Technology Assessment in Business and

Government

January 1977

NTIS order #PB-273164
ii
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

2342 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20515

(202) 223-6161

COMMlTTEES: Congress of the States

AGRICULTURE

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY house of Representatives

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE Washington,D.C. 20515

JOINT COMMITTEE ON

ATOMIC ENERGY

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

BOARD

3 6TH DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

DISTRlCT OFFICES:

552 North LA CADENA DRIVE

COLTON, CALIFORNIA 92324

(714) 825-2472

POST OFFICE BOX 71

RIVERSIDE , CALIFORNIA 92602

(3638 UNIVERSITY AVENUE)

(714) 686-8863

December 30, 1976

The Honorable Olin E. Teague

Chairman

Technology Assessment Board

Off ice of Technology Assessment

Congress of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Teague:

I am transmitting for the use and distribution by the Technology Assessment

Board, the Summary and Analysis and the Hearing Record of the hearings on

“Technology Assessment Activities in the Industrial, Academic, and Governmental Communities.” I appreciated the opportunity to chair these hearings,

which directly relate to the activities and responsibilities of the Technology Assessment Board.

As the Summary and Analysis makes amply clear, the technology assessment

process is still evolving, as is the role of technology assessment in society.

The role of Government, and that of the Congress in particular, is also

evolving and growing--a fact that industry witnesses unhesitantly noted. As

Harvey Brooks stated in a recent address,

“One has only to mention auto safety, consumer product safety,

pesticide regulation, the clean air amendments, the water pollution control act, the occupational health and safety act, the

creation of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, and so on down the

line. All of these pieces of legislation require what amounts

to more or less elaborate technology assessments prior to any

positive action to permit the application of technology, either

in general or with respect to a specific project, such as a dam

or a nuclear power plant, or even a specific regulatory action.”

The Office of Technology Assessment is in a position to conduct or analyze

many of these technology assessments. Based upon these hearings, and other

evidence, I believe that the technology assessment process can help decision

makers--in Congress and elsewhere--avoid serious problems that might arise

without the availability of such analytical tools. In particular, I believe

the Congress would benefit from greater exposure to technology assessments,

THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS

 

111
-2-

Honorable Olin E. Teague

December 30, 1976

and similar analytical approaches. A recent editorial in the Christian

Science Monitor makes this point especially well, citing one particular

example,

“Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment has raised a

needed warning on offshore energy-related development--

drilling for oil, building deep water ports for supertankers,

and the unprecedented floating of nuclear power plants.”

“We welcome the warning. The country has been asleep to

the fact that the kind of offshore energy-related development

likely in the future will be totally different in its impact

from any the United States has had in the past.”

“We are entering a new era of extensive offshore development

in legal disarray and short on foresight. The OTA has rendered an important service in blowing the whistle on what

could become another unplanned environmental disaster.”

The Technology Assessment Board is an ideal body to foster this wider

Congressional awareness, and should do so through the tools available to

it. Among the activities I would recommend are board hearings on major

technology assessments, whether they are done by the Office of Technology

Assessment, or by some other entity.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the utility and acceptance of technology

assessments is great enough to warrant our further encouragement of the

process both in and out of Government. Because of the high visibility of

the Office of Technology Assessment in this field, any new efforts by the

Technology Assessment Board would likely have a significant and positive

impact.

Member, Technology Assessment Board

GEB :tl: pi

iv
TECHNOL OGY ASSES SM ENT BOAR D

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

DIRECTOR

OLIN E. TEAGUE, TEXAS, CHAIRMAN

CLIFFORD P. CASE. N.J.. VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSME NT DANIEL V. DE SIMONE

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ. WASHINGTON , D.C. 20510

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., CALIF.

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, MINN. CHARLES A. MOSHER. OHIO

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER. PA. MARVIN L. ESCH, MIGH. December 30, 1976

TED STEVENS, ALASKA MARJORIE S. HOLT. MD.

EMILIO Q. DADDARlO

The Honorable Olin E. Teague

Chairman of the Board

Office of Technology Assessment

U. S. Congress

Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The attached report, Technology Assessment in Business and Government,

is a summary and analysis of OTA’s June 1976 hearings, which were held

to explore the practices and uses of technology assessments and how

they are influencing decision making in industry, government, and other

sectors. The complete record of these hearings, Technology Assessment

Activities in the Industrial, Academic, and Governmental Communities,

has been published separately.

The hearings were held at the request of Representative George E. Brown,

Jr., OTA Board Member. As you know, a preliminary summary and analysis

document was made available by Mr. Brown at the September 14, 1976,

Board meeting.

This summary and analysis volume highlights important findings discussed in the hearings. These findings in brief are as follows:

1. Technology assessment is an evolving study strategy that

is being widely adopted by the public and private sectors.

2. The strategy of any particular TA should be tailor-made

to fit the resources, timing, and needs of the decision makers.

3. In addition to identifying and exploring options and alternatives, TA can provide early warning of unanticipated consequences.

4. Management in both government and industry is finding it

increasingly necessary to comprehend the intermediate and longterm effects of technology. In both sectors, there is a growing

awareness of TA’s value for improving the policy-making process

and broadening the information base for decision making.
- 2 -

5. Technology assessment is being employed at major

corporations as a useful planning tool, in addition

to informing the policy-making process.

6. Communication among the assessment team members;

with potential users, sponsors, and decision makers;

and with affected parties in the public sector, is

essential for producing an effective technology

assessment.

These hearings were a very useful step toward developing closer

communication links and exchanging information between the public

and private sectors on technology assessment.

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO

Director

Enclosures.

vi
PREFACE

The Office of Technology Assessment held 4 days of hearings, June 8, 9,

10, and 14, 1976, on the status of technology assessment activities in the

public and private sectors. The hearings were chaired by the Honorable

George E. Brown, Jr., of California, a Member of the Technology Assessment

Board. Representative Brown, in his letter of May 14, 1975, requested that the

“Technology Assessment Board hold hearings on the status of technology

assessment. . . The 1974 Hearings,* Technology Assessment Activities of the

National Science Foundation, held by the Board, began the process of

developing the record on technology assessment, but this was clearly only a

beginning. I believe hearings on broad aspects of technology assessment

would be useful to the Congress and the country. ” The Board gave final approval to his request at its March 16, 1976 meetings.

The hearings were planned and organized by Mr. Dennis F. Miller and

Mr. John Davis. Staff support was given by Mr. Joseph F. Coates, Assistant to

the Director; Ms. Renee Ford, consultant; and Ms. Goldie Hallas; secretary.

Special thanks are due other staff members who gave advice and assistance

on this project,

This document is a summary and analysis of the Hearings Record. The

second volume contains the Hearings Record.

* ~c~e hearings were held on June 12, 1974. Under the terms of the Technology Assessment

Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-484, Sec. lo(a) (1) and (2)), the Office k required to maintain a liaison with the

National Science Foundation and to review its technology assessment (TA) program. The purpose of

this review is two-fold, to promote the coordination of TA research in order to minimize unnecessary

duplication, and to promote the development of TA programs and techniques.

vii
CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WITNESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MAJOR FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section l. EVOLUTION, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Assessment: A Concept in Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Assessment Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Need for Better Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Importance of Technology in Technology Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Opinions About What Technology Assessment Is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Common Elements of Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Environmental Impact Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bounding the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Implementing Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Study Strategies and Techniques Utilized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 2. ADAPTABILITY ...,...,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Need for Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Assessment in Relation to Other Study Techniques. . . . . . .

Section 3. ALERTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Assessment Process Itself is Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 4. PLANNING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Awareness of Technology Assessment in the Planning Process . . . . . . .

Inhouse Versus Contractor Approach to Technology Assessment. . . . . .

Credibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 5. UTILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Utilization of Technology Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effect of Technology Assessment on Decisionmaking, . . . . . . . . .

Perceived Role of the Office of Technology Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Differences in the Aims of Technology Assessment between the Public

and Private Sectors ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Assessment in Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acquiring an International Perspective, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scction 6. COMMUNICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Communication and Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Improved Cooperation and Understanding, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delivering Results. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mechanisms for Delivery of TA Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Training and Education. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . .

Page

vii

xi

1

3

5

7

7

7

8

9

9

10

12

12

13

13

15

15

15

17

17

18

18

19

20

21

21

21

22

23

24

24

26

26

26

29

29

29

ix
Role of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Public Participation Efforts in Executive Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Public Participation Efforts in the Private Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

FUTURE HEARINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

x
WITNESSES

GOVERNMENT

Dr. H. Guyford Stever. . . . . . . . . . . . .

accompanied by

Dr. Alfred J. Eggers, Jr. . . . . . . .,

Dr. William L, Fisher. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dr. Sidney R. Galler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mr. Bruce A. Pasternack, . . . ., . . . .

Mr. John S, Barren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

accompanied by

Mr. William E. Dickenson . . . . .

INDUSTRY

Mr. Monte C. Throdahl, , . . . . . . . . . . .

accompanied by

Mr. F. D. Wharton, Jr, . . . . . , . . . .

and

Mr. J. Kenneth Craver. . . . . . . , .,

Mr. I. W. Davison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

accompanied by

Mr. Emil Malick. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Science Adviser to the President; and

Director, National Science Foundat ion.

Assistant Director for Research Application, National Science Foundation.

Assistant Secretary for Energy and

Minerals, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, U.S. Department of

Commerce.

Associate Administrator for Policy and

Program Evaluation, Federal Energy

Administration.

Assistant to the General Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority.

Coordinator of Research and Development Activities in the Tennessee

Valley Authority

Group Vice President and a member of

the Board of Directors, Monsanto

Company.

Manager Environmental Affairs CycleSafe® Container Group, Monsanto

Company.

