What kind of gap?
SCIENCE PETER J. SMITH
This year we should properly be celebrating the centenary of the first technology gap—
for contrary to what one might suppose, the first significant blow to our industrial prestige did us more good than harm. When Lyon Play- fair reported back on our miserable perform- ance at the Paris Exhibition of 1867 his message was clear: either we wholeheartedly embrace science and technology or go under. We chose the former course, and built up a techno- industrial organisation whose benefits are still
being felt. Yet we are again talking about a so- called, technology gap, with the important difference that the disparity now spans not the Channel but the Atlantic. Because the industrio- economie level of Europe is clearly below that of the USA the inference has been widely drawn that in some way Eurdhean technology per se is failing.
This is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that, for it diverts attention from the real prob- lems. What we have is not a technology gap but a tragic deficiency (or rather several de- ficiencies) in the basic conditions necessary to produce, and get the frill benefit from, tech- nOlogical innovation. There is no evidence Whatioever to suggest that our technologists and what they prOduce are any worse than those of any other nation. We have our share of the best inventive talent—witness the dis- covery of the hovercraft principle, to take but one of many examples; and if we wish we are quite capable of building up industries of world standing, such as the synthetic fibres industry. It is true that a country the size of Britain does not possess the resources required to cover such a wide range of technology as, say, the USA, but this is not too important. What matters is that we make the best use of the available resources in proportion to the population.
Where, then, are the real gaps? Firstly, in education. It is not that our education is in- ferior but rather that 'there is too little of it. Whereas in the us 40 per cent of the college- age population actually attend college, the corresponding figures in Europe are 15 per cent or less (10 per cent in Britain). The reasons for this are partly historical, but whatever the cause, we cannot expect to be able to operate a viable technological society without a broad base of technical manpower upon which to draw. In this context higher education is not a luxury to be enjoyed by the few but a neces- sity for the many.
A historic example of the importance of this view is provided by the German chemical industry of the last century. Germany's im- pressive major role in the advance of chemical technology at that time was due in very large part to the fact that she was training a much higher number of chemists than anyone else. The current American example speaks for it- self. Again, the point is not that we do not have the talent but that talented people are useless unless trained. The age of the amateur inventor has long been over.
The second difficulty is that we have a much smaller tariff-free market than the us in which to operate, although unfortunately this is a problem over which we do not have com- plete control. Mr Wilson' takes 'great delight in 'srkaking of 'a European'techhological com- munity'; 'and hovievet-vague his line of talk
May be, he is in principle correct. We must see our technological role in the context of
Europe as a whole, for only with a free Euro- pean market can we hope to compete with America on equal terms.
But we delude ourselves if we think we can sit back to wait for the Common Market to
embrace us and solve all our ills. Co- operation and amalgamation between private companies both within Britain and on the Con- tinent should be taking place more frequently on the initiatives of the companies themselves. Scientists, technologists and managers should be encouraged to move more freely -about Europe to make professional contacts and help build up a sense of community. It is perhaps pertinent to note that American industry was not built up by the American government in the first place but by a large number of pri- vate companies taking their future in their own hands.
But do our managers really care what hap- pens? Here lies the rub, for without the will nothing can be achieved. Much of our failure may be attributed directly to severely under- developed management techniques. There can now be little doubt that the Americans are more advanced and vigorous in all levels of management. This applies not only to tech- niques of salesmanship but, more importantly, to the whole gamut of managerial activity from the initial decision to take a calculated risk in developing a new product to its eventual marketing.
A recent striking example of managerial apathy illustrates this problem very well. Dur- ing _Time the Ministry of Technology and the Institute of Physics combined forces to organise a conference in Harrogate to try to persuade industry that many of the discoveries made during recent years in government laboratories might be made to possess useful technological application. Since the government establish- ments (excluding defence) cost £260 million a year to run, this was an altogether laudable attempt to bring to the nation as a whole greater practical benefit from the vast expendi- tures involved.
But were the industrialists interested? Of the 210 delegates, only 120 came from industry. Fifty per cent of these were from only fifteen companies; and no fewer than twenty-two came from ICI, AEI and Roll-Royce alone. The apathy concealed by these figures on behalf of the smaller companies is remarkable to say the least. The truth is that our most serious prob- lem is not a technology gap but a management gap. We cannot continue to make do with the British tradition of the amateur manager. It is no accident that the most successful com- panies in Britain are the ones which take care to appoint competent technologists to their boards. Neither is it a coincidence that Japan's technological miracle has been accomplished by managers, 80 per cent of whom have been educated at a university—often in the tech- niques of management as such. Not until government and management itself take con- certed action to close the management gap will we make progress in our technological economy.
Previous page
