The core of the security and intelligence system of the Republic of Croatia consists of two security and intelligence agencies:

• Security and Intelligence Agency (Croatian: Sigurnosno-obavještajna agencija or SOA), and
• Military Security and Intelligence Agency (Vojna sigurnosno-obavještajna agencija or VSOA).

These agencies conduct their activities in accordance with the Constitution, relevant national legislation, the National Security Strategy, the Defence Strategy and the Annual Guidelines for the Work of Security Services.^[1] Their work is subject to the scrutiny by the Croatian Parliament, the President of the Republic, the Government, the Office of the National Security Council and the Council for the civilian scrutiny of the security intelligence agencies.

The community of intelligence agencies, military and civilian, was established by Croatia during the Croatian war of independence, becoming integral to the Croatian war effort against Yugoslav and Serbian forces.^[2] Their total estimated spending is $66,694,656.84.^[3]

Organization[link]

According to the Constitution of Croatia, the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister cooperate in directing the operations of the security services. The appointment of directors of security agencies is counter-signed by the President and the Prime Minister, upon a prior opinion of the Domestic Policy and National Security Committee of the Croatian Parliament.^[4]

National Security Council[link]

Tasks of cooperation between President of the Republic and the Prime Minister in directing the work of security and intelligence agencies, is within the competence of the National Security Council (Vijeće za nacionalnu sigurnost).^[5] Members of NSC are the President of the Republic, the President of the Government, Minister of Defense, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, Minister of Justice, National Security Advisor to the President of the Republic, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Croatia, the Head of UVNS, the Directors of SOA and VSOA, the President of the Parliament also takes part in its work, and if necessary other people as well.

Council for the Coordination of Security and Intelligence Services[link]

The Council for the Coordination of Security Intelligence Services (Savjet za koordinaciju sigurnosno-obavještajnih agencija) is responsible for the operational coordination of the work of security intelligence agencies. Members of the Council are the Member of the Government responsible for national security, as the Chairperson of the Council; the National Security Advisor to the President of the Republic, as Deputy Chairperson; the Directors of security and intelligence agencies and the Head of UVNS. If necessary, other persons from judicial, police, inspection, oversight and other entities and institutions may take part in the meetings of the Council.

Office of the National Security Council[link]

The Office of the National Security Council (Ured Vijeća za nacionalnu sigurost or UVNS) is the body of the Croatian security and intelligence system which provides support in the field of national security for major state institutions. The UVNS has three major duties: support for the National Security Council and Council for the Coordination of Security Services; analysis of the Agencies reportssand and expert scrutiny of the work of the security and intelligence agencies and OTC; information security - NSA.

Security and Intelligence Agency[link]

The Security and Intelligence Agency (SOA) systematically collects, analyzes and processes data significant for the national security. SOA endeavours to detect and prevent activities aimed at threatening the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia, violent subversion of state authorities, basic freedom and human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and other laws, and the basic economic system of the Republic of Croatia.

Abroad, SOA systematically collects, analyzes, processes and evaluates the political, economic, security and military data relating to foreign countries, international governmental and non-governmental organizations, political, military and economic alliances, groups and individuals exhibiting intentions, capabilities, covert plans and secret activities aimed at threatening the national security.

Military Security and Intelligence Agency[link]

The Military Security and Intelligence Agency (VSOA) is a unit that falls within the Ministry of Defence. In its intelligence operations VSOA collects, analyzes, processes and evaluates data on military forces and defence systems of other countries, on external pressures which may influence the defence security, as well as on activities abroad, aimed at threatening the defence security of the country. VSOA, on the territory of the Republic of Croatia, collects, analyzes processes and evaluates data on the intentions, capabilities and plans made by persons, groups, and organizations in the country with the intention of threatening the defence power of the country; and takes necessary measures to detect, monitor and counteract these activities.

Information Systems Security Bureau[link]

The Information Systems Security Bureau (Zavod za sigurnost informacijskih sustava or ZSIS) is the central state authority responsible for the technical areas of information security of the state bodies.^[6] The director of ZSIS is appointed by the Government, at the proposal of the Council for the Coordination of Security Intelligence Agencies.

Operational Technology Centre for the Surveillance of Telecommunications[link]

The Operational Technology Centre for the Surveillance of Telecommunications (Croatian: Operativno-tehnički centar za nadzor telekomunikacija or OTC) is a small agency in the frame of the Croatian intelligence and security community responsible for activation and management of the measures of secret surveillance of telecommunication services. The director of OTC is appointed by the Government, at the proposal of the Council for the Coordination of Security Intelligence Agencies.