Manager Futures Research Corporate

Plans Department, Monsanto Company.

Vice President, Research and Development, Phillips Petroleum Company.

President, Provesta , a Phil1ips

Petroleum Company Subsidiary.

June 8

June 8

June 9

June 9

June 9

June 8

June 9

xi
Mr. Harry E. Teasley, Jr.. . . . . . . . . . . .

Dr. W. Dale Compton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dr. Henry L. Duncombe, Jr. . . . . . . . . .

accompanied by

Dr. Frederick W. Bowditch . . . . .

Dr. Dean Gillette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mr. Lawrence H. Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mr. Jack B. Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dr. George E. Mueller. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vice President, Corporate Business

Development, The Coca-Cola Company.

Vice President—Research, Engineering

and Research Staff, Ford Motor Company.

Vice President and Chief Economist,

General Motors Corporation.

Executive Assistant to the Vice President, Environmental Activities Staff,

General Motors Corporation.

Executive Director, Systems

Division, Bell Laboratories.

Assistant Director — Business

Bell Canada.

Research

Planning,

Vice President, Advanced Engineering,

Southern California Edison Company.

President and Chairman of the Board,

System Development Corporation.

June 10

June 10

June 10

June 10

June 10

June 14

June 14

ACADEMIC

Dr. Don E. Kash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director, Science and Public Policy June 14

Program, University of Oklahoma.

Dr. R Rhoads Stephenson . . . . . . . . . . Manager of the Systems Analysis Sec- June 14

tion, Jet Propulsion Laboratory—

California Institute of Technology.

accompanied by

Mr. Thomas A. Barber . . . . . . . . . a member of the technical staff.

Mr. Selwyn Enzer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associate Director, Center for Futures June 14

Research, Graduate School of Business, University of Southern California.

xii
The purpose of the hearings

how the processes of technology

INTRODUCTION

.

was to develop a better understanding of

assessment have affected decisionmaking

in the public and private sectors. An information base is expected to be

developed on the experience gained and the lessons learned in the practice

of such assessments, This should make the work of the Office of Technology

Assessment (OTA) more effective and also be of value to the public, industry, and Government. As the Honorable Olin E. Teague, Chairman of the

Technology Assessment Board, stated: “The practical application of technology assessment is still in its formative stage with many unknowns. It is

anticipated that these hearings will focus on the as yet unsolved problems,

and provide the light of knowledge necessary to speed their solution. ” (See

Opening Statement, Hearings Record p. 2.)

1
MAJOR FINDINGS

In the course of these hearings a wide variety of issues were raised and

discussed. The witnesses almost universally acknowledged that technology

is a critical factor in our society, but that now its long-term primary effects,

both planned and unforeseen, have become of increasing concern to the

public. Six major findings about technology assessment emerged from an

analysis of the hearings. These are listed below, and elaborated in the report

that follows.

SIX MAJOR FINDINGS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

THAT EMERGED FROM THE HEARINGS

1. Evolution 3. Alerting

Technology assessment (TA) is an evolving

policy study strategy that is being widely

adopted in Government and private-sector

organizations. It is viewed by the private

sector as a potentially important tool for better understanding the future business environment and thereby improving corporate

decisionmaking. The executive and legislative branches regard TA as a valuable tool

for understanding the public choices before 40

them, as well as for providing information

essential for implementing these choices.

TA will gain in importance with wider use.

2. Adaptability

The study strategy of any particular TA

should be tailormade to fit the resources,

timing, and needs of decision makers. A

great premium is set on study strategies that

are adaptable and flexible, yet stable, rather

In addition to elucidating options and alternatives, TA can provide early warning of

consequences normally unanticipated in

traditional planning. Witnesses from both

the public and private sectors saw this to be

of distinctive value for policy makers. As TA

is increasingly used, this value will become

more apparent.

Planning

Management in both Government and industry is finding an increasing need to comprehend the intermediate and long-term

effects of technology. There is a growing

awareness in both sectors of TA’s value for

improving the policy planning process, for

broadening the information base for decisionmaking, and as a constituent of longrange planning.

 Utilizatio n

than routine or formalized. The TA process

has been shown to be adaptable to a wide Technology assessment is being inrange of circumstances and needs. creasingly employed in both the public and

3
private sectors, A few major corporations

are using TA as a part of the planning process and as an input for forming policy. In

the Federal Government, TA is being used

for some types of decisionmaking without

being institutionalized. However, as with

many studies, its results are not always fully

utilized.

6. Communication

Communication among the assessment team

members; with potential users, sponsors,

and decision makers; and with affected parties in the public sector, is essential for producing an effective TA as well as for its

utilization in decisionmaking. The TA process brings together people with a wide

range of views, thus necessitating the creation of a high-degree of communication.

Decisionmaking and communication among

the interest groups involved should be improved by the TA process as well as by its

product.

4
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS

Witnesses’ testimony also confirmed the value of OTA’s experience over the

past 3 years. The following reflect key points observed by OTA that emerged from

a.

b.

c,

d,

e.

f.

g.

h.

the hearings, offered here in summary:

It is crucial that the technology being

assessed should be understood fully and

completely,

Achieving completeness and balance in

a TA requires a diversity of inputs.

The use of a team of assessors, cutting

across many disciplines, is essential for

carrying out large and complex TAs.

Outside review is necessary to produce

a credible study of high quality.

A successful TA may determine the

need for more detailed policy studies,

and may provide the structure for possible follow on research. TA is a process

that is likely to be repeated at more

sophisticated levels as new knowledge

develops and a technology evolves.

Although flexible, a TA possesses certain structural elements. It describes the

technology; defines the issue and its current status; sets forth the issue’s ostensible future course; identifies policy actions; suggests alternative policy

scenarios; and assesses the complete

spectrum of potential impacts.

A TA can reveal surprises because its

results are not necessarily predictable.

Although TA has new and unique

features and purposes, it is continuous

with other long-range planning and

policy development techniques: in industry, with marketing forecasting and

i.

j.

k.

1.

m.

feasibility studies; in executive agencies, with their normal planning practices; and in Congress, with its hearing

and oversight functions,

The goals of balance, comprehensiveness, timeliness, and credibility are as

important to private industries as they

are to the public sector.

Technology assessment is more of an

art, than a formalized scientific discipline. Thus its success depends largely

on sufficient time and resources as well

as talent, skill, and experience.

The delivery of useful results expressed

in cogent and precise language is a major goal of TA. The mechanism for

delivery should be planned and assured

at an early stage in the assessment procedure.

Many traditional disciplinary and institutional boundaries are bridged by

TA. This is evidenced in the corporate

sector by interaction among various

managerial groups; and in the legislative

branch by the stimulation of improved

communication and interactions among

its agencies.

In the corporate sector, there was a

desire for TA findings to be followed by

conclusions and recommendations,

rather than the range of policy options

and alternatives considered to be one of

the major benefits of a TA.

83-106 0 - 77 - 2
n. The TA process is open to public achieved, In the executive and legislascrutiny in the Government. In the cor- tive branches, there often is direct parporatc sector however, proprietary con- ticipation via the hearing process to

siderations may restrict the release of which a wide range of part ics-at-interest

information, contribute. In the private sector, this

o. There is a difference among the various

sectors in the way public participation is

type of public involvement is less frequent.

6
Section 1

EVOLUTION

Technology assessment (TA) is an evolving policy study strategy that is being

widely adopted in Government and Private. sector organizations. It is viewed by the

private sector as a potentially important tool for better understanding the future

business environment and thereby improving corporate decisionmaking. The executive and legislative branches regard TA as a valuable tool for understanding the

public choices before them, as well as for providing information essential for implementing these choices, TA will gain in importance with wider use.

Technology Assessment: A Concept in

Evolution

Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), observed

that, “ . . . we are undergoing some fundamental transformations in our outlook and activity

in science and technology. These changes are

being manifested in studies with more holistic

analyses, taking a more comprehensive look at

nature; with new understanding of international interdependence; and with a growing

emphasis on bringing the future into sharper

focus.” (See Hearings Record p. 10.)1 An executive branch witness, Dr. William L, Fisher,

Assistant Secretary for Energy and Minerals,

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), said

that, “ ., , formalized TA, as we understand it

today, is of relatively recent origin. * * * As an

analytical art it is still evolving, and subject to

much more study and refinement. ’’R. R. p. 23.

It has become apparent in the course of

TA’s evolution that the depth, scope, investment, and time involved in a TA is related to

 1Hearings Record will be abbreviated in subsequent

references as H.R. p. -.

its purpose, its institutional auspices, and the

management level of responsibility in the

decisionmaking process for which it was undertaken. Thus, in order to respond to new

needs and demands there has been an evolution of study strategies in the business environment, This has created a requirement for

a sophisticated tool like TA, Mr. Jack B.

Moore, Vice President, Advanced Engineering, speaking about TA’s evolving role within

his organization, Southern California Edison,

substantiated this point when he said, “In today’s world, any organization, be it governmental or industrial, having large impacts on

society cannot continue without the ability to

perform sophisticated TAs. * * * In recent

years this [the use of TA] has become of

greater importance with the advent of new

technologies, environmental impact considerations, and economic limitations, ” H.R.

pps. 175, 180. Mr. Moore also pointed out how

the evolution of the TA concept within his

company had affected the management struc- ,

ture.

