey,

Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia. In each case, a national in

those countries has been appointed Survey Director (in Thailand, for

example, it was Dr. Charoen Vashrangsi of the Department of Science)

and the team consisted of some eight NBS and other specialists from

countries at various levels of development. Again, to take the Thai

example--these consisted of Professor Fahrettin Can of Turkey, Mr.

Sang Sup Lee of Korea, Dr. Werner Ning of Taiwan, and, of course, Dr.

Charoen of Thailand. All team members had counterparts from various

services within the country but a number of department personnel was

involved in arranging the rather tight schedules.

It is a testimony to the interest shown in these surveys in the

various countries that the visiting teams had to be split up into

various groups in order to cover the considerable schedules laid on by

the host country. In Thailand, the team had to cover no fewer than 80

visits and meetings in 12 days, a Herculean task which I am sure must

have caused NBS to ask who had ever suggested Thailand in the first

place! I was, in fact, feeling rather smugly amused about this until

I myself was invited to become a member of the team visiting

Indonesia, where a similar program put me very firmly on the receiving

end. In this respect I would suggest a little more time for future

surveys. No one wants to see one single dollar wasted and the type of

people joining the team certainly have little enough time to spare

from their own offices, but it does put considerable pressure on

members who have to be analytical and objective in the course of being

rapidly transported from place to place.

It is clear that, even by splitting the team into specialist groups,

the survey could not cover every type of factory or organization

within a mul tisectorial industrial growth that most of us are

22
developing today. For that reason, NBS wisely decided that these

surveys could not go into an analysis of conditions in every

industrial and research sector, but should confine themselves to the

national infrastructure whereby a potent use of standardization and

full appreciation of measurement and calibration could more widely

become effective. Many relevant ministries, departments, and other

relevant organizations were visited and many individual factories too,

but the latter were, if you like, end-of-the-1 ine confirmation or

otherwise of how well the infrastructure was geared to their needs.

I do not think myself that anyone can argue with this line of

reasoning. Both by logical assumption and on our own experiences, it

is clear that industries--perhaps not even in existence a decade or so

ago--may not clearly be aware of the economics of standardization or

of the advantages in terms of production efficiency of more closely

controlled measurement systems. And perhaps it is only fair to say

that if they appear to be making satisfactory profits, why should

they? But in the interests of the country's long-terms economic

stability and in the face of constantly changing market conditions, it

is a prerequisite that Governments themselves must set up

institutional infrastructures which can impress entrepreneurs with the

weakness of this thinking.

The report on Thailand, and I suspect, the forthcoming report on

Indonesia, will show very much of what we have come to expect--a

patchwork of achievement and regression, a cloth of unawareness

trimmed by sharp perception. In my own country, for example, you will

find scanning electron microscopes and a Hitachi-Perkin-Elmer

molecular weight apparatus and you will also find that the tests for

the lead content in glazing are carried out by rather out-moded

chemical processes when there is now excellent equipment for doing

this job in a fraction of the time.

As far as standardization is concerned, my small experience with these

surveys has shown the same type of splintered acceptance--some sectors

appreciating the value of standards in terms of export viability and

production efficiency, economy and sheer time-saving, others as yet

disinterested and unwilling to institute a program of standardization.

It is also clear that there is some uncoordinated activity in these

fields. I have no intention either of prejudging the NBS report on

Indonesia nor of criticising the structure in my own country because I feel that the drawbacks are well known and some solutions will be

attempted. But I would like to make this observation: the

overlapping and confusion in some areas which obviously exists and

which is so readily in evidence for the visitor should be viewed

against the background of industrial development in the post-war

period. Industrial, commercial and sociological changes have moved at

a speed far exceeding any period in history and the lesser developed

countries have been caught up in this. They have had to move at this

bewildering pace themselves not only to catch up, but simply to build

23
virtually from scratch an efficient industry as a backbone to a traditional agricultural economy. It is worth remembering, I believe,

that the present industrial giants had a long period of gestation in

which to formulate industrial policies and work towards an integrated,

efficient industrial production pattern. We in Thailand, for example,

have been plunged into the 20th century in less than 50 years whereas

in the United States over 100 years have been used to draw the people

from the land, equip them with a new technological social awareness

and transform an agricultural into an industrial society.

With this in mind, it is perhaps hardly surprising that, under the

urgency of the age, systems grow in parallel and associations with

this ministry or that have caused the critical appraisals now going

on.

All this is not new. Many forward looking Government officials and

industrialists have seen the irrationality which is often revealed in

these reports. What perhaps these surveys are doing is to sharply

define the shape of this malformed baby we have grown in our midst in

one document. And, in these days of very influential officials having

too much paperwork to read, synthesizing detailed problems across the

board into one readable report for all affected ministries to read is

very useful

.

While I am talking irrational growth, however, I cannot resist the

temptation to take a sly dig at our hosts by saying that, while the

teams have seen very little to appreciate in Thailand's seven

different standards making bodies and Indonesia's 108, they were

ignoring the fact that America's dependence upon standardization is

based upon the work of some 400 independent organizations! But

perhaps it would at least be kinder to say that they are

interdependent rather than independent!

I believe that these surveys have been--and are--extremely useful for

our countries. They may even be useful to the United States in

conveying the difficulties under which some of us have to work. But

what of the future?

I am essentially a practical man so you will forgive me if I make

suggestions which come from our needs, rather than from a sense of

dipl omacy

.

There exists in written form, either in the files at ESCAP, the

technical information at UNIDO, the reports of many authoritative

consultants who have visited our countries, and in these NBS reports,

some very sound advice. Some of this concerns the nature of our

peoples and the economic structures under which we have had to develop

and this we ourselves can do something about, either in gradually

changing the outlook of those around us or when the economic situation

24
changes. But the practical, technical advice affords us little if it

is not to be interpreted into some sort of action.

I think that we are all here conscious of the genuine interest of the

United States in seeing us get off the ground with a healthy

industrial program. We don't have to be told they join us in

appreciating that standardization and integrated metrology are one of

the basic stones on which such development can be built. This being

so, it with some reluctance that I say that we would like, if it is

possible, for these survey reports to be followed up as a portion of

the U.S. AID program. I will offer no detail here of in what areas

this should be offered because an analysis of each of the reports for

each of the countries involved would possibly show clearly where such

assistance could be given, in expertise, training, equipment or all of

these. I should say that this is a matter for Governments and I am

only a civil servant trying to do a job, but my personal observation

is that the surveys have helped to identify problems and crystallize

the opinions of people specialized in their fields. May I suggest

that active and practical follow-up would indeed enhance the value of

the reports considerably? It isn't much use telling a man that he

ought not to eat so much rice and fish, if you are not going to show

him how to hunt for meat and grow vegetables.

My only other comment is that perhaps the nature of these surveys

could change in due course. I am sure that we would all welcome the

visit of American teams of specialists to comment on specific areas of

our industrial and agro-industrial economy. I could think of many

fields in our own work where there is a need for impartial, objective

and expert appraisal --the furniture industry, construction, food

processing industries are only some.

I have perhaps been more open and frank in my description of the

NBS/AID survey work than the situation warrants, but I know that

Mr. Reiser and the other U.S. officials will take this as a compliment--that I feel that they are as open to receiving opinions

from the less-developed countries as they are to imparting their own

knowledge and undoubted skills.

Notwithstanding what I have said which tried to throw a constructive

viewpoint on the surveys, these surveys are the result of American

generosity and the U.S. desire that we should do as well as they have

done. My country is grateful for the effort put into them and I feel

sure that I express the sentiments of the other nations who have been

lucky enough to host them.

Thank you.

25

SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Paper 1.5 - Nature and Value of NBS/AID Surveys

Eng. Raul Estrada Albuja

Director General

Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normal i zacion

Quito, Ecuador

Preface

Under the auspices of the U.S. Agency for International Development,

the National Bureau of Standards has directed several programs of

technical assistance in countries in process of development. The NBS

has contributed with its experience and capability within the field of

physical and engineering sciences, in order to see if their knowledge

may be useful to hasten the process of development of those countries.

I had the privilege to be invited to participate in the respective

teams of study during the surveys carried out in Ecuador, Bolivia,

South Korea and Indonesia. These teams of study were comprised of NBS

experts, other specialists and interested technical personnel

organized for this purpose.

I was also invited to participate in the surveys of Thailand and the

Philippines, but unfortunately I was unable to participate due to

pressing commitments. Consequently, the points of view exposed here

are only the result of the four surveys previously mentioned.

The Need for Standards and Measurement

Sooner or later a country in the process of development needs to

organize, in an effective manner, the delivery of services and

products for good use of its natural and monetary resources and also

for the various and ever increasing needs of the people. Organization

inevitably leads to an increasing specialization of production and to

the necessity of diverse technological materials of increasing

complexity. It becomes imperative to develop domestic technological

production wherever foreign technology is not directly applicable to

the country, or when, due to local circumstances, different technical

solutions are required. Specialization in production establishes

major horizontal and vertical interdependence of industry and

commerce. This interdependence makes demands on the quality of

products. For this reason a technical definition of quality is

required. Such a definition can only be obtained through an effective

system of technical standardization (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).

27
Fi gure 1

28
29
Physical Sciences

Engineering Sciences

International Experience

Schedule of visits

Other participants

National

Institutional

experience

Standardizatron

Metrological Sciences

Quality Control

Figure 3

30
The degree of definition and identification of products supplied by

technical standards is related to the engineering characteristics

which should be measured. For this reason no technical

standardization process can be effectively developed without

consistent parallel progress in virtually all metrological fields.

In short, the quality control systems which are needed in manufacture

and commerce cannot operate without an increasing number of technical

standards, which are necessary not only for the inspection processes

performed prior to acceptance of the merchandise but also to verify

the quality of products within the laboratories concerned with control

of production.

The Problems of Development

Unfortunately, in underdeveloped countries the essential scientific

and technological capabilities for orderly development and progress in

production facilities do not exist, or are scattered or do not reach

the level required for the solution of particular problems. Moreover,

the available scientific and technological facilities, especially at

university level, are not guided towards an efficient contribution to

the efforts in standardization, metrology and quality control.

In the several NBS/AID surveys which have been carried out, it has

been found that existing scientific and technological efforts are

mainly directed towards the solution of theoretical problems

considered within the immediate grasp of the investigators. For many

scientists and technologists in these countries, standardization tasks

actually seem to demand a technical level below their own

capabilities. It is also true that often capable scientists are not

involved in the technical solution of problems of quality because the

quality consciousness appears in people only when a certain level of

their own industrial development has been reached. In some cases,

this industrial development has not yet been attained.

In these countries there does not exist at the government level a clear understanding about the work that needs to be accomplished by

technical standardization, metrology and quality control technologies

as a prerequisite for the general development of the country. In

almost all cases this lack of understanding is reinforced by lack of

legal and institutional mechanisms without which it is difficult to

apply standardization and measurement programs.

In many cases, plans and programs of development at government level

do not mention concrete goals in technical standardization, metrology,

quality control or certification. Consequently, it is not strange

that adequate financial support does not exist. Sometimes, such lack

of financing has impeded technical standardization carried out. by

private efforts, especially within the industry (as, in my view, is

the case of Turkey and Indonesia).

31
The aforementioned circumstances greatly limit the possibilities of a consistent and orderly development. The failure to fund

standardization programs exposes the economy to an adverse influence

which is greater than the funding required for standardization. This

adverse influence is of great significance because of the limited

overall financial resources of such countries.

In Figures 1, 2, and 3, I try to represent graphically these

relationships. Major concentrations of people motivate industrial

development with a high level of vertical dependence. It also helps

horizontal growth of industry and its degree of specialization. All

these advances require considerable progress in certification,

calibration and testing services which are not possible without

considerable efforts in standardization, metrology and quality

control. The great concentrations of people lead to corresponding

levels of industrial competence. As a consequence, a "quality

consciousness" appears in the people, which is a principal requirement

for industrial development. Evidently, some of our countries are

already facing these requirements. This situation will then perhaps

be recognized at the government level, and bring about an effective

search for solutions to these problems which are directly related to

quality of life of the population.

The AID/NBS Surveys

By this analysis, all the visited countries present the same common

problems although they do not have the same degree of development. In

all cases we observed an enthusiastic effort towards technical

standardization, metrology and quality control, but this effort has

had inadequate attention in comparison with the actual needs of

development of each country. The lack of adequate financing (from

government or private sources) provides insufficient technological

resources in technical personnel, test laboratories and up-to-date

scientific and technical documentation. The understanding of these

problems in general seemed very limited by governmental authorities

and even by leaders in commerce and industry.

Under these circumstances, the several surveys succeeded in bringing

together in the surveyed country a number of persons representing

various interested sectors who, in some cases, have for the first time

seriously considered the whole system of related problems. This newly

found awareness may be one of the principal achievements of the

NBS/AID surveys, because it has motivated the participants to common

action; it has facilitated the identification of problems and

technical planning and, in general, it has eliminated certain barriers

in inter-institutional understanding which made coordinated action

difficult. The present team members who were highly competent and

experienced in the engineering field strengthened and gave authority

to the discussions and conclusions within the survey team, and served

32
to eliminate doubts and prejudices which may have been maintained for

a long time.

It is nevertheless evident that the short time (2 to 3 weeks) that the

different surveys lasted cannot give a complete image about the

situation of development of each country, but it is also evident that

with the collaboration of local technical personnel, good progress has

been made in encouraging the participants from the countries surveyed

towards the fulfillment of improved actions. This was so in the case

of Ecuador, the most familiar example to me, where the NBS/AID Survey

served to persuade the government authorities to give better support

to the Ecuadorian National Standards Institute, not only in the form

of financial support but also in interinstitutional collaboration

which is essential for the development of standardization.

Furthermore, during prior discussions on a variety of technical

problems, during the performance of the survey itself, and during a special review meeting carried out two years later, it was possible to

verify advances made and to improve the concepts which served as a base for the Ecuadorian development in standardization.

Concl usions

1. ) The NBS team has always been selected on the basis of technical

and scientific capability and experience. This fact is of key

importance in order to assure the wisest consideration of the

many problems faced by the survey teams.

2. ) The invitation to other country specialists (generally to directors

of standardization institutes from underdeveloped countries) to

participate in the NBS/AID teams has contributed important technical

and institutional experience. This feature of the surveys led to

adaptation of international technical concepts in standardization,

metrology and quality control. It was a good approach to seek

relationships and understanding of the problems in related

countries. The NBS experience is in many ways unique and cannot be

directly assimilated by underdeveloped countries.

3. ) Success of the surveys depends on the character of the national

technical group acting as a counterpart. Its active participation,

in close contact with the team, assures an adequate transfer of

experience and knowledge which may be very valuable.

4. ) The schedule of visits is very important in order to have a better

knowledge of the applicable experiences of the host country, but

sometimes the heavy schedule of visits has militated against the

depth of insight into the problems of the country surveyed. It

would be desirable to have an appropriate reduction and selectivity

of visits in the future.

33
5.) It would be desirable to follow up on the surveys by short review

missions, to study the outcome of the recommendations and their

positive or negative effects on the country. This evaluation is,

of course, very difficult, but it may be carried out in terms of

the overall progress achieved in technical standardization,

quality control, certification, and metrology.

34
Discussion

Mr. Alonso

I thank Eng. Estrada for his paper. I understand that the purpose of

this part of the seminar is to appraise the effectiveness of the

country surveys. I suggest that in the discussion to follow we

concentrate on three major points: the methodology of the survey, the

objective of the survey, and the follow-up of the survey.

Dr. Brady

I would like to ask Mr. Chaiwai to amplify on the kinds of activity

that would be appropriate in the follow-up.

Mr. Chaiwai

The survey was made four years ago. Many developments have taken

place since and a discussion of our progress would be beneficial. We

do not know what other help might be available and offered. For

example, we receive complaints relating to our inability to carry out

special tests. We need help in establishing test and calibration

facilities which at the time of the survey we were hardly ready to

receive. Would NBS be able to help us now?

Eng. Estrada

In Ecuador we had bottlenecks in our administration. We, therefore,

began to look for better solutions to our problems. The expert advice

we received from NBS and other members of the survey team was very

helpful. Continuing follow-up advice is most valuable to us and in my

judgment it would also help other developing countries.

Dr. Goldman

Following the surveys in Ecuador and other countries, experts from NBS

have spent some time in the country surveyed working with their

counterparts. Is this kind of activity useful and desirable?

Eng. Estrada

Yes, I think it is important for very specific projects for experts

from NBS to help us to consider various options which may be available

to us. The experience of NBS is unique and the lessons learned by

other developing countries can also be beneficial to us.

Mr. Peiser

We have told all directors of surveys to request a review activity at

an appropriate time after the survey in order to permit adequate time

35
for follow-up discussion. Ecuador requested this and we spent one and

a half days discussing the outcome and influence of the survey. A

publication is available describing that method of review. We have

not done similar reviews in the other countries so far. As

Dr. Goldman pointed out, the follow-up has often concentrated on

specific areas to be strengthened by an expert in a particular field

visiting a particular country following the survey.

Mr. Alonso

What has happened between the time of the survey and the visit of the

follow-up team? Is NBS satisfied with the nature of the follow-up or

would it like to see a different kind of follow-up activity? Is

greater support necessary?

Mr. Peiser

I am impressed in all cases that each country has analyzed all survey

recommendations very carefully. Eng. Estrada and his colleagues in a very self-reliant way have adopted some recommendations and rejected

others. This is an excellent way for the country itself to decide the

extent to which particular recommendations are appropriate and

desirable. In Thailand it is impressive to observe that careful

attention has been focused on committees for standards development.

These committees have many well attended meetings in which

representatives from industry and other private sectors discuss

standards matters with Government officials. This very effective

method results in the transfer of important technology to small-scale

industry.

Dr. Brady

NBS is not fully satisfied with the nature of its own follow-up. We

have not had the resources to go to each of the countries a year or

two later, nor have we had the resources to follow Mr. Chaiwai's

suggestion that we identify special areas for further examination to

determine the kind of assistance we might be prepared to render. The

question is one of a lack of resources rather than any lack of

interest on our part. We are reasonably optimistic that we may be

able to increase our follow-up activity over the next several years.

Mrs. Mascarinas

I have not taken part in the survey in the Philippines but read the

report of the survey team. We have tried to follow the

recommendations and our staff, for example, has grown from 100 to 300

members. It would be a most regrettable loss if NBS through lack of

resources could not revisit our country.

36
Mr. Arnold

I agree that the question of follow-up is necessary. Let me clarify a few points. The NBS/AID program we are discussing is funded through

the central office of AID. It is partly exploratory and it is

intended to apply to more than one country. We cannot apply this

program to only one country. AID missions abroad are concerned with

programs and projects applying to the countries to which they are

accredited. If you have needs over and above normal follow-up

activity, your needs must be made known to your own planning body and

your Ministers so that they in turn can make your needs known to AID

missions. This is the correct procedure.

Responses to your needs will be proportional to relationships with

your basic requirements, especially those of the poorest elements of

your society. A recent carefully constructed loan for Indonesia had

to be revised in order to ensure that its principal impact would be on

the poorest classes of the population. There are, of course, sources

of assistance other than AID.

There is another matter of considerable importance. The U.N. is now

planning a Conference on Science and Technology for Development in

1979. Each country has been asked to prepare its own assessment as to

how science and technology can help them. The only way that the

subject of standards, metrology and quality control will get into your

country paper is through your own efforts. I urge you to make contact

with officials in your countries who will be responsible for preparing

these papers. This is an excellent opportunity for discussion of

these subjects and should not be missed.

Eng. Estrada

In the standards bodies there are only limited opportunities to follow

the wider recommendations of the surveys. There is sometimes a lack

of coordination in direction at the most senior levels. However, a key person is the head of the standards organization. Unfortunately,

there are often changes in these positions and, therefore, a lack of

continuity in response to recommendations of NBS surveys. One way of

improving the use of the survey recommendations would be to invite new

heads of the standards bodies to come to NBS to discuss proposed

solutions with scientists of similar backgrounds. A different

proposal is for the heads of standards bodies in all countries

surveyed to be invited to NBS for consideration of common problems

with NBS specialists and with each other.

Dr. Hadi wiardjo

I participated in the part of the recent Indonesian Survey that deals

with calibration, instrumentation and metrology. We have so far only

a preliminary report. Looking at the final reports of other countries

37
surveyed I am struck by lack of clarity of the recommendations. I hope that in our final survey report we will be given clear

recommendations. The USAID Mission Director has indicated her

receptiveness to follow-up implementation projects provided they

followed AID criteria of direct services to the poor which are

difficult to document. I agree with Eng. Estrada that discussion of

common problems in seminars would be of great benefit.

Mrs. Mascarinas

The surveys appear to be very well organized. When the team went into

my country it separated into different groups. For example,

Mr. Raufaste advised on building technology, while other specialists

interacted with different sectors. On the spot advice was most

important and effectively given. If there were shortcomings in the

recommendations of the final report the fault may be largely on our

side because there is so much that needs to be improved.

Dr. Oteng

I have a point relating to Mr. Arnold's observations about

preparations for the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology. I am

happy to note his comment that the developing countries should prepare

themselves and to assess their standardization needs. Last June, when

the development committee of ISO met, the question of including

standardization on the agenda for the U.N. Conference was discussed.

Eighteen directors of standards bodies were asked to seek

collaboration of their authorities to ensure that standardization

would be on the agenda. A follow-up letter has thus far produced only

one response. This is a matter of considerable importance and

interest to ISO.

Mr. Alonso

I feel certain that preparations for the UNCSTD are proceeding well in

the United States under the capable direction of Ambassador Jean

Wilkowski and I am sure that this matter will be carefully considered.

Since we are now discussing the surveys, I would like to ask Dr. Brady

if he is satisfied with the number of surveys, and whether he would

inform us of the basis on which a country is chosen for a survey and

how a country prepares for a visit of the survey team.

Dr. Brady

I do not think we could expand the number of surveys. We might be

able to manage two surveys per year rather than one, but the main

problem for us is the limitation of available manpower at NBS.

38
Mr. Reiser

A country chosen for a survey must first be an AID assisted country.

Secondly, the country must be willing to invite an NBS team and be

prepared to do certain things:

a. ) appoint a director and staff for the survey;

b. ) program the visits of the team to governmental,

industrial and academic facilities;

c. ) be prepared to receive participants from third

countries (in addition to NBS members) in order

to benefit from the experience of countries with

similar experiences;

d. ) be willing after the survey to make a senior standards

official available for a similar survey of another

AID country.

I am aware that two weeks is a very short time for a competent survey.

I, therefore, prefer a small, uniform country with a culture that is

not too diverse.

39

SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Paper 1.6 - Workshops in the United States

Dr. Robert Oteng

Director

Development Program

International Standards Organization, Geneva

It is indeed flattering for me to be asked to talk about "Workshops in

the United States." I have attended workshops elsewhere, and I have

visited the United States on more than one other occasion, but this is

the first time that I have had the privilege of taking part in a workshop in the United States and certainly the first one organized by

the National Bureau of Standards. You would no doubt agree that

whatever comments I offer can only apply to this one which has just

ended and in which I have participated.

Let me first of all begin by commenting, if I may, on the

organizational arrangements for the workshop. In order that you may

appreciate the sentiments that I shall express at the end of this

chapter, let me remind you that this workshop started from Colorado

with visits to the Hewlett-Packard Company, Loveland; the National

Bureau of Standards, Boulder; Solar Energy Research Institute; and the

Colorado School of Mines, Golden.

We then went to Ohio with visits to the Dana Corporation near Toledo;

Chemical Abstracts Service in Columbus; Toledo Scale; and to the

Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Ohio State University.

We continued to Massachusetts with visits to GenRad, Inc., Concord;

and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

We then went to Pennsylvania where, in Harrisburg, visits were

arranged to the Technical Services Division of AMP, Inc., and the

Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture. Finally

the whole crowd moved to Gai thersburg , Maryland, where papers were

presented by participants and lectures were given by celebrities,

alongside with visits to various NBS laboratories.

In each of these places arrangements were made to the last detail and

it was, literally speaking, impossible for anyone to get lost or

default or be left behind however hard they tried to achieve any of

these feats. The timing throughout was perfect and every activity

checked into position with marvelous precision. Those of you who are

used to the system may take all this for granted, but to some of us it

is a great lesson in organization. This is why I think that the

organizers deserve special commendation and I think that at this stage

41
we can do no better than offer our appreciation, for this example in

splendid organization to Mr. Steffen Reiser, Mr. Chris Raley,

Mrs. Odar, and all those who worked behind the scenes to achieve this

feat.

If nothing else had happened after these visits I would still feel

that a great lesson in organization has been taught to the

participants who are all in such a position as to be required at one

time or another to organize many matters including seminars and

workshops. You may have a good program or a good project in hand but

remember it is the type of organization that you lay on which will

determine its success or failure. I think that these arrangements

have been good and I recommend the lessons thereof to you.