Scrutiny[link]

The work of security and intelligence agencies is subject to the scrutiny conducted by the Croatian Parliament (parliamentary scrutiny), the Office of the National Security Council (professional scrutiny) and the Council for the Civilian Scrutiny of Security and Intelligence Agencies (civilian scrutiny).

Aside the above-mentioned scrutiny there is within each agency a special organisational unit responsible for the scrutiny of the work of its employees.

Parliamentary scrutiny[link]

The scrutiny of the Croatian Parliament over security intelligence agencies is conducted directly or through the Parliamentary Committee for Domestic Policy and National Security (Croatian: Odbor za unutarnju politiku i nacionalnu sigurnost),^[7] and the Council for the Civilian Scrutiny of the Security Intelligence Agencies.

Professional scrutiny[link]

Professional scrutiny over the work of security intelligence agencies and of the OTC is performed by the Office of the National Security Council.

Civilian scrutiny[link]

Croatia is one of few countries where the civilian scrutiny over the agencies work is conducted along with the parliamentary and professional scrutiny.^[8] For the purpose of ensuring of the civilian scrutiny over the work of security intelligence agencies in 2002 was established the Council for Civilian Scrutiny of Security and Intelligence Agencies (Croatian: Vijeće za građanski nadzor sigurnosno-obavještajnih agencija) pursuant to the Security Services Act of 28 March 2002. The Council consists of a chairperson and six members, all of whom are appointed by the Croatian Parliament. The Council's chairperson and members are appointed for a term of four years, after which they may be re-appointed. The Council monitors the legality of the work of security agencies, monitors and oversees application of measures for confidential data gathering which limits constitutionally-guaranteed human rights and fundamental freedoms.^[9]

History[link]

After the first democratic, multiparty elections held in 1990, the process of building state institutions commenced within the framework of newly-sovereign Croatia.

Early 1990s[link]

On 27 May 1991, President Franjo Tuđman established the Bureau for the Protection of the Constitutional Order (Ured za zaštitu ustavnog poretka or UZUP). The scope of its work, and its primary task was providing advice and professional assistance, in the area of protection of the constitutional order, to competent authorities performing functions in the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a part of the system for the protection of constitutional order, the Bureau was responsible for coordinating and directing the system as a whole. The Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order, in the framework of the MoI, the Security and Information Service in the MoD, and the Research and Documentation Service of the MFA were all obliged to report to the Bureau on their respective work and results. The Bureau reported to the President of the Republic and to the top state authorities. These authorities, i.e. their services, were the foundation of the system for the protection of the constitutional order.

1993-2002[link]

The main tasks of the intelligence community in the 1990s included the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Croatia (liberation of the occupied territories of Croatia), problems of regional security (resolution of the crises in Bosnia and Herzegovina), international terrorism and organized crime, counter-intelligence protection. From the beginning, the focus of the intelligence work of the intelligence community was the territorial integrity of Croatia and regional stability, and two thirds of the operations and projects was devoted to these goals. Only one third of the capacity was directed toward international terrorism, organized crime and counter-intelligence protection.^[10]

National Security Office[link]

UZUP ceased to exist on 21 March 1993 when, by the decision of the President Tuđman, the National Security Office (Ured za nacionalnu sigurnost or UNS) was established. Two years later, on 17 May 1995. the Croatian parliament adopted the National Security Office Act. In only 17 short articles, the tasks of UNS were outlined as were the details of its internal structure. According to that Act, three services were founded and fall under its jurisdiction:

• Croatian Intelligence Service (Hrvatska izvještajna služba or HIS),
• Security Headquarters (Stožer osiguranja),
• Supervision Service (Nadzorna služba).

In order to perform the professional and technical activities of the National Security Office, the following services (or its organizational units) were formed:

• National Center for Electronic Monitoring (Nacionalna služba elektroničkog izviđanja or NSEI)
• Intelligence Academy (Obavještajna akademija).

This two services were not regulated by any legislative acts, rather only by the acts on internal organization.^[11]

The Director of the UNS, appointed by the President, was responsible to the President of the Republic for the work of the UNS and the individual services of the National Security Office.^[10]

Intelligence Community[link]

The intelligence community goals and tasks were set by the Joint National Security Committee (SONS) and the Intelligence Community Coordination Committee (KOOZ). SONS was in charge of directing and coordinating state ministries in conducting national security operations, whereas KOOZ was responsible for the execution of tasks given by SONS.