Technology Assessment Concept

The complex social problems caused by

technology have created demands within

organizations for an innovative approach simi-

‘7
lar in many respects to the TA concept. Dr. clarifying policy options associated with longStever expressed the view shared by others range and complex social-technological issues.

that the increasing interest and activity in the The TA concept can also be used as a tactic

TA concept indicates a growing consensus that for dealing with immediate issues requiring

new strategies are needed to understand the an approach that distinguishes the policy

problems confronting us. H.R. p. 4. trade-offs. Such assessments provid e

An approach that applies the TA concept policy makers and planners with options and

identifies the impacting technologies and ex- alternatives on which to base their decisions.

poses the resulting issues. It is also able to ex- The step from the idea to the operational imamine the relevant organizational decision- plementation is the step from the TA concept

making structure; and is able as a policy tool, to its actual use. Many organizations are

to identify alternative programs to be unaware that they actually apply the TA conassessed, and possible impacts of such alter- cept.

native actions and of external factors. All of

these are evaluated in terms of the identified

parties-at-interest, It then sets forth policy options for the decision makers. Need for Better Data

The potential primary impacts and side- The limitations of data—particularly with

effects of technology need to be identified respect to objectivity—often are so significant

when developing approaches for achieving an that they can mislead a policy analysis, which

organization’s goals. The TA concept can be may produce poor decisions. Two of TA’s adutilized either as a strategy for anticipating vantages arc: first, that it uses available data in

problems associated with emerging tech- the best and most appropriate way for achievnologies, or as an organizing concept for ing informed decisionmaking; and second,

Figure 1. Some Technology Assessments Sponsored by the National Science Foundation

8
that it sharpens the awareness of data and

research needs.

The ready incorporation of the TA concept

in both sectors has been in part due to the

recognition that it is a means of developing accurate and objective data. As expressed by Dr.

W. Dale Compton, Vice President—Research,

Engineering and Research Staff, Ford Motor

Company, *’The assessment process tends to

assume an existing technology and to explore

the ramifications of implementing it. This

assumes that the technology is reasonably

well-developed . One cannot establish the

technical facts by consensus votes. Hard data

on the particular technology must be available

and must be agreed upon by the experts if an

assessment is to be useful, This does not mean

that implications drawn from the data will be

universally accepted. In fact, the conclusions

may be controversial. After all, one often is

dealing with sociological forces, and the

ability to predict social events is at best imprecise. Far too often, assessing the social implications comes down to a matter of judgment

rather than to a prescribed means of making a

prediction. But the technical data must exist

and must be valid before any assessment

should be undertaken. ” H. Il. p. 117,

Importance of Technology in Technology

Assessment

Technology has major effects throughout

society that arc both positive and negative, A

fundamental purpose of TA is to inform decision makers about these effects. Therefore,

understanding the technology is paramount in

planning and carrying out a TA,

Opinions among witnesses differed concerning how broadly or narrowly technology

should be defined, Dr. Don E. Kash, Director,

Science and Public Policy Program, University

of Oklahoma, indicated, “ . . , I think it is important to emphasize that while we now know

how to do technology we don’t understand it. ’

H.R. p. 201. To him technology meant hardware. Others, like Dr. Compton and Dr. R.

Rhoads Stephenson, Systems Analysis

Manager, Jet Propulsion Laboratory-California Institute of Technology (JPL-CalTech), also

felt that it was important to get the technology

right, but not to limit TA only to hardware.

H.R. pps. 117, 208.

Other perspectives were expressed by Mr.

Lawrence H. Day, Assistant Director—Business Planning, Bell Canada, who thought that

the technology itself was not “the key”, service

was the important factor, H.R. p. 158; and Dr.

Sidney R. Galler, Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Environmental Affairs, Department of

Commerce (DOC), who considered regulations as “soft” technologies and therefore

legitimate subjects for TA. This idea was extended further by Mr. Bruce A. Pasternack,

Associate Administrator for Policy and

Program Evaluation, Federal Energy Administration (FEA), who claimed that the TA

concept is a tool whose value for the “soft” or

what others call social technologies such as

regulatory decisions, consumer patterns, and

broad changes in policy, equals that of its

value for the “hard” technologies. H.R. p. 81.

Opinions About What Technology

Assessment Is

Several closely related working definitions

of TA were given by different witnesses. The

preamble to the OTA enabling legislation, the

NSF program definition, and the working

definition developed in the George

Washington University state-of-the-art review

on TA were all cited.

Dr. Henry L. Duncombe, Jr., Vice President

and Chief Economist, General Motors Corp.

(GM), noted that, “OTA was created, according to the preamble of the Technology Assessment Act of 1972, to provide Congress with

unbiased information concerning the physical,

biological, economic, social, and political

effects of the actions Congress may take on

programs involving science or technology. ”

He added, “This is an awe-inspiring mandate

as we would view it from the perspective of a

single industry. It is truly breathtaking when

wc consider the diversity and dynamism of

the American economy. I would like to discuss

9
TA as we view it in GM with primary

emphasis on the economic, marketing, and

commercial considerations that of necessity

are important to any private enterprise, ” H.R.

p. 130. Mr. Moore said that Edison used

George Washington University’s (GW) operating definition of TA, which states that the process is, “ . , , the systematic identification,

analysis, and evaluation of the real and potential impacts of technology on social, economic,

environmental, and political systems and

processes, ”2

Technology assessment was also described

as more of an art than a science or related discipline, although it draws on both of these, A

person with a scientific or engineering background tends to perceive TA as an extension

of one of these disciplines, and tries to formulate a methodological framework in order to

make the assessment process a more strucz This concept as defined and developed at GW in the

period of 1966-70 is stated more fully as:

“Technology assessment is the systematic identification, analysis, and evaluation of the full range

of social impacts, both beneficial and detrimental,

which may result from the introduction of a new

technology or changes in the application and

utilization of existing technology. In technology

assessment, great emphasis is placed on secondary

and higher-order impacts (that is, on unplanned

and on intentional consequences) which affect

social, cultural, institutional, political, economic,

and environmental systems and processes of

society. Technology assessment is intended to illuminate societal options and thereby provide a

neutral and objective input into public decisionmaking.” Vary T. Coates, Technology and Public

Policy: The Process of Technology Assessment in

the Federal Government; Vol. I, p, ix, Final

Report, July 1972. The George Washington University.

By comparison, the OTA’s working definition

of TA based on its experience is as follows: There

is agreement that the concept of technology assessment encompasses a thorough and balanced

analysis of all significant primary, secondary, indirect, and delayed consequences or impacts.

present and foreseen, on society, the environment,

or the economy that may occur when applications

of a technology are introduced, extended, o r

modified. Both the evolution of OTA’s assessment

techniques and its sense of overall mission require

continuous examination, evaluation, renewal, and

as appropriate, change in order to assure responsiveness to the needs and expectations of the Congress.

tured and well-defined activity. This tendency

was particularly noted by Mr. Selwyn Enzer,

Associate Director, Center for Future s

Research, Graduate School of Business,

University of Southern California, who

emphasized that people with technical backgrounds find that the notion of TA as an art is

a difficult one to accept, In his opinion, many

of the originators of TA recognized it would

never become a completely scientific activity.

This is because TA attempts to understand the

processes of societal change over both the

short and long terms, and can include “nonscientific issues involving human values. ”

H.R. p. 219.

Common Elements of Technology

Assessment

One of the findings that emerged from the

testimony is that TA should be tailormade to

fit each study. This makes the need for a flexible approach mandatory, The witnesses recognized however, that there are a number of

basic preliminary steps that have been found

to be common to those TAs already completed

and proven useful. Particular elements were

singled out for mention by different witnesses.

While opinions differed about which basic

steps were most essential, there was almost

unanimous agreement on the importance of

defining both the task and the technology.

Mr. Day pointed out that at Bell Canada they

used “the standard [TA] definitions from the

text books,” that “identify secondary impacts

resulting from the uses of technology. ” Normally, this is the philosophy that directs their

work. One inhouse study had used the “Mitre

Methodology,” characterized by Mr. Day as,

. , . an approach to TA that might, if anything

could, be considered classic. ” H.R. p. 157.

In his written statement, Mr. Enzer, after

describing the five tasks he considered essential for conducting a TA said, “It should also

be noted that some assessors emphasize certain tasks and minimize others, The issue over

which there is the greatest disagreement is the

10
degree to which the assessment team should

seek to make value judgments and policy

recommendations. This is partly the result of

the unscientific nature of such evaluations and

partly to preserve the sense of objectivity with

which the assessment was conducted. ” H.R. p.

223.

Dr. Stephenson cited the lessons learned in

the JPL-CalTech TA on the need for a new

auto engine. In his operational tasks, he discussed what he thought were the primary procedures to be followed in doing a TA. He

added, “There are various aspects about the

way in which the study was conducted that

allowed us to grasp an extremely broad and

complex problem, and derive conclusions and

specific recommendations, which in the large,

have held up to scrutiny.” (See fig. 2.) Dr.

Stephenson also considered post-report

publication activities to be very important.

H,R. pps. 207, 209 ff.

There were also different opinions expressed about what a TA should include and

AUTO

INDUSTRY

PRACTICES

SUBSTUDY

. ------ .

HIGHWAY

SAFETY

SUBSTUDY

SAF

FINDINGS

what should be emphasized. From the

description of the TA activities in the various

organizations represented at the Hearings, it

was clear that there was a wide disparity -in

the scope of the TAs being done. For example,

The Coca-Cola Company and JPL-CalTech

studies were broad in scope and took into consideration the various elements of TA. They

did not however, attempt to incorporate the

views of the diverse publics, those who might

have some stake in the outcome. Dr. Compton

also indicated that at the Ford Motor Co. they

did not include parties-at-interest in their TAs.

H.R. p. 126.