And now to the workshop itself. Let me begin by recalling the type of

participant who was invited to the workshop. The notice for

participation, if my memory serves me right, expects for attendance

people who are not more than one level removed from top management in

their organizations; in other words participants should be leaders or

leaders' deputies. And in response to this we have such distinguished

delegates as Abu Hossain Khan from Bangladesh, Chaiwai Sangruji from

Thailand, Mrs. Mascarinas from the Philippines, Dr. Bambang

Hadiwiardjo from Indonesia and so on, just to mention a few. My view

on the selection is that during these initial stages of the seminar

and workshop, this is right and desirable. However later on, and

based on experience gathered, it may be necessary to take a look at

the level of person required for participation.

Now among these top people there are areas of special interest:

Firstly, there are those who apart from their general managerial

interests, are specially interested in user standards; secondly, there

are those who are interested in basic standards and thirdly, there are

those who are interested in legal metrology. How about the subject

areas? The subject areas, as I saw them, ranged from quality control

in consumer products as evidenced by Hewlett-Packard and Toledo Scale

activi ties--f idel ity search and establishment of basic standards as

evidenced by activities at the NBS both in Boulder and in

Gaithersburg, and the practice of legal metrology as evidenced by what

is done in the Bureau of Standard Weights and Measures, Department of

Agriculture, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, just to give examples of

each type of activity.

And there is yet another category--as exemplified by the visits to the

Colorado School of Mines, Ohio State University and to the MIT. Why

do I say that these belong to another category? I call that group

another category because the institutions symbolize the place where

the training for the various groups of participants was intensified.

To me it suggests the notion of continuity in 1 earning--the notion

that learning should go on all the time and that without it we cannot

42
hope to be on top of our jobs whether we are members of top management

or members of assistant top management.

What was the relevance of the various subject areas as indicated

earlier to participants? To all the participants I am of the opinion

that the general exposure to the various aspects of the work which

they are doing is absolutely essential.

Good management is useful to all of us in our activities and there was

plenty in evidence for people to notice and think about. In addition

those interested in the control of quality in relation to user

standards had an opportunity to see the control of product quality

being practiced^ (Hewlett-Packard and Toledo Scale, for example). I am sure that the intention is not for them to copy what is being done

exactly; but what I think they should do is to note what is happening

so that they can develop their own ideas as to what is most suitable

in their particular environment.

The same can be said for those who are interested in the pursuit of

establishing basic standards and also for legal metrology enthusiasts.

Now let me touch briefly on the time scale as it relates to the

program. This program started on October 1, and ended on Friday,

October 14. One might strongly be tempted to call this a period of

two weeks. A look at the program indicates that except for Saturday,

October 8 and 15 and Sunday, October 9 and 16 each day was packed with

activities from 9 a.m. till quite late sometimes. This could be

interpreted to indicate a concern on the part of the organizers to

make available to participants as much exposure and experience as

possible within the 14 days available for the workshop. No doubt

there are very good reasons why it may not be immediately possible to

extend the period for the workshop. And in this connection I would

like to make a suggestion for serious consideration: I am wondering

whether it would not be possible to arrange the workshop, certainly

the visits aspects, in two parts.

Part one could consist of a visit by all participants to organizations

where a general overview of what is happening over as wide a field of

standards work as possible for an appreciation of all the inputs that

go into standards evolution and application: planning, management,

evolution and application of standards for the benefit of the

population, and also for an appreciation of the need to engage in

continuous learning so that one can always be in a position to

innovate. For this exercise one can think of such organizations as

Toledo Scale, the various university departments and NBS laboratories

in Gaithersburg.

Part two could consist of specialized visits so that participants

interested in particular fields would be able to spend a longer time

in establishments of interest to them, thereby gaining maximum benefit

43
from the exercise. For example, people interested in quality control

in relation to user products and standards could visit such places as

Hewlett-Packard and the Institute for Basic Standards (NBS) while

those interested in legal metrology could visit and spend more time in

places similar to the Bureau of Weights and Measures such as was

visited in Harrisburg in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The basic

standards people can then seek their fortunes at the NBS both in

Colorado and Gaithersburg as well as in other similar appropriate

places. I feel that if this approach is tried it could give everybody

an opportunity for a general overview as well as a lot more insight

into areas of their choice; who knows it may even happen that as far

as the individuals are concerned the whole program may not then seem

so tight.

During our visit one participant commented: "This visit may be

useful, but the matters being shown are not in my line. I don't

understand any of what is happening." The participant did not condemn

that particular visit out of hand, but was concerned about what can be

derived from it as far as that participant was concerned.

Now this is a good program being organized by the NBS and every

encouragement by way of useful suggestions should be given to it so

that it can continue to offer assistance to members of the developing

countries who need all the help that they can get to improve their

standard of living by systematically improving those activities which

will enhance their technological advancement.

One of the participants in trying to rub home the usefulness of this

program suggested that Congress might be persuaded to use the NBS for

the transfer of technology in developing countries. I don't know what

that means exactly but I think that he was emphasizing the need to

help other countries. I do know that other organizations are

interested to work with such organizations as the NBS which are

helping the developing countries in their development efforts. The

ISO, for example, is very keen on helping developing countries to

improve their own standing at home so that they can make meaningful

contributions to their countries' development efforts. At its last

General Assembly meeting held in Geneva in September of 1976, certain

guiding principles were enunciated upon which a program was approved

for helping the developing countries to achieve their objectives. In

summary the program envisages among other things:

1. ) Frequent contacts with directors of standards bodies in

developing countries to assess their needs.

2. ) Strengthening of relationships with the various United

Nations and other aid agencies.

3. ) Making use of the facilities of the entire membership

of the ISO to assist its developing country members.

44
4.) Making use of its contacts with the regional groups in the

developing countries to assist the members.

These and other objectives of the program are to be carried out by the

Development Program Unit of the ISO. It is in the light of its

program as partly listed above that the ISO views with great interest

the workshops and seminars such as this one that are arranged by

various bodies from time to time.

In particular Dr. Brady's overview statements last week are

interesting and attractive and merit consideration by bodies really

interested in assisting the development efforts of developing

countries. Among other things he mentioned such projects as:

1. ) Infrastructure Development, e.g.,

a. ) The type of activity engaged in now by the NBS.

b. ) Technological research and development.

c. ) Improving the infrastructure for technological research.

2. ) Dissemination of technical information so that it can be

appl ied.

3. ) Provision of a focal point for various kinds of contacts

and so on.

These are coincident with the ideas of the ISO, and it will coordinate

her efforts whenever practicable with the NBS and such bodies as are

willing to help the developing countries in their development efforts.

Contacts with directors of standards bodies in developing countries

has begun, this will continue systematically and you should expect

some form of an effective contact within the very near future.

Relationships with the various aid agencies is under way, and it is

hoped that very soon some results will be achieved. The National

Bureau of Standards is running a good program and every encouragement

should be given to it to render more, service to the developing

countries

.

45

SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Paper 1.7 - Institution Building

Mr„ Ricardo G. Florez ^. Institute de Pesquisas Tecnologicas

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Preface

In 1899, the first laboratories in Brazil for testing structures and

materials started their operations, as part of the University of Sao

Paulo campus. They would soon nucleate a number of pioneering

research activities that would be put together in 1934 as the

Institute de Pesquisas Tecnologicas (IPT). A state government

institution until 1975, IPT is today a public corporation, with 1500

staff members and a broad spectrum of activities.

The signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the National

Bureau of Standards in 1974 was for IPT a very important event.

Together with three other major research institutions, IPT was joining

the efforts to operate the first comprehensive science and technology

program in the state of Sao Paulo, "PROCET". The "Programa de Ciencia

e Tecnologia" was the result of a long negotiation between Brazilian

and American research institutions, universities and agencies and was

made possible by a Loan Agreement from the United States Agency for

International Development (AID) to the State of Sao Paulo. The $15

million loan ending in October 1978 (5 years) is primarily intended to

pay for training of Brazilian scientists and engineers in American

institutions. A counterpart cruzeiro budget from the State of Sao

Paulo is approved each year to pay for special research projects in

Sao Paulo to provide new and better services to Brazilian industry.

Management of both budgets and the relationship between the operations

they foster are key issues to understand PROCET.

To evaluate a program that big is a difficult task. Goals and

objectives tend to be broad, with a long time for results to show and

the indicators of success not always easy to verify. To do that a clear understanding of the social and economic background of the

participant nations is necessary in order to filter registered results

and to adjust technical and management activities properly. In the

case of Brazil and the United States, for example, it is not enough to

realize we have a "developed" nation on one side and a "developing"

one on the other. That doesn't explain the mechanisms and

expectations involved. A more precise and effective picture may

result when an assessment is made of how the various national systems

evolved in both countries, of the different pools of technology they

47
draw from, and how their respective sciences and economies got to be

what they are.

A country like the United States has reached its present situtation

via what we might call "harmonic development," in which all national

systems such as transportation, communications, education, etc., have

grown together, assisted by strong science and technology plus a dynamic economy. Brazil has always had a very dependent economy due

to circumstances beyond the issues discussed. That, plus the fact

that industrialization started in Brazil at least 50 years later than

in Europe and the United States, indicate some of the constraints the

country has to face today when trying to bridge technological gaps.

In order to respond quickly to specific needs, different technical

areas have developed to different levels at different rates in recent

years. Selective government support for national priority areas

increase that tendency. We can call that "development by

leapfrogging." In trying to find badly needed shortcuts, an

inherently unstable situation is attained, frequently resulting in big

technical, economic and even social gaps. Scientific development, for

example, may be badly hurt in such an environment where quick and easy

solutions may prevail over long-range planning, sound policies and

careful and competent execution of technical services. One of the

most critical aspects of the problem is the ever increasing dependence

on a poor government to subsidize and orient basic sectors of the

economy.

The training programs and special projects under PROCET have two main

goals: to find a shortcut to provide Brazil with needed new

technology and to prepare the research structure in Sao Paulo to

bypass some of the gaps caused by leapfrogging.

The evaluation of a program like PROCET has to deal with the

differences between harmonic and leapfrogging developments and also

the performance of institutions and individuals as well as the quality

of technical services provided. To get indicators of success the

evaluation has to focus on individual institutional operations. A

good one to analyze is the MOU between NBS and IPT.

It is a very important opportunity for IPT to participate with NBS in

the collaborative program on standardization, quality control and

certification of industrial products. By updating itself technically

in the area IPT is trying to regain the position it maintained before

the multinationals and galloping industrial development occurred

during the 1950's in Brazil.

AID Loan Agreement - PROCET

In 1967, a technology council for the State of Sao Paulo was created

under the State Secretariat for Economics and Planning. CET (Conselho

Estadual de Tecnologia) operated until 1975 when its functions were

48
transferred to the State Secretariat for Culture, Science and

Technology. CET was responsible for planning and operating PROCET. A

Loan Agreement with AID was signed in May 1973.

PROCET was originally designed as a set of programs in the areas of:

science and technology policies, marketing of technology, research

management, technological information, metallurgy, quality control and

standardization, and food technology (see Annex 1). With time new

programs and new areas were added to PROCET, such as railroad, wood

and paper, and energy technologies, while others, such as science and

technology policies, and marketing of technology, were dropped.

The main PROCET strategy was to implement the hardware related

programs with "demonstration projects" and the software related

programs as support for them. This appeared to be a wise approach at

the planning stage but didn't materialize fully. Two changes in the

State administration, followed by modifications at the Secretariat

level and CET itself, weakened the PROCET manager position, his

support services and his policy-making activities at the State level.

Thanks to a lot of freedom given each program manager, individual

programs were not too much affected by those changes in the beginning,

but the very important communication channels between them were

truncated and crossfeeding of inputs and results are almost

nonexistent.

This situation interferes with the coordination of technical training

abroad and the projects in S^o Paulo that utilize their results.

Moreover, this coordination suffers also from the fact that the

training programs (dollar budget) are pluriannual , as opposed to the

special "Demonstration Project" (cruzeiro budget) that cannot be

longer than a year. Without strong coordination and policies, as well

as continuous evaluation and adaptation, the results can be appraised

at the level of the involved institutions only. New indicators have

to be found in order to come down from broad expectations and analyze

more immediate results. With three-fourths of the alloted time gone,

the last year of PROCET has to be used properly. Individual

institutions like IPT and the Food Technology Institute ITAL(Insti tuto

de Tecnologia de Alimentos) are reviewing their projects carefully,

trying to identify promptly the activities that show good

perspectives.

Most of the technical training has been very successful (60%) and some

of the projects they generated are steadily producing good outputs,

and results are beginning to show at the industry level. It is

necessary though, to disseminate the results between the institutions

and survey industry in the State to check for the amount and quality

of services delivered. Very specific technical areas such as

measurement collaborative reference programs and certification should

be given proper priorities in future government plans in the area of

science and technology.

49
IPT - The Standardization, Quality Control and Certification Program

As a public company since 1975, IPT does not have a very definite and

specific charter. The great number of diversified services that IPT

provides can be grouped in six big internal programs: technological

assistance, technological research, information, standardization and

industrial quality, human resources and pioneer projects. Located in

Sao Paulo, the center of industrial activity in Brazil, IPT is

probably one of the better equipped laboratory facilities. In Brazil,

the basic industrial know-how is centered in the area of production

engineering such as substitution of raw materials, detailing of

production methods, quality control, etc. Research in the areas of

process and product engineering have high priorities in IPT strategies

as indicated by the technical groups that were nucleated in recent

years. Since 1974 a collaborative program on standardization, quality

control and certification of industrial products is being implemented

between the National Bureau of Standards in the United States and IPT.

A Memorandum of Understanding was signed under the USAID Loan

Agreement (512-L/86) with the State of Sao Paulo.

Four major activities are taking place:

a. ) Training of IPT staff at NBS and other agencies in

the United States.

b. ) Consulting services by NBS staff at IPT.

c. ) Projects being carried outsat IPT in support of

industry in the State of Sao Paulo.

d. ) Purchase of laboratory equipment in the United States in

support of c . )

.

Activities a.) and b.) are managed directly under the Memorandum of

Understanding (September 1974) by one American program manager from

NBS and one Brazilian program manager from IPT. A budget of $730,000

has been designated by AID to pay for activities under a.) and b.) for

the four-year duration of the MOU as amended in August 1976

(previously 2 years). A yearly approved cruzeiro budget from the

State of Sao Paulo Government pays for costs of projects under

activity c). The 1977 cruzeiro budget was 14 million ($1 ,155,000).

The 1978 budget is estimated at 32 million ($2.3 million). Operations

under c.) are managed by the Brazilian manager from IPT and use the

results of training at NBS as inputs for IPT special projects.

A^special contract has been signed (June 1977) between the State of

Sao Paulo Government and the Denver Research Institute (DRI), Denver,

Colorado, to purchase laboratory equipment for IPT in support of the

program of standardization, quality control and certification of

industrial products. A budget of $400,000 has been approved by AID

50
for this contract under the same Loan to the State of Sao Paulo. DRI

is providing assistance in the selection, procurement and actual

purchasing of laboratory equipment for IPT. The Brazilian manager

from IPT is responsible for this contract also. (IPT Organization

Chart--see Annex 2.

)

The MOU between NBS and IPT has been a successful joint operation.

The training program and related activites in the United States and in

Bra:zil have provided IPT with clear benefits already. Some of the

more general expected outputs are still to be achieved, but some

unexpected ones, verified recently, more than compensate for those and

give IPT a breath of fresh air to continue, as well as an indication

of new levels of achievement possible in the near future.

The proposal by NBS to sign with IPT a "Memorandum of Intention" to

guide the relationship of the two institutions after the present MOU

expires, is gratifying to IPT, if nothing else because it gives a clear indication that some benefits to NBS have also been achieved.

If not fostered, at least by common interest, any future relationship

is bound to fail. The possible constraints are very well known by

now.

IPT has a very broad charter as a public corporation and has to deal

with a loose budgeting policy at federal and state levels all the

time. No long range plans are available and there is a tendency to

perform more and more trouble shooting services to industry only.

Previously independent technical divisions are required now to draw

together from common existing capabilities in order to perform

specific services to industry. As a result of the previous mode of

operation, and other reasons, a gap exists in the staff. IPT has most

of its Ph.D.'s and technically experience people occupying

bureaucratic and management positions, coordinating the bench level

operations performed by inexperienced and very young personnel

(staying less than four years at IPT), with practically nothing in

between.

Even tough technical training has always been very high in IPT

priorities (even if the individual trained is lost to industry

prematurely), there is still the logistical problem to solve on how to

build its own team. The scenario at IPT then, is one in which most of

the project proposals come from above in the structure and are worked

out if possible at the bench level, where technical and laboratory

capabilities should reside.

It was in this environment at IPT that the NBS/IPT collaborative

program started. The MOU was discussed by top management of both

institutions to a point where an agreement was reached and training

tasks started without full awareness from Divisions and bench level

personnel at IPT. The resulting match was always easier whenever the

IPT trainee had technical background in the training area and his

51
activities at IPT were close enough to the ones he would be exposed to

at NBS. In the cases where completely new areas were started at IPT

under the umbrella of the MOU, and the trainees had no good technical

background, many problems occurred. The decision to go for individual

training though, was a good one. It provided the basis for technical

and laboratory improvement, even if uncontrolled, during two years, up

to a point where it is possible now to organize the resulting

scattered available skills around some central policies.

Always aiming to serve the Sao Paulo industry we have now a situation

where we can use some outputs from the MOU with NBS to understand our

own internal needs first.

Three areas have already been identified to receive extra support

during 1978:

° Standard Reference Materials

° Measurement Services

° Collaborative Reference Programs.

For those areas, negotiations have been started with the State

Government to assure that a subsidy will be available for at least two

more years, 1979 and 1980, in cruzeiros.

It is under those three areas also that the discussions on long-range

collaboration between NBS and IPT should be focused from now or). NBS

could clearly serve as a master station to which IPT could slave in

various levels within the three areas. Those activities would provide

NBS with proper channels through which a follow-up on IPT activities

could be performed. A follow-up for five to ten years should be

planned. A Memorandum of Intention should be drafted by the two

institutions indicating the technical aspects and some of the

modifications to be followed, even if not relying on any special

financial arrangement, in support of and within the framework of the

bilateral agreement between Brazil and the United States.

NBS could benefit from such an agreement by maintaining close links

with Brazil's science and technology environment and by using IPT as a temporary matching interface to other laboratories in South America

and Africa, when needed.

The benefits for IPT would come for continuous contact with the

world's scientific development via a capable institution like NBS,

complemented by an active exchange of published technical documents.

52
Note

The author thanks Dr. Robert D. Huntoon, National Bureau of Standards,

for his contribution in defining the framework of this report.

53
Annex 1

PROCET PROGRAM AREAS

SOFT TECHNOLOGY

1. ) Scientific and technological policy

FCAV - University foundation named after Carlos

Alberto Vanzolini (Funda^ao Carlos Alberto

Vanzol ini

)

MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2. ) Research Management

FUNAD - Research foundation for^the School of

Administration of the Sao Paulo University

(Fundo de Pesquisas do Instituto de

Administracao da FEA)

Vanderbilt University

3. ) Marketing of Technology

FCAV - Fundacao Carlos Alberto Vanzolini

t SRI - Stanford Research Institute

4. ) Technological Information

CET - (without unique counterpart institution)

HARD TECHNOLOGY

5. ) Metallurgy

IPT - Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnologicas

DRI - Denver Research Institute

6. ) Quality Control and Standardization

IPT - Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnologicas

NBS - National Bureau of Standards

7. ) Food Technology

ITAL - Institute for Food Technology

(Instituto de Tecnologia de Alimentos)

CODOT - Consortium for the Development of Technology,

University of Rhode Island

54
cn

•r— CD

1/ o

c CD c fO d OJ OJ

•1•1

<u t/) CD S- CD c CU > •r~ QJ QJ £= •p- -M

•r- QJ OJ LU

CL d CL) Q_ (/) O. LU E o

CD CD fO C7) -M "O •r— cu o ^~ n3 +-> M

c o3 >^ LlJ LU zs <o OJ IT3 *' o E ^~

to O fO 1

S- %- •r— jC <D 1

•1

E cu o

C C O > > o +J O CD CU Q. 4—

(L •1— CL) •r— (L) CD O S- fO CU

1 ^1. (Jj i

- C 3

f « C J \ 1 1 1

55

Discussion

Mr. Alonso

I thank Mr. Florez for his discussion of the exceedingly interesting

relationship between NBS and IPT. It has been very useful to both

parties. We will now return to discussion of the country surveys.

Mrs. Djaprie

I want to ask a question and, unrelated to it, make a comment. The

question is whether the USAID projects are coordinated with assistance

from other organizations such as UNDP. The comment is on the

methodology of the surveys. I, myself, was responsible for organizing

the program for part of the recent survey in Indonesia, and arranged

for a collection of information papers to be presented by various

experts in Indonesia concerned with representative standardization

problems. This introduction to the Indonesian scene should have been

of great usefulness to the visiting team.

Mr. Reiser

We at NBS see no obstacles to such coordination and cooperation. It

is my impression that most organizations giving development assistance

try to avoid unproductive overlap, but tend to rely for the

coordination function on the host Government, which should carry the

principal responsibility for it. With reference to Mrs, Djaprie 's comment about the methodology of the survey, I think this was a very

good idea, and it was very helpful for the visiting team to have such

clear proof that the technical people in Indonesia had reached a wide

understanding that good standardization was essential for effective

development. It was made clear in this way that support from industry

and government, also a key factor, was deficient. In summary,

therefore, I agree that this was a very important part of the

methodology of the Survey of Indonesia and that it was a rather

successful feature.

Mr. Alonso

Collaboration between NBS and the OAS in the field of metrology has

always been very constructive. We could welcome an expansion of this

cooperation, which is subject, of course, to the limitation of

resources on both sides.

Mr. Florez

To Mr. Reiser's comment, I could mention that we have had a number of

people from UNIDO in Brazil assisting us in setting up a national

measurement system. This is not a direct responsibility for IPT, but

we are building, with the help of NBS, some specific capabilities so

57
as to be able to act in partnership with this system. In this way we

hope to close the loop.

Mr. Pineda

Enough has been said about the follow-up activities which individual

countries take on their own and about the useful later reviews of

progress by international teams. What should also ensue is some U.S.-

sponsored program that could help in implementation. U.S. investors

will require the use of some of our standards. Countries cannot be

assumed to understand ANSI and ASTM standards and we should not take

it for granted that they do. Perhaps NBS and AID could organize an

exchange program under which LDC's could obtain the standards of our

country. ANSI and ASTM standards, as well as the fine publications of

NBS, should be available through the U.S. embassies, consulates, and

missions. Conversely in the U.S., NBS should be the repository of

standards issued by other countries. This kind of an exchange could

be very beneficial to all those concerned with standards questions. A

great deal could be done on both bilateral and regional levels in

translating standards as required, so that they become available to

all concerned. Then there is the area of regional development of

standards such as OAS supported from the start in Latin America

Finally, training courses are also exceedingly valuable.

Mr. Alonso

Let us continue to concentrate on the topic of surveys.

Dr. Wolynec

What dissemination has been made of the survey results internally and

otherwise?

Eng. Estrada

We in Ecuador, for example, distributed the survey results in Spanish

translation to government offices, industries and universities. They

were well received and utilized.

Mr. Montano

In response to Mr. Florez' question on distribution and implementation

of the recommendations of the Bolivian Survey, we could do very little

in Bolivia because of internal problems, including staff changes

leaving only two survey participants out of twelve who were involved

in the survey.

58
Dr. Salama

I have listened with great interest to this discussion. It seems to

me that we may need to develop some criteria for the conduct of these

surveys to be followed by NBS on the one hand, and the receiving

country on the other. Before the survey begins the various

participants should be familiar with objectives of the survey,

possible problems and solutions, as well as the nature of contemplated

follow-up activity. It would also be desirable to identify subjects

of special concern prior to the beginning of the survey. If AID

cannot provide financing, other sources should be considered. Every

effort should be made to document the importance of standardization so

that governments and assistance organizations understand the needs.

These actions together can guarantee success of the surveys.

Returning to a point made earlier by Dr. Brady, I am very interested

in the subject of SRM's. The matter of the correlation of tests on

materials is very critical in petroleum development in the Arab

region. ASMO has an important program in this field to assist our

member nations. Help from NBS on any relevant SRM's would be

appreciated

.

Mr. Alonso

Let us defer the response to this question until after Mr. Reiser's

paper, which deals with SRM's. On the surveys we can say in summary

that they should be very carefully planned and organized. There

should also be provision for follow-up. I understand and sympathize

fully with the difficulties involved in creating national programs and

bringing about effective cooperation with international organizations.

We will now turn to the subject of workshops in the U.S. and other

topics. One question is the selection of topics for the workshops.