The core of the intelligence community consisted of four intelligence agencies:

• Croatian Intelligence Service (HIS)
• Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order (SZUP)
• Security Intelligence Service of the Ministry of Defence (SIS)
• Directorate of Intelligence Affairs of the Croatian Army Headquarters (ObU GSOSRH)

The Croatian President provided guidelines for UNS and the Croatian intelligence community operations. The UNS director and state ministers assigned tasks to the services under their authority. The yearly operational plan of the intelligence community was prepared by KOOZ and it included projects and operative actions in which two or more services were required to take part. SONS approved the yearly operational plan of the intelligence community and supervised its implementation. Aside from the above mentioned UNS and the agencies, a wider security-system circle also included the Criminal Police, the Military Police, the Customs Service, and the Financial Police, whose representatives could be invited to participate in the KOOZ sessions.

During the 1990s, and especially after the war, the regime used the intelligence agencies for political purposes-not only to harass the opposition but also-in the case of certain high-ranking members of the Tudjman regime-as a means of shoring up their own power against that of others within the inner circle. These services, chiefly the SZUP, the SIS, and the HIS (headed by Tuđman's son Miroslav Tuđman), were used for political manipulation, blackmail, and by insiders to facilitate lining their own pockets through insider knowledge of privatization deals. At one point, there were even allegations that the services were misused in a Croatian soccer championship to help the team favored by Tuđman, an ardent soccer fan.^[12]

2002-2006[link]

As parliamentary democracy developed in the Republic of Croatia, reforms in security system were continued.^[13] On 19 March 2002, the Croatian Parliament adopted the National Security Strategy.^[14] The new Strategy, which is oriented toward integration into NATO and the EU, recognizes all the neighboring states, including the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro), as partners in development, not as sources of destabilization. Few days later, on 21 March, the Parliament passed the Security Services Act. These laws form the basis for reform of the Croatian intelligence community.^[12]

In accordance with Security Services Act three security and intelligence services were founded:

• Intelligence Agency (Obavještajna agencija or OA), formerly HIS,
• Counterintelligence Agency (Protuobavještajna agencija or POA), formerly SZUP,
• Military Security Agency (Vojna sigurnosna agencija or VSA), formerly SIS.

To facilitate the cooperation between the Croatian President and the Prime Minister in directing security and intelligence services operations, the National Security Council was founded. Furthermore, in order for the operative coordination of the security and intelligence services operations to be realized, the Council for Coordination of Security and Intelligence Agencies was founded. The Office of the National Security Council was founded for the purpose of performing expert and administrative operations for the National Security Council and the Council for Coordination of Security and Intelligence Agencies.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has retained its own department charged with security work, but now it only provides for security and the flow of information to Croatia's diplomatic offices abroad.

These changes have not resolved fully the problems of the agencies. After the new services were established, President Stipe Mesić proposed appointments for the directors of the agencies, but Prime Minister Ivica Račan has refused to countersign the appointments. Additional problems were caused by a lack of coordination, since documents and files had to be transferred to the new agencies. Several days before the Office for National Security ceased to exist (on March 31), its outgoing head Tomislav Karamarko ordered all such materials to be moved to the Croatian State Archives. This gesture was a protest against the reorganization of the security and intelligence services. It also turned out to be a major scandal since the sensitive and confidential documents were not guarded at the archives, where they languished for several days before being taken to the Intelligence Agency.^[12][15]

From 2006[link]

The Croatia's security intelligence system went again through reforms in mid-2006, when the Croatian Parliament passed the Security Intelligence System Act, which came into effect on 17 August 2006. The Act reorganised the existing intelligence system: the Intelligence Agency (OA) and Counterintelligence Agency (POA) were merged into the newly established Security and Intelligence Agency (SOA), while the pre-existing Military Security Agency (VSA) was renamed Military Security and Intelligence Agency (VSOA) with its jurisdiction expanded to include activities abroad.^[1]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Office of the National Security Council
• Security and Intelligence Agency
• Information Systems Security Bureau