A complete TA is a comprehensive attempt

to identify and describe a technology’s entire

range of side-effects as well as its policy options and alternatives. There are circumstances however, in which it is preferable to

examine a narrower and more limited range

of effects. This type of study, which is

regarded as a partial TA, is also considered to

be valuable. The use of such partial TAs indicates the importance assigned both to asccr1 : -

MATERIALS AUTOMOBILE TECHNOLOGY SUBSTUDIES

I

 “

ENERGY

SUBSTUDY AND FUELS

SUBSTUDY

VEHICLE POWERPLANT MANUFACCHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS TUNABILITY

AND COSTS

CONFIGURATIONS

————— —

I DRIVING CYCLE

I

I ALTERNATE - ENGINE VEHICLE

I

OVE-

. ---

I

VEHICLE

SUBSTUDY

I

I

1

AIR QUALITY

AND

EMISSIONS

SUBSTUDY

I

I

FINDINGS

————— — — - 1 ————— 

i

I

VEHICLE

USE

FINDINGS

AIR QUALITY

AND

EMISSIONS

FINDINGS

i -

— —-———— ——— -

SYNTHESIS —————-——— —- - A

————————-————— — — ——— — — — — - — —- — — — — — — - i

RECOMMENDED

STRATEGY

Figure 2. Structure of the JPL-CalTech Automotive Power Systems Evaluation Study

11
taining secondary impacts in the decisionmaking process, and to having a set of options or

alternatives from which to choose in arriving

at a decision. Partial TAs provide these elements even within their restricted range.

Environmental Impact Statement

While some witnesses regarded an environmental impact statement (EIS) analysis as a

partial TA, others thought it an inadequate

basis for decision making because of its ex post

facto nature, its limited scope, and the absence

of decision options. The EIS process as

described under 102-C, P.L. 90-191 is a partial

TA, The utilization of the EIS however, raises

serious concerns that highlight its institutional

limitations. An EIS is carried out after most

basic decisions have been made, such as the

decision to select a particular fuel or particular

utility site. Because of the emphasis on procedure and the broad scope of data collection,

an EIS also tends to be insufficiently focused

on decision options, alternatives, and consequences.

Dr. Fisher observed that EIS was considered by his agency to be the same as a TA,

except for a difference in scope and in the

emphasis given to certain components. He

added that at DOI they were cognizant of the

distinction between these two types of

analysis, and the limitations of the EIS process. H.R. pp. 27-28. Dr. Kash argued that an

EIS was much narrower in scope than a TA,

and not necessarily dependent on technology:

and Mr. Enzer claimed that an EIS is essentially a subset of TA but does not get into,

“The difficult issues of psychological, social,

and emotional impacts, and the degree to

which society should intervene in these processes . . .“ H.R. p. 236.

Dr. Galler suggested that the EIS process

has made a major contribution, taking into

consideration the number being done, and the

way it has instilled a widespread consciousness among planners and decision makers of

the need for planning ahead by anticipating

secondary effects. He made the poin t

however, that the EIS frequently fails to highlight what- is in fact important. He was in

agreement with the viewpoints of Dr. Kash

and Mr. Enzer that an EIS was a form of TA

but more limited in scope.

Dr. Gallcr criticized the EIS process for two

main reasons: first, because as in a TA it

should have an economic dimension, and second, because like a TA it should take place at

the beginning of the decisionmaking process

rather than at the end. At present when an EIS

is initiated a commitment has been made, and

in most cases large amounts of money have

already been allocated to it, If the EIS were

done before the commitment of major budgetary resources to a proposed project, options

and alternatives could be developed at each

stage, and parties-at-interest could make their

inputs at that time. As it is, the final written

product has little impact on the planning,

policy, and decisionmaking processes.

Therefore, hc recommended that the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) legislation

be reviewed. He also suggested that such a

review might have lessons for TA, and be applicable to other areas.

Bounding the Problem

A crucial step in formulating the options

and alternatives in a TA, is to define the scope

of the study. Several of the limitations in setting the bounds of a TA have been recognized.

Dr. Stever observed, “As to the limits, I

believe we can look at several real-life elements, First, there is a client who provides a

need limit, How much information of what

nature does a client have a need for? Here, a

principal dimension concerns which of the

two major functions is of primary interest to

the client. There arc quite different needs

from a private enterprise perspective than

from a long-range Government policy

perspective. A second area would be the

nature of the technology or problem at hand.

This typically puts a time limit on the assessment process in terms of forecasting, including forecasting not only effects but also

12
capabilities. Finally, them is a real-life constraint in resources or budget. How much

effort can be allocated to dealing with the

broad, long-range consequences?" H.R. p. 17.

Other witnesses saw the bounding problem

from somewhat different perspectives, Mr.

Moore cited time as a critical factor because

technologies change over time, and because a

point is reached in any major project, “. . .

when a final decision is neccssary. ” H.R. p.

174. Dr. Compto n suggested , . . . the

availability of reliable data that can be used in

the evaluation of the issue under considerat ion, ” as essentially the only 1imit imposed on

the TA concept, H.R. p. 128. Mr. Harry E.

Teasley, Jr., Vice President, Corporate Business Development, The Coca-Cola Company,

added another bounding condition when he

stated that TAs, “. . , will vary directly with the

quality of the assumptions and the completeness of the model. ” H.R. p. 114. While Mr.

Moore felt that, “Since TA depends, in part, on

predictions of future actions by society; it is

limited by the nature of the assumptions used

for the future of the Nation and international

relationships. H.R. p. 182. Mr. Enzer’s concern was with the cent’rovcrsial issue of, “. . .

the degree to which the assessment team

would seek to make value judgments and

policy recommendations.’” H.R. p. 223, Other

limitations cited by witnesses were funding

constraints and the state-of-the-art of TA itself.

It is difficult to limit and define a TA’s

boundaries because the potential of a new

technology is limitless. Since in any organization, the financial, manpower, and time

resources available for determining what is

significant to study are finite, the bounding

problem becomes what should be studied and

at what depth. The most critical requisite

however, is the use of good judgment while

carrying out the TA itself.

Implementing Technology Assessment

There arc various ways in

tions establish the process

While the executive branch

which organizafor doing TAs

witnesses indicated that there were no formal structures for

conducting complete TAs in their organizations, they did convey that these were being

carried out under other rubrics within

bureaus or specific programs.

At the DOI, according to Dr. Fisher, the staff

preparing EISs considers them to be a type of

TA, and incorporates the results of EISs in the

Department’s Program Decision Option DO Cument (PDOP), which presents options and

alternatives for decisionmaking. The DOC,

which has established the post of Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs

to assist in complying with NEPA, prepares an

average of 12 EISs per year. However, it has

“reviewed many thousands over the last 5

years, ” and has “commented on about half the

number that have come in for review. ” Dr.

Galler, H.R. p. 75. The FEA carries out TAtype activities, even though there is no formal

TA-structure either in the Office of Policy

Analysis or in other offices, because FEA interprets the NEPA law as requiring an EIS on

the impacts of its regulations before they

become effective.

Private sector participants indicated that

even though they did not necessarily have a

formal structure for carrying out TAs, they

were concerned about secondary impacts. For

example, the Phillips Petroleum Company

has, “. , . the equivalent of 600 people involved

in environmental work. ” Mr. J.W. Davison,

H.R. pps. 45, 71. And the Monsanto Company,

which assesses projects with the potential for

sizable impacts in the corporation, has carried

out TAs on over 35 large and small business

projects in the past 6 years. Mr. Monte C.

Throdahl, H.R. p. 40. At The Coca-Cola Company, TAs are done as they arc needed. H.R. p.

114. This on the whole typifies the approach of

the corporations testifying.

Study Strategies and Techniques Utilized

Experience shows that there are no agreed

upon techniques for carrying out a TA. AS Mr.

Day expressed it, “. . . we have had our fingers

13
burned and learned the fine details of how to

and how not to conduct TAs. We could sit and

debate the methodological issues for days on

end. If there is a viable TA technique around,

we have used it. One thing I can say is that

there is no technique today that has received

any sort of universal acceptance; they all have

wide holes in them. . . “ H.R. p. 159.

Mr. Enzer proposed creativity as a key to

getting useful results. “We have to have imaginative, creative interdisciplinary persons

working in these [TA] tasks ., .“ H. Il. p. 230.

Dr. Kash recommended rejecting, . . any

proposed assessment that is characterized as

being primarily dependent on a formal

methodology . . . there is a very weak record of

useful assessments coming from studies

organized around such techniques as inputoutput analysis, Delphi simulation, and the

200 types of cost-risk-benefit analysis, ” H.R. p.

195. As for study strategies at Monsanto, J.

Kenneth Craver, Manager Futures Research

commented, “. . . we have had to explore a

variety of forecasting and analysis techniques.

It was during this time that we developed

cross-impact analysis as a tool that was particularly well-suited to our needs. ” H.R. p. 37.

Technology assessment requires study

strategies that comprehensively treat all

aspects of the problem being examined, The

goals of any study strategy are; factually accurate information, unbiased analysis, and credible options and alternatives. Experience

should develop a better understanding of what

the essential elements of a TA should be.

PREPAR E

PRELIMINARY

PAPERS TEAM REVIEW

I

REVISED PAPERS

FINAL REPORT

TEAM REVIEW

I

1

TEAM REVIEW REVIEW BY REVIEW REVIEW BY

ADVISORY BY PARTIES-ATCOMMITTEE CONSULTANTS INTERES T

1

TEAM REVISIONS

Figure 3. Internal and External Review Processes Utilized by the Science and

Public Policy Program, University of Oklahoma

14
Section 2

ADAPTABILITY

The study strategy of any particular TA should be tailormade to fit the

resources, timing, and needs of decision makers. A great premium is set on study

strategies that are adaptable and flexible, yet stable, rather than routine or formalized. The TA process has been shown to be adaptable to a wide range of

circumstances and needs.