Did they satisfy your needs? Another question that was raised is

whether participants should be at the highest possible level? Should

there be workshops organized at a lower level? There was also the

question of the organization of the workshops which is very important.

It is probably not possible to organize any two workshops in exactly

the same way because different topics demand different presentations.

To what extent should the programs be tailored to the needs of

individual participants? It would be desirable also to know whether

NBS is satisfied with the workshops or would they like to see them

modified in particular ways. Should there be more than one workshop

per year?

Eng. Estrada

I speak as a participant of an earlier workshop and believe the

workshops may be too specialized and presentations are by persons who

work at a higher level than can be easily appreciated in our

countries. It may be desirable to spend one or two days in

discussions of the general aspects of standardization, metrology.

59
quality control, calibrations, etc. Then one could proceed with indepth consideration of specialized subjects. It is very necessary for

our participants to start with a general overview before going into

specifics

.

Mr. Peiser

My interpretation of Dr. Oteng's proposal, and I liked it that way,

was that the workshop be organized in two parts--one week of general

topics for all participants while in the second week the group would

split up to develop specialities.

Dr. Oteng

This is what I had in mind.

Dr. Steinberg

I could not resist the wonderful but demanding opportunity of

attending this year's NBS/AID Workshop on behalf of my Institute,

although I had been a participant previously in 1974. One aspect

which I consider to be the richest contribution of the workshop

program that has not been previously mentioned is the contact I have

been able to establish with highly qualified and competent people from

other countries.

Dr. Salama

I participated in 1971 when most useful subgroup schedules were

arranged after the end of the formal program. I, myself, with

participants from India and Thailand, joined a one-week tour on the

topic of instrumentation which we found very useful. We visited

several companies with appreciable benefit to my work in the

subsequent six years.

Dr. Bambang

I agree with the suggestion of subgroup programs, and would favor more

discussion of how standardization and measurement services operate in

the countries of the participants. Comparisons with the U.S. system

would be useful, and I favor separation of participants interested in

standardization from those more interested in the physical standards.

Mr. Gikandi

Must participants really come from such a high organizational level?

It is my impression that specialists at an administratively lower

grade could benefit greatly from workshop participation.

60
Mr. Alonso

This is a good question.

Dr. Oteng

I agree with the existing, criterion, because standards organizations

are new in many countries and we must give top-level officials in

these new national bodies the best possible opportunity to learn what

is going on so that they can make the best decisions for the new

national standards bodies that fulfill an important function in

development. At a later stage when the organizations have grown,

officials less concerned with policy would also benefit from such

workshops.

Mr. Peiser

The rule is probably good provided we are prepared to make exceptions,

as indeed we are. You must remember, however, that in these workshops

we try to give a broad brush overview of the U.S. system of

standardization and measurement services. By different series of

visits each year we try to illustrate the diverse interactions between

regulatory funding and other governmental agencies, industrial

companies, research and test laboratories, and private sector

standards developing organizations. Other workshops no doubt would be

useful but in the type we are attempting the specialist from abroad is

less likely to find satisfaction than the participant with senior

level management responsibilities in his own country who can judge the

usefulness or the inapplicability in his own country of the various

activities in the U.S.A.

Mr. Alonso

With one a year you are restricted on the type of workshop you can

organize. I see that more might be useful but that will depend on

funding

.

Mr. Pineda

In the NBS/AID Workshops you are meeting an important need, but the

other type would also be most useful in widening the vision of

administratively lower level staff.

Mr. Florez

My participation in an NBS/AID workshop was not typical because it

followed almost a year of previous exposure to NBS and the U.S.

standardization systems. However, even if this had not been the case,

I feel that the opportunity to meet colleagues from other countries

and to exchange information with them would have been as interesting

61
as, in fact, it was for me. In my opinion it is almost impossible to

adapt the program to individual needs. Participants are better

advised to have an open mind to receive the impressions that they can

assimilate. I had the advantage of knowing beforehand a little more

of what to expect.

Mr. Alonso

The more you know the more you can get out of the workshops.

Mr. Kahn

There are facilities for training of specialists over periods of

months, not perhaps at NBS, but elsewhere. Here we are concerned with

a concentrated overview course on a complex system, so it is best to

have participants who can later implement some of the ideas presented

at the workshop.

Mrs. Mascarinas

I agree with Mr. Gikandi that a lower level staff member attending for

the chief of an agency should be permitted to attend the workshops and

could benefit from the experience.

Mr. Leach

I speak on behalf of a very specialized industrial operation which is

concerned with quality control and measurement and which was visited

by the NBS/AID Workshop in 1976. Judging by the comments at the

closing session this visit was much appreciated though outside the

prior experience of virtually all participants. We, as a Company felt

privileged to receive such a exceptional group from so many countries.

Mr. Alonso

Did you have follow-up inquiries or benefits from receiving the group?

Mr. Leach

No, although I had anticipated such results. I might suggest that

participants might gain even more if they followed up themselves by

inquiries or requests for assistance from organizations visited during

the tour.

Mr. Alonso

Would such requests be welcome?

62
Mr. Leach

Certainly by us and at least the larger companies.

Mr. Alonso

Turning to discussion on Mr. Florez' presentation it has become clear

that NBS has a very beautiful association with standards organizations

in some other countries, particularly because it is not a one shot

operation

.

Mr. Peiser

As NBS Program Manager, I also believe the NBS/IPT cooperation has

become successful although it took us more than a year to find a sufficient number of really productive project areas and to plan a method of deciding on specific well-defined tasks to be undertaken.

This seemingly long initiation period led to an innovative approach of

cooperation by tasks which go through four phases:

1 . ) training at NBS

2. ) implantation of a new capability at IPT

3. ) delivery of a new technical service to

industry or government agencies, and

4. ) evaluation.

Shortcomings found on evaluation were in several instances turned to

spectacular success.

The program as a whole I evaluate as a success because in addition to

the sum of individual results of tasks we find a high percentage of

IPT staff now works on projects arising from our cooperation and, as

Mr. Florez pointed out, the collaboration has had a major effect on

IPT and NBS in their modes of association with other Brazilian and

third country laboratories. The success of this entire program

ultimately depended on the excellent devotion and outstanding

professional competence of the IPT trainees who were used also for

direct benefit of NBS projects. Thi,s statement here is more than a well deserved acknowledgment but a warning against trying to imitate

this inter-institutional cooperation without similarly strong

correspondence of professional talents between the institutions.

Mr. Kahn

I am interested that Mr. Florez has talked about quality assurance

rather than quality policing. We also trust a well proven

manufacturer to exercise quality control by himself with integrity. I

63
would also like to refer to difficulties we find in Bangladesh in

transfer of available in-country technology to industrial projects.

Pilot plant development capability is needed which in turn is closely

associated with standardization. Other national standards are often

mutually incompatible and we should favor ISO standards when

avail able.

Eng. Estrada

Does NBS help IPT towards traceability to international standards, as

for instance, to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures?

Could Mr. Florez tell us whether it is possible to join the NBS/IPT

cooperation as additional partners working towards international

cooperation?

Mr. Pineda

What is the relation between IPT and ABNT (the Brazilian Association

for Technical Standards)? Does IPT work for Brazil as a whole?

Dr. Huntoon

Since I have worked with IPT under the NBS/IPT program, I have been

trying to figure out what has happened in Sao Paulo. What we tried to

do was not to lead IPT to imitate NBS but to use the program as a basis for discussion and to open a number of windows through which the

people in IPT could look. In looking through these windows IPT

personnel could see things that needed to be done. What is important

is that there be continuing growth in the country that is aided,

rather than repeated infusions of technological assistance, and

success should be measured on that basis. I think Mr. Florez' report

was essentially one of "looking out of the windows," rather than what

NBS had done.

Mr. Florez

IPT is mainly a "state level" rather than a "federal level"

organization. It is a public company operating like a private

company. IPT has some administrative freedom that government agencies

do not have as, for instance, to sell its property or pay higher

salaries. We work in a very different environment as compared with

NBS and we have a different role. We work in the state that accounts

for a high percentage of the manufactured output of Brazil . We have

much less infrastructure to count on for support. Brazil does have

ABNT, but that organization does not have laboratories. We need

measurement for self-assurance on precision and accuracy not for

enforcement of legal metrology, not for a policing role referred to by

Mr. Kahn, and not only for providing certification to others. When

the foreign cooperations started to invest heavily in Brazil, transfer

to technology took place, so that most of the universities.

64
institutions and even small industries were left behind. IPT is aware

of this and is trying now, through programs such as the one with NBS,

to upgrade its capabilities so as to provide technical services to

industry. It took one month of Dr. Huntoon's time to help us understand how we could plan to fulfill that function. In answer to

Eng. Estrada's question, NBS helps us to understand and achieve

traceabil ity. To join as an additional partner in this collaboration

needs funds such as those IPT received through an AID Loan Agreement.

Mr. Kahn

It is my opinion that technical personnel are better in management

positions in technical organizations. Why did Mr. Florez see

difficulty at IPT in filling management posts with so many qualified

technical people?

Mr. Florez

IPT invested a lot of money in technical training of specialists who

are needed to define and execute technical programs in their area of

specialization. To take a specialist out of the laboratory for higher

paid management assignments may not be cost-effective, and he must

jump a major gap into management of, say, six programs with all of

which he does not identify himself fully on a technical level.

Mr. Alonso

It is always a great dilemma as to how to use people who have reached

a very high level. Brazil with assistance from OAS is building up a cadre of people who will be able to discharge management positions.

Dr. Rhee

With regard to Ph.D.'s in management positions, the key question is

the quality of the people. The Korea Standards Research Institute is

now hiring about 15 Ph.D.'s with experience in the United States.

Several of them will have technical and management opportunities.

Dr. Huntoon

We used to observe here at NBS that in a mission-oriented, sciencebased institution, there are two kinds of people: those who work for

as opposed to those who work at an institution. The former identify

themselves with the institution and receive satisfaction through its

growth and success, and those who are scientifically oriented and

obtain most satisfaction from accolades of the scientific corrmunity.

It takes both kinds to make a good technical organization. For

management tasks you should choose the first kind of employee.

65

SESSION 1 - SIX YEARS OF NBS/AID PROGRAMS

Paper 1.8 - Other NBS/AID Activities

Mr. H. Steffen Reiser

Chief

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

My paper is intended to introduce a discussion on those activities

under the NBS/AID program that had not been covered by previous

speakers or by the preceding discussion. I want to describe the

actual as well as the possible activities which we might pursue under

the NBS/AID program.

Dr. Brady, in his speech, pointed out how much countries varied in

their needs, their resources, and their national goals. Although

there were broad similarities, there were very significant differences

and if we wanted to assist in their development programs we would have

to learn something about each particular country. Conversely, as you

think about using NBS as a U.S. resource for your development", I believe it is important to understand NBS. There are broad

similarities with other U.S. laboratories but through its 76 years of

history NBS has acquired certain competences, characteristics and

resources that are special

.

I would like to present very briefly, therefore, a few generalities

about NBS which are partially true, say 80 or 90% true. In other

words almost every statement I will make will have some exceptions.

1. ) NBS is a research and development laboratory of the United

States Federal Government. It is not a contract or grantgiving organization. We have authority to give contracts

and grants, but on the whole we are not a contracting or

granting organization.

2. ) NBS work is openly published in the technical literature and

most of this work attempts to be at the state of the art.

However, NBS is not a university and does not offer degrees.

3. ) We are delighted to have technical specialists, particularly

those from other countries, visit us for a day to learn about

our work and to exchange knowledge and experience. We are

equally delighted to welcome guest workers visiting for a long period of time to work with us on NBS projects,

provided the visitors are so motivated and have demonstrated the technical background and the capability to

benefit from participation in NBS type projects. However,

NBS does not offer courses of instruction.

67
4. ) NBS does not formulate foreign policy. However, we try very

hard to support the State Department and the Agency for

International Development in areas of foreign policy in

which they wish our support. NBS also has a self interest

in those international contacts which the State Department

and AID encourage us to have. Often we recognize a direct

programmatic interest. Commonly, individual staff members

appreciate these contacts that provide them with opportunities

for professional and human growth.

5. ) NBS may enter into semi -formal understandings with counterpart organizations abroad but does not commit the United

States to agreements with foreign countries. NBS assists

in implementation of agreements when called on by State

Department or AID but these agencies will not ask NBS to

provide regulatory enforcement of, say, internationally

agreed standards.

That sketchy background may give you an idea of how best to make use

of the NBS resource. I believe it is a considerable resource for

development because in its research and development projects it does

cover many areas in physics, chemistry, and engineering. How then

have you so far used that U.S. resource for cooperation from the

developing economies of the world?

1. ) As we have heard, you have invited the survey teams

that went with third country partners to put themselves and

their experience at the disposal of your country as host

for an admittedly very short period of time.

2. ) You have sent top level experts from your countries to

workshops where we show and tell how the U.S. system of

standardization and measurement technology works.

3. ) Two counterpart institutions with relatively advanced

technology laboratories have entered into bilateral

understandings with NBS for building up their competences.

We believe that we have today heard you say all these three programs

have some merit and you feel that they should continue. There are

some other existing programs that Dr. Brady showed in his tabulation.

4. ) Let us examine what you have done with NBS in regional

seminars. Several less developed countries in a region,

wanting to discuss common technical problems related to

standardization and measurement services, arranged seminars

under discussion guidance by a small team of NBS specialists.

NBS published summaries of the output of these seminars.

One of these regional seminars had as an eventual result a promising project by the Organization of American States

68
on a system of metrology in Latin America. The concept

was confirmed during one of the earlier NBS/AID workshops.

Its current development has been described by

Professor R. Steinberg during the NBS/AID workshop just

ended. His paper will be published in the workshop report

of 1977.

Another very exciting regional seminar, that Dr. Brady

mentioned particularly, on OMNITAB II, led to the countries

of the region, without the United States, making an agreement

among themselves to develop that simple but powerful computer

language system and thereby to improve their governments'

ability to deliver services to their people.

Next you have tried to use NBS to organize some training

programs. We have had some very limited groups

of people learning about weights and measures activities.

I am convinced, especially after visiting the Pennsylvania

State Office of Weights and Measures with this workshop, that

we now know how to organize such training if it is needed.

The states of the United States have the regulatory

authority in these fields and several of them are keen to

share with NBS the task of showing our colleagues from other

countries how to organize such a regulatory program. The

courses would include a short stay at NBS but most of the

training would go on in a particular state laboratory.

There has been one other type of training program which

Dr. Brady mentioned and I would like to spend a few minutes

on this. This is on instrumentation--to help in thinking

about the introduction of modern effective instrumentation

for carefully chosen key functions. As I have the privilege

of visiting many countries I am exposed to a terrible

nightmare. I see much good equipment and laboratory apparatus not fulfilling the hopes and dreams of the people who

ordered them. It seems not to matter if the funding is from

AID or the United Nations or an agency of the recipient

country. Unfortunately, there is no single reason why most

equipment that goes from highly developed countries to less

developed countries ends up being useless within a very, very

short period of time. This is a worldwide tragedy of the

development process. I am not saying that the fault is only

with either the vendor or the receiving countries or that the

United States is any worse as a vendor than any other highly

developed country with an instrumentation industry. In

fact, I think that the U.S. instrumentation industry has a little better record than that of the others, but the problem for us in the United States is immense. This disappointing performance if allowed to continue does not do us any good

and it does not do the recipient countries any good. When you

analyze the reason for these millions and millions of dollars

69
being wasted, you come to realize that there is a whole

variety of reasons that produce this problem. We have felt

that NBS should make some attempt to tackle it' and so, on

an experiemental basis, NBS has had with the Denver Research

Institute a course on how to plan for instrumentation, how

to order it, how to specify its features and needed ancillary

gear, how to make sure that it gets there, how to check the

manual, how it can be installed, housed, maintained and

calibrated, how spare parts can be rapidly supplied, and how

its results can be delivered to the industry, to private or

government laboratories or even individuals. The end

effect should be that instrumentation will perform in an

anticipated manner for a reasonable period of time. I believe that with this one course NBS and DRI have begun

to scratch on the surface of a huge problem of development.

Next you have requested and you have had some rather successful consultation trips from NBS specialists mostly following

up on surveys or workshop contacts. NBS favors this type

of short-term specific assistance provided that the field

mission of AID concurs with such consultation, that the

host government wants it and provided it falls within

available technical and financial resources.

Dr. Brady also mentioned that you have asked rather cautiously

for the distribution of some standard reference materials

(SRM's). You ought to know that the only real criticism in

the AID evaluation of the NBS program in the very interesting

Hubbell report requested by AID concerned SRM's. Hubbell

recommends that we should not carry on with the supply of

SRM's to AID countries. Now I happen to believe that it is

a key program in development assistance from NBS; if not today

it should become a key program as soon as possible.

Whenever you make a measurement, when you look at a raw material or aim to control production however primitive, or give

yourself any quality assurance, or look at the safety and health

of your people it is many times easier, more precise, or more

accurate to make such a measurement with an SRM than without

it. Widespread understanding of the philosophy of SRM's is

relatively new. No one in the major national measurement

laboratories of the world now even doubts that this is a powerful and necessary technique. Every measurement can be

reduced to a quantitative comparison of a given attribute

inherent in two objects. A rule of thumb is that, other

things being equal, the accuracy of a measurement is a sensitive function of the difference between the values of that

attribute in the objects being compared. The greater the difference, the less the accuracy. It follows that with instruments of given precision, measurements are improved greatly by

70
measuring an attribute in an unknown sample against that attribute in a closely similar standard reference material that has

been certified by an absolute and careful state of the art

measurement at or near the highest accuracy. So when we

or other organizations distribute SRM's we help you to make

accurate, recognized quantitative measurements of some

property, be it chemical or physical or mechanical. With

sensitive indicating instruments, your measurements will

be only slightly less accurate than those that could be

made at the primary laboratory where absolute values are

derived at much higher cost. So no general measurement

stratagem is more effective or more economical for

producing results that are compatible with those

anywhere else in the world. It enables all very

inexpensively to check raw materials uniformly and to

control production and assure themselves of the quality

of products.

However, as I said, AID advises NBS to cut this program out

almost completely and the reason is understandable. Countries

have not as yet told us that they are convinced that SRM's are

useful to them and that individual SRM's that we sent out have

solved specific problems for them. So AID cannot approve

further expenditures for SRM's. Already NBS has sent thousands

of them and we can only give one or two success stories of

only indirect help to the poor. Regretfully, but realistically, I must agree with Hubbell 's evaluation because this

is how AID should, and does, make a judgment. We have failed

despite some systematic attempts by me to find more on how the

SRM's had been used.

To some extent, therefore, the continuation of any project is

in your hands. If you find something was useful or could have

been useful, drop me even a handwritten note why it was useful

or failed to be useful. This would help me, NBS, and AID

achieve the common goal. The feedback to NBS on the usefulness

or uselessness of the NBS/AID program is very important.

I could comment similarly about the standards literature

distribution. I should acknowledge the great deal of help

received from standards publishing organizations in this

country who have made available to us literature free or

reduced in price for distribution abroad to national standards

bodies. It is doubtful, however, whether the mechanism

exists in most countries for appropriate distribution to

interested parties of information on the existence of this

1 iterature.

Post survey reviews of progress in countries have been

discussed to some extent in answer to questions, so I need

71
only reiterate the willingness of NBS and AID to organize

brief return team visits to discuss progress in standardization and measurement services and for resolution of

remaining problems.

10.) Most effective in transfer of competences from NBS to countries where they are needed is to send a guest scientist or

technologist to work with us for six months or so. Such

guests have to be linguistically and technically qualified

and well motivated.

I would like to conclude by thanking you, particularly the workshop

participants who have participated and thought about the NBS programs

to provide services to you as users. We seek your advice. Can you

think of more or other activities that we could undertake to support

more effectively your programs in your countries?

72
Discussion

Mr Pineda

Mr. Reiser said that he would like to have reactions as to the

usefulness of sending SRM's abroad. In investing abroad U.S. industry

must determine both the nature and quality of local materials to be

used in a given project. Good test methods are essential and it is

here that SRM's are valuable and much needed abroad, both by American

industry and the country receiving the investment.

Professor Steinberg

What is the attitude of NBS towards bilateral agreements? Mr. Reiser

talked mainly about NBS relations with IRT.

Dr. Brady

As you know, NBS is now undergoing a reorganization. One of the new

components arising from the reorganization is expected to be a Center

for International Technology. While the program for the Center is yet

to be defined, I expect that Mr. Reiser and I will have a great deal

to do with its activities. Both Dr. Ambler and Dr. Jordan Baruch, the

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology, support

the concept of such a Center and I am optimistic that its creation

will take place depending, of course, on approvals and funding through

the Office of Management and Budget and Congress. We hope that we

will in any event continue to have support from AID and that we will

be able modestly to expand the kind of things we have been doing

abroad.

Mr. Pineda

It should be our goal to gain the widest possible acceptance of

international standards. At the same time we should accept the

reality that in some practical cases regional or national standards

may be more acceptable than ISO standards. International standards

with grades of quality is an alternative.

Dr. Rhee

Why is the NBS agreement with IPT rather than INPM--the Brazilian

National Institution for Metrology?

Dr. Brady

There are several reasons why the agreement is with IPT, rather than

INRM. IRT was ready for technical collaboration and had manpower and

financial resources. INRM, on the other hand in many ways is quite a new organization and its mission was still being defined, its

73
facilities are being built up and its staff is being recruited. In

the long run, INPM is an organization with which NBS does very much

want to cooperate. Another consideration was that the State of S5o

Paulo had a loan from AID and was ready to proceed promptly. IPT

because of its structure is also a natural counterpart for NBS. NBS

has throughout its history been engaged in technological research and

has been a pioneer in many technical areas, such as aeronautics,

radio, building materials, and weather telemetering devices.

Mr. Alonso

INPM has grown rapidly and now has excellent facilities. The staff

has also grown and the organization is providing services of different

kinds for a variety of industries.

Mr. Arnold

In connection with the last question, one reason why the NBS/IPT

program is in existence is that the State of Sao Paulo also puts

substantial resources into this integrated program. This factor

played an important part in forging the relationship between NBS and

IPT. Would Ricardo Florez agree with my observation?

Mr. Florez

Yes and even much more. The State of S'ao Paulo was initiating a much

larger coherent development program (called PROCET) with an AID Loan

and more than twice, that is about $40 million, of its own money.

Several portions of this huge program involved IPT. In the area of

standardization and quality control one of these has the Denver

Research Institute as counterpart, the other uses NBS. Some other

portions of the PROCET had perhaps broader and "softer" management

objectives but they have been terminated by now either because they

completed their aims or because the Sao Paulo Government does not feel

further investments are needed. By contrast we have proposed only

last week an increase by over $1 million to governmental support of

NBS/IPT initiated projects and received a favorable hearing. We must

remember, however, that IPT will be expected more and more to operate

with financial independence from governmental support, except, of

course, when working on specific projects for the government.

Mr. Kahn

In response to Mr. Pineda, I agree that there are circumstances under

which you would do well to use national standards, but when transfer

of technology is offered, reference to international standards is an

advantage. With Mr. Reiser I agree that to help us you must make the

effort to understand our problems.

74
Mr. Alonso

Summing up this session, I would like to make a number of

observations. First, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to

Dr. Brady and Mr. Reiser for giving me this opportunity to serve as

your Chairman. I thank all of you for your patience.

Now coming to the substance of our discussions, I will review the

major points that have arisen during the day:

1. ) The NBS/AID program is clearly a very good and

successful one. I hope that it can be continued

and increased.

2. ) The question of emphasizing help to the poorest

sectors in the poorest nations came up several

times. Our major concern is development, by

which we mean the ability of a society to satisfy

the material, social, and cultural needs of its

citizens. It is reasonable for outside help to

be given to those societies and those elements

within them which have the greatest need.

3. ) With population increasing continuously, we

need to know how to provide the critical needs

of a society. These necessary resources must

either be produced internally or acquired from

outside.

4. ) Each country must train people who understand the

process of development. Development cannot

proceed effectively without knowledgeable people.

5. ) In order to assist people to acquire quickly the

required knowledge and essential skills, many

things are needed. Training in the field of

standards, metrology, and quality control is a key

factor in promoting efficiency and know-how.

6. ) Many differences exist between the standards institutions

of different countries because of history and tradition.

Some of them are more applied research oriented,

others work mostly in technological development and

still others are most concerned with engineering and

product standards.

7. ) Many gaps exist between developed and developing

countries--one that can be identified is the

difference in the way standards are developed and

used. Governments and even industries do not always.

75
recognize the importance of standards and thus neglect

this important area.

It is clear that the standards surveys conducted

under the NBS/AID program are extremely useful , but

they need very thorough preparation. In some

cases, follow-up activity has not been as effective

as it should be. I think that this is an area that

NBS would like to see improved in the future. NBS

capabilities are, however, limited. However, this

is very important and ways should be found to enlist

the assistance of some of the other well-established

standards institutes in follow-up activity.