v t e  Croatia topics History Prehistoric Croatia Origins of Croats White Croatia Principality of Littoral Croatia Principality of Pannonian Croatia Kingdom of Croatia Croatia in personal union with Hungary Croatia in the Habsburg Empire State of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs Kingdom of Yugoslavia World War II Socialist Republic of Croatia Croatian War of Independence Republic of Croatia Geography Topography Mountains Extreme points of Croatia Islands Rivers Lakes Climate Protected areas Flora Fauna Politics Constitution Parliament Prime Minister President Elections Political parties Foreign relations Government Agencies Law enforcement Economy Croatian kuna National Bank Zagreb Stock Exchange Science and technology Education Agriculture Industry Services Mining Energy Communications Tourism Transport Healthcare Companies Croatian brands Military History General Staff Army Air Force Navy Military Police Symbols National Flag Flags Coat of arms Anthem Motto National decorations Croatian interlace Name Demographics Administrative divisions Cities Human rights Postal codes Languages Religion Minorities Immigration Croats List of Croats Culture Academy Architecture Art Cinema (Actors) Music (Composers) Cuisine (Wine) Croatian language Literature (Writers Poets) Philosophy Folklore (Costume) Radio Television Sport Public holidays Society Croatian Nobel laureates WikiProject · Portal

The operational definition of a peanut butter sandwich might be simply "the result of putting peanut butter on a slice of bread with a butter knife and laying a second equally sized slice of bread on top"

An operational definition, also called functional definition,^[1][2] defines something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests used to determine its presence and quantity. That is, one defines something in terms of the operations that count as measuring it.^[3] The term was coined by Percy Williams Bridgman and is a part of the process of operationalization. One might use definitions that rely on operations in order to avoid the troubles associated with attempting to define things in terms of some intrinsic essence.

An example of an operational definition might be defining the weight of an object in terms of the numbers that appear when that object is placed on a weighing scale. The weight then, is whatever results from following the (weight) measurement procedure, which should be repeatable by anyone. This is in contrast to Operationalization that uses theoretical definitions.

Overview[link]

Properties described in this manner must be sufficiently accessible, so that persons other than the definer may independently measure or test for them at will.^{[citation needed]} An operational definition is generally designed to model a theoretical definition. The most operational definition is a process for identification of an object by distinguishing it from its background of empirical experience.

The binary version produces either the result that the object exists, or that it doesn't, in the experiential field to which it is applied. The classifier version results in discrimination between what is part of the object and what is not part of it. This is also discussed in terms of semantics, pattern recognition, and operational techniques, such as regression.

Operationalize means to put into operation. Operational definitions are also used to define system states in terms of a specific, publicly accessible process of preparation or validation testing, which is repeatable at will. For example, 100 degrees Celsius may be crudely defined by describing the process of heating water at sea level until it is observed to boil. An item like a brick, or even a photograph of a brick, may be defined in terms of how it can be made. Likewise, iron may be defined in terms of the results of testing or measuring it in particular ways.

Vandervert (1980/1988) described in scientific detail a simple, every day illustration of an operational definition in terms of making a cake (i.e., its recipe is an operational definition used in a specialized laboratory known as the household kitchen). Similarly, the saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be some kind of duck, may be regarded as involving a sort of measurement process or set of tests (see duck test).

Limitations[link]

If a definition invokes an historical event, such as having weighed an object sometime in the past, it is no longer repeatable, so it fails to qualify as operational.
Similarly, a specific brick cannot be operationally defined by the process of making it, because that process is historical. (But see the example of the constellation Virgo below for a discussion of how to avoid this difficulty.)

Application[link]

Despite the controversial philosophical origins of the concept, particularly its close association with logical positivism, operational definitions have undisputed practical applications. This is especially so in the social and medical sciences, where operational definitions of key terms are used to preserve the unambiguous empirical testability of hypothesis and theory. Operational definitions are also important in the physical sciences.

Philosophy[link]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says the following about Operationalism stored at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ and written by Richard Boyd:

The idea originally arises in the operationalist philosophy of P. W. Bridgman and others. By 1914, Bridgman was dismayed by the abstraction and lack of clarity with which, he argued, many scientific concepts were expressed. Inspired by logical positivism and the phenomenalism of Ernst Mach, in 1914 he declared that the meaning of a theoretical term (or unobservable entity), such as electron density, lay in the operations, physical and mental, performed in its measurement. The goal was to eliminate all reference to theoretical entities by "rationally reconstructing" them in terms of the particular operations of laboratory procedures and experimentation.

Hence, the term electron density could be analyzed into a statement of the following form:

(*) The electron density of an object, O, is given by the value, x, if and only if P applied to O yields the value x,

where P stands for an instrument that scientists take as a procedure for measuring electron density.

