A well-functioning, publicly owned transportation system, designed as an integral part of such a complex, could encourage a greater degree of participation in common events.

A community's money-credit-exchange system could be modified if all stores were linked to a computer-based system which recorded purchases against banking accounts.

The information system of a community could be enhanced by a linkage between the telephone and an information bank containing data on weather, transportation schedules, schedules of current events.

Advanced education programs could be designed based on programmed instruction and home consoles.

Live music-open air concerts and marching bands-could be woven into the fabric of the movement paths, as could displays of arts and crafts of various kinds.

In looking at the total systems potential, therefore, it is possible to gain improvements either through new hardware technologies that increase the scope of the software systems, or to use new software concepts as a basis for developing new hardware technology. In either case the opportunities are immense.

CREATING THE MARKET OPPORTUNITY

If you are interested in the possibilities which cities present for large-scale, high-technology systems development, you are probably asking yourself, "How does my company get into the city systems market?" This is not an easy question to answer. The market for city systems is not well articulated. The consumer is only imperfectly represented, and his future needs cannot really be represented by any normal concept of supply and demand. I know of three possible ways of getting at this market. One is to go into the city building business and build a city from scratch. A second way is for new organizations to be created, which have as their purpose the aggregating of the requirements of a large group of customers into a significant market opportunity. The third way is to use government to provide a focus and financial support for getting at programs for rebuilding existing cities or supporting the development of new ones. I'd like to discuss each method in more detail.

There are about fifty new cities in one stage or another of development in the United States. Some of these so-called new cities are just large-scale housing development projects, but others are intended to be genuine new cities. The cities include Reston, Virginia (estimated future population 75,000), Columbia, Maryland (estimated future population 100,000), and Irvine, California (estimated future population 150,000). Reston and Irvine are under construction, with the first few hundred occupants already moving in, and Columbia is just breaking ground. Columbia will be making an attempt to use systems thinking in its development, but none of the other new cities—so far as I know—is seriously using the systems approach to get a new technological palette.

How do we account for this? Among the difficulties in getting underway with a serious effort at systems development is the tendency of the building industry, and those who design buildings, to conceive of the solution first and then put together the required skills to attempt to produce the solution. The result is a nonsystem. So long as this goes on, there will be little or no possibility that the building process can be managed in a way which allows self-improvement by genuine feedback. It is no wonder that buildings still leak after more than five thousand years of building technology.

One of the major "spin-offs" from our space and weapons systems efforts is a knowledge of how to use, and a confidence in, the methodology of systems engineering. With this confidence we need not have in mind the specific product solution to our problem in order to organize the processes in a systematic way. As I suggested earlier, no one was seriously concerned about what the Apollo spacecraft would look like before beginning the major systems development effort of getting a man to the moon. If your company has sufficient entrepreneurial guts and can assemble the needed land and development capital, a new city could be an exciting systems development program. What better way to assure yourself of a civilian market in the future than to "own" a city to test-market any new systems or products you develop.

Not many companies will have either the ability or willingness to build entire new cities, so let us look now at the second alternative: new organizations

which aggregate markets for new systems. There is one outstanding example of the use of this method in the United States. This is known as the School Construction Systems Development project. It was made possible under a grant (about $500,000) from the Educational Facilities Laboratories of the Ford Foundation to Stanford University. The project manager, an architect named Ezra Ehrenkrantz, had studied the building systems development work going on in England. On the next three pages, I will show some sketches and photos of a few SCSD schools.

If you are not familiar with the building industry or have never served on a building committee for a school or a church you may not know how the process of building a school normally works. Let me explain briefly. After a building committee is formed, they select an architect and, together with school officials, they describe their needs in terms of anticipated number of children, number of classes, gymnasiums, cafeterias, etc. The architect and his consultants prepare plans and specifications which are put out to contractors for bids. The lowest bidder is awarded a contract and at that point purchase orders are sent to manufacturers to supply the materials and equipment already specified. There is not much room for innovation to occur as a part of this process, because innovation has to occur outside the processes, by speculative risk on the part of the manufacturer. The only possibility for systems integration is for the architect to understand how to do this and to have enough cooperation from the manufacturer to make it possible. This doesn't happen very often, especially since most school projects are only one or two million dollars in size. The risk is too high for a manufacturer in tooling up to produce a new system for only one school. The SCSD project was assembled around a market opportunity for systems needs of more than 2,000,000 ft2 of school buildings representing some 22 schools to be built by thirteen school districts in California, from Sacramento to San Diego, during 1966 and 1967. This was a significant market by building industry standards. When the project was begun, in 1960, the SCSD staff worked with the group of thirteen districts and their architects to identify the user needs and to develop performance requirements based on educational needs expressed by the educators. These requirements were converted to performance specifications against which manufacturers were invited to prepare proposals for prototype design solutions before plans were even started by the architects. The proposals were for the structural system, the air-conditioning system, lighting-ceiling system, and interior-partition system. These systems account for about 50% of the total cost of most schools. The performance specifications required that these systems be compatible and that the bidding be on a composite basis by teams of manufacturers.