It seems to be agreed that workshops are extremely

useful. However, since they have been aimed at

senior policy making officials, their usefulness

may be somewhat impaired because of the turnover

of officials who have been participants.

There seems to be a general agreement that

workshops should commence with a general overview

and then proceed to specialized visits and

discussions. Perhaps workshops can be organized

by NBS to address the needs of standards institutes

in Latin America.

With respect to institution building, it is clear

that the junior partner involved along the lines

of the NBS/IPT arrangement must possess a minimum

of resources and competence. An effective twoway arrangement must exist.

Development requires careful planning, persistence

and patience, and the harnessing of science and

technology. Ultimately the execution and the

implementation phase is the most critical.

It is of great importance that instrumentation

be purchased carefully and for the purposes intended,

so as to avoid non-use and waste. Instruments, when

properly serviced, maintained and used, fulfill a critical need for development.

The proper training of technical personnel is of the

highest importance so as to serve organizational needs

and objectives.

Management of standards institutions must obviously

be in the hands of good managers. The selection of

76
the right man for the job is clearly essential. The

OAS is very much concerned with this question, i.e.,

how to development managers who understand how to

apply science and technology for developmental

purposes

.

77

SESSION II - STANDARDIZATION IN THE U.S.A. - A RESOURCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Chairman: Mr. Hamilton Herman

79

SESSION II - STANDARDIZATION IN THE U.S.A. - A RESOURCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Chairman: Mr. Hamilton Herman

Paper 2.1 - Standardization in the United States

Mr. Richard 0. Simpson

President

R. 0. Simpson Associates

Washington, D. C.

Let me begin my discussion of "Standardization in the United States"

by acknowledging that there is no standard definition of a "standard."

To some it is a prescribed set of rules, conditions, or requirements

established by standards-setting bodies, concerning definition of

terms; classification of components; specification of materials,

performance, or operations; delineation of procedures; or measurement

of quantity and quality in describing materials, products, systems

services, or practices.

A much more manageable definition states that a standard is simply "an

agreed upon way of doing something." And, in fact, much of the

political discussion in Washington these days involving standards

focuses on "who should be a party to such agreements."

Standards are instruments by which buyers and sellers define their

mutual obligations. They also are instruments by which government can

assert its regulatory authority on behalf of the health and safety of

its citizens. As such, standards are essential for the orderly and

efficient conduct of domestic and international commerce and for the

protection of the economic and social interest of sellers, buyers and

consumers, both individual and industrial.

Standards can favorably or unfavorably affect consumer costs and

domestic and international trade. And they are surely significant

media for technology transfer both within a country and between

nations.

The total cost of standards activities in the United States is in the

neighborhood of $1 billion annually. This cost is shared

approximately equally by the public and private sectors, and this

standards activity involves tens of thousands of people. (One

estimate places the number at 55,000 in the private sector.)

In the United States, standards are written by several hundred private

organizations and by scores of government agencies at the federal,

state and local levels.

81
Let me briefly describe the private and governmental efforts.

Private-Sector Standards Activities

The national voluntary standards activity in our country includes the

standards-writing efforts of several hundred organizations. However,

about twenty of these organizations account for the bulk--about 90%--

of the estimated 25,000 nationally recognized voluntary standards

essential to an economy of the size of the United States. I would

like to briefly describe the roles of two of these organizations:

1. ) ANSI, the American National Standards Institute, which

manages and coordinates the U.S. voluntary standards

system, and

2. ) ASTM, the American Society for Testing and Materials,

probably the largest standards-writing body in the

United States.

American National Standards Institute

ANSI is a voluntary, non-profit organization founded in 1918 by five

professional societies and three agencies of the Federal Government

(Departments of Commerce, War and Navy). Its purpose was to provide a mechanism for coordinating the development of engineering and related

standards. From this beginning, ANSI has grown into a federation of

185 professional, technical, trade, labor, consumer, and governmental

organizations and approximately 800 individual firms who represent

virtually every facet of commerce, trade, and industry.

The purposes of ANSI, as provided in its New York State Charter, are

to

:

1. ) Provide a voluntary procedural mechanism for

management and coordination of American National

Standards

.

2. ) Provide criteria for approval of proposed standards

as American National Standards.

3. ) Provide a clearinghouse for 'national and international standards and standards information.

4. ) Provide for representation of U.S. voluntary standards

interests in international, non-treaty standards

organizations. The two principal groups are the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the

International El ectrotechnical Commission (lEC), both

international nongovernmental organizations headquartered

in Geneva.

82
5.) Provide a focal point for a government-nongovernment

interface where this is desired by government and the

voluntary standards systems.

All actions of, and by, ANSI are voluntary. Membership,

participation, and submissions of standards to ANSI by standardswriting organizations are voluntary. Use of promulgated American

National Standards by government at any level, and for any purpose, is

a separate and independent judgment or action on the part of

government officials. ANSI and its federated members not only

encourage but have enjoyed for years active participation by

government personnel at technical, administrative, and policy levels

of the Institute.

In the past several years, more and more private standards-writing

organizations have been motivated to work within the voluntary system

coordinated by ANSI. It is estimated that today approximately 90% of

the nation's non-governmental standards effort is voluntarily

coordinated by ANSI.

ANSI subjects all proposed standards actions submitted to them for

approval to a period of public review and comment, and requires that

all comments be fully and objectively considered. ANSI's public

review--which I personally believe is the most complete and

comprehensive of any national standards system in the world--is

conducted through a biweekly publication called Standards Action . It

is mailed to approximately 8,000 addressees, including 275 government

agencies--174 at the federal, 88 at state, and 13 at the local level.

Also included among the 8,000 recipients are approximately 1,400

mailings to various segments of the press--general , business,

consumer, trade and technical periodicals. ANSI's efforts to obtain

the views and comments of affected interests on proposed standards

provide a broad national consensus on completed documents.

ANSI derives its income from a variety of sources. Approximately onethird of its annual income is from company-member dues and this is

almost equally divided among large, medium-sized, and small industrial

and commercial concerns. In fact, 83% of ANSI's company members pay

annual dues of less than $1,000. The bulk of the Institute's income

is from the sale of voluntary standards at an average price of $2.50

each.

American Society for Testing and Materials

ASTM, the American Society for Testing and Materials, is an example of

one of the largest and most prestigious standards-writing

organizations in the United States; and in fact, in the world.

83
ASTM currently has jurisdiction over approximately 5,400 standards.

These standards are prepared by some 127 main technical committees of

ASTM which are, in turn, broken down into approximately 1,650

subcommittees and literally thousands of additional subgroups, known

in ASTM as task groups. There are at present 14,440 individuals

active in ASTM standards work who fill about 67,000 positions in the

committees and subcommittees.

These participants come from all conceivable societal interests in the

institutional structure of the United States relating to the work at

hand--government agencies; industrial concerns; universities; research

organizations; citizen groups; consulting organizations; labor unions;

etc.

The Committees of ASTM operate by virtue of the authority extended to

them by the Board of Directors of the Society. The basic condition of

use of this authority is that the committees operate strictly in

accordance with ASTM's standards -development procedures. Beyond that,

the actual work accomplished, the content of work, the emphasis of the

work, etc., are wholly in the hands of the committees themselves.

ASTM refers to their main committees as "semi -independent tribal

groups."

Although the annual operating budget of ASTM is a relatively modest $6

million, it is estimated that the participants in ASTM's committee

efforts spend an additional $110 million annually as a result of that

voluntary participation.

Over the past ten years, approximately 25,000 standards have been

developed by the private voluntary-standards system. A recent review

disclosed that no more than 50 of the standards actions during this

period were subject to dispute or appeal. All of the 50 were resolved

by using the appeals mechanisms available to parties within the

voluntary standards system. This record--only 0.02% of its standards

actions subject to appeal or dispute--has not been equalled by

departments or agencies of the Government.

Federal Government Standards

It is estimated that there have been approximately 50,000 standards

written at the Federal Government level.

These standards can be divided into roughly two categories--standards

for procurement and regulatory standards.

The General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of

Defense (DoD)--as big purchasers of goods and services--together

account for roughly 45,000 of the 50,000 federal standards (40,000 DoD

and 5,000 GSA).

84
Recent events indicate that the trend in federal procurement will be

away from the use of government-written standards and increasingly

towards the use of privately developed standards, wherever

practicable. In fact, DoD estimates that the last few years have seen

about 1,000 DoD standards declared obsolete and replaced by voluntary

standards

.

One of the forces behind the accelerating trend towards the expanded,

or preferred, use of "comnercial " standards is the direction embodied

in a White House directive currently being final ized--the 0MB Circular

on Standards.

This document was essentially developed over a 2 1/2 year period by

the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP), a committee with

senior representatives from 25 Federal Government agencies and chaired

by the Department of Commerce representative.

Under the directive, if private standards-writing organizations wish

to have their standards used by the Government and/or if they wish to

have Federal Government personnel participate in their standards

activities, then the private organizations must meet certain

requirements which include:

1. ) The private organization will have to employ

approved due-process procedures when arriving at

a consensus in its standards-writing committees.

2. ) The committees must be open and have a fair balance

among representatives of all affected interests.

3. ) They must provide for an identifiable and equitable

appeals procedure.

4. ) The private organization must agree to participate in

a federally operated appeals procedure to resolve

procedural disputes which have not been resolved by

the private appeals mechanisms.

In return, the 0MB Circular on Standards directs the federal agencies

to use private-sector consensus standards, whenever possible, in

preference to developing Government standards. The Circular also

encourages federal personnel to participate in private-sector

standards activities and additionally, it allows for both direct and

indirect financial aid to private standards activities.

Although regulatory standards constitute the smaller percentage of

Federal standards activity, they account for more than their share of

the confusion, dissension, and confrontation between the public and

private sectors. There have been over 50 new significant statutes

mandating standards in the United States in the last two decades.

85
During this period, we have seen the creation of new agencies, which

include the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC) which I chaired. In addition, we have seen the

broadening of the regulatory authority of many existing agencies.

Unfortunately, the increased federal activity with respect to

regulatory standards, has brought with it a change in the relationship

between the private-sector and the Government in standards matters.

Cooperation has been more and more replaced by confrontation in

standards matters, particularly in the last ten years.

The various statutes, as well as the policies adopted by the

regulatory agencies, provide for a complete range of possible

relationships between the Government and the private sector with

respect to regulatory standards. Let me outline but a few.

OSHA, at the outset, was required to publish as mandatory standards

all the existing relevant national voluntary consensus standards.

Over 1,200 such standards were mandated by OSHA in the first year.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has actively encouraged and

participated in private-sector standards activities through ANSI

coordination for years. The principal nuclear standards-writing

organizations in the private-sector are ASTM, ASME, IEEE, and ANSI.

NRC publishes these voluntary standards as "guidelines" which inform

the eleectrical utilities of acceptable ways to meet NRC's mandatory

requirements

.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently is cooperating

with ANSI to identify needed standards in noise abatement and control

and solid waste management areas.

There are many more examples of cooperation--or the lack thereof--too

numerous to identify and discuss in this forum.

Standards & Technology Transfer

In my opinion, it goes without saying that the standardization process

offers one of the more efficient and widespread means of technology

transfer. Active participation in the standardization process allows

for an exchange among experts of both written and oral views involving

the latest technology. Also, one can share in this technology

transfer without prior participation by buying, at an extremely low

relative cost, the standards which govern the trading in the

marketplace, be it national or international.

86
However, a recognition of the positive role and contribution of

standards as a means of technology transfer does not automatically

suggest to me that the subject of standards should be included on the

agenda of the upcoming U.N. Conference on Science and Technology.

In fact, the founding fathers of the United Nations, in 1946, did

consider whether international standardization should, or should not,

be a part of the U.N. framework and decided, wisely I believe, that it

should not. Consequently, ISO, the International Organization for

Standardization, was formed as an international non-governmental body

because of the then prevailing opinion that standards and politics

were not a good mix.

To realistically discuss the role of science and technology in

industrial development, one needs to start with an appreciation and

understanding of science and technology in the development of a business enterprise--the process of technological innovation.

This would involve consideration of such things as:

1.) the role of the inventor;

2.) the role of patents;

3.) the role of the entrepreneur;

4.) the role of risk capi tal

;

5.) the rol e of government regulation;

6.) the role of organized labor;

7.) the role of standards.

Too often, when we talk of technology as a force in our economy, we

only focus on the few outward manifestations of technology--patents

,

technical reports, laboratories, and technical standards.

Also, we often assign far too much importance to these items when we

negotiate on the subject of technology transfer between governments.

For instance, most students of innovation recognize that for every one

dollars invested in acquiring a patent, an additional one hundred

dollars will need to be invested to gain the needed know-how during

the product development, prototype, and pre-production phases before

anything reaches the marketplace.

When we negotiate for the transfer of technology through patents only,

we are therefore dealing with about one percent of what the recipient

of the technology actually needs. And the problem is compounded if

the discussions treat all patents as equal. Too often, in the past.

87
government owned patents have loomed large in discussions when they

embody little of commercial value anyhow.

There are discussions in the United States today over whether we

should reduce or modify the present way we treat capital gains taxes

from stock purchases. To many, if not most, this would be considered

to be a "tax" issue and not a "technology" issue.

And yet, without the incentive of a favorable capital gains tax, will

we have the risk capital made available to the entrepreneur? And

without the entrepreneur will we really see the continued growth in

our new science and technology related enterprises? I think not.

What I'm really suggesting is that perhaps the United States should

urge that the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for

Development should include as agenda items subjects such as the tax

structure rather than the far too typical subject of patents,

standards, etc. Perhaps then I would be more confident that the

outcome would be more meaningful.

In my opinion, a review of United States' past performance, where the

general subject of technology transfer has been discussed in

intergovernmental forums, will show a generally counter-productive

result. I would not like to see this repeated.

88
SESSION II - STANDARDIZATION IN THE U.S.A. - A RESOURCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Paper 2.2 - International Standards Bodies and

their Relations with Developing Countries

Mr. Robert N. Johnson

Manager

Industry Standards and Systems

U.S. Steel Corporation

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. I want to start off by

saying that on the West Coast of the United States there is an intense

rivalry between two universities, the University of California and

Stanford University. Dick Simpson represents the University of

California, I attended Stanford. I do not acknowledge that because he

came first we have given up anything to the University of California.

I would also like to say that what I say this morning are my own

ideas. They are not company ideas; they do not necessarily reflect

ASTM, AISI, ASME, SAE, or any of the other organizations with whom I have worked or have strong relationships. When I was given this

subject of international standards bodies in relation with developing

countries I was not sure what you really wanted to know. First of

all, did you want to know what those relations are or did you want to

know what I think they ought to be? There is a difference.

The developing countries, in my experience, which incidentally is

mostly in ISO areas in TC17 in steel and TC20 in aerospace, have not

shown a great deal of interest in attending or participating in the

ISO work. Now this may not be true in the many other ISO committees

and it may not be true in lEC work. Leon Podolsky who follows is an

expert in that area and would be able to speak more to that point than

I. But I have noted that there are only a few countries who

participate or are observer members in the work with which I have been

involved. Yet in the steel area, almost every country in the world is

intensely interested and is usually involved in either producing or

purchasing these items. I do not know whether the lack of attendance

and participation is because they are not interested or because they

lack the funds, or because there is a lack of technical background in

the country, or whether we really have not done a good job in

interesting those countries in participating. I think there are many

reasons why they should participate. First of all, if I were in a developing country I would look over the areas in international

standards work where that country has the most interest. For example,

if the country produces steel I would then certainly expect that we

would be interested in participating in the areas in ISO where steel

standards are developed. If we only purchased steel, I would be

interested from the standpoint of how better to procure that product

89
at the least possible cost to my country. I think that these are two

areas that ought to be considered by developing countries when they

look at international standardization work.

There are many areas where one could benefit. I would think that

first of all if you had an industry in your country that is covered by

an ISO standardization organization you would want to participate from

the standpoint that there may be something that you could learn from

those nations and better your own industry. I do not mean to say that

the people who are participating in ISO work know all the answers, and

if you do participate you will readily see that there are many

discussions, sometimes heated discussions, between the developed

countries regarding what a standard should say, and what a standard

should require. I think that this is an area where all of us learn.

You would also learn, for example, that in one developed nation

perhaps they are not as interested in having very restrictive

tolerances as another developing country may desire to have.

Bill Andrus, in 1975, mentioned that he did not think one standard was

necessarily the ideal situation for the world, and I may be misquoting

you Bill, but this is the impression I got, that maybe four or five

standards for individual areas would do a better job, and I agree with

that.

ISO standards are not always the best possible standards. They are

many times watered down so that they will cover all of the countries

involved and not restrict any of them too greatly. In that regard, if

you are interested in a particular area in ISO and you look at the

standards, you could then compare them with the national standards of

some of the developed countries involved and you might find in the

case of a number of industrial products, in which I have had

experience, that the ISO standard, while calling out the proper test

and proper chemistry in other areas, may not be as restrictive in

tolerances. Therefore, you might benefit by using, for example, in

the United States, an ASTM standard. In that case you would be

getting the benefit in tighter tolerances that are offered in that

particular area in the United States. This is not always true but you

would learn that by studying these standards. You would also be able

to tell, for example, in the discussions in which you participated

(You could do this by correspondence, incidentally. You do not have

to attend the meetings; you would receive all the correspondence

involved.) what some of the problems are in the areas in which you

might be interested and you would find a different approach from

different countries. I think those are some of the benefits that you

might pick up if you were to participate in the ISO work. I think you

could also participate in some of the work in the individual

countries, and ASTM, for example, has many foreign members, countries

who are members by the fact that they receive all the correspondence.

Usually they do not have voting status, not because it is not allowed

by ASTM but because of the fact that most of the documents are sent by

sea mail and before they would arrive the ballot would be closed, but

90
comments are always taken into account for the next revision of an

ASTM document. There also you can benefit by the transfer of

technology through standards. There are many such areas that I think

would be a benefit to you.

Another area that I think would be of benefit to a country,

particularly a country purchasing a product covered by an

international standard, would be that you may be able to purchase that

product at a lower cost if your standard, your own country standard,

does not call out specialized tests. I'll rely on a little bit of my

personal experience in my country for this example. We have had at

one time in one of our mills, orders from four different countries for

the same product calling for four different types of tests. None of

these tests was standard in the United States. Special tests are

almost always called for as an extra, that is, you would pay extra for

that particular test. It had been determined many years previously by

consensus in our country and usually in the ISO groups, that these

specialized tests, while gathering good scientific background for

research type of knowledge, would not necessarily be of any benefit

for a commercial item. If, in fact, you learned this and you deleted

such requirements, the cost to your country would be appreciably less

for that product. I am sure this multiplies many times in other

products because my area, of course, is quite limited. There are so

many products in which the same theory must hold true. I think that

it should be an area to be considered by developing countries. I know

that if you as developing countries wanted to participate in the ISO

work, in the standardization work of an organization like ASTM, your

interest would be very welcome. First of all, I do not believe any of

the developed countries feel that they know all the answers. There

are many times when a developing country has a specific knowledge that

will be very helpful. I think that this would benefit ISO and it

would benefit the standards writing organization involved. It would

then give a broader perspective to the entire picture and I believe

that is what we really need. I do not know whether these examples I have given hold true across the board and you might be able to cite

many examples where they are not true. I do believe that there are

many cases where you can benefit. We have also found in some of the

ISO work that where a developing country has participated the

participation has been generally with the scientific community

involved basically from the academic area and their experience and

background is not necessarily of commercial experience. And if you

are talking about commerical products that are used everyday it would

be very beneficial if your group can be represented in part by someone

who has commercial experience. I believe that will assist in

eliminating some of the requirements that may be very fine from the

academic standpoint, but not quite as useful in the commercial world.

I believe, therefore, that these things can all balance out and that

if you are able to participate you can do a great deal of good for the

organizations in which you participate and I believe that they will be

able to do some good in your areas. I am not going to be able to be

91
here for the balance of the morning and, therefore, if there are any

questions I would entertain them now Mr. Chairman.

92
Discussion

Eng. Estrada

I have some doubts as to the use of standards as a means of

transferring technology. Standards may represent certain aspects of

technology but they do not provide the real essence of all that is

needed in technology transfer.

Mr. Johnson

You have an excellent point. The standard itself may not tell you a great deal about the technology. However, I have found through

experience in ISO and ASTM that the discussions about standards have

been very revealing as to the nature of the technology. Discussions,

for example, between country representatives have often been very

beneficial in imparting technological knowledge and the reasons for

its selection. Informal give and take at these sessions have been

particularly informative.

Mr. Pineda

If LDC's do not participate as fully in ISO and lEC as is desirable it

is because of financial limitations. Furthermore, the needs of the

developing countries are not always reflected in ISO and lEC. These

organizations do recognize the need for regional standards. COPANT

and ASMO are good examples of regional bodies that perform well.

Mr. Johnson

You have made another very good point. That is why I raised the

question of whether ISO is really showing enough interest in doing the

things it should. Mr. Andrus , for instance, believes that a few

regional standards, that can be effectively used, may ultimately have

more acceptance.

Eng. Estrada

What is the real meaning of an "international standard"? Is it one

that suits a group of nations? All nations? What is the meaning of

the Pan American Regional Organization? I have a feeling that we are

often talking only about "European" standards.

Mr. Johnson

I think there is a real interest in Europe now in developing standards

that are acceptable in Asia and Latin America. Some countries, such

as Denmark, have stated that they are disbanding their standardswriting bodies in favor of adopting ISO standards. Other countries

are taking similar action which means that their products using ISO

93
standards should be acceptable almost anywhere in the world. We may

never achieve full international acceptance but a large majority of

countries may adopt standards similar to the international norms.

Mr. Allijah

How far has the United States gone in adopting ISO standards?

Mr. Johnson

If the United States has not agreed to an ISO standard as shown in the

front of the document we would not adopt it. When specialized tests

are accepted by the United States we would use them in the United

States. ISO generally calls out tests that are acceptable to all the

countries involved.

Mrs. Mascarinas

We in the Philippines cannot afford to take part in ISO meetings.

Nevertheless, we try to use ISO standards. In all cases we consider

their specific applicability to our conditions and needs.

Mr. Johnson

ANSI has put together a standards conference for the countries in the

Pacific area (PASC) which includes the Philippines, so there will be

an opportunity for you to have a voice in ISO work. I know that your

standards are based on ISO.

Dr. Goldman

It is my belief that the purpose of international standards is to

facilitate international trade. When one country buys a product from

another, it knows the characteristics to which the product should

conform. It is very important for a developing country to have an

input into the process of developing standards and to appreciate its

value, because their products can then conform to acceptable standards

and their trade will be enhanced.

Mr. Norwick

We in the United States also have problems attending ISO meetings due

to the lack of funds. For example, we will not be able to attend a carpet meeting in Ghent largely for this reason. In my experience the

technology interchange is an extremely valuable part of the standards

writing process.

94
Mr. Pineda

ISO could help by having more meetings in the United States, thus

facil -'tating participation by the Latin American countries.

Mr. Johnson

That is correct and ISO is leaning in the direction of holding more

meetings in the United States.

95

SESSION II - STANDARDIZATION IN THE U.S.A. - A RESOURCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Paper 2.3 - The Mechanism for the Development and Use of Standards

to Transfer Technology and Develop Business

Dr. Leon Podolsky

President

U.S. National Committee of the International

El ectrotechnical Commission

New York, New York

At any given point in time, the state of the art in any technological

field can be quickly gauged by the content of the national and

international standards that exist or are being developed for that

field. It is no accident that in practically all of the industrially

developed countries of the world, both western and eastern, free

enterprise and socialist alike, there are strong national standards

organizations. Through participation in the activities of these

standards organizations, the scientists, engineers, and businessmen of

these countries keep continuously abreast of the art in their fields

of interest.

Why is this so? First, a product standard is, in essence, primarily a document to facilitate commerce by bringing about a common

understanding and agreement between buyer and seller. A standard can,

therefore, be a powerful marketing tool. A safety or environmental

standard, an agricultural standard, or a procedural standard for

business or civic activity, all of which may result in legislative

action or governmental enforcement, are after all, only means of

expressing the common agreement of the most informed persons on what

it is practical to impose in the way of limits in the light of

existing knowledge. It follows, therefore, that the easiest way to

come quickly abreast of the state of the art in any field is to first

study the existing and in process standards for that field, both

national and international.

Secondly, the well established mechanisms for the development of

consensus standards in national, and particularly international,

standards-making bodies are such as to expose for discussion technical

proposals that represent the best state of the art of interest to

trade. Direct participation in the standards-making bodies,

therefore, provides the opportunity to listen, to receive the

documentation, to meet and question the experts, and to obtain

firsthand the scientific and technical rationale for their proposals.