Need for Flexibility

Technology assessment’s value as a flexible

study strategy was expressed by Mr. Moore.

He observed that even though TA is costly and

may be operationally difficult to employ, it is

important for doing business at Southern

California Edison because “. . it is not possible at the outset to account for all technological

advances that will occur during project

development, or to forecast those that will be

acceptablc several years in the future. * * *

The use of TA during the planning and conduct of the complete R&D program . . . has improved the flexibility in responding to

problems that arise. Where technica l

feasibility, and economic and political systems

were considered previously, Edison now uses

TA to add consideration of social and environmental concerns. ” H.R. pps. 174, 180. D r.

Stever also noted this point, ‘*Technology

assessments will be more credible and have

more impact if a wide spectrum of alternatives

is communicated to affected parties before

they become committed to specific courses of

act ion. ” f-1. R. p. 10. “These characteristics of

adaptability and flexibility have also proven of

interest to planners who claim that TA maps a

problem much better than other types of techniques.

Technology Assessment in Relation to

Other Study Techniques

Because TA has much in common with

other forms of policy analysis, the use of TAtype analyses is familiar to many decision

makers and planners; and many TA-related

studies are being carried out in the executive

and legislative branches as well as in industry.

Mr. Enzer in pointing this out said, “, ., many

government and industrial organizations find

themselves having been engaged in TA activities before they had any awareness of TA.

The demand for better guidance of change in

our society is now so pervasive that in spite of

the methodological, institutional, and intellectual difficulties, TA will continue to grow and

expand although it may do so under a variety

of different names. ” H.R. p. 227.

Dr. Stever observed that often organizations

do not recognize that they are in fact using TA

when carrying out studies that are clearly rep

lated to it, “It is interesting to note that even

though a number of agencies have not used

the term "technology assessment," efforts such

as environmental impact studies, national

assessments, future studies, planning studies,

social impact analysis, the development of

social indicators, etc. are going forward. These

demonstrate a commitment and attitude

15
toward the systematic and comprehensive ex- niques are found in market research and planamination of the consequences of technologi- ning, econometric modeling, and statistical

cal change. ” H. R.. pps. 6-7. analysis. While there is a clear distinction beMr. Day in discussing industry’s involve- tween these forecasting techniques and a comment in TA noted, “Many of the techniques plete TA, familiarity in industry with the use

that are used for TA are those used in long- of these methodologies creates fertile ground

term planning in business. Other useful tech- for TA in business.” H.R. p. 335.

16
Section 3

ALERTING

In addition to elucidating options and alternatives, TA can provide early warning of consequences normally unanticipated in traditional planning. Witnesses

from both the public and private sectors saw this to be of distinctive value for

policy makers. As TA is increasingly used, this value will become more apparent.

Technology Assessment Process Itself is

Important

Mr. Enzer felt that, “The critical need in

making TA work in our society is to develop

an assessment orientation. ” H.R. p. 229. M r

Day’s concern however, was that the business

planners at Bell Canada should undcrstand

both the strengths and weaknesses of TA, “A

significant part of this understanding is that it

is the process itself, not the particular study

that really counts. Important areas cannot be

given the effort they require in a single, normally short time-frame study that attempts to

answer the important questions associated

with the topic. ” H.R. p. 332.

Organizations are also recognizing that the

assessment process provides an early warning

of unanticipated consequences. when discussing the effect of the NEPA legislation Dr.

Galler said, “. . . the requirement to prepare

the EIS under NEPA, for the first time in our

Nation’s history institutionalized a process for

projecting and assessing the effects of technology-oriented decisions on the quality of the

total environment, ” H.R. p. 74.

Decision makers engaged in EIS-type

assessments have become aware that prior to

proposing a course of action, the scope of their

studies should be extended to include social

impacts. As a consequence, there has been an

increased acceptance of the broader TA process itself.
PLANNING

Management in both Government and industry is finding an increasing need to

comprehend the intermediate and long-term effects of technology. There is a growing awareness in both sectors of TA’s value for improving the policy planning

process, for broadening the information base for decisionmaking, and as a constitutent of long-range planning,

Dr. George E. Mueller, President and Chairman of the Board, System Development Corporation, noted, “At SDC our TA program is

used to anticipate and plan for the impacts of

technology changes on our products and

operations. * * * In short, our TA program is

an essential ingredient of our long-range business planning, investment policy, product

planning, and market development.” H.R. p.

183. And Mr. Moore said, “We must realize

and always be aware that TA studies do not

promise accurately to predict the future. Their

purpose is to make us aware of future

possibilities, This type of assessment generally

can fulfill the need by identifying the technological status and the requirements for implementation. By doing so, it serves to bring

about change by the orderly development of

the new technology. ” H.R. p. 173.

In answering a query on the use of TA in

planning and decisionmaking in the Government, Dr. Stever responded that there appears

to be, “. . . a general orientation to use TA in a

large number of Federal agencies;” but that,

"

. . . the crux of the question is in effective use

of TA in our planning and decisionmaking. ”

He added that the Institute for Social Research

at the University of Michigan is currently conducting an NSF-sponsored research project to

obtain information on the utilization of TA in

policymaking. H.R. p. 29.

18

Awareness of Technology Assessment in

the Planning Process

There has been a growing awareness of the

importance of TA for planning in both governmental agencies and private-sector organizations. Dr. Fisher noted that there were people

in the various agencies within DOI who are

capable of carrying out “the many kinds of

analyses that are required by a formal TA; ”

and that many elements of the concept have

been used for a number of years to aid the

Department “in performing its primary

function.” H.R. p. 25. Commenting on the

prevalence of TA activities in the Government,

Dr. Galler said, “. , . it seems to me that the TA

process, whether you call it TA, EIS, or

systems analysis is going on all the time. ” H.R.

p. 96.

The private sector is similar to governmental agencies in its actual use of TA. To some

firms it is just a smart way to do business and

has been a way of life for years. Mr. Throdahl

noted, “We [Monsanto] were doing a form of

TA as a result of market needs * * * and scientific curiosity even before this term had been

coined. ” H.R. pps. 32-33. According to Dr.

Duncombe, “General Motors has long been

concerned with at least some of the elements

included within this all-encompassing term.”
FACTORS IN

CORPORATE PLANNING

TECHNOLOGY,

PRESENT AND FUTURE U.S. GOVERNMENTAL

+

AND

PUBLIC POLICIES

INTERNATIONAL

FACTORS

ENVIRONMENT 

DEMOGRAPHIC

FEEDSTOCKS

COMPETITION PRODUCT

SUPPLY AND

DEMAND

Figure 4. The Planning Process is Much More Broadly Defined Today Than in the Past

H.R. p. 130. And Dr. Mueller said, “Technology assessment is a continuous process that

is quantified and documented annually as a

part of our 5-year planning cycle. ” H.R. p. 183.

A similar comment was made by Dr. Dean

Gillette, Executive Director, Systems Research

Division, Bell Laboratories, “. . . I feel that

much of what we do in evaluating systems options is consonant with its [TAs] basic concepts. Some of our methods have been in use

for decades as part of our systems engineering

and human factors work. ” H.R. p. 146.

Inhouse Versus Contractor Approach to

Technology Assessment

The factors affecting an organization’s plan

to conduct a TA inhouse relate specifically to

such questions as available financial and staff

resources, confidentiality, and credibility. A

critical factor is whether the subject is

proprietary, Several witnesses remarked that

decisions about how and where to do a TA are

difficult to make.

At NSF, in the Research Applied to National

Needs (RANN) program, there is a TA

program office that contracts out its TA work.

At Phillips Petroleum and at TVA, the TA

process has been ongoing within these

organizations over periods of years. Similarly

at The Coca-Cola Company, the Corporate

Business Development Department can call on

corporate resources for any required assistance.

A TA for a private organization can be extremely costly. If a firm does not have the inhouse capability to do a TA, a contractor is

hired. Mr. Day noted that a company has to

recognize when it takes this step, that the consulting firm or university will spend a large

portion of its resources just for acquiring the

19
data base to gain the necessary knowledge of

both the industry and the technology that is

being assessed, From a practical standpoint,

he suggested that the amount of work could be

reduced, while increasing the effectiveness,

through cooperative research or joint projects

with other industries and Government agencies, in a favorable environment. H.R. p. 335.

Credibility

An organization may find that its best interests are served by planning for an outside

contractor to conduct a TA. If the outside TA

supports the organization’s efforts, its credibility is enhanced. In the case of industry

however, this can create special problems. As

Dr. Kash pointed out, “At present, most of the

organizations that do TAs are heavily funded

by Federal agencies with promotional or

regulatory interests in the technologies, or

alternatively by industries with economic interests. Regardless of the quality of the

research, it is open to serious challenge when

it comes from such organizations. ” H.R. p. 197.

The Ford Motor Co., which granted JPLCalTech $500,000 to do an independent TA “of

alternate power systems for motor vehicles, ”

exemplifies a company that turned to an outside contractor through a formal selection

process. This step was taken, according to Dr.

Stephenson of JPL-CalTech, because Ford “. . .

along with the rest of the auto industry was

encountering a long and continuing series of

adversary interactions with the Government,

primarily in congressional hearings and Environmental Protection Agency emission control suspension hearings. * * * However the

credibility of the industry was very low

because, in part, they had a vested interest in

the outcome. ” H.R. p. 206.