The significant thing for the purposes of this article is that a market opportunity was created which was of sufficient interest to manufacturers to get them to invest about two million dollars of their own funds in research, development, and tooling costs for new systems. No solutions were specified in advance, only the performance requirements. The manufacturers were required to assume full technical and financial responsibility, from product development, to production, to installation and maintenance. This full responsibility made the manufacturers more conscious of the advantages of total systems compatibility with other functions of the building and gave the owner a much more reliable system. The genius of SCSD is that it solved an old problem in a new and more systematic way.

The purpose of this project had been the development of better schools (higher performance) for the same money. Higher performance included the ability to reorganize the space within the building overnight into any combination of rooms ranging in size from 450 ft2 to 3600 ft2; the ability to provide six variations of lighting from a small number of interchangeable components incorporated in the ceiling system; the ability to heat or cool any combination of spaces simultaneously; accordion-type partitions that had low acoustical transmission properties but were operable by the smallest female teacher, etc. The surprise was that these systems were bid to the school districts at about 18% less than conventional solutions. Some districts have realized dollar savings, but most have used the savings to buy carrels for the library, carpeting, better science equipment-things that resulted in better schools for the money.

One of the most impressive things about this project is that even those firms which were not the successful bidders have been able to find other markets for the new systems they developed during the competitive stage. Unlike space and

defense systems, there was an extensive market beyond the initial requesting agency. In fact, one of the major inducements for entering the competition had been the projected size of the future school market.

THE ROLE OF HUD

The third method of creating a market for new city systems is via governments-federal, state, and local-which can represent aggregate and future needs of those who live in urban areas. Local governments are presently limited in their effectiveness, since the systems performance requirements of urban areas almost always exceed the jurisdictional boundaries of cities, counties, and even states.

The new Department of Housing and Urban Development, at the federal level, appears to be the logical focus for such programs. The proposed Demonstration Cities Act, which President Johnson discussed last January in his special message to Congress on Improving the Nation's Cities, has inherent in its concept the ability to create markets for new city systems.

In brief, the Demonstration Cities Program would provide federal support to cities to build new cities within old ones. In order to qualify for such support, a city would be expected to mount a program "of sufficient magnitude, both in its physical and social dimensions (what I have called hardware and software systems), to arrest blight and decay in entire neighborhoods." Areas with populations of 50,000+ are thought to be of appropriate size. Certain other things in the way of social changes will be expected, such as new employment opportunities, but a major emphasis is to be placed on bold new technological ideas. It is intended that as many obstacles to innovation as possible be removed. For example, one provision of the Act says, "The demonstration should take advantage of modern cost reducing technologies without reducing the quality of the work. Neither the structure of real estate taxation, cumbersome building codes, nor inefficient building practices should deter rehabilitation or inflate project costs." When the Demonstration Cities Program is a reality (it should have passed the Congress before the end of summer), I would propose that a six-phase systemsdevelopment program be undertaken. These six phases, which involve the interaction of HUD, the demonstration city, and industry, are described in the diagram. This methodology will be familiar to those who have been involved in systems-project-management programs of DOD or NASA. It involves several stages of proposing and evaluating to get at program definitions, performance requirements, systems design, prototype development, and actual systems production. There are various means of funding the activities involved, with the most satisfactory perhaps being a shared cost by HUD, the city, and industry. If the market opportunity is exciting enough, I believe industry will want to fund the R&D stage. New systems which increase the performance capability of the city should make it possible for many costs to be self-liquidating through city revenue. Ideally, then, the $2.3 billion which HUD is requesting will provide enough leverage to fund all six phases in about fifty cities.

Maybe we will not be able to develop linking mechanisms between the needs of the cities and the vast plenum of scientific and technological capability which now exist. Maybe the practical problems of political resistance, by industry and labor, will block effective legislation at the state and federal level. Maybe the economic plight of our major cities will limit their ability to do more than keep up a rearguard action. Maybe our inability to come to grips with the social pathology of the urban poor, or the racial unrest which accompanies much of this same condition, will tap our energies to the point that we have no reserves left for new technological challenges.

I know these possibilities exist, and yet I believe the opportunities now before us will be realized. My optimism grows when I realize the kinds of professional people who are becoming concerned about cities. These professionals are new to the problems of the city. Planners and architects have been wrestling with these problems for a long time, but now they are joined by vigorous young political types as exemplified in New York-and, importantly, by the scientists and engineers of the "high-technology" community. These are perhaps the newest of the newcomers to the city-and they are quick to say that they know less about cities than anybody. But what these scientists and engineers bring to the city is a way of thinking. When we add to this way of thinking the skills of the good politician, and the skills of the designer, and the behavorial knowledge of the social scientist, we then begin to amass the talents for getting at the job

in a new and vigorous way. If we are to rebuild our cities on the basis of the systems approach, then we must begin to enlist the interest of people like you. My hope is that this article might produce what Science Adviser Donald Hornig calls a "gnawing at the conscience" of the technical community, because our cities need to involve the technical man in their design and execution.