No other mechanism can produce more directly practical transfer of

technical knowledge at such low cost.

97
Anyone wishing to buy or sell any commodity, or to develop a market

for a product, or to obtain the information on which to establish

trading rules, if he is to be efficient and successful, must pay first

attention to the existing standards which he must meet. To fail to

conform to such standards is to confront a closed door to trade

opportunities. Where no standards exist, the opportunity is even

greater for accumulating knowledge of a field, a material, or a technology by introducing proposals for standardization in the proper

organizations, and participating in their development. The nation or

organization which can convince the standards-making body to include

the properties or parameters of its material or product in a standard

immediately lessens any sales resistance to its material or product,

and opens the doors to its offered goods, for it can at once say that

its articles meet the established standards.

Any effective standard, whether national or international, contains in

some fashion the following basic elements: definitions and

terminology; product description; acceptable performance criteria

(sometimes in classes or grades); and test methods and procedures.

Also, increasingly in recent years, requirements for quality assurance

including sampling plans, AQL and reliability limits, and safety

criteria are called for, especially on high technology manufactured

goods

.

In order to be fully responsive to the needs of his customer, a supplier in today's competitive world must thoroughly understand and

utilize standards as a means of communication and agreement with the

customer. To be able to influence the content of a standard with

regard to any of the aforementioned parameters is to control and

preserve the opportunity to compete, and to fail to do so is to allow

the competition to make trade difficult in subtle and overt ways. A

non-understood terminology, dimensions or tolerances only slightly

different, performance criteria only slightly more or less rigorous,

or non-standard test methods and procedures, can make any product or

home technology non-transferable or non-acceptable in a foreign

market.

In order to illustrate how the international standardization process

operates to educate and facilitate the transfer of technology, let us examine the structure and procedures of the lEC, and the U.S. National

Committee of the lEC. In this examination we will see how these

structures and procedures serve to inform all nations, large and

small, developed and underdeveloped, large business organizations and

small ones, on the current state of technology in a field and what

level of technology is needed to participate and compete effectively

in the marketplace.

The lEC is a 73 year old organization of, presently, 42 participating

nations, each of which is required to have a national committee for

its participation. The ruling bodies of the I EC are its Council in

98
which all nations have an equal vote, and its elected Committee of

Action, which controls the work of its technical committees.

The lEC has some 186 technical committees and sub-committees, each

dealing with a specialized subject. These subjects cover the whole

field of electrical and electronics technology as to definitions and

terminology, test methods and procedures, materials, component parts,

apparatus, systems, and electro-magnetic compatibility. They cover

such simple devices as resistors, and the most sophisticated

scientific technology of semi-conductors and fiber optics.

For each technical committee there is an official international

Secretariat, entrusted by the lEC Committee of Action to the national

committee of a specific country. The work of all the Secretariats,

and of all the technical committees, is subject to the control of the

Committee of Action and is coordinated by the I EC Central Office in

Geneva. Any member nation is entitled to, and welcome to,

participation in every technical committee and subcommittee, and

receives all of the standards proposals, technical documents, and

minutes of the technical committees. The lEC technical committees

generally meet formally every 12 to 18 months, but the technical work

proceeds continuously in working groups and by mail document

circulation.

According to a recently adopted lEC policy, new work in a technical

committee is only undertaken if it is shown to be of importance to

international trade by the voted request of at least three

participating nations in a technical committee. When this occurs, the

Secretariat invites the technical experts of the participating

countries to submit proposed standards on the subject matter, or other

technical documentation from which a proposal can be drafted. From

these a Secretariat draft standard is prepared and circulated to all

national committees, with comments invited. At the next meeting of

the committee, the draft and all submitted comments are discussed by

the technical expert delegates from the participating countries.

This is a highly educational process, for at once the general state of

the art is revealed, and the latest technology on all subject matter

is usually discussed and put forward for inclusion in the proposed

standard. At this point an underdeveloped nation, or a developed one,

can quickly learn what it must have or do to be effective in competing

in the marketplace for the material, article, or system being

standardized.

Following discussion of the Secretariat draft, which may take place in

several successive meetings, a six-months' trial document is produced

by the Secretariat which includes all the technical agreements reached

in the plenary meetings. National committees comment and vote on the

contents and acceptability of the six-months' trial document as a standard for use in their countries. Again, the results of this six99
months' procedure are considered and discussed in a committee meeting,

and if necessary, a following two-months' procedure document is

processed with final changes. When this document has been voted on

and accepted by 80% of the participating nations in the committee, the

document is printed and published as an lEC international standard.

The committee meetings, the circulation of the various national

comments, the discussion of the technical content, and the personal

contacts with the technical experts of the respective countries, are

the most rapid and effective way to acquire knowledge of the

technology and state of the art on any of the subjects.

The U.S. National Committee of the lEC, which helped found the lEC in

1904 and has participated continuously since, is now a formally

integrated body of the American National Standards Institute, (ANSI).

It is organized as elected officers, a fifteen member elected

Executive Committee, and 172 elected technical advisers. Each

technical adviser is the chairman of a technical advisory group of

experts acting for one of the lEC technical committees or subcommittees in which the United States participates. Membership in the

technical advisory groups is open to any technically qualified person

who has an interest and wishes to participate. These advisory group

members, and the technical advisers, come from large businesses and

many small ones, from agencies of government, colleges and

universities, trade associations, professional societies, and

knowledgeable individuals. They now total approximately 4,000 persons

in the 172 groups.

By this mechanism, the current state of the art in the world on any of

the technical subjects is disseminated nationwide to anyone having an

interest, even to the smallest enterprise. By participation of

experts from many branches of government, information is supplied to

and received from agencies which have control of or propose

legislative action on subject matter of general national interest such

as radiological safety or occupational hazards.

Representatives of small businesses keep themselves abreast of the

latest technology of even the corporate giants in their field through

their participation.

As can be seen from the foregoing, I believe, from 45 years of

industry and professional experience, and almost as many years in

national and international standards work, that any business

enterprise and any nation can profit, obtain technology, and immensely

improve its ability to compete in the world's business by full and

effective participation in standards development. To do so requires

only a modest investment in qualified manpower and annual financial

outlay, and the rewards are great.

100
The national underwriting of even a few standards internships in the

proper organizations can lead to the development of whole new

industries, or greater acceptance of indigenous products, for

developing nations. The U.S. Department of State could well make it a direct program of bilateral discussion and assistance to many friendly

developing nations which can profit from such a program. There are

several major U.S. organizations such as ANSI, ASTM, ASME, etc., which

can directly assist in a U.S. Department of State program for training

in developmental work with the standards organizations of less

developed countries, and for participation in international standards

bodies that promote membership by less developed countries such as ISO

and lEC.

In closing, it is well to point out that the history of the USNC/IEC

is replete with examples of small or modest sized companies that have

learned from and profited immensely in the development of substantial

overseas trade through their participation in our work. The history

of the lEC has several examples of nations that have acquired the

technological standards for the establishment and guidance of domestic

industries through their participation.

If we are to seriously consider the trade benefits that will accrue

from the promotion of the well-being of less developed countries, the

U.S. State Department should begin now to incorporate the technology

of the international (bilateral) use of standards in the Department of

State attache training programs.

101

Discussion

Mr. Herman

A review of patent literature can bring important benefits. If one

surveys patent literature it is possible to find out what creative

people were thinking. This can be a great educational experience. In

the printing industry, for example, a survey of patents showed how the

industry progressed from mechanics to electrochemistry and

electromagnetics. It also became clear that the traditional companies

in the printing industry were not doing the right kind of research for

the future. Outside companies were developing processes that would

profoundly affect the way the printing industry would develop.

Professor Steinberg

I fully agree with Dr. Podolsky as to the importance of the lEC.

Argentina has participated in the I EC from its inception.

Mr. George Newbery, an Argentine-born engineer, was a pioneer in this

field. We will continue our association with the lEC in a modest way

and we benefit from participation in some working groups.

Mrs. Djaprie

Indonesia is also a member of ISO and lEC. We use lEC standards, but

regret that some important standards have not yet been promulgated. I hope lEC will take into account the needs of LDC's.

Dr. Podolsky

Until very recently developing countries have not participated in lEC.

No one has been there to ask for particular standards such as for

rural electrification. The United States has codified its standards

for rural electrification and I am sure that its delegate to the lEC

would be glad to make the entire book available if asked by lEC in

response to LDC interests. In that way the relevant technology could

be quickly transferred. This will not happen unless a delegate from a developing country requests the technical material of interest to his

country. As a member of the Council of the lEC, I would be pleased to

support requests by developing country delegates for technical

standards and ancillary material that they might find useful.

Mr. Abulyosr

I would like to ask about a committee on industrial and electrical

meters. Is this a committee of lEC or OIML?

103
Dr. Podolsky

lEC has a long standing committee on standards for measuring

instruments and well developed standards for electrical measurement.

Mr. Andrus

OIML is involved with the legal application of standards in national

laws and it does use lEC and ISO standards as a basis for the

development of model laws and regulations.

Mr. Pineda

The key question here is how to facilitate developing country

participation in ISO and lEC. I would propose that the Department of

Commerce look into ways of sponsoring such participation and extending

financial assistance for this purpose. The United Nations should also

consider this question.

Eng. Estrada

We need to achieve a competent level in science and technology to

participate in ISO and lEC. Without that, participation is not

practical or effective. Also one needs both experience and an

economic interest. Economic interest is perhaps the key factor in

such participation. Careful planning for participation is also very

important.

Mr. Herman

Do you have a shortage of technical people?

Eng. Estrada

That is an interesting question. In some cases we have very good

people with adequate technical and scientific knowledge--from

universities, for example. However, without commercial experience

also and familiarity with production problems, participation in

technical committees is not useful. Standardization is basically a practical matter, not a scientific problem.

Dr. Podolsky

I agree with Eng. Estrada that standards must be prepared by competent

people who have an understanding of the needs of the business

community and the nation. I said earlier that a product standards is

a document that facilitates commerce. No country should send its

scientific personnel to meetings of standards committees purely for

social purposes. Developing countries with scarce financial resources

should base their participation on economic need, international trade.

104
production, and development of domestic standards for specific

purposes, etc.

Dr. Kahn

We are not interested in all ISO meetings. Meetings of ISO in

Bangladesh would be most welcome and beneficial to us.

I would like to cite an example. When I was in Pakistan, a large

order of pig iron was imported from Moscow, but the specifications

were not included and the iron received could not be used. There is

no doubt in our minds as to the benefit of standards. A standard is

also a guideline for national production.

Mr. Shapiro

Scientific input is clearly needed in addition to the contributions of

people with commercial experience. When test methods are needed in

connection with validation of a standard, lack of scientific knowledge

could lead to a worthless test method. The use of outdated or

absolute test methods simply increases the economic cost of a product.

So both scientific and commercial expertise is essential in standards

making.

Dr. Podolsky

I agree that scientific expertise is required since a great deal of

standards making requires absolute precision for measurement and

testing. Developing country representatives can learn a great deal

about what to buy and what to sell by participating in the

international standards making process.

Mr. Simpson

I have participated in discussions of standards issues in the ECE and

OECD and recently as head of a U.S. delegation to GATT in which

efforts are being made to develop a code of conduct for international

standards, so that standards will facilitate rather than hinder trade.

I have also participated in ISO and lEC but I doubt that I have heard

anything new in the last five years. There is much discussion in

these organizations of the benefits and rewards of participation. I am not at all sure that anyone really uses ISO and lEC standards.

About eight years ago a study made for ISO by the German standards

organization examined international usage of ISO standards. If they

were used more than occasionally they were counted as useful. Under

that definition the study found that less than 15% of ISO standards

were actually used. A recent Japanese study of standards relating to

a good cross section of Japan's import-export trade ranked the

applicable standards used roughly as follows: first, ASTM; second.

105
DIN; third, ANSI; Japan about fifth, and ISO was seventh or eighth. I really do not know who uses these "documents."

Dr. Podolsky

I must take issue with my good friend Dick Simpson. I do not think

that it is correct to say that ISO and lEC standards are not used

around the world. Please bear in mind that until about two years ago,

lEC "standards" were called "recommendations." What they attempt to

do is establish the "state of the art" for national committees to the

lEC on which national standards could be based. If you look at the

national standards of any major country and compare them with lEC

standards, you will find that perhaps as much as 65% of national

standards are based on lEC. At present under legal requirements, a number of European countries, such as Holland, Germany, Denmark, and

France, give legal effect to lEC standards when they vote for them.

The situation is changing rapidly and lEC standards which essentially

establish agreed levels of technology are being used more widely as a basis for national standards.

Mr. Simpson

I like to debate with Leon Podolsky and I recognize his observations.

Mrs. Mascarinas

In the Philippines, standards committees have representatives from all

interested parties.

Mr. Pineda

Chile does use ISO and lEC standards as guidance in the formulation of

Chilean standards. One useful action taken by Chile which we might

adopt in the United States, is to list the major standards which have

been consulted in preparing their national standards.

Eng. Estrada

In my own experience, I have observed that some representatives of

consumer interests do not have sufficient scientific and technical

background and knowledge to participate in the writing of standards.

Our policy is to give all relevant sectors an opportunity to

participate in standards writing but the finished standard tends to

represent the interests of the producers. It is not possible to

separate the standard from the method of measurement. A specification

without a method of analysis is meaningless, and the converse is also

true. In many cases, the definition of the standard is not scientific

but practical as it relates to commerce. The standard should indeed

be practical

.

106
Mr. Shapiro

Definitions ensure agreement between buyer and seller. Standards are

procuring instruments. When the buyer procures against a standard, he

wants to be certain that he is getting what he is asking for.

Definitions must thus be expressed very carefully.

Mr. Gikandi

Why is participation in I EC standards developing committees strictly

limited to representatives of full member countries?

Dr. Podolsky

Let me clarify in response to your question. In order to have a vote,

either in an lEC Committee or the lEC Council, you must be a member.

The lEC would, of course, welcome observers from developing countries.

I cannot conceive of a situation where a developing country would be

refused if it asked to send an observer to an lEC meeting.

Mr. Peiser

I appreciate Dr. Podolsky's clarification. Attendance at lEC meetings

is a very good way to be introduced to the standards development

system. In our various NBS/AID surveys I have emphasized the points

made by Dr. Podolsky. It is the very openness of the system which

makes the technology inherent in the standard readily accessible. It

might be useful for members of lEC technical committees to give

lectures in LDC's on their views of how work of a specific technical

committee proceeded and what the value may be to developing countries.

This could perhaps be done under an experimental AID program.

Dr. Podolsky

Mr. Peiser has made a very valuable suggestion. Any developing

country wishing to send an observer to an lEC meeting should address

its request to the lEC Central Office. Please send me a copy and I can assure you that I will see that you receive an invitation to

attend.

Dr. Pikus

Mr. Simpson has said that ISO might be strengthened in some way.

Would he care to indicate how that might be done?

Mr. Simpson

I have a personal suggestion. When I was in the GATT standards

negotiations, we were urging about 70 participating countries to take

part in international standards making activities. We wanted to reach

107
an accord by which we would urge the use in our own country of a standard to which we had agreed. We noted that lEC and ISO were the

primary international standards making bodies. We looked at the level

of use of standards and their number and concluded that there needed

to be a great acceleration in development of useful standards from

these two bodies. I think lEC and ISO might adopt an alternative

method of arriving at an international standard. Both bodies now use

the "consensus" method of adopting standards, as we do in the U.S.

standard. There is another method which ISO and lEC could adopt,

i.e., the "canvass" approach. If ISO and lEC took existing standards

in use anywhere in the world and submitted them to countries for

recognition through an agreed balloting method, then I think the

number and use of international standards could be accelerated. My

personal opinion is that, if the GATT standards code achieves

recognition, ISO and lEC must take some action along these lines or go

out of business

.

Mr. Pineda

COPANT was continually being told that it was desirable to use ISO

standards. In discussing ways in which the Latin American countries

could participate more fully in ISO and lEC, it was said that the fee

structure of these organizations was too high, in some cases exceeding

the budgets of the national standards institutes. If greater use of

ISO and lEC standards is desirable, a way must be found for all

countries to participate and have a vote.

108
SESSION II - STANDARDIZATION IN THE U.S.A. - A RESOURCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Paper 2.4 - Measurement Science in the United States

Dr. A. 0. McCoubrey

Director

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to represent Dr. Ambler at this

time on the final afternoon of your eighteen-day visit to the United

States. I'm sure that you have many impressions from your extensive

travel in our country, and I hope that your experiences will increase

the possibilities for cooperation and collaboration between our

countries in the future.

My topic this afternoon is measurement science in the United States.

This is, of course, an extensive topic, and I can only try to point

out some of the more general features. With this in mind, I will:

° first outline the history of the need for measurement

standards in the United States;

° I would like to indicate some of the factors which

affect the climate of opportunities for measurement

science in the United States;

° I will next describe a few examples of modern advances

in measurement science;

° finally, I want to talk about some of the outstanding

issues as we approach the end of the twentieth century.

Measurement science is often perceived to be an uninspiring science

with most of the important problems solved and few connections with

the advancing frontiers of knowledge. This is certainly not the case

in the United States, and I hope that I can leave you with the

impression that challenging opportunities are increasing even more

rapidly than ever before.

Historical Need for Measurement in the United States

The need for accurate measurements as a basis for the exchange of

goods in international commerce was present in the earliest years of

this nation at the close of the eighteenth century. This need was

critical in connection with foreign trade and, therefore, the

officials in the customs houses located in the largest shipping ports

of the nation were most concerned. To meet these basic needs, a small

109
Office of Weights and Measures was established in 1836 as a part of

the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey.

By 1875, the importance of international coordination of measurement

standards had become widely recognized and the United States joined

with 16 other nations in signing the Treaty of the Meter and

organizing the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. At about

this time, some of the large industrial nations established major

science based national standards institutions. However, another

quarter of a century passed before the United States established a modern National Bureau of Standards in order to assure the use of the

latest advances of science and technology to meet the needs of the

rapidly expanding electrical industry, the machinery industries, and

later on those industries engaged in mass production for growing

levels of mass consumption of products such as automobiles. The

original Office of Weights and Measures was combined with the National

Bureau of Standards and the new agency became responsible for the

national measurement standards required by modern industry as well as

those required for commercial exchange of goods in domestic and

international trade. You have met with Mr. Wollin, Chief of the

Office of Weights and Measures. His office continues to be a very

important component of the National Bureau of Standards.

During the past 76 years, the National Bureau of Standards has

maintained a highly competent and respected scientific staff in order

to assure the application of modern scientific advances to

measurements. These applications have continued to increase with the

growth of our technology intensive economy. You are well aware, I am

sure, that some of our most urgent national problems now involve the

impacts of the use of technology upon the environment and public

safety. As you would expect, therefore, some of our most important

needs for new measurement science are dominated by these problems.

Thus, today we find that in the United States we must continue to

encourage the development of measurement science, not only to meet the

needs of commerce and industry, but also to meet increasing needs

related to government regulations which protect the environment and

safety. In this connection, we need not only new and more advanced

standards for measurement and methods of measurement, but we also need

higher levels of measurement capability distributed throughout the

nation in both the private and public sectors.

The Climate for Measurement Science in the United States

I want to say just a few words about the climate or the conditions for

measurement science in the United States. I am sure that you will

agree that there are many factors which influence the need for

measurement science and the opportunities for productive work in this

field. For example:

110
° As one of the most industrialized nations of the

world, we experience all the driving forces which

demand an increasing variety of measurements and

increasing levels of accuracy and precision.

° Our system of business enterprise creates the

conditions for industry to make major contributions

to measurement science. In addition, these conditions lead to forces which demand high quality

measurements at the lowest cost.

° The scientific research carried out in our widely

distributed universities provides a major contribution to our measurement science.

° Our Federal Government agencies which have technology

intensive responsibilities also make important

contributions. Furthermore, they create demands

for new kinds of measurement and new levels of accuracy,

thereby stimulating the work of other institutions.

These factors are, of course, also present to varying degrees in other

countries. However, they all play such a strong role here that I think it may be said that the climate for measurement science is

unique in the United States.

While the National Bureau of Standards has a special responsibility to

perform research in measurement science, it is important to emphasize

that the advances in the United States involve essential contributions

from all of our scientific institutions of our society. We have

contributions from the public sector, including all of our government

and our state universities' scientific laboratories, as well as

contributions from the private sector which include industrial

research laboratories and private universities. Indeed, many of the

advances in measurement science which are made in the United States

are built upon the basic scientific knowledge from laboratories

throughout the world.

Some Examples of Recent Progress

During the past twenty-five years, there have been dramatic advances

in measurement science which have made it possible to realize some of

the basic units of measurement at higher levels of accuracy. Many of

these advances have also made it possible to transfer these units from

primary national measurement standards to secondary standards at the

points where they are needed with increased precision and reduced

cost. Our increasing knowledge of atomic and molecular physics

leading to high resolution spectroscopy in the radio frequency

spectrum and also leading to coherent laser radiation sources has made

111
some of these advances possible. Our increasing knowledge of the

physics of superconductors has made others possible. I would like

mention briefly three examples.

1. ) Unit of Time . As you know, the SI unit of time has

been defined in terms of a particular resonance of

Cs^^^ since the thirteenth General Conference of

Weights and Measures in 1967. It is now possible

to realize this unit with an accuracy of 13

significant figures in at least three of the principal

national standards laboratories of the world and

industrial instruments based upon cesium resonance

make it possible to transfer the second and maintain

it at remote locations with an accuracy of eleven

or twelve significant figures. There are now many

practical applications of this technology mainly in

the field of navigation.

The basic research in radio frequency spectroscopy

which led to a new basis for defining the unit of

time was carried out in several U.S. universities

in the early 1950's. As a matter of historical fact,

the first cesium resonance controlled electronic

oscillator was demonstrated in 1955 at MIT; one of

the stops during the just completed workshop trip.

Research on the application of radio frequency

spectroscopy to time metrology was first started at

NBS in 1948, and it has been in progress since that

time. Such research was also undertaken at an early

date in NPL in England. United States industry began

the development of commercial atomic frequency standards

in the mid-1 950 's with the result that many cesium

frequency standards used throughout the world today

were manufactured by Hewlet-Packard , another stop on

your tour.

Thus the present state of measurement science for the

unit of time in the United States ''s the result of

many contributions by a number of institutions.

2. ) Laser Metrology . The development of the optical laser

certainly constitutes one of the most remarkable

advances in technology. It has, of course, resulted

in a very wide range of applications which include the

science of measurement.

112
The basic principles of lasers grew mainly out of the

same university research in the United States, which

resulted in the modern atomic time standards. These

principles were published by Professors Townes and

Schalow of Columbia University in 1958. I should

mention also, that there were important theoretical

contributions by scientists in other countries,

including the U.S.S.R.

The practical development and demonstration of lasers

was first carried out by United States industrial

laboratories. In particular, the ruby solid crystal

laser was invented by Maiman at the Hughes Aircraft

Research Laboratories in 1959 and the He-Ne gas laser

was invented by Javan at the Bell Telephone Laboratories

in 1961. The He-Ne gas laser continues to be one of

the most useful forms of this device even today.

The importance of lasers to measurement science, in

particular the measurement of length, was recognized

with the earliest discoveries and laser research has

been in progress at NBS since that time. This research

has resulted in the most accurate values for the wavelength of Kr^^ radiation which defines the SI unit of

length. It has also resulted in the development and

refinement of He-Ne lasers stabilized by molecular

resonances in methane or iodine. Such stabilized

lasers are now very widely used as de-facto standards

of length because they are much more convenient to

operate than a Kr^^ electrical discharge lamp and

the highest levels of accuracy are readily achieved.

Continuing laser research at NBS has resulted in the

determination of crystal lographic lattice dimensions

in terms of the SI base unit of length. This work

has also been extended to the determination of X-ray

wavelengths in terms of the SI units and there appears

to be no fundamental limit to further advances toward

the wavelengths of gamma rays.

Laser research has also resulted in new methods for

the measurement of the largest distances with higher

levels of precision. I'm sure that you have all heard

about the laser measurements of the distance to the

moon with the remarkable precision of about

six centimeters. Perhaps there is immediate

importance in the use of lasers to measure small

strains over large areas of the earth's crust in

connection with earthquake studies.

113
The NBS research leading to atomic time standards in

combination with the laser research on improved length

standards resulted in an additional important advance

about six years ago at our Boulder Laboratories. This

work involved the use of frequency multiplication

techniques, well known to engineers at radio frequencies but entirely new at optical frequencies. It

became possible to measure the frequency of optical

radiation directly in terms of the SI unit of time

derived from the cesium standard. With this result

and optical wavelength determinations, it then

became possible to obtain the most accurate value for

the velocity of light. There is another way of

looking at this important result. Since we believe

that the velocity of light is a constant of nature,

it is now possible, in principle, to realize the

base units for length and time from the properties

of a single atomic structure. If this can be done, this

would contribute to the important goal of simplifying

the International System of Base Units. Research in

this direction is continuing in order to refine the

techniques

.