Dr. Compton noted that Ford wanted an

outside contractor because of a feeling that

some key issues may have been overlooked

with respect to its internal assessments of

different power systems, Therefore they took

a step considered to be, “. . . unusual in the TA

business, We asked a highly competent outside group to work completely independently

of us to carry out an assessment essentially

parallel to our own in the evaluation of the potential of future automotive powerplants. ” The

study has proved valuable as a “source of information for Government and private sector

policy guidance. ” H.R. pp. 119-120.

20
Section 5

Technology assessment is being increasingly employed in both the public and

private sectors. A few major corporations are using TA as a part of the planning

process, and as an input for forming policy, In the Federal Government, TA is

being used for some types of decisionmaking without being institutionalized,

However, as with many studies, its results are not always fully utilized.

Utilization of Technology Assessment

Results

The options and alternatives developed as a

result of TA are used in policymaking by

organizations in Government, and can be an

essential ingredient in the operations of private-sector organizations,

In response to a question about how TA fits

into the general policy formulation and decisionrnaking processes in his Department

(DOC), Dr. Galler replied, “EISs and other

typcs of TA studies are part of the information

package that accompanies a project or decision memorandum for use by policy level

departmental personnel. They also influence

the drafting of recommendations and design of

projects.” H.R. p. 99.

Mr. Day noted that with respect to industry,

certain pressures may be the reason for the

use of TA. He suggested that there were three

categories in which the pressures for involvement could be grouped: 1) defensive reactions,

2) positive pressures, and 3) corporate social

responsibility. In his opinion, events were

forcing industry into defensive reactions in

which TA served an important function. He

thought that industry was becoming more

aware that it was legally responsible for the

secondary consequences of its actions, and

therefore that TAs are being started before

there are more formal requirements. From a

more positive viewpoint, Mr. Day believed

that TA was perceived as being vital to corporate long-term planning, and that there is a

strong interest developing in industry in what

he termed, “corporate social responsibility. ”

He thought that this would be advanced primarily in the Government-regulated industries, since they are not as caught up in the

Government versus business rhetoric that occurs elsewhere. H.R. p. 336.

Effect of Technology Assessment on

Decisionmaking

There was general agreement that TA had a

significant effect on policymaking both in

Government and in the private sector. Mr.

John S. Barron, Assistant to the General

Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority said,

“Technology assessment is a vital member of a

group of tools that are available to Federal

agencies. * * * We consider it to be an essential major component of any decisionmaking

process in our organization, whenever the circumstances permit. ” H.R. p. 96. Dr. Compton

similarly stated “, , . we [the Ford Motor co. ]

regularly carry out TAs, and we believe that

the results provide a valuable input to our

decision processes. ” H.R. p. 116.

21
Dr. Stever referred to a detailed case study

of the utilization experience of a TA on Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas operations. This TA was conducted for NSF by the

University of Oklahoma and, “. . . at the time

of its completion in September 1973, it was the

only comprehensive and disinterested study

of both OCS oil and gas extraction technologies, and of Government regulatory and

management policy relating to those operations.” 3

This TA was used by various executive

branch agencies. 4 It was given to Congress,

and served as a background document for congressional hearings. 5 It has also been found

useful by numerous environmental groups as

well as by industry; and employed extensively

at conferences and symposia; and used as a

textbook.

Management considers TA to be important

because it provides the decisionmaking process with a spectrum of options and alternatives. Knowing the trade-offs, they are then

better able to decide the most suitable courses

of action for their particular interests. Dr.

Compton said, “I think the important distinction is that TA establishes what the options

are; that is, what the cost of those options will

be.” H.R. p. 126. This view was supported by

Dr. Stever. He also said. “While there is a

~ Miedema, A., “RANN Utilization Experience: Outer

Continental Shelf Oil and Gas, University o f

Oklahoma,” (Research Triangle Park, N. C.: Research

Triangle Institute).

4 Ibid., The executive branch agencies utilizing the

TA include the following: Bureau of Land Management,

U.S. Geological Survey, Council on Environmental

Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Coast

Guard, Office of Pipeline Safety (Department of

Transportation), and Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (Department of Labor), pps. IZ-10 to

12-16.

s Ibid., Those legislative branch agencies and committees utilizing the TA include the following: in the Senate,

it was used by the National Ocean Policy Study, Committees on Commerce, Interior and Insular Affairs, and

Foreign Relations. In the House of Representatives, it

was utilized by Committees on Judiciary, Interior, and

Insular Affairs, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and

Science and Technology. Other congressional users include the Congressional Research Service, Library of

Congress and the Office of Technology Assessment, pps.

12-17 k) 12-21.

general agreement that assessments are conducted to inform a variety of decisionmaking

elements in our society, I believe that we

should carefully distinguish that TA per se

does not make either policy or decisions. It

provides information for these activities. ” H.R.

p. 7.

Another value of TA to the corporate sector

is that it develops new study strategies, objectives, and goals. This enables decision makers

to reflect their changing business environment, The corporate witnesses agreed that the

current and immediate future business environment, economic and material concerns,

modifications in retailing and life-style, are all

influencing corporate planning.

Technology assessment is also useful in

helping to develop policy strategies for dealing

with externalities, i.e., those technology impacts that are normally outside the considerations of the chain of buyers and sellers. In discussing a decision by Monsanto to recover additional elemental chlorine for reuse in its

own systems, Mr. Throdahl remarked, “This

is the sort of responsible corporate decision

that many in industry are making today. We

believe that it is in harmony with the new climate that exists. In many companies, including Monsanto, this sense of corporate responsibility is formalized through policies that are

approved at the highest levels of the corporation, and procedures to carry out those policies

are developed at the working levels of the

firm.” He further commented, “Policy decisions have to be made in which the demands

of the ecology, consumer protection, and

energy problems must be balanced against

each other, Technology assessment provides

the thought process through which these

difficult value judgments can be made. ” H.R.

p. 35.

Perceived Role of the

Office of Technology Assessment

The formation of OTA has had the effect of

stimulating interest and activities in TA. Mr.

Throdahl said, “The Office of Technology

Assessment has played a definite role in help22
ing us make these decisions (to protect the environment) by bringing the subject to the attention of the Congress and the Stat e

legislatures, and by alerting the thinking

public to the complexity of the situation. He

also said, “We look to the OTA to spearhead

and lead in the development of bette r

methodologies. ” H.R. pps. 35, 40.

This view of OTA is different from that

stated by Dr. Duncombe. He suggested that a

possible way to deal with the problems associated with poor regulations was for a third party, in this case OTA, to perform TAs that,

when given to Congress, would give Congress

the kind of accurate, credible, and unbiased

options that it needs to make policy decisions.

He said that OTA could also help sort out for

Congress, “. . . those areas in which regulation

may be required and those where market

forces are superior. ” He added, “That is

where looking down the road, I see the great

strength of OTA, helping in this way. ” H.R.

pps. 133, 139. The OTA was also seen as an institution that by stimulating TA activities could

improve the policy development process both

in Congress and in governmental agencies.

“One of the best consequences of having an

Office of Technology Assessment within the

Congress is that we in the Administration can

watch you go through the problems of setting

priorities on these issues. ” Dr. Stever, H.R. P.

14.

Differences in the Aims of Technology

Assessment Between the Public and

Private Sectors

The private sector and the Government

have substantially different orientations

toward TA. The private sector is interested in

TA as an aid in competing in the marketplace,

for improving understanding of the future

business environment, and for producing options for the decision maker. The Government

sees TA as a better way to exercise its trusteeship, and to assist it in becoming more socially

responsible. In the Government there also is a

concern with understanding and trying to

anticipate future events so that the introduction of new technologies does not cause, in

terms of secondary impacts, too many positive

and negative surprises for society. With an informed understanding through TA of what the

impacts are, the policy and decision makers in

the Government can better exercise their

responsibilities to the general public.

A difference in goals became apparent

when Chairman Brown asked Dr. Compton

how he reconciled the marketing role, which

is what is best for profitability, and the TA

role, which gives one a measurement of all the

energy, capital, environmental, and other impacts. Dr. Compton replied that the value of

TA was that, “ . . . it presented the options to

the corporate management that has to make

decisions on how to best use its capital and

how to make the best profit on that capital. ”

Chairman Brown then asked if the Ford Company’s final criteria for action is always going

to be the best return on capital. Dr. Compton

responded, “The final criteria involve many

things obviously, There are considerations

such as corporate responsibility that are in

that equation; there are issues such a s

customer loyalty that may be more important

over a long period of time than a gain in the

near term. There are many things that enter

into the corporate decision. But the technical

issues have to be presented as sound options.

The other factors then get built in during the

management assessment of these option s.”

H.R. p. 127.

Thus in the private sector while certain elements of TA may be agreed on and the work

may follow an objective scheme, that does not

necessarily mean that those options selected

will serve the interests of the general public.

Industry apparently looks to the Government

to provide the framework, and claims it cannot

accommodate externalities-those social costs

not generally included in the normal operation

of the market system—in the absence of

Government action. In order to survive in the

marketplace, industry will most likely decide

on an option that serves its best interests while

providing the most acceptable number of

trade-offs. Chairman Brown and Dr. Compton

discussed what could be done to encourage in23
■

r

1

 I

r -–-I—Q-–-J

—

I *

I I i

i

I

I

I

I
dustry to adopt a more socially responsible

course of action in its TAs, Chairman Brown

observed that this could benefit industry by

reducing the need for the role of Government.

Dr. Compton thought something could be

done along these lines as long as there was

some assurance, “, . . one’s competitors would

be doing the same, and if not that, there would

be no net disadvantage to you. ” H.R. p. 127.

Technology Assessment in Regulation

The extension of the TA concept to the

evaluation of potential regulatory needs and

options would undoubtedly benefit both the

regulatory process itself as well as governmental decision making, This point was

emphasized by both Drs. Duncombe and

Galler.

