A proposed convention for measuring the state of the art of products or processes

During 1980, The Futures Group performed a study under contract to the National Science Foundation to devise a convention for describing—in quantitative terms—technological state of the art of essential any technology. In designing this convention we hope that different analysts, working independently, would be able to arrive at a similar conclusion about the state of the art of a technology under study. With such a measure at hand, it would be possible, for example, to evaluate the effectiveness of investment in R&D by evaluating the improvement in the technological state of the art of a given technology, per unit investment. The form of the equation chosen for the state-of-the-art convention was SOA = K1(P1/P'1 + K2(P2/P'2) ⋯ Kn(Pn/P'n) where SOA = state of the art, Kn = the relative weight associated with each parameter describing the technology, Pn = the value of the particular parameter useful in describing the state of the art, and P'n = a reference value of the parameter. Various approaches to the selection of the parameters and their weights were described. Of particular interest is a statistical approach which assumes that the state of the art, over time, is an S-shaped curve. In this instance it is possible to compute the value of the weights through an iterative numerical technique. The convention was applied to two technologies: computers and antibiotics, and state-of-the-art measures were developed for each. In the case of antibiotics, selected organism/antibiotic pairs were analyzed to identify the state of the art of a particular antibiotic as applied to the control of a particular microorganism, over time.

[1]  J. R. Nelson.  Performance/Schedule/Cost Tradeoffs and Risk Analysis for the Acquisition of Aircraft Turbine Engines: Applications of R-1288-PR Methodology, , 1975 .

[2]  A.Wade Blackman,et al.  The market dynamics of technological substitutions , 1974 .

[3]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  A generalized logistic model for technological forecasting , 1975 .

[4]  G. C. Taylor.  Methodologies for characterizing technologies , 1978 .

[5]  Joseph L. Zinnes,et al.  Theory and Methods of Scaling. , 1958 .

[6]  Jr. Montgomery Phister,et al.  Data processing technology and economics , 1976 .

[7]  Robert Shishko,et al.  Technological Change through Product Improvement in Aircraft Turbine Engines , 1973 .

[8]  V. Lorian,et al.  Significance of medical microbiology in the care of patients , 1977 .

[9]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  On the conception and measurement of trade-off in engineering systems: A case study of the aircraft design process , 1976 .

[10]  Murray Turoff,et al.  The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications , 1976 .

[11]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  On the conception and measurement of technology: A case study of the aircraft design process , 1976 .

[12]  Arthur J. Alexander,et al.  Measuring technological change: Aircraft turbine engines , 1973 .

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Foundations of multidimensional scaling. , 1968, Psychological review.

[14]  Frederick S. Pardee.  TECHNOLOGICAL PROJECTION AND ADVANCED PRODUCT PLANNING , 1967 .

[15]  Devendra Sahal,et al.  The generalized distance measures of technology , 1976 .

[16]  Charles L. Delaney.  Technology forecasting: Aircraft hazard detection , 1973 .

[17]  E. N. Dodson.  A general approach to measurement of the state of the art and technological advance , 1970 .

[18]  Alvin J. Harman,et al.  Methodology for Subjective Assessment of Technological Advancement , 1975 .

[19]  J. C. Fisher,et al.  A simple substitution model of technological change , 1971 .

[20]  J. R. Nelson,et al.  Relating Technology to Acquisition Costs: Aircraft Turbine Engines , 1974 .