Quantum Phenomena in Superconductors . I want to mention,

briefly, one more example. In 1962 Brian Josephson

working in Cambridge University in England predicted

what is now universally know as the Josephson Effect,

whereby the current-voltage characteristic of

specially constructed superconducting junctions would

contain discrete quantum voltage steps depending upon

the frequency of applied electromagnetic radiation.

Josephson, along with two experimental physicists, was

awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to this

work in 1973. The importance of the prediction to

measurement science was immediately recognized as a means to define the electrical volt in terms of fundamental

constants of nature.

The theoretical basis for Josephson 's prediction was

worked out at the University of Illinois a number of

years earlier by another Nobel Prize winning team.

Josephson 's research seemed to explain certain effects

in superconductors which had been observed earlier.

Further experimental work was quickly carried out in

university and industry laboratories of the United

States. The precision measurements which define the

electrical volt in terms of the charge on the electron

and planks constant were carried out at the University

of Pennsylvania. One of these scientists subsequently

came to NBS and developed our present National Volt

114
standard. He is now the leader of our research in

electrical measurement science. Research in superconductors is also continuing and it has resulted in

additional advances which time does not permit me to

describe. I am convinced that the contributions to

measurement science, in this area, have only just

begun to emerge. We can also expect industryproduced instruments based upon the Josephson effect,

which will make it possible at modest cost to

transfer the volt to remote locations with levels of

precision and reliability far exceeding what is now

possible on the basis of traditional standard cells.

The Future

Before I finish my talk this afternoon, I want to say a few words

about the future of measurement science in the United States.

It will continue to be important, of course, to carry out basic

research toward one of the ultimate goals of measurement science—that

of basing our international system of measurements upon easily

accessible constants of nature relating to the structure of molecules,

atoms, and perhaps sub-atomic particles. Much progress in this

direction has been made during the past quarter of a century and much

promise lies ahead for the next quarter of a century.

However, I feel that there is now a very great additional challenge

for measurement science to focus more sharply on the needs for complex

measurements at higher levels of quality throughout our technology

intensive economy. In other words, our ability to transfer the units

of measurement to the points of need must improve. We require an

advancing basis for measurement traceability including measurement

assurance programs which Dr. Belanger described for you last week. I would like to mention a few examples of the advanced needs which are

most evident to us.

° In industry and the practical sciences, there is an

increasing number of measurements made at very high

speeds under the automatic control of computers. We

need to develop the capability to trace such high speed

measurements reliably to national measurement standards.

We also must meet industrial needs for measurements of

very small structures. We are just now beginning to

provide standards and methods for the measurement of

dimensions at the level of a few micrometers which are

comnon in the electronic integrated circuit industry.

We can expect in the future to encounter industrial

production of structures in the sub-micron region, having

dimensions 1/100 of those in common use today.

115
° In agriculture, there is an increasing realization

that accurate and uniform physical and chemical measurements are necessary. In this connection, the factors

which affect climate are particularly important and

there is a growing need for long term monitoring of

solar radiation reaching the earth's surface. Levels

of accuracy and precision at least ten times greater

than those now possible are needed in the field.

It is widely known that the uncontrolled use of

substances such as fluorocarbon gases may result in

the inadvertent modification of the atmosphere. It is not

so widely known that the use of nitrogen rich chemical

fertilizers may lead to similar results. This is a matter of increasing concern.

° In the fields of health and safety, there are important

needs for more reliable measurements. This is particularly true in the clinical environment. It is also true

in the occupational environment where increasing levels

of various forms of radiation create hazards.

° In the case of energy, the intensive development programs

create a wide range of new measurement needs. One

particularly critical need involves nuclear safeguards

and the requirement for accountability for nuclear fuel

material s

.

° In the case of the environment, we also have a wide range

of needs as you know. These problems include the

measurement of increasing numbers of trace pollutants

in the atmosphere and in our water sources. They also

include better methods for the measurement of noise.

Concl usion

In concluding my remarks, I hope that I have been able to give you the

impression that measurement science in the United States grows out of

the contributions of all of our scientific and technical institutions,

as well as many of those in other countries. It comes to a sharp

focus here at NBS. I hope that you will also appreciate that our

measurement science, an applied science, is advancing close to the

frontiers of knowledge. It is an exciting science which has produced

many very practical fruits in the past and which contains abundant

opportunities for the future.

116
Discussion

Mr. Herman

An example of Dr. McCoubrey's measurement science applied to practical

problems is the use of lasers for accurately levelling agricultural

fields to save water otherwise lost by run-off in arid regions.

Dr. Ammar

Is there an industrial need for length measurements to an accuracy of

1 in 10^1?

Dr. McCoubrey

This need is more apparent in the field of geophysics. It may, for

instance, be one of the ways in which we can map the motion of the big

tectonic plates.

Dr. Oser

In positioning of air traffic this type of accuracy is needed with the

use of certain satellite systems.

Mr. Herman

Theoretically this accuracy is available but its exploitation may yet

be ten years away.

Dr. McCoubrey

I am glad this was brought up as I should have mentioned this

application. There are, in fact, some low frequency ground stations

where this kind of accuracy is commonly achieved.

117

SESSION II - STANDARDIZATION IN THE U.S.A. - A RESOURCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Paper 2.5 - Standardization as a Tool for Science and Technology

Transfer in Support of Industrial Development

Dr. Mahmoud Salama

Secretary General

Arab Organization for Standardization and Metrology

Chairman, Development Committee of the International

Standards Organization, Geneva

Preface

Six years ago, in February 1971, I had the honor to participate in the

seminar held at Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia, which was organized

by the Agency for International Development and the National Bureau of

Standards with the cooperation of the National Academy of Sciences and

the National Academy of Engineering.

Since that time I was anxious to hear about any progress in the

materialization of the important recommendations and conclusions

arrived at during the eight sessions of that seminar. I was really

pleased and gratified when my friend, Mr. Reiser, kindly conveyed to

me, during his short visit to Cairo last June, an invitation to meet

again my friends in the NBS and to participate in this important

NBS/ANSI/ASTM/AID Seminar which, as I understood, is dedicated for

assessment of the follow-up action concerning the outcome of the

Airlie House Seminar and also for exchange of views about the role of

standardization in science and technology transfer, a subject which is

receiving today an increasing worldwide attention.

After my fruitful discussions with Mr. Reiser, I went to Geneva to

attend the thirteenth session of the ISO Development Committee,

(DEVCO), and was asked, as Chairman of the Committee to introduce a letter addressed to the ISO Secretary General by the Secretary General

of the "United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for

Development," to be held in 1979. The Secretary General of the

Conference was of the opinion that the contribution of ISO and its

member standardization bodies could be significant at various levels:

° First, and most important, at the national level through the

participation in the preparatory process of any bodies of

individuals adhering to ISO in a given country.

° Secondly, at the regional level, by following closely the work

to be undertaken by regional commissions and organizations.

° Thirdly, at the global level, by making available to the

conference secretariat background papers to be taken into

119
consideration for the preparation of the working documents

on any of the subject items on the conference agenda.

° Finally, by submitting to the conference secretariat candidatures of suitable experts to advise countries in the preparation

of national papers.

DEVCO members, being aware of the effective contribution which

standardization can make to the establishment and widening of the

scientific and the technological base as well as to the support of the

"U.N. World Plan of Action for the Application of Science and

Technology for Development," emphasized the necessity of projecting

standardization as one of the major vectors for a sound scientific and

technological growth. In the course of discussions, DEVCO members

reviewed extracts of the conference agenda which read as follows:

"1.) Science and technology for development:

a. The choice and transfer of technology for

development.

b. Elimination of obstacles to the better

utilization of knowledge and capabilities in

science and technology for the development of

all countries, particularly for their use in

developing countries.

c. Methods of integrating science and technology

in economic and social development.

d. New science and technology for overcoming

obstacles to development.

" 2.) Institutional arrangements and new forms of international

cooperation in the application of science and technology:

a. Building up and expanding institutional systems in

developing countries for science and technology.

b. Research and development in the industrialized

countries in problems of importance to developing

countries.

Mechanisms for exchange of scientific and technological

information and experiences significant to developments .

Strengthening of international cooperation among all

countries and the design of concrete new forms of

international cooperation in the fields of science

and technology for development.

120
e. Promotion of cooperation among developing countries

and role of developed countries in such cooperation.

" 3.) Utilization of the existing United Nations system and other

international organizations to implement the above goals in

a coordinated and integrated manner.

The above mentioned review indicated clearly that both the preparatory

process of the conference and the agenda did not take

"standardization" into consideration in spite of the fact that the

significance of the various items on the agenda emphasized the

necessity of its inclusion among the topics to be discussed by the

conference. This was reflected in the following DEVCO resolution No.

7/1977:

"DEVCO, considering that standardization,

° contributes to the elimination of technical

barriers to trade and development, and the

strengthening of international cooperation

° is a means of transfer of technology which

contributes to the technological development of

countries, mindful of the ISO contribution to the

exchange of scientific and technical information

° invites the Secretary-General of ISO to reply

favorably to the proposal put forward by the

Secretary-General of the U.N. Conference on Science

and Technology for Development, for active

participation in the collaboration of the agenda

and papers and to recommend the U.N. Conference on

Science and Technology to include standardization in

the agenda of the Conference, and also requests the

Central Secretariat to recommend ISO member bodies

to contact their national competent authorities to

propose appropriate collaboration in the preparation

of the national papers to be submitted to the

Conference.

It is my pleasure to say that this NBS/ANSI/ASTM/AID Seminar, which

was scheduled early before the date of the above mentioned DEVCO

resolution, indicates that the concerned standardization and

governmental bodies in the United States are positively convinced that

serious efforts should be made to ensure that the effective role of

standardization in assisting science and technology transfer would be

clearly defined and thoroughly discussed in the forthcoming U.N.

Conference.

121
It is hoped that similar well -studi ed and harmonized steps would be

taken in other countries for the support of such important issues.

Patented Technology :

In the Arab region, an initial step in that direction was taken during

last March, when the IDCAS/UNIDO/WIPO Seminar on the transfer of

technology to the Arab Countries was held in Baghdad. The Arab

Organization for Standardization and Metrology (ASMO) indicated in its

paper to that Baghdad Seminar that Arab Countries, as other developing

countries, seek the acquisition of advanced technology to support both

their efforts and investments which are mobilized for the acceleration

of their economic and social development. They usually acquire

composite technology, the scope and nature of which demand a wider

approach than that of direct transfer of patented or unpatented knowhow in order to meet the various technical requirements for the

establishment and operation of industrial enterprises.

As for the patented know-how, our experience showed that both the

acquisition and use of technology are heavily influenced by the

operation of the international patent system, which confers rights of

ownership and control of technology on the patent holder, often one of

the large transnational corporations. The vast majority of patents

registered in our countries and other developing countries relate to

technological processes owned by foreign enterprises in industrialized

countries. Only a small proportion of such patents is, however, in

actual use, most having been registered in order to protect the

trading position of the transnational corporation owning the rights to

the technology concerned. Where new technology is acquired by means

of a licensing agreement, or by foreign investment involving the use

of patents, high charges for royalties and technical services are

often made, while various forms of restrictive practices normally

characterize the operation, imposing heavy indirect cost on the

technology importing country.

A revision of the existing patent system, in order that patent laws

and practices should complement and strengthen other measures for

accelerating the economic and social progress of the developing

countries should form an essential element of a strategy for both

industrialization and technology transfer.

Appropriate action should be taken to establish national and

international systems that will reflect the special need of the

developing countries to acquire suitable foreign technology on

reasonable terms and also to develop their own scientific and

technological capabilities to the fullest extent possible.

Such need for international action to assist the transfer of adequate

technology on fair and reasonable terms and conditions has been fully

recognized by the United Nations. A big step forward in this

connection is being taken within UNCTAD for the formulation of an

122
international code of conduct for the transfer of technology which

would take adequate account of the needs, and the particular

circumstances, of the developing countries. The case for such an

international approach is strengthened by the fact that countries,

both developed and developing, have differing national laws,

regulations and procedures relating to technology transfer. Hence the

need for integrating the various approaches in an agreed international

framework or code of conduct which would not only avoid conflicting

regulatory action, but also accelerate the transfer of technology in

an orderly manner.

Choice of Technology :

The past experience of developing countries in importing technology in

the form of processes, equipment and know-how for the personnel who

will operate them, has shown that the in-flow of technology has been

an integral part of direct foreign investment. Thus, many developing

countries became increasingly concerned about the cost and

consequences of such investment, not only in terms of out-flow of

profits and dividends, but also in the form of royalties, know-how

fees and payments for imported equipment and components.

It should be mentioned also that the problem of the choice of

technology does not lend itself to easy solution. The choice is

dependent on two factors: technological and economic. To evaluate

the technological factor, several alternative designs employing

different processes will have to be worked out in detail which would

involve accurate information on costs and specifications of machinery

and equipment, materials and labor. This type of information is

difficult to come by since channels of communication in the

technological field are varied and full of obstacles. Therefore,

there is a large degree of uncertainty involved in the choice.

The second factor is the economic appraisal of different technological

alternatives. The choice may depend on the economic criteria which

are given priority in a country, such as large employment generated

per unit capital, or lowest capital cost per unit of output, or lowest

foreign exchange utilization. One or more of these factors may have

to be taken into consideration and choice may be easier if the

experience of other developing countries of the technology become

available when such information is not available, it leads, in many

cases, to a choice made on offers of machinery through salesmen, who

are more interested in selling the most costly and sophisticated

equipment than in the economic interests of the country. In many

cases the offers of machinery and technology are for production levels

very much higher than the domestic technological capabilities and the

low market needs of the country.

That is why we find that some developing countries prefer to orient

the flow of foreign technology through various forms of licensing

arrangements, with or without capital participation, while others

123
encourage joint ventures by contractual arrangement comprising foreign

investment and foreign technical know-how.

This, of course, requires a reasonable degree of development in the

receiving country and that consideration is taken to benefit from the

transfer of technology in developing the capability of technology

self-generation in order to realize successful results in the long

range.

Standardization and Technology Problems :

As the industrial and technological basis widens in a developing

economy and extends to an increasingly diversified range of

manufacturing activities, the requirements for technical processes

become more intricate and the neccessity for accurate measurements and

implementation of appropriate standards increases. Such

standardization needs become more pronounced with both the development

of multilateral, regional or sub-regional cooperation and integration

policies, and with the increase of export-oriented products

manufacture. Then, with further progress of industrialization, there

arise several problems related to standardization. In some cases the

existing industries and workshops which are supposed to furnish parts

and services to the new industries do not apply any recognized

standardization either in types, specifications, preferred numbers,

level of quality or tolerances. To overcome such problems of

components and parts, the new industries try, within the general

policy and economic relations of the country, to seek the help of

other countries where the standards may not be compatible, and thus

the situation becomes worse. In other cases where national

standardization has started, and the country has political and

economic freedom to procure its requirements from any country or

manufacturer, there appears the difficulty of selection from the world

markets, owing to the diversity of specifications, the nonimplementation of the international standards, and the lack of an

international certification system or international standards

conformity guide which can assist in the selection.

Our experience, in the Arab region has shown that national scientific

and standardization activities are unable individually, to solve these

and other related problems owing to the limitations in the available

scientific and technical capabilities and activities.

It is for this reason and some other economic reasons that our Arab

Countries tried to solve such problems by initiating regional

cooperation in science and education as well as in standardization and

related activities.

Taking into consideration that standardization is instrumental in

technology propagation, it was foreseen when the Arab Organization for

Standardization and Metrology (ASMO) was created in 1968, as a specialized agency of the League of Arab States, that in addition to

124
its main objectives for developing, harmonizing and integrating the

national standardization and metrology activities and services in the

area, it would bridge and interlink, wherever possible, such

activities with those of the corresponding international organizations

in order to accelerate the flow of technology, to the region. This is

usually realized in two ways: receipt of technology during the course

of preparation of standards and transfer of technology through the use

and implementation of the adopted standards. It is obvious that

during the formulation of standards at international or regional

level, technology is received from the various member countries, and

at national level from the experts in that particular country handling

the technical secretariat. When an international standard is

published, there is a chain of transfer of technology from

international to regional level, from regional to national level, from

national to industry level and from industry to company level arising

from the use and implementation of the international standards.

This technological objective of ASMO was encouraged by UNIDO under a Frame Agreement for cooperation which was signed in 1970, also by

UNCTAD and by the international standardization bodies: ISO, lEC,

OIML, and Codex Al imentarius

.

They cooperate actively with ASMO and have granted it the right to

translate their standards into the Arabic Language.

Accordingly, it was possible for ASMO to adopt and publish in Arabic a number of international standards which constitutes about 65% of the

365 already approved ASMO standards.

It was expected that this role of ASMO would assist the acceleration

of the transfer to the Arab region of the technology incorporated in

the internationally approved standards and would effectively help its

member Arab States to solve a significant part of the technical

problems facing their economic and industrial development. But,

unfortunately this was not fully realized. Our countries, like many

other developing countries, are faced with serious problems and

complexities in the world markets of technology and equipment as a result of the absence of an international advisory system or body

which can easily render neutral advice to assist in the selection of

the suitable process technology and the appropriate internationally

standardized equipment and material.

It may be said that some experienced consultation bodies of the

industrialized countries have proved to be helpful in assisting

developing countries to overcome their technical difficulties, but the

experience of many developing countries has shown that there are some

consultation bodies which do not take into consideration the actual

local requirements and capabilities as well as the prevailing

climactic, social and economic conditions. Some of these consultation

bodies often prefer to supply their pre-packaged or home-tailored

technology without any adaptation.

125
Therefore, many developing countries have tried to draw the attention

of ISO, lEC and other international standardization bodies as well as

the specialized U.N. agencies, to the importance of the promotion and

development of a world-wide system for the implementation of

international standards, and the need to orient the main international

standardization activities to meet the urgent technical requirements

of the developing countries.

It should be also noted that in developing economies where everything

industrial has to be started almost from scratch, the inter-linkage

between research and standardization activities would be emphasized.

In order to be effective, research and standardization should proceed

together in parallel with the planned development in all sectors.

Wherever possible, it would even be better if both of them could

remain somewhat ahead of the projected development targets. The

standards thus formulated could be revised when necessitated by

changes in the technology trend so that a uniform quality associated

with reliability and adaptability to the conditions prevailing in the

country commensurate with inter-changeability becomes a part of the

process

.

Scientific Infrastructure :

Accordingly, Arab Countries as many other developing countries

endeavor to support their economic development and industrialization

programs by the creation of scientific infrastructure through the

establishment of research and standardization institutions which would

draw the specific knowledge from developed countries, make such

adaptations as are necessary for local conditions and circumstances,

carry out research into raw materials and processes to develop new

uses of indigenous materials and new products, disseminate the

imported and created know-how to industrialists and enterpreneurs and

offer direct technical services towards obtaining more efficient

operation and management of both new and existing ventures. It was

rightly argued that these functions and services are essential if

industrial development is to be accelerated at the rate desired and

hoped for in the respective developed country. In order to achieve

these objectives, a research and/or standardization institute would

require a staff of scientists of high academic background in physical

sciences and engineering besides extensive and varied experience in

industrial technologies, costly equipment and other facilities.

Developing countries, however, faced with acute shortage of

appropriate scientific capabilities seek the assistance of developed

countries and various specialized agencies. In most cases they

receive standardization and metrology experts and equipment, but there

remains the lack or inadequacy of qualified and trained local

manpower, capable for implementation activities and for tackling the

immense and diverse problems which usually face development.

126
This shortage exists not only at the top or higher echelons of

science, technology and technical administration, i.e., scientists,

engineers and technologists at the university, graduate or post

graduate levels, but also, sometimes even more critically, at the

levels of the technicians, the shop foreman and the technical and

scientific assistants.

Model programs and courses for scientific and technical education and

training as well as guides for recruitment or selection of appropriate

personnel required for standardization, quality control, metrology and

scientific instruments should be initiated for the benefit of the

developing countries and their national research and standardization

bodies.

Hence, the growth of a balanced scientific infrastructure could be

assisted in order to cope with both the urgent needs and long range

planned national targets.

Concl usion :

Before concluding I feel obliged to mention again that I am thankful

to have been invited to this important seminar and to have been given

this opportunity to meet such a distinguished gathering. I am sure

that I shall benefit much from the experience and views of the eminent

speakers invited to the seminar, and sincerely hope that the outcome

of our delibrations will positively contribute to the realization of

the aims of our meeting.

It is my earnest hope that my discussions and meetings during the next

few days with NBS and AID leading personalities, as well as other

authorities in this great country will strengthen and expand the

already existing technical cooperation between the United States of

America and the Arab Countries.

127

Discussion

Mr. Herman

I think it would be useful to discuss the question of patents and

proprietary know-how in the transfer from a developed to a developing

country; the question of price charged. What is a patent worth? What

should be the standard for assessing royalties? I would be interested

in Dr. Podol sky's comments on these points.

Dr. Podolsky

A patent license is a well -recognized way to acquire and transfer

technology. Entire industries have been created through this method.

The ways in which to acquire patent licenses are generally well

understood. A minimum royalty fee may be paid, or a royalty may be

related to sales of a product produced under the license. These

royalties will, in general, be quite modest--5 - 6% of net sales. A

question may arise as to whether to buy the patent outright. It is

more desirable, in my view, to buy the patented technology at usually

modest fees then to attempt the research and development involved in

creating it again. A developing country that has the indigenous raw

materials from which it could make a product for international trade

would be far better off to acquire a complete process of manufacture

from abroad rather than to attempt to develop its own process. In

time a developing country might be successful in developing a better

product or process, but valuable marketing time and advantage could be

lost in the effort to develop something that could be purchased abroad

at modest cost.

Dr. Salama

The problem of acquiring rights may be complicated. There may be

several levels of patents. Moreover we usually do not have access to

the inventor. Even the negotiator passes a cost on to us.

Dr. Podolsky

I realize that you have a very complex problem. In the United States

we cannot legally discriminate. If I issue a patent license to a buyer, I must, in general, legally make it available on the same terms

to any other prospective buyer.

Dr. Salama

This is so in the United States but it is different in other

countries, and there are exclusive licenses even in the United States

129
Dr. Podolsky

There are exclusive licenses granted in the United States but if a non-exclusive license is granted to one, it must then be offered to

all who wish to buy it.

Mr. Herman

How do you go to a standards committee to develop a standard when you

have proprietary technology which you do not wish to divulge?

Dr. Podolsky

It is not possible to write a standard in I EC (and I imagine this is

the same in ISO) around proprietary technology unless the patent owner

agrees in writing that the technology involved is available to all

prospective buyers on equal terms.

Mr. Herman

I can cite an example of many where technology was not patented

because the owner company feared that the patent would reveal too

much.

Dr. Podolsky

Sure, I myself have made money for 40 years on a secret process

withdrawn from the Patent Office.

Mr. Etris

It is the ASTM practice to require the owner of a patented process or

product which is intended to be incorporated in an ASTM standard to

state in writing that he will not take advantage of this position by

charging exorbitant prices for the privilege of its use therein.

Mr. Herman

I take it as agreed that the transfer of technology through standards

is indeed a proven and valuable method of transfer.

Eng. Estrada

While concerned with the new patent law in Ecuador, I have thought

carefully about the relation between patents and standards. Patents

have the purpose of encouraging inventors and deal with process

technology, only a small part of which reaches the standards committee

discussion in which a consensus is to be obtained.

130
Mr. Herman

The next subject is the question of whether standards should be a topic for the forthcoming U.N. Conference on Science and Technology

for Development. In the absence of Ambassador Jean Wilkowski,

Mr. Simon Bourgin will discuss this matter and other issues related to

the U.N. Conference.

131

SESSION II - STANDARDIZATION IN THE U.S.A. - A RESOURCE FOR DEVELOPMENT

Paper 2.6 - Standardization as a Possible Topic for the United

Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development

Mr. Simon Bourgin

Senior Adviser to the U.S. Coordinator of

Preparations for the United Nations Conference on

Science and Technology for Development

First of all, Ambassador Jean Wilkowski sends her regrets and

apologies. This date coincided with a visit to Washington of

Father Theodore Hesburgh, the President of Notre Dame University, who

last week was named by the President to head the United States

delegation to the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology

for Development. It is Father Hesburgh's first visit to Washington in

two months, and she was unable to get away. I personally feel that

standardization could well be addressed as a subject for the

Conference; it is so close to the heart of both the industrialization

and development process.