Dr. Compton did not believe that TA itself

would lead to a reduction in the role of

Government as a regulator of the private sector, as Chairman Brown had implied in a

question to him. Dr. Compton said, “I would

hate to predict that as being a consequence of

TA, because it seems to me that the critical

issue here is what arc the incentives to accom -

mod ate these second - and third -order

benefits . . . the negative effect, Unless the incentives arc clearly defined and can be applied universally across the entire industry or

product, it is very hard for them to be accommodated, I think. I would hesitate to predict

that this would change the level of Government involvement, but I would hope that it

would focus it, and make it such that we

would realize the implication to both the

public and to the private sector of a particular

involvement on the part of the Government. ”

He did think that it would be beneficial for the

Government to do a TA of its regulation, since

if that happened, “I believe that it would have

been recognized that there were insufficient

data to make some of those predictions (clean”

air amendments). ” H.R. p. 125.

Acquiring an International Perspective

The Government is growing more interested in TA as a result of a series of new

commitments and perspectives within virtually every sector of American society. The

TA viewpoint is gradually growing in acceptance as the Government attempts to deal with

the increasingly complex national and international technological issues. Governmental

policy development activities with respect to

technology require a general organizing concept like TA, This is especially so as the interrelatedness of the world’s physical and social

environment is better understood. Dr. Stever

expressed this challenge as follows:

“- Our perspective of the global environment is changing to recognize the

complexity of nature’s ecology and the

human place in it,

— A worldwide commitment to bring

about a balance between population and

food supply is growing.

A realization that our primary

reliance on fossil-fuel exploitation for

energy must be shifted to renewable

resources is increasing.

— Although not so strongly felt as the

pressure upon energy resources, a percept ion is growing that materia l

resources also must be wisely managed

— A recognition is emerging of t h e

necessity to make significant economic

and social adjustments in response to

questions of worldwide equity within a

feasible time.

— Underlying all of these is a realization that our success in facing all the

challenges elicited by these new outlooks depends on a vast growth in

human knowledge and its prudent applacation, ” H.R. pps. 4-50

Technology assessment is being used in

Government and industry, and is affecting

decisionmaking. The aims of Government and

industry differ, which is reflected in their use

of TA. They both see TA however, as a fresh

way to probe and explore mutual interests.

25
COMMUNICATION

Communication among the assessment team members; with potential users,

sponsors, and decision makers; and with affected parties in the public sector, is essential for producing an effective TA as well as for its utilization in decisionmaking.

The TA process brings together people with a wide range of views, thus necessitating the creation of a high degree of communication. Decisionmaking and communication among the interest groups involved should be improved by the TA

process as well as by its product,

Communication and Public Participation

From his perspective as the Presidential

Science Adviser and Chairman of the Federal

Council on Science and Technology, Dr.

Stever observed that in Government interagency activities, cooperation will enhance

comparability, evaluation, and integration of

TAs for the use of decision makers, He

pointed to the formation of the Interagency TA

Coordination panel as a step in the right direction, H.R. p. 7, The NSF RANN Utilization Experience Report on the Outer Continental

Shelf oil and gas TA, showed that this TA has

had a wide and far-reaching impact on interagency and interbranch communication in

Government. 6

Based on his extensive TA experience, Dr.

Kash emphasized the importance of close

communication at each stage of the assessment

process because TAs: “. . . 1) are inherently interdisciplinary. . . . 2) involve dealing with

people’s preferences or values, 3) are neither

scientific activities themselves nor are there

any demonstrably successful methodologies

6 Ibid., Miedema, A.

26

available for carrying them out; and 4) special

efforts are required to insure that their findings are usefully communicated t o

policymakers.” H.R. p. 194.

Improved Cooperation and

Understanding

There was agreement that both sectors

would be the beneficiaries of closer relationships produced by better communication on

TA, Some saw this working together as a way

to reduce the tension and feelings of an adversary relationship existing between the sectors.

Dr. Stephenson said, “In many TAs it is the

private sector that has the detailed information

on the technology, including marketing and

manufacturing, It has a great deal of the data,

and in many cases, will become the implementor of the technology being assessed. Thus, it is

essential that the private sector be closely involved with the assessor and the Government

agencies that may be involved in the regulation or funding of the technology.” H.R. p. 217.

Mr. Enzer saw two benefits that could

result from a closer relationship with respect

to cooperation on TA between Government
and industry: “First, they can share methods

and experiences. Second, they can assist each

other by serving as advisors to each other in

their respective assessments. The two-way

nature of these relationships is very important,

It is as crucial for Government to be involved

in industrial assessments, as it is for industry

to be involved in governmental assessments, if

we are to move closer to an even-handed view

of the consequences of change, A substantial

portion of the benefits sought from TA are

likely to result from the change in our institutional approach to evaluating technology. The

change in approach will be enhanced by the

interdisciplinary aspects of the assessment. A

two-way relationship between Government

and industry in the assessment process will

provide those benefits in a most effective lowkey manner. ” H. Ft. p. 236.

In industry, TA is largely done to meet internal corporate planning and decision-maker

needs. Long-range planning may involve both

proprietary information and operational information that, while being beneficial to decision

makers, management would not want released

to the public. Consequently, the results of TA

may not be widely publicized or made fully

available. In contrast, public funded TAs

should be fully and freely available. Dr.

Compton explained, “WC tend to look at

various aspects of issues: how they affect the

total labor market, how they affect the marketing and acceptance of our products and so

forth. When we do these internal assessments

we do not generally invite public participation. From the standpoint of assessments that

are being carried out in the public domain, as

arc OTA studies, I think it is appropriate that

the public be involved, but only at an appropriate time. ” Z-Z. R. p. 126.

Mr. Davison focused on the benefits accruing from closer interaction on TA between

both sectors, and on the need for a greater

assumption of social responsibility on the part

of the private sector. He stressed the degree to

which his cornpany, and presumably the other

forward-looking sectors of private enterprise

do take a sort of trusteeship responsibility

with regard to what they are doing. He

remarked that the amount of effort that the

Phillips Petroleum Co, and others are applying to the societal and environmental aspects

"

. . . is outspoken testimony to the emphasis

we are giving it. ” H.R. p. 71. Chairman Brown

observed that the role of OTA had been seen

by Mr. Davison as possibly making a bridge

between Government and industry both, “. . .

by improving the understanding on the part of

Government of the economic impacts of what

might be proposed, and possibly helping private enterprise . . . to understand the importance of the trusteeship role. They need to consider second- and third-order effects on

human beings, which is a trusteeship function.” H.R. p. 69.

Industry is ready for even closer cooperation with Government on TA, Mr. Davison

thought that the first step in this process had

already been taken by OTA when it brought in

industry people to sit on and participate in

both its TA panels and its Advisory Council.

Commenting on the use of industry personnel

on OTA panels, Dr. Compton said, “. . . it

could be of mutual benefit to OTA and to industrial organizations such as Ford Motor

Company, if procedures existed whereby we

could more effectively provide an early input

into governmental studies, * * * Opportunities

to contribute our own findings and analyses

during OTA studies rather than the more

limited system of commenting on finished

reports, provides a healthier climate for

Government-industry interaction. Recent experience along these lines in the OTA in its

durability assessment now underway,

demonstrated the value of early interaction. ”

H.R. pps. 120-121.

After it was pointed out to him by Mr. Daddario that OTA panels, committees, and its

Advisory Council all have industrial members, Dr. Compton replied that what he meant

was, “. . . stronger involvement of those companies competent to comment on specific

issues is important. The involvement of experts is also important, but their views should

not be considered equivalent to corporate

evaluations, H.R. p. 123.

27
00

PRIOR

INPUTS

SCP “CRITICAL PATH”

TRENDS IN ECONOMY COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND ’OTHER EXTERNAL FACTORS

GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS AND CONTROLS SURVEY

SMALL SCALE

RESEARCH

EVALUATION

ENVIRONMENTAL -

NEEDS AND

COMPARABILITY

SMALL ANIMAL

) FEEDING STUDIES

RENTED FACILITIES

PRODUCTION

SMALL ANIMALS

LARGE ANIMAL o

YEAST FEEDING PROGRAM

FEEDING STUDIES

LARGE ANIMALS

MULTI. GENERATIONAL STUDIES

OTHER ANIMAL FEEDING PROGRAMS

SMALL ANIMALS

BACTERIA FEEDING PROGRAM

CULTURE

SELECTION MARKET DEVELOPMENT MILTI-GENERATIONAL STUDIES

BIOSYSTEM

PARAMETERS COMPUTER SIMULATION PRODUCTION OF PRODUCT

I LOT PLANT DESIGN PROCESS DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIALIZATION DECISION

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS

ECONOMICS

EMISSIONS

CONTROL

ADVANCED ECONOMlCS

PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT, PROCESS PROMOTION, LICENSING

ADVANCED MARKET IN-DEPTH SOCIETAL, ENvIRONMENTAL, LOCATION, GEOPOLITICAL AND OTHER FACTORS

REGULATORY STANDARDS

WORLD-WIDE MARKET STUDIES

METHANOL TECHNOLOGY SURVEY

Figure 6. The Single-Cell Protein-in Research, Development, and Commercialization at Phillips Petroleum Company
When asked by Mr. Daddario why Ford did

not apply this same philosophy to its abstaining from involvement in the study done for it

by JPL-CalTech, Dr. Compton responded that

he did not think this study was inferior

because Ford did not participate. He noted

that they had some difficulties with a few of

the conclusions, and were interested in some

of the new rnethodologies that had not been

used before; he added that what was important was that the discussion should take place

at an early developmental stage of the study,

which should then lead to an agreement on the

general approach, and help prevent a confrontation on the results. So that while there might

be clear disagreements that would perhaps

never be completely resolved, airing them

before the study’s completion would be valuable. H.R. p. 122.