The challenge is not only one of getting the job done. By the end of this century, we will be a nation of some 300 million people, and four out of five of us will be living in cities. Hence, one way or another, we are going to have to build new cities and rebuild old ones. So the real challenge becomes one of how we do it. Robert Wood, the Under Secretary of the new Department of Housing and Urban Development, states the case most forcefully: "You may build it well or you may build it carelessly, but one way or the other, you will build it. By the end of this century you may know whether what you have built represents a civilization that is worthy of respect and emulation around the world."

EXHIBIT 217

TECHNOLOGY AND URBAN NEEDS

A STATEMENT FROM THE ENGINEERING FOUNDATION RESEARCH CONFERENCE ON THE SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF TECHNOLOGY

By James Alcott, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Mo., 1966

PREFACE

This report was prepared for the National Commission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress and is a part of the formal Commission report to the President. Its real authors are the sixty persons who participated in the 1965 Engineering Foundation Research Conference on "The Social Consequences of Technology."

While not all the ideas which form this brief consensus statement will find their way into institutional or legislative change, many will. This statement, then, looks ahead to the constructive orderings which our society must devise if technology is to be used wisely in meeting the needs of this nation.

The author and Midwest Research Institute are grateful to the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for generous support of the Conference planning effort and this review and to the Commission for its interest in the Conference and encouragement of this report.

SUMMARY

The growing disparity between our ability as a nation to create a highly sophisticated program for space exploration and our inability to deal successfully with community and human needs is a major paradox of our society. The engineering profession represents a principal body of technological capability and a group which should have as a vital concern the social consequences and implications of technology. The 1965 Engineering Foundation Research Conference on "The Social Consequences of Technology" brought together a group of 60 leading managers of research and development to assess the subject.

The Conference dealt with the overall charge of the National Commission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress-placing particular emphasis on the application of technology to unmet community and human needs in the urban context. The Conference was structured to examine key areas of technology, to study the complexities of applying technology to various nondefense, nonspace problems, and to explore methods for accelerating the creative utilization of relevant technology in the urban community.

The overriding conclusion of the Conference was that new kinds of programs and new kinds of political mechanisms are a prerequisite to the effective use of technology to solve most urban problems. Major barriers to realizing the full potential of technology include the lack of consensus and problem definition in the cities, the lack of awareness of new approaches, the lack of interaction among politicians, planners, and technologists. The fact is that new technology has hardly been applied at all to our principal urban needs in a creative integrative

way, and this failure is the fault of both those who create the technology and those who would use it.

The Conference focused its attention on mechanisms for applying technology to our unmet urban needs. Major problem areas-transportation, shelter, and communication-were described, but no attempt was made for a precise definition of either the extent of that need or the extent or relevant technology. It was generally agreed, however, that the existing stock of technology is adequate, at least in latent form, to solve many of the needs.

The Conference also was in strong agreement that the task of the Commission is among the most significant issues confronting the American people today. The Conference urged that means be found to extend the work of the Commission. It urged that the Engineering Foundation take action to increase the participation of the engineering profession in urban problems, making better application of technology in the solution of social problems.

INTRODUCTION

The Engineering Foundation sponsors a series of conferences each year which deal largely with technical subjects of interest to the profession. Since 1963 one conference each year has dealt with broader policy questions, and in 1965 there was a week-long conference on "The Social Consequences of Technology." That meeting was attended by some 60 persons, largely physical scientists and engineers from industrial management, universities, government, and research institutions. This report summarizes the conclusions and points of consensus of the participants.

I. CONCLUSIONS

The Conference arrived informally at three basic conclusions about the social implications of technology.

1. Technology is now available, or can be readily developed, to make massive contributions to solving the major urban problems of the nation. Most of the nation's unmet social and community needs are subject to technical solutions or approaches not now commonly employed. From this it follows that the engineer should have an enlarged role in public programs that are directed toward meeting these needs. In many respects, this is the traditional role of the engineer-the problem solver who brings technology to bear on both public and private problems.

The assumption that the needed technology without further refinement is now available to solve most urban problems, however, is probably oversimplified. There is good evidence that the scientific base is adequate and that there is now technology for specific requirements; however, the need for new and better technology still exists. The engineering and technical community must have a better awareness of the needs for technology, incentives to develop the technology, support for that development, and adequate opportunity for application. There are many cases which would support this position.

2. Technology has become a major factor in economic growth, probably the key element according to studies by a number of economists. Dislocations caused by the introduction of new technology tend to be relatively shortlived and may well be a necessary price for economic progress. Such dislocations are closely related to other purely economic factors. Automation, then, should be regarded as a major national threat or problem except in terms of short-term adjustment. The real problems of automation have to do not with the negative impact, but rather with the opportunities and potentials afforded.

3. The role of government, and particularly the federal government, is well accepted in the areas of concern to the Commission. The scope of most unmet needs is such that the federal government is the only level with sufficient reserve capacity to cope with them presently. However, the Conference felt that new government structures can and must be found to deal with technical problems, that the same sorts of organizational changes which occur in the business community are necessary and appropriate in the political sphere. The major challenge which confronts those concerned with the social implications of technology, then, has to do with finding or creating mechanisms for dealing with new technology, and not with combating its adverse impacts.