I would like to tell you a little bit about both the Conference and

our preparations for it. First some details on the Conference,

because I'm not sure whether all of you here are aware of all that is

involved. It will take place in August and September of 1979. The

site has not been selected; four countries have extended invitations,

including the United States. Should it take place here, it will

probably be in cities other than Washington or New York. The other

invitations have come from Manila, Mexico City, and Austria, and

without being a party to the maneuvering that is going on behind the

scenes to attract the sites, I can tell you that Mexico City and

Vienna are working very hard at it. The United States has extended

its invitation and will stand by it, but is not agressively seeking

the Conference. That could be a small debate by itself but we will

not go into it.

The Conference has a country paper as part of a process, it is a very

important part of the focus; there is a deadline of May 1. Both the

United Nations and UNESCO, as well as a good many countries have

offered technical assistance in the form of specialists to help

prepare the country paper. The country paper basically will review

the experience of that country in relation to science and technology

for development. It will provide essentially the historical

experience, and it will provide the topics that country thinks should

be on the agenda in relation to its own experience. And it will get

some case histories of both success and failure stories in relation to

the past, and as opportunities for the future.

133
The two-year preparations process is very important. The Conference

was proposed at the United Nations about two and a half years ago, and

a two-year preparatory process was built into it for very obvious

reasons. In fact, the time preceding the Conference is accounted by

all of us as much more important than the two weeks of the Conference

itself. The time preceding it provides a catalytic period when the

calendar of events stimulates a great deal of activity and change in

this area, and the interaction that takes place between the

industrializing and developing countries is both a preparatory process

and an education period, and may be the most valuable thing to come

out of the whole business.

Now the basic question posed by this Conference is how can science and

technology best be used to speed up the development process. I think

it is now generally recognized that without science and technology no

country can really be successful in industrialization and no country

can be competitive in the world's economic system. This is really a relatively new idea, this idea that one can and should apply science

and technology directly in order for a nation to modernize. The

genesis of this particular Conference in this particular idea, I think, goes back to the debate in the United Nations that began

immediately after the quadrupling of oil prices back in early 1974 and

the terribly difficult economic position the developing countries

began to find themselves in. In the several years that have followed

a concept has been developed at the United Nations called the New

International Economic Order. The New International Economic Order

basically called for readjustment in trade and technology transfer,

patents and so on, that will permit the developing country to catch

up. The United States, with certain reservations, supports

readjustments in the international economic system and I think that

these events helped provoke this particular Conference.

But I think that it is interesting to go back and see what the real

genesis of this Conference was. It had a predecessor: In 1963, there

was a comparable Conference in Geneva-- "The United Nations Conference

on the Application of Science and Technology for the Benefit of the

Less Developed Areas." It produced no new institutions; it produced a very useful set of technical handbooks put together by the U.S.

Delegation that were a great success at the Conference and have proved

to be useful manuals for the development process since. The 1963

Conference produced no follow-on, no set of mechanisms that would

provide for adjustments. But in order to understand the 1963 affair,

I think, and this a personal intrepretation, you have to go back to

the relationship between President Dwight Eisenhower and the Columbia

University physicist. Dr. I. I. Rabi , back in the middle fifties. Now

it isn't very often that a United States President gets to develop a very close relationship with a scientist. As a matter of fact, it

practically never happens, and it might not have happened if President

Eisenhower had not been President of Columbia at the same time as

Dr. Rabi, the distinguished Nobel Prize winner in physics, was there.

134
For any adviser to have influence on a President, he has to have

constant access. Of course, nobody knew at the time that

Mr. Eisenhower was going to be President of the United States and he

and Dr. Rabi would become rather close friends. What came out of that

friendship after Mr. Eisenhower moved to Washington was the Atoms for

Peace Conference in 1954 at Geneva. The Atoms for Peace Conference

may have been the first major Conference on the transfer of technology

and I think in retrospect that it made the whole process look

disarmingly simple. We thought at that time that the developing

countries would simply be able to skip the whole business of

invention, education, and the development of science and technology,

and instead literally absorb the whole process by educating a generation of Ph.D. 's abroad. And indeed, with the nuclear energy

process, that seemed to be entirely possible, and there was a whole

generation of Ph.D.'s that went to school at different institutions,

governmental and private, in the United States, and when the Science

and Technology Conference happened in Geneva in 1963, it was looked at

in fairly simplistic terms. It was simply presumed that we could

transfer regular technology just as we have transferred nuclear

technology, and that has turned out not really to be the case in the

simplistic sense, and to get an idea of some of the things that are

involved, all you need to do is to recall the discussion that just

took place here--it is a foretaste of what we are going to hear more

of as this Conference grows closer.

Now I would like to list some of the things that are involved in

technology transfer in a larger sense, at least as it is regarded by

the United States as we prepare for this Conference. I think, first

of all, that you get into the question of basic human needs.

President Carter has said that meeting basic human needs of the

developing world is a major priority of the United States. Secretary

of State Vance said some months later in another public address that

"we need more focus on that part of the world population that lacks

the essentials of food, water, shelter, health, health care,

employment and education." So you see, you get a basic focus on the

needs of that part of the developing world which has never really

benefited by the traditional processes of industrial transfer of

technology. This same theme has been quite well developed by various

American officials over a period of time. Ambassador Andrew Young at

Geneva last summer remarked that the greatest contribution that

industrialization and the transfer of technology could make is the

realization of the human potential --of development of people in the

very broadest sense.

We also see a major role for business and industry, which in fact

control most of the technology know-how in this country. We shall be

thinking both in terms of technology transfer represented by direct

investment abroad by multinational corporations, and of what has come

to be called appropriate technology. Technology, that is, which is

oriented directly to the needs of the individual or the village or for

135
a particular job. Now there has been a very considerable debate on

whether you go the advance technology route or the appropriate

technology route and there has been a great deal of time and energy

and intellect spent on it. I think that for the purpose of this

Conference that we are very likely to go both the advanced technology

route since almost all the developing countries think they need it,

whether they do or not, and also I think that very careful attention

will be given in planning also to discuss appropriate technology.

Now this presents obviously for anybody who is organizing this

Conference from the American point of view a very considerable

problem; how are you going to organize a bill of particulars of a variety that I have been describing into one singular viewpoint and

present it as a support for foreign policy in order to assist the

developing third world? We cogitated about this a lot--"we" meaning

Ambassador Wilkowski, her Deputy, and I, who constitute her staff.

She was appointed in July and we came on board shortly afterwards and

we have had to do a lot of thinking.

Now the country paper process is very essential to such a Conference.

It represents basically the philosophy and the possibilities involved;

it has to be intermeshed with the needs and desires of the developing

world and since the United States is probably the major source of much

of the science and technology, what we have to say about this is of

considerable importance. Country papers have usually been written in

the past for major United Nations Conferences of this kind by setting

up an interagency committee that meets weekly and assigns individuals

to come up with what an agency has to say about this; and then some

man who may or may not be a genius retires to a room for a day or

night, or for four or five days and comes up with a country paper.

We felt that we could not do this on this occasion largely because for

one thing the know-how on industrial technology really is not chiefly

in the government sector, but in the private sector; it is in labor,

and we felt that we had to involve the American community in this. We

went very early to the AAAS organization and to the National Academy

of Sciences to discuss the way to face all of this. We have talked to

the business community and after a bit of cogitating we resolved on a set of subjects that were first produced in a letter by President

Seitz of Rockefeller University to President Carter on what he thought

the basic areas of this administration should be in science. And with

your permission I will chalk these down on the blackboard very

quickly.

°The first will consider population, poverty, health,

food and nutrition.

°The second will be looking at the inter-related issues

of energy, natural resources and the environment.

136
°The third group will study climate, soil, and water.

°The fourth group will look at employment, trade and

industrial i zation

.

°The fifth will concern itself with related problems of

urban settlements and rural development.

These are the basic study areas that we think have to be tackled in

order to decide from the American point of view what the country paper

ought to be. I should point out to you that the country papers will

be reviewed by various United Nations regional conventions in a yearand-a-half process, where regional conventions in turn will take the

country papers and decide what the main agenda for this Conference

ought to be. Now our agenda obviously deals with much more than can

be crammed into our United Nations Conference, but we felt that we

could usefully start with these and sift off the ones that matter

less. I think that before we are through, for instance, that the

subject of trade, while it will be involved, would not be accepted

simply because it has been addressed in other United Nations forums,

and that process is still going on. I think we will end up very

heavily on the side of food, on the side of health, on the side of

energy certainly, and of environment and resources; but very heavily,

of course, on the side of industrialization, manpower and employment

in the broadest sense, to include training and education as well.

There is one other subject that is not included here, that we expect

to set up a separate task force on, and that is infrastructure, the

whole business of building up an environment by education and training

where real innovative development in technology and science can take

place

.

We expect to set up study groups that will probably number about 12

each, with a Chairman and a rapporteur in addition. These will be

made up not only of the best people from the science and engineering

community but also from Government, the business community, from

labor, from non-governmental and public policy organizations. The

attempt here will be to deal with all elements that are useful in

looking into these subjects.

The basic substance that comes out of these, by the way, we expect to

be a very large part of our country paper, which has a deadline of

May 1, 1978. We are just beginning to put these groups together. Now

I should point out that in parallel to these we are setting up task

forces within the major government agencies that have begun in these

areas. We have set up a task force in ERDA that will deal with the

question of energy in relation to development abroad, we are doing the

same thing with the Department of Interior with particular respect to

the U.S. Geological Survey, and these reports should all begin to come

in sometime in late March or April and then we will have the agonizing

business of putting all of this together into a country paper. In

137
parallel with this process we expect to have a national debate that

will take various forms around the country--both specialized meetings

at the universities and others.

I will conclude with mention of the kind of review that has been given

by the first United Nations Regional Commission on topics in its area.

The U.N. Economic Commission for Africa meeting in Tanzania just about

a week ago came up with subject areas that suggest what the priorities

are in relation to the area. The first is agriculture, with emphasis

on post-harvest conservation techniques, use of improved techniques

for new crops; housing with emphasis on technical knowledge to produce

low cost houses; health with emphasis on additional plans for human

and animal diseases prevalent in Africa; transport with regard to

improving and expanding the transport networks in Africa; and energy

with emphasis on nonconventional sources of energy for development.

This process will go on with other groups--with the United Nations

Commission which will meet in Mexico at the end of this month. The

Economic Commission for Europe meets in December and so on.

So I have today described the process by which our small secretariat

in the State Department will deal with the various American sectors in

coordinating preparations for the United Nations Conference on Science

and Technology for Development.

138
Discussion

Mr. Herman

In view of the broad scope of the U.N. Conference, where would the

subject of standardization fit in?

Mr. Bourgin

Standards would presumably be discussed under the general subject of

industrialization. Standardization could be a major option.

Dr. Podolsky

The subject of the U.N. Conference is obviously enormous, covering the

entire field of human endeavor; therefore, standards could only be a minimal part of the discussions. I personally do not feel that

standards should be a planned part of the Conference. To the extent

that U.S. engineers and scientists contribute their knowledge and

experience in this area, this should be done under State Department

auspices though bilateral and regional agreements with the developing

world, and on the basis of a two-way interchange. The United States,

in my view, could make a far greater contribution to the transfer of

technology through this method of approach, rather than have the

subject of standardization made a small part of a large and

comprehensive U.N. meeting.

Mr. Pineda

I disagree with Dr. Podolsky only when he says that standardization

should not be part of the UNCSTD. I do agree, however, with his

comments that the State Department should bring about greater

cooperation bilaterally and regionally in the field of standards. In

my opinion, standards will play a part in each of the key areas

outlined by Mr. Bourgin for the U.N. Conference. I, therefore, feel

strongly that standards should play a part in the Conference.

Mr. Herman

Probably the Conference should not spend a great deal of time

discussing standards per se but standards questions could well come up

under the subjects selected for the Conference.

Mrs. Mascarinas

Standardization as a method of transfer of technology to LDC's should

be discussed at the UNCSTD.

139
Dr. Khan

One of the ways of achieving transfer of technology is for the United

States to accept trainees who bring new capabilities to their home

country. Standardization will then help to maintain quality.

Mr. Roseborough

r am the Program Manager for the Office of Science and Technology of

AID, which sponsors the NBS/AID program managed by Mr. Reiser and his

colleagues. The problem I have is securing adequate funding and

evaluation for this program in terms of AID goals for the poorest

people. The question arises as to how this program on standards can

be justified in competition with many other projects which are

considered of benefit to developing countries. I am looking for the

best possible examples that I can use when all AID projects are

reviewed. I am asked how many jobs this program has created this

year. Can you help me to answer? I believe everybody here believes

this is an important program. I need concise reasons why and how it

is helping development.

Mr. Herman

It would be helpful if each of you could give Mr. Reiser, in writing

or otherwise, your views as to how valuable this program has been to

you.

Mr. Roseborough

I certainly agree that the summary of this seminar, and a short

abstract should reflect the chairman's suggestion.

Mr. Rineda

I suggest each of the participants here should upon returning home

induce the highest level authority in the country to write to

Mr. Reiser expressing views on the usefulness of the program. Rerhaps

it would also be in order for this seminar to adopt an appropriate

resolution reflecting the sense of the matters discussed.

Mr. Reiser

I appreciate Mr. Rineda 's suggestions. What Mr. Roseborough is asking

for is really quite subtle, that is examples that are of direct

relevance to the most disadvantaged. We may think that

standardization is basic to their needs, but it is not obvious that we

have really good examples that are relevant. NBS is probably best in

its support of the highest technology in the United States. We are

constantly searching for ways to assist smaller and disadvantaged

companies here. So I think we must take Mr. Roseborough 's search for

140
justification of this program very seriously. We need good thoughtful

responses. It may well be that NBS is not the right agency to help

under AID's current terms of reference. Maybe the NBS/AID program

might have to be withdrawn. I realize that coming from me, the

program's principal and enthusiastic proponent, this is a serious

observation. I am aware that next year's workshop is already

oversubscribed and you are here asking for two workshops next year.

You may believe that if we have a good technical program, we ought to

be able to find sufficient financial and other resources. In fact, we

must be able to demonstrate the quality of the program in terms of the

criteria laid down by AID and ultimately the U.S. Congress. I know

there are participants here who have important points to make who have

not yet found an opportunity to tell their story. For instance.

Dr. Rhee of Korea has a very important report on Korea which

unfortunately could not be presented at this seminar. With some

support from NBS a survey is now being made in Korea of the real

measurement needs of industry, particularly small-scale industry.

Dr. Rhee has sent questions to a large number (3,700) of factories and

is following this up with group visits by the standards authorities.

The results will be analyzed in a very sophisticated way. In the

final analysis we need to know who are the users of the measurement

services we render.

Eng. Estrada

A good measure of the program's success is the amount of increase in

effort and expense for standardization that a country applies after

contact with the NBS/AID program. The effect on the country's economy

may sometimes be large for little effort and at others little for much

effort.

Technology is very expensive, it is needed for industrialization. An

industrialization policy cannot be implemented without standardization

keeping in step. Take standards definitions alone--wi thout them good

technology cannot take hold, you lose the entire investment in

technology.

Dr. Rhee

AID programs have been very successful in Korea. Korea intends to

develop its own technology now by research and development. I, for

one, am learning at NBS how to apply metrology, for example, for

safety, quality control, etc.

Dr. Hadiwiardjo

I hope AID will continue its support for this most useful program.

Visiting highly industrialized countries can bring about transfer of

technology.

141
Mrs. Mascarinas

To develop and implement a standard for a product takes time. You

must show patience and not expect very quick progress. We must more

often make use of mandatory standards.

Mr. Simpson

I would like to comment on Eng. Estrada's presentation. He has shown

that the principal function of standardization is to facilitate

commerce. A by-product of standards, but not its chief purpose, is to

transfer technology. Eng. Estrada earlier today commented on the

difficulties inherent in transferring technology through the patent

process. Again the patent process can be used to transfer technology

but its central purpose is to encourage invention. My concern is that

if we give too much emphasis to either standards or patents as a means

of technology transfer we may "throw the baby out with the bath

waterl" I agree with Dr. Podolsky that the use of standards as a technology transfer mechanism should not be highlighted at the

forthcoming U.N. Conference. Whether or not standardization is

responsive to needs of the less developed countries, I think the

subject should be addressed but not at the U.N. Conference.

Mr. Herman

Let me outline the Alaskan oil pipeline project as a most interesting

example of the relationship between technology and standards on a giant commercial project. To date this has been the largest private

construction project in the world. In has been carried out by a group

of oil companies who have expended close to $9 billion on it. It

stands as a major first class piece of engineering work regardless of

some of the criticisms that have been made in respect to it. While it

did have problems during its construction and early operation, it is

undoubtedly true that any new construction project of such size can

expect learning and human failure problems, especially in a difficult

environment such as that in Alaska. The following facts will give you

a general feeling for the nature of this project:

The pipe is over 800 miles (1,287 kilometers) long, approximately half

of this being above ground. It is four feet (1.2 meters) in diameter

and has a wall thickness of 1/2 inch (1.27 cm.). It will carry two

million barrels (80 million gallons) of oil a day. It was fabricated

in Japan in 40 foot lengths. These were welded together in 80 foot

lengths in shops in Alaska after which the 80 foot sections were

welded together in the field to form the complete pipe. There were

approximately 40,000 field welds. Due to the thickness of the pipe a finished weld required seven passes around the pipe--making a total of

around 280,000 passes. The U.S. government mandated that both visual

and X-ray radiographic inspection of every weld be made and that each

weld pass the American Petroleum Institute pipeline welding standard.

142
The API standard was adopted in this country some 20 years ago. The

field welds were often made under extremely difficult conditions since

temperature could vary from minus 35 Celsius to plus 33 celsius and

winds could make the situation worse.

The first point to note in respect to standards is that here is an

example of the use of standards to promote international commerce.

The Japanese were interested in making the pipe and they could agree

on the material and fabrication standards with their U.S. customers.

The second point in respect to standards is that on a project such as

this one it was vital that construction quality be consistently high.

Construction quality depended to a considerable degree on the quality

of the field welds. This quality was established by the API standard.

All welders were required to be licensed by the union and were also

required to pass strict welding tests set by the oil companies. In

addition to these requirements there were the requirements for visual

and X-ray inspections on the work site. Despite these precautions it

was found during the course of the construction that some of the X-ray

radiographs were false. This cast a dark shadow on the quality

control. There were, of course, numerous charges and arguments in

respect to the falsifications. It is doubtful if X-rays were

falsified to hide welds which were likely to fail for no one stood to

gain from such failure. It is much more likely that the

falsifications were the result of efforts to speed up the work or of

human failure under difficult working conditions.

When the falsifications were discovered the question then was, "what

do you do about this situation"? Many of the questionable cases

involved welds which were now underground. There were those who

argued that you did not really need to do anything because: there had

been visual inspections; welds had been made by licensed welders; each

weld actually consisted of seven passes which could provide a safety

factor for a flaw in one pass; the ultimate reliability of the work

would be proven by pressure tests of each section of the pipeline; the

welding standard had been worked out in earlier days when pipes were

smaller in diameter and had thinner walls made of different materials.

But the agreements between the government and the oil companies

spelled out the standards and the X-ray proof of quality. The

National Bureau of Standards was called in to advise the government as

to whether the standards should or'could be modified. Under the

political circumstances it was, however, too late to change

requirements. The oil companies uncovered the questioned welds.

X-rayed and then repaired where there were questions in respect to

qual i ty

.

The furor over the welds brought up a third point we can note in

respect to standards. That is, "were the standards up to date"? It

is now generally felt by those who participated in this project that

the current standards need to be re-examined and updated in the light

143
of new materials, new experience with pipelines, new insight into the

mechanical properties of the materials and fabrication techniques used

and, finally, new technology for measuring and testing.

The Alaskan pipeline is now operating well. The experience gained in

respect to construction, quality control and standards will be

invaluable to those anywhere in the world who undertake a project of

this type. The standards proved to be an inseparable part of the

technology.

Mr. Roseborough

You only mentioned X-ray. Did they not use ultrasonics or magnetic

particle methods or any of the other nondestructive tests?

Mr. Herman

All the other methods were considered. They did not adequately meet

the Government's criteria on visible physical records of test results.

Mr. Roseborough

Did they X-ray only the finished weld after all seven passes or did

they do any X-ray examinations in between?

Mr. Herman

Only the finished welds were radiographed. An inspector also

inspected visually each weld for any flaws. If he did not see any, he

approved the weld for visual soundness.

Mr. Herman

I will now attempt to summarize what seems to me personally to be the

generally agreed conclusions of our two-day discussions:

1. ) Standards are highly useful in technology transfer.

2. ) The NBS/AID Program is valuable. Suggestions for

improvement in the NBS/AID program will be most

welcome from each participating country.

3. ) The Program should continue and there should be an

on-going dialogue and discussion in respect to it

as well as feed-back to NBS on what you have learned.

4. ) The interchange of standards knowledge and experience

between the various countries and between those

countries and the NBS is most valuable.

144
A critical and valuable aspect of standards is in

providing the understanding and mechanism for

international commerce. Cooperation between

nations and between the United States and regional

organizations in development of standards, in

addition to being a means of technology transfer,

improves friendly relations between countries.

The standards committees need people with both

practical, applied commercial experience, as

well as those with scientific expertise.

Standards may need local modifications or adaptation

for a region or a particular country. This can

require the use of local people and materials.

The United States (NBS) is interested in helping

the developing countries through standards assistance

and through our experience, but others will

need to modify our U.S. experience to meet their

own particular needs.

The United States has a large number of highly useful

standards groups. These groups can give valuable

advice in commercial development.

The value of voluntary cooperation between government

and outside standards groups is to be emphasized.

This approach is commended to others.

With new knowledge in respect to materials, technology

and applications, standards continue to need periodic

up-grading

.

The developing countries need to set priorities on

standards organization and efforts, since standardization is a key step in development. Implementation of standards also is of special importance.

More participation by the developing countries is

needed in standards development. If the developing

nation will participate in standards formation,

and standards bodies, they can gain valuable stateof-the-art information on technology and they

can see where that technology may help their own

countries. They must send competent participants

to appropriate standards-making organizations.

Be careful when considering special standards

since they may unduly increase costs.

145
It is difficult to document in a detailed way

the pay-off from standards utilization in

developing countries.

The U.S. Delegation to the U.N. Conference on

S&T for Development should thoroughly familiarize

itself with the subject of standardization and

be prepared to discuss the range of related issues

as the need arises. However, no consensus was

reached at this seminar as to whether standardization should be introduced by the U.S.

delegation as a topic for the Conference.

146
APPENDIX 1

SEF^INAR ON STANDARDIZATION IN SUPPORT OF DEVELOPMENT

October 17-18, 1977

National Bureau of Standards, Gai thersburg, Maryland

Lecture Room B

Monday, October 17, 1977

S ession I. Six Years of National Bureau of Standards/

Agency for International Development Programs

Chairman, Mr. Marcelo Alonso, Director, Scientific Affairs,

Organization of American States

8:30 a.m. Registration

9:00 Welcoming Remarks.

Dr. Ernest Ambler, Director of NBS

9:15 Welcoming Remarks.

Mr. Henry Arnold, Director, Office of Science and

Technology, Agency for International Development

9:30 AID/OST Program Leading to Standardization and

Measurement Services for Developing Countries.

Dr. Edward L. Brady, Associate Director for

Information Programs

10:00 Discussion

10:15 Presentations on NBS/AID Country Surveys.

Eng. Chaiwai Sangruji, Acting Director,

Thailand Industrial Standards Institute; and

Eng. Raul Estrada Albuja, Director, Instituto

Ecuatoriano de Normal i zacion

11:15 Discussion

11 :45 Luncheon at NBS

1:00 p.m. Workshops in the United States.

Dr. Robert Oteng, Director, Development

Program, International Standards Organization,

Geneva

147
1:30 Institution Building.

Mr. Ricardo Florez, Institute de Pesquisas

Tecnologicas , Sao Paulo, Brazil

2:15 Discussion

3:30 A Discussion of Other NBS/AID Activities.

Mr. H. Steffen Peiser, Chief, Office of

International Relations

4:15 Discussion

4:30 Summary by the Chairman of the Day's

Proceeding

5:30 Dinner at NBS

Tuesday, October 18, 1977

Session 1 1

. Sta ndardization in the U.S.A. - A Resource for Development

Chairman, Mr. Hamilton Herman, Industrial Consultant

9:00 a.m. Lead address. Standardization in the United

States

.

Mr. R. 0. Simpson, R. 0. Simpson Associates,

Washington, DC

9:30 International Standards Bodies and their

Relations with Developing Countries.

Mr. Robert N. Johnson, Manager-Industry

Standards and Systems, U.S. Steel Corporation,

Pittsburgh, PA

10:00 Discussion

10:15 The Mechanism for the Development and Use of

Standards to Transfer Technology and Develop

Business

.

Dr. Leon Podolsky, President, U.S. National

Committee of the International El ectrotechnical

Commission, New York, NY

10:45 Discussion

11 :45 Luncheon at NBS

1:00 p.m. Measurement Science in the United States.