Delivering Results

The process of delivering TA results is a

major communications enterprise often underestimated by managers. This is true

whether sponsored by a governmental agency

or initiated by a private-sector organization. If

there are many parties-at-interest to be informed about the TA, or who may have any interest in the assessment, budgetary planning

for the use of anticipated delivery mechanisms

and requests should be included in the assessment plan. Dr. Stephenson commented that an

important lesson learned from their successful

TA for Ford was that provision should be

made for post-report publication activities. “A

suggestion is that this post-report interaction

phase be recognized as an integral and legitimate part of a TA, and that it be provided for

in both the plans and budget. ” H.R. p. 211.

Mechanisms for Delivery of TA Results

Mr. Enzer also commented on the necessity

for multidisciplinary teams and effective oversight and review panels. He stressed the dominant role of objectivity as well as the need for

credibility in the funding organization. This

emphasis on objectivity and credibility is exemplified in the JPL-CalTech study, ‘h

Should

We Have a New Engine?” sponsored by the

Ford Motor Co.

Monsanto took a novel corporate approach

to the TA process. In order to obtain a widcrange of views on its Cycle-Safe®

container

TA, a series of symposia were scheduled. The

issues raised were incorporated and published as part of the TA record. As a result of

its efforts, Monsanto received a wide variety

of inputs. Decision makers at all levels in

Government and industry became cognizant

that a major corporation was engaged in TA;

and those that had not been before went away

from the symposia aware and appreciative of

the TA process. The impact of Monsanto’s

efforts was far-reaching. This was borne out

by a survey of potential witnesses for these

hearings. The fact that Monsanto did a TA on

its Cycle-Safe® containers, and held symposia

in four cities to discuss the results, was widely

known and continually cited as one of the best

examples of the TA process in the private sector.

Training and Education

Technology assessment could be expanded

and advanced throughout all the sectors both

by improving the training in carrying out TAs

to make it more effective, and by increased

communication, Exchanges of personnel both

within and between governmental agencies,

industry, educational, contract, and research

organizations would also have a beneficial

effect.

Dr. Fisher noted that at DOI there had been

conversations on TA with both NSF and OTA,

that members of the Department were acting

on an NSF coordination panel and on detail to

OTA, and that the U.S. Geological Survey had

provided OTA with background material for

it mineral assessment of Federal lands. He

also remarked that staff people who have been

on detail to OTA return with many new skills

and much to offer the Department, and indicated that these people will most likely assist

in some way in training, briefing, seminars,

and similar activities.

29
Dr. Galler recommended steps that might

prove effective in an attempt to build up TA

expertise. “Two specific forms of technical aid

are categoric grants for personnel training,

and a Federally sponsored State or regional

environmental agent system, ” H.R. p. 99. At

present there appears to be little formal education or training for TA anywhere in Government, The level of training and education is

low. Actual engagement in the EIS and TA

processes is one way of raising it, According to

Mr. Pasternack, much of TA activity involves

building up the capability and the experience

of doing these kinds of studies. He noted that

because of the present capability and level of

experience it is now possible to do quick

assessments that as recently as a few years ago

would have taken 2 years, and that the stateof-the-art has advanced considerably by having people trained in considering secondary

and other impacts rather than only direct environmental and economic impacts. H.R. p. 91.

Role of Public Participation

In attempting to define what public should

be invited to participate in which assessment,

Dr. Kash noted, “An important point is that

there is not a single public. For each TA there

are specific interested publics. A TA is a

failure if the investigators do not identify those

publics. It is also a failure if those publics are

not an integral part of the research process, If

they are an integral part of the research process, the people doing the TA have covered 90

percent of the distance necessary to disseminate their results. That is assessors can’t separate their research from the people to whom

they will communicate their research. ” H.R. p.

204, (This includes users and parties-at-interest.) He indicated that “since there is an upper limit on the number of persons that can be

included in an interdisciplinary research

team, limitation in terms of perspective, bias,

and knowledge cannot be completely overcome. H.R. p. 195.

Since an assessment team may have an institutional bias, some of the mechanisms for

overcoming this are: public participation, external review panels, and having concerned

members of the public sit on advisory committees. Dr. Kash also proposed that reviewers

should include consultants, an advisory committee, and a broad range of persons chosen to

represent the interests and values that arc at

stake.

The mechanisms for public participation

may be diverse, and can include the following:

review of documents, interviewing, survey

participation, oversight, and participation in

the TA study, Expanding on this approach to

public participation Dr. Kash said, “I believe

that two routes are most fruitful, One is to insure that a representative group of the interested public be included on oversight or

review committees put together for each individual assessment. Second, the group doing

the research for the TA must view the interested public as a major source of information and data. This means that the research

group must seek information, counsel, and criticism from potentially interested parties at every stage in the process. * * * [The pursuit of

information] . . . means that you get the interested public to review and critique every

draft of the papers prepared in connection

with the TA. ” H.R. p. 204.

All of the Government witnesses spoke of

the diverse array of public inputs they utilized

in attempting to communicate with the public

about their TA and related activities. Efforts

arc made to bring developing points of view

into the decisionmaking process, whether in

the form of public hearings, review panels, or

oversight committees. This kind of public involvement was not evidenced by the testimony

of industry witnesses, except in the case referred to by Mr. Throdahl, in which Monsanto

sought public comments in its TA on the Cycle-Safe ®

containers.

Public Participation Efforts in Executive

Agencies

Witnesses from executive agencies noted

that attempts are being made to involve the

30
public whether it be on committees, panels, or

in hearings. Dr. Stever observed that the TA

program at NSF has an oversight committee

with each assessment. “This arrangement is

designed to provide interaction with a set of

interested parties throughout the assessment

process, to increase sensitivity to the problems

at hand, and to alert the research team to potential users and uses of the study findings.

One of the lessons wc have been learning is

that a balanced and active oversight committee

makes a major contribution to an effective

result. ” H.R. p. 10. Mr. Pasternack commented

that, “The regional meetings, whether hearings or advisory committee meetings, are invaluable both to communicate to the people in

the region what we are doing, and to get information from the affected areas. ” H.R. p. 92.

Public Participation Efforts in the Private

Sector

While the Government tends to emphasize

its public inputs, if public participation in the

private sector exists at all, it is carefully

delimited. The innovative series of symposia

held by the Monsanto Company in order to

communicate its TA work on a new plastic

container, was a notable example of obtaining

public involvement in the private sector. Such

public participation is minimal in other industries. Dr. Mueller said that at SDC, “Our internal TA program does not usually involve the

general public directly, however wc encourage o u r TAMs [Technical Are a

Managers] and other technical specialists to

participate in professional societies, industry

associations, government study panels, and

similar activities that involve a broad crosssection of opinion and consider technology

progress from the public point of view. ” H.R.

p. 191. He also commented “There is no question in my mind that more and more of our usc

of our applications of new technology is going

to be influenced by the way the public feels

and expresses its concerns. ” H.R. p. 190 ,

While Mr. Teasley indicated that the public

was not involved in the TA process at CocaCola, he did remark that, “We are, of course,

concerned with the impact of TA on the

public, and this impact is carefully examined.

Also, outside specialists arc engaged as

needed. However, no direct input from the

general public is solicited. ” H.R. p. 115.

Communication is essential for a TA’s success. The effectiveness of an assessment depends on facilitating the creative free-flow of

ideas among the team members, as well as

communicating with the ultimate users. There

are two primary requisites for a TA to be

useful: the first, is the professional competence of the assessing team; and the second is

complete and open communication among all

the concerned parties.

31
There were many industrial sectors, State

and local governmental agencies, international

organizations, public interest groups, and

other institutions unable to participate in

OTA’s hearings to date. They are expected to

be heard from at future hearings dealing with

TA activities at which issues raised in this set

of hearings will continue to be examined. In

addition, OTA will want to follow-up on the

NSF survey of TA activities in the private sector. At these future hearings, communications.

and exchanges of information should be

opened further, and cooperation improved

among governmental, industrial, academic,

and other sectors of U.S. society,

This was expressed by Chairman Brown in

his introductory remarks at the final day of the

hearings. “These hearings are part of an ongoing process. Our interest in opening and

developing communication between the

public and private sectors will not conclude

with this particular series of hearings. This

record will be the first part of continuing

dialog that will take place on a regular cycle.

Thus the Board will hopefully get the most out

of those TA activities in which it is engaged. ”

Industries both in the United States and

abroad, in sectors such as paper, steel, pharmaceuticals, real estate, mining, and the financial world, are dealing with related and

FUTURE HEARINGS

perhaps entirely different sets of issues and

problems from those industries that took part

in these hearings. By means of hearings and

other forums, OTA should be able to profit

from information about TA-related activities

in other parts of the world. Contributions by

foreign TA practitioners who would take part

in the discussions is also anticipated.

As TA is utilized to deal with problems

unique to each sector, new methodologies will

be developed, new approaches instituted, and

other techniques modified or changed. All

such activity is of interest and concern to

OTA. By examining the experiences of these

future witnesses, OTA and other parts of our

society, as a consequence of improved communication on TA, will benefit by becoming

better informed, As this initial set of hearings

brought out, there is an urgent need for more

such information and communication on TA,

as well as for discussion among those in

Government and industry—producers and

users alike—about TA and related activities,

Through the medium of future hearings OTA

will enhance this learning experience, and at

the same time help fill the needs of Government, its contractors, and industry for more information on the policy development process

of TA.

U. S. COVER NMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1977 0. 83-106

32