Dr. A. 0. McCoubrey, Director, Institute

for Basic Standards

148
Discussion

Standardization as a Tool for Science and

Technology Transfer in Support of Industrial

Development.

Dr. Mahmoud Salama, Secretary General, Arab

Organization for Standardization and Metrology;

Chairman, Development Committee of the International Standards Organization

Discussion

Standardization a Topic for the United Nations

Conference on Science and Technology for

Development?

Mr. Simon Bourgin, Senior Adviser to

Ambassador Jean Wilkowski, Coordinator of U.S.

Preparations for the U.N. Conference on Science

and Technology

Discussion

Summary by Chairman of the Day's Proceeding

and Adjournment

149

APPENDIX 2

Seminar on Standardization in Support of Development

Participants

Department of State

Mr. Henry Arnold

Director

Office of Science and Technology

Agency for International Development

209 Rosslyn Plaza C

Washington, DC 20523

Dr. Jacob Blackburn

Director

Office of Technology, Policy and Space Affairs

Department of State

Washington, DC 20520

Mr. Simon Bourgin

Senior Adviser

T/CST, Room 1113

Department of State

Washington, DC 20520

Mr. John Dardis

Office of Technology, Policy and Space Affairs

Department of State

Washington, DC 20520

Mr. Roger D. Moeller

Office of Science and Technology

Agency for International Development

206 Rosslyn Plaza C

Washington, DC 20523

Dr. Irwin Pikus

Office of Technology, Policy and Space Affairs

Department of State

Washington, DC 20520

Mr. W. D. Roseborough

Manager, Technology Transfer and Energy

Office of Science and Technology

Agency for International Development

203 Rosslyn Plaza C

Washington, DC 20523

151
Mr. William J. Trainor, Jr.

Deputy Director

Office of External Research

Department of State

Washington, DC 20520

Department of Commerce

Ms. Gloria Gee

Foreign Business Practices Division

Bureau of International Economic

Policy and Research

Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20230

Organization of American States

Mr. Marcelo Alonso

Director

Department of Scientific Affairs

Organization of American States

17th Street and Constitution Avenue

Washington, DC 20006

Mr. Carlos Martinez-Vidal

Organization of American States

17th Street and Constitution Avenue

Washington, DC 20006

National Science Foundation

Dr. Eduardo Feller

Program Manager for Latin America

National Science Foundation

1800 G. Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20550

Dr. Osman Shinaishin

Program Manager for Pakistan

National Science Foundation

1800 G. Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20550

Mr. Warren Thompson

National Science Foundation

1800 G. Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20550

152
American Society for Testing and Materials

Mr. Samuel F. Etris

Special Assistant to the Managing Director

National Affairs

American Society for Testing and Materials

1916 Race Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Mr. Paul Van Gieson

American Society for Testing and Materials

1916 Race Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Mr. Bra ham Norwick

American Society for Testing and Materials

1916 Race Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

National Bureau of Standards

Dr. E. Ambler

Director

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. W. E. Andrus

Chief

Office of International Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. J. A. Birch

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. E. L. Brady

Associate Director for Information Programs

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. S. E. Chappell

Program Coordinator

Office of the Associate Director for Information Programs

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

153

1
Dr. D. T. Goldman

Deputy Director

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. K. N. Hartman

Chemical Process Data Evaluation

Physical Chemistry Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. H. Hellwig

Office of the Associate Director for Programs

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. J. Hilsenrath

Office of Standard Reference Data

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. A. 0. McCoubrey

Director

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. H. E. Morgan

Office of the Associate Director for Programs

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. H. J. Oser

Scientific Assistant to Director

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. E. Passaglia

Acting, Senior Institute Scientist

Institute for Materials Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. H. S. Reiser

Chief

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

154
Mr. C. C. Raley

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. N. Raufaste

Assistant to the Director for Program Planning

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. J. F. School ey

Chief, Temperature Section

Heat Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. G. Shapiro

Electronic Technology Division

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. R. S. Walleigh

Acting Deputy Director

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. J. R. Wright

Acting Director

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Dr. S. Wolynec

NBS/IPT Program Coordinator

Office of International Relations

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Other Participants

Mr. C. Anwar

Industrial Attache

Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia

2020 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20036

155
Mr. Martin Chen

Col 1 i ns-Kronstadt

Lealty, Hogan and Collins

nil Spring Street

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Engineer Raul Estrada

Director

Institute Ecuatoriano de Normal izacion

Quito, Ecuador

Mr. Ricardo G. Florez

NBS/IPT Program Manager

Institute de Pesquisas Tecnologicas

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Mr. Hamilton Herman

Industrial Consultant

7316 Masters Drive

Potomac, MD 20850

Dr. Robert D. Huntoon

13904 Blair Stone Lane

Silver Spring, MD 20906

Mr. Robert N. Johnson

Manager

Industry, Standards, and Systems

United States Steel Corporation

600 Grant Street, Room 1749

Pittsburgh, PA 15230

Mr. Roy H. Leach

Hughes Aircraft Co.

P.O. Box 90515

Los Angeles, CA 90009

Mr. Edward V. Pineda

930 Pat Court

Allentown, PA 18103

Dr. Leon Podolsky

President

U.S. National Committee for lEC

77 Windell Avenue

Pittsfield, MA 01201

156
Dr. Mahmoud Salama

Secretary General

Arab Organization for Standardization and Metrol

P.O.B. 27 Dokki

Cairo, Egypt

Mr. R. 0. Simpson

R-. 0. Simpson Associates

Suite 935

Washington Building

1435 G. Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20005

157

APPENDIX 3

1977 NBS/AID Workshop on

Standardization and Measurement Services

and

Seminar on Standardization in Support of Development

Participants

National Representatives

1. Prof. Rafael Steinberg

Chief, Department of Physics

Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Industrial

Libertad 1235

Buenos Aires, Argentina

2. Eng. Abu Hossain Khan

Director, Bangladesh Standards Institution

3-DIT (Extension) Avenue

Motijheel Commercial Area

Dacca 2, Bangladesh

3. Eng. Hernando Montano V.

Chief, Engineering Division

Direccion General de Normas y Tecnologia

Casilla 4430

La Paz, Bolivia

4. Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Ammar

Director, National Institute for Standards

P.O. Box 2343, Dokki, El Tahrir Street

Cairo, Egypt

5. Dr. G. Yao Ahlijah

Principal Scientific Officer

Ghana Standards Board

P.O. Box M.245

Accra, Ghana

6. Mrs. Sriatie Djaprie

Assistant Deputy Chairman for Technology

Indonesian Institute of Sciences

P.O. Box 250

Jl . Teuku Tjhik Ditiro 43

Jakarta, Indonesia

159
7. Dr. Bambang H. Hadiwiardjo

Deputy Director, National Institute for Instrumentation

Indonesian Institute of Sciences

Complex L.I. P. I., Jl. Sangkuriang

Bandung, Indonesia

8. Eng. Mohammad Mos-hafi

Director, Division of Electrical and Electrotechnical Industries

Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran

P.O. Box 2937

Tehran, Iran

9. Eng. J. D. Gikandi

Senior Electrical Standards Officer

Kenya Bureau of Standards

P.O. Box 10610

Nairobi, Kenya

10. Dr. Rhee, Chunghi

Chief, Temperature Standards Laboratory

Korea Standards Research Institute

C.P.O. Box 156

Seoul , Korea

11. Mrs. Anacleta B. Mascarinas

Chief Standards Officer

Inspection and Certification Division

Philippines Bureau of Standards

P.O. Box 3719

Manila, Philippines

12. Eng. Chaiwai Sangruji

Acting Director, Thai Industrial Standards Institute

Department of Science

Rama VI Street

Bangkok 4, Thailand

International Representatives

13. Eng. Kamal I. Abulyosr

Head, Standardization and Metrology Department

Arab Organization for Standardization and Metrology

P.O. Box 27, Dokki

Cairo, Egypt

14. Dr. Robert Oteng

Director, Development Committee

International Organization for Standardization

Case Postale 56

1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland

160
APPENDIX 4

Biographical Data of Seminar Authors

Alonso, Marcelo

Born in Havana, Cuba in 1921, Mr. Alonso was educated in Cuba and the

United States. His field of specialization is theoretical nuclear

physics and quantum mechanics. He was a professor of physics at a junior college in Havana in 1949 and several years later Technical

Adviser to the Cuban National Bank for Economic and Social

Development. A member of the American Physical Society, and the

American Association of Physics Teachers, he is the author of a number

of publications in physics.

Mr. Alonso in presently Director of the Department of Scientific

Affairs of the Organization of American States, Washington, D. C.

Ambler, Ernest

Born on November 20, 1923, in Bradford, Yorkshire, England, Dr. Ambler

received his U.S. citizenship in October 1958. He attended New

College in Oxford, England, where he received his B.A. degree in 1945,

his M.A. in 1949 and his Ph.D. in 1953.

In 1953, Dr. Ambler joined the staff of the National Bureau of

Standards. He became Chief of the Cryogenic Physics Section in 1961

after having been involved in the operations of the NBS. He was

appointed Chief of the Inorganic Materials Division in 1965, prior to

being named Director of the Institute for Basic Standards in 1968. He

served as NBS Deputy Director from June 1973 to June 1975, and as

Acting Director from July 1975 to February 1978. On February 3, 1978,

Dr. Ambler became the Director of NBS.

Dr. Ambler is the recipient of numerous honors, awards, and

fellowships including: the Department of Commerce Gold Medal, the NBS

Stratton Award, Nuffield Fellow of Oxford University, the John Simon

Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship Award, the John Price

Wetherill Medal of the Franklin Institute, the Washington Academy of

Sciences Award, the Arthur S. Flemming Award, the William A. Wildhack

Award, and the President's Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian

Service. He has authored 51 publications and holds a patent for low

temperature refrigeration apparatus and processes.

Arnold, Henry

Mr. Arnold is Director of the Office of Science and Technology, Agency

for International Development, Department of State. In 1970 - 1973 he

161
was Senior Ocean Engineer, National Council on Marine Resources and

Engineering Development, Washington, D. C. He holds a B.S. and M.S.

from MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a B.S. from the U.S. Naval

Academy, Annapolis, Maryland.

Brady, Edward L .

Born in Charleston, South Carolina, 1919. Undergraduate work at

University of California at Los Angeles and Ph.D. in physical

chemistry at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1948. Nuclear

power plant experience with General Electric Company and Gulf General

Atomic. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission representative, London,

England, 1956 - 1958. Senior Adviser, U.S. Mission to the

International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 1959 - 1961. At

NBS, Chief of Office of Standard Reference Data, 1963 - 1968;

Associate Director for Information Programs since 1968.

Bourgin, Simon

Mr. Bourgin was born in northern Minnesota and studied at the

University of Chicago. He was a correspondent for "Stars and Stripes"

in World War II. He was Washington correspondent for the Foreign

Policy Association; foreign correspondent for "Time" and "Life", CBS,

NBC, Vienna, Austria; Assistant to the President of the RAND

Corporation. His governmental experience includes writing for the

Department of Agriculture and the War Production Board; Science Policy

Adviser for the U.S. Information Agency; and Deputy Director of Public

Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Agency.

Estrada , Raul , A

Eng. Raul Estrada Albuja was born in Quito, Ecuador in 1927. He was

graduated from the National Polytechnic School in 1963 with a degree

in Industrial Chemical Engineering. Eng. Estrada instructed in

Chemistry, Industrial Technology, Industrial Safety, Machine Design,

Design and Construction of Industrial Plant, and Industrial Process.

Eng. Estrada was Technical Director for the Lionel Laboratory and

Chemical Center in 1953. In 1954 he was Technical Director of the

INEIA factory. From 1968 to 1970 he was Director of the Institute of

Technical Investigations of the National Polytechnic School and in

1970 he was Technical Assistant to the Secretariat of Integration.

From 1970 to present he has been the Technical Director of the Ecuador

Institute of Standardization.

Florez, Ricardo Guerra

Mr. Florez was born in Santos, Brazil in 1943. He was graduated from

Agricultural University in Sao Paulo in 1969 and later took courses in

urban design. He was associated with private industry in Brazil and

has attended a number of international meetings on architectural

162
subjects. He is presently associated with Institute de Pesquisas

Tecnologicas and manages cooperative relations between that

organization and the National Bureau of Standards.

Herman, Hamilton

A native of Highland Park, Illinois, Mr. Herman is an industrial

consultant. From 1968 to 1973 he was Senior Vice President for

Development of the American Can Company, and was earlier President of

North American Rockwell's industrial divisions; corporate Vice

President and Director of Research and Development at AMF, Inc.

Mr. Herman holds degrees in aeronautical and mechanical engineering

from MIT. Prior to his present consulting activities, Mr. Herman was

Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Systems Development and

Technology.

Johnson, Robert N.

Born in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Johnson received his B.S. degree in

metallurgical engineering from Stanford University and in 1956 studied

advanced work in metallurgy at Stanford's Graduate School of

Engineering. He is currently Manager, Industry Standards and Systems

of the United States Steel Corporation, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and

recently elected chairman of the new Committee E-43 on Metric Practice

of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). From 1973 - 1976, Mr. Johnson was a member of the ASTM Board of Directors, and

served in a position of leadership on many of ASTM's technical

committees. His efforts in international standardization include

membership on the International Standards Council of the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI), the ASTM U.S. National Committee

on Steel, and the ISO Technical Committee on Aircraft and Space

Vehicles, and Aerospace Materials and Processes Advisory Committee.

McCoubrey, A. 0.

Dr. McCoubrey, Director of the NBS' Institute for Basic Standards,

received his B.S. in applied physics from the California Institute of

Technology in 1943 and his Ph.D. in physics at the University of

Pittsburgh in 1953.

Dr. McCoubrey has had considerable private experience both with

business and research organizations. He was elected a Fellow of the

Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1972, with a citation for his contributions to atomic time and frequency standards

and to research and development management.

163
Oteng, Robert

Born in 1925, Dr. Oteng received his university training in London,

including a B.Sc, M.Sc, and Ph.D. Following a series of assignments

as research assistant, education officer, lecturer in physics, and

Administrator Head of the Department of Physics at the University of

Cape Coast, Dr. Oteng became Director of the Ghana Standards Board in

April 1972, with a staff now totaling 370. His other duties now

include Chairmanship of the Metrication Programming and Planning

Committee; Coordinator of the Cadet Alimentarius Coordinating

Committee for Africa, and Chairman of the Develop Program of the

International Organization for Standardization.

Peiser, H. Steffen

Born near Berlin, Germany in 1917, Mr. Peiser became a citizen of the

United States in 1963. He attended St. Paul's School in London, and

took his B.A. and M.A. at Cambridge University. During 1941 - 1947 he

worked for Imperial Chemical Industries, the Atomic Energy Research

Establishment, and the Nuffield Cement Research Laboratory. After

teaching at London University, he became head of metal physics

research at Hadfields Ltd., and principal scientist at the

Aeronautical Inspection Directorate's Test House.

In 1957 he joined NBS, and after heading first the Mass and Scale

Section and later the Crystal Chemistry Section, became Chief of the

Office of International Relations and Manager of the NBS Foreign

Currency Program. Diverse scientific missions have taken him to

Bolivia, Brazil, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Guyana, India, Indonesia,

Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland,

Thailand, Vietnam and Yugoslavia. Basically he is an X-ray

crystal lographer, and was Secretary of the lUPAC Commission on Atomic

Weights

.

Podolsky, Leon

Dr. Podolsky is Vice President of the International El ectrotechnical

Commission (lEC), and President of the U.S. National Committee of that

Commission. As a businessman-engineer. Dr. Podolsky has had broad

experience as an executive, consultant, engineer and inventor.'

Retiring from business early, he has devoted himself to national and

international service, and has represented the United States 31 times

at international technical meetings abroad. He is a member of the

Engineering Executive Committee, and Chairman of the International

Standards Committee of the Electronic Industries Association.

Dr. Podolsky has received many distinguished honors from the Navy

Department for outstanding service in World War II and from the major

engineering, scientific, and business organizations.

164
Salama, Mahmoud

Dr. Salama was born in Cairo in 1915, received a B.Sc. (Hons) in 1937

and Ph.D. (analytical chemistry) in 1943 from Cairo University. As

Undersecretary of State for Industry in the Arab Republic of Egypt and

Chairman of the Egyptian Organization for Standardization, he

contributed to the first and second industrialization programs of

Egypt and added significantly to international councils in both

standardization and metrology. He was awarded the order of merit for

Trade and Industry in 1963. As Secretary General for the Arab

Organization for Standardization and Metrology (ASMO) since 1968, he

must be congratulated to have achieved a truly international

standardization organization on a regional basis. He was unanimously

elected by the council of the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) as Chairman of the Development Committee

(DEVCO), and was also appointed as Liaison Officer for ISO in the Arab

Region, Turkey and Cyprus.

Sangruji, Chaiwai

Eng. Chaiwai was born in Bangkok, Thailand, in 1928 and educated in

Thailand and England. He joined the Physics and Engineering Division

of the Department of Science, Ministry of Industry in 1957 and became

its Chief in 1963. He assumed the post of Acting Director of the

newly formed Thai Industrial Standards Institute in 1969, a position

he now holds.

Simpson, Richard 0 .

Richard 0. Simpson is President of Richard 0. Simpson Associates,

Inc., a management and technical consulting firm in Washington, D.C.

Prior to forming this firm, Mr. Simpson served as the first Chairman

of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Earlier Mr. Simpson

served with the Department of Commerce where he became Acting

Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology.

Mr. Simpson has had extensive experience in private business, having

been a Group Executive with the Rucker Company of Oakland, California,

an electronics firm. Graduating with honors from the University of

California in 1965 in electrical engineering, Mr. Simpson also studied

law at Berkley.

165

APPENDIX 5

Author Index

Page

Dr. Ernest Ambler 3

Mr. Henry A. Arnold 5

Mr. Simon Bourgin 133

Dr. Edward L. Brady 9

Eng. Raul Estrada Albuja 27

Mr. Ricardo G. Florez 47

Mr. Robert N. Johnson 89

Dr. A. 0. McCoubrey 109

Dr. Robert Oteng 41

Mr. H. Steffen Reiser 67

Dr. Leon Podolsky 97

Dr. Mahmoud Salama 119

Eng. Chaiwai Sangruji 21

Mr. Richard 0. Simpson 81

167

G1 ossary

AID Agency for International Development

AISI American Iron and Steel Institute

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASMO Arab Organization for Standardization

and Metrology

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

DEVCO Development Committee of the ISO

DoD Department of Defense

DRI Denver Research Institute

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESCAP Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the

Pacific

GSA General Services Administration

IDCAS International Development Center for Arab States

lEC International Electrotechnical Commission

INPM Institute Nacional de Pesos e Medidas, Brazil

(National Institute of Weights and Measures)

lOLM International Organization for Legal Metrology

IPT Institute de Pesquisas Tecnologicas, Brazil

(Technological Research Institute)

ISO International Organization for Standardization

ITAL Institute de Technologia de Alimentos, Brazil

(Institute for Food Technology)

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

169
NBS National Bureau of Standards

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

SAE Society of American Engineers

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UNCST United Nations Conference on Science and

Technology for Development

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

170

iSr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1978 O—264-606
NBS-114A (REV. 7-73)

U .S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUIU.IC ATION OR RHPORT NO.

NBS SP-507

2. Gov't Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Accession Nc

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Standardization in Support of Development

Proceedings of a Seminar Held at the National Bureau of Standards

Jaithersburg, Maryland, October 17-18, 1977

5. Publication Date

May 1978

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

H. Steffen Peiser. John A. Birch

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract /Grant No.

2. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Organized by the National Bureau of Standards

with the cooperation of the Agency for International Developmenl

The American National Standards Institute, and

The American Society for Testing and Materials

13. Type of Report & Period

Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library -of Congress Catalog Card Number: 7^7249

6. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less [actual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) The National Bureau of Standards held a two-day

Seminar in an effort to appraise the benefits derived from six years of a cooperative

program with developing countries designed to improve their standardization and

measurement services. With financial support from the Agency for International

Development, participants came from Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Egypt, Ghana,

Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand; from regional and international organizations; from key U.S. standards writing bodies; and from industries,

professional societies and government in the United States. The papers presented and

the discussions were organized around the session titles:

°Six Years of National Bureau of Standards and Agency for International

Development Programs, and

"Standardization in the U.S.A. —A Resource for Development.

It was concluded that the developing countries concerned with this program had

benefited in a variety of ways from the standards surveys and workshops conducted by

the National Bureau of Standards in cooperation with them, and that efforts should be

made to continue the program with full support. Questions were raised, but no consensu^

reached on the desirability of standardization being proposed as a distinct topic for

the U.N. Conference on Science and Technology for Development.

7. 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

)

Africa; Agency for International Development (AID); Asia;

developing countries; engineering standards; industrialization; Latin America; National

Bureau of Standards (NBS); quality control; standards; surveys; U.N. Conference on

Science and Technology for Development; workshops.

8. AVAILABILITY [X^ Unlimited

I ! For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[3c~| Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Stock No. SN003-P03 - 01928-3

I I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

163

22. Price

USCOMM.OC 29042.P74

There's

anew

look

. . . the monthly

magazine of the National Bureau of Standards.

Still featured are special articles of general interest on

current topics such as consumer product safety and building

technology. In addition^ new sections are designed to . . . PROVIDE

SCIENTISTS with illustrated discussions

of recent technical developments and

work in progress . . . INFORM INDUSTRIAL

MANAGERS of technology transfer activities in

Federal and private labs. . . DESCRIBE TO MANUFACTURERS advances in the field of voluntary and

mandatory standards. The new DIMENSIONS/NBS also

carries complete listings of upcoming conferences to be

held at NBS and reports on all the latest NBS publications,

with information on how to order. Finally, each issue carries a page of News Briefs, aimed at keeping scientist and consumalike up to date on major developments at the Nation's physical sciences and measurement laboratory.

(please detach here)

JSCRIPTION ORDER FORM

?r my Subscription To DIMENSIONS/NBS at $12.50. Add $3.15 for foreign mailing. No additional

tage is required for mailing within the United States or its possessions. Domestic remittances

uld be made either by postal money order, express money order, or check. Foreign remittances

uld be made either by international money order, draft on an American bank, or by UNESCO

pons.

d Subscription to:

Remittance Enclosed

(Make checks payable

to Superintendent of Documents)

n Charge to my Deposit

Account No.

NAME-FIRST, LAST i_L

COMPANY NAME OR ADDITIONAL ADDRESS LINE

STREET ADDRESS

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I M I I I I I I I I I

CITY II I I I I I I I I I

STATE ZIP CODE

MAIL ORDER FORM TO:

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

ASE PRINT

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research

of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research

and development in those disciplines of the physical and

engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These

include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and

computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects,

with major emphasis on measurement methodology, and

the basic technology underlying standardization. Also in- cluded from time to time are survey articles on topics closely

related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As

a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent NBS publications in NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription:

domestic $17.00; foreign $21.25. Single copy, $3.00 domestic;

$3.75 foreign.

Note: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical Sciences."

DIMENSIONS/NBS

This monthly magazine is published to inform, scientists,

engineers, businessmen, industry, teachers, students, and

consumers of the latest advances in science and technology,

with primary emphasis on the work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution

abatement, health and safety, and consumer product per- formance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau pro- grams in measurement standards and techniques, properties

of matter and materials, engineering standards and services,

instrumentation, and automatic data processing.

Annual subscription: Domestic, $12.50; Foreign $15.65.

NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical liter- ature on various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations,

and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences

sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special

publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts,

pocket cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists, engineers,

chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers,

and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of

materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a world-wide program co- ordinated by NBS. Program under authority of National

Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396).

NOTE: At present the principal publication outlet for these

data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference

Data (JPCRD) published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of

Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements

available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St. N.W., Wash., D.C.

20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information

developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research

results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the

structural and environmental functions and the durability

and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject.

Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often

serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose

of the standards is to establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and to provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the characteristics

of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations.

Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest

to the consumer. Easily understandable language and

illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order above NBS publications from: Superintendent of

Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Order following NBS publications—NBSlR's and FIPS from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, Va. 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications

(FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register.

Register serves as the official source of information in the

Federal Government regarding standards issued by NBS

pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717

(38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of

interim or final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors (both government and non-government).

In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor;

public distribution is by the National Technical Information

Services (Springfield, Va. 22161) in paper copy or microfiche

form.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey bibli- ographies are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A litera- ture survey issued biweekly. Annual subscription: Domestic, $25.00; Foreign, $30.00.

Liquified Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly.

Annual subscription: $20.00.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey

issued quarterly. Annual subscription: $30.00. Send subscription orders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic

services to National Bureau of Standards, Cryogenic Data

Center (275.02) Boulder, Colorado 80302.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

COM-21S

SPECIAL FOURTH-CU\SS RATE

BOOK