Operationalism, defined in this way, was rejected even by the logical positivists, due to inherent problems: defining terms operationally necessarily implied the analytic necessity of the definition. The analyticity of operational definitions like (*) is essential to the project of rational reconstruction. Operationalism is not, for example, the idea that electron density is defined as whatever magnitude instruments of the sort P reliably measure. On that conception (*) would represent an empirical discovery about how to measure electron density, but -- since electrons are unobservables -- that's a realist conception not an empiricist one. What the project of rational reconstruction requires is that (*) be true purely as a matter of linguistic stipulation about how the term "electron density" is to be used.

Since (*) is supposed to be analytic, it's supposed to be unrevisable. There is supposed to be no such thing as discovering, about P, that some other instrument provides a more accurate value for electron density, or provides values for electron density under conditions where P doesn't function. Here again, thinking that there could be such an improvement in P with respect to electron density requires thinking of electron density as a real feature of the world which P (perhaps only approximately) measures. But that's the realist conception that operationalism is designed rationally to do away with!

In actual, and apparently reliable, scientific practice, changes in the instrumentation associated with theoretical terms are routine, and apparently crucial to the progress of science. According to a 'pure' operationalist conception, these sorts of modifications would not be methodologically acceptable, since each definition must be considered to identify a unique 'object' (or class of objects). In practice, however, an 'operationally defined' object is often taken to be that object which is determined by a constellation of different unique 'operational procedures.'

Most logical empiricists were not willing to accept the conclusion that operational definitions must be unique (in contradiction to 'established' scientific practice). So they felt compelled to reject operationalism. In the end, it reduces to a reductio ad absurdum, since each measuring instrument must itself be operationally defined, in infinite regress... But this was also a failure of the logical positivist approach generally.

However, this rejection of operationalism as a general project destined ultimately to define all experiential phenomena uniquely did not mean that operational definitions ceased to have any practical use or that they could not be applied in particular cases.

Science[link]

The special theory of relativity can be viewed as the introduction of operational definitions for simultaneity of events and of distance, that is, as providing the operations needed to define these terms.^[4]

In quantum mechanics the notion of operational definitions is closely related to the idea of observables, that is, definitions based upon what can be measured.^[5][6]

Operational definitions are at their most controversial in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, where intuitive concepts, such as intelligence need to be operationally defined before they become amenable to scientific investigation, for example, through processes such as IQ tests. Such definitions are used as a follow up to a theoretical definition, in which the specific concept is defined as a measurable occurrence. John Stuart Mill pointed out the dangers of believing that anything that could be given a name must refer to a thing and Stephen Jay Gould and others have criticized psychologists for doing just that. A committed operationalist would respond that speculation about the thing in itself, or noumenon, should be resisted as meaningless, and would comment only on phenomena using operationally defined terms and tables of operationally defined measurements.

A behaviorist psychologist might (operationally) define intelligence as that score obtained on a specific IQ test (e.g., the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale test) by a human subject. The theoretical underpinnings of the WAIS would be completely ignored. This WAIS measurement would only be useful to the extent it could be shown to be related to other operationally defined measurements, e.g., to the measured probability of graduation from university.^[7]

Operational definitions are the foundation of the diagnostic nomenclature of mental disorders (classification of mental disorders) from the DSM-III onward.^[8][9]

Business[link]

On October 15, 1970, the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne, Australia collapsed, killing 35 construction workers. The subsequent enquiry found that the failure arose because engineers had specified the supply of a quantity of flat steel plate. The word flat in this context lacked an operational definition, so there was no test for accepting or rejecting a particular shipment or for controlling quality.

In his managerial and statistical writings, W. Edwards Deming placed great importance on the value of using operational definitions in all agreements in business. As he said:

"An operational definition is a procedure agreed upon for translation of a concept into measurement of some kind." - W. Edwards Deming

"There is no true value of any characteristic, state, or condition that is defined in terms of measurement or observation. Change of procedure for measurement (change of operational definition) or observation produces a new number." - W. Edwards Deming

General process[link]

Operational, in a process context, also can denote a working method or a philosophy that focuses principally on cause and effect relationships (or stimulus/response, behavior, etc.) of specific interest to a particular domain at a particular point in time. As a working method, it does not consider issues related to a domain that are more general, such as the ontological, etc.

The term can be used strictly within the realm of the interactions of humans with advanced computational systems. In this sense, an AI system cannot be entirely operational (this issue can be used to discuss strong versus weak AI) if learning is involved.

Given that one motive for the operational approach is stability, systems that relax the operational factor can be problematic, for several reasons, as the operational is a means to manage complexity. There will be differences in the nature of the operational as it pertains to degrees along the end-user computing axis.

For instance, a knowledge-based engineering system can enhance its operational aspect and thereby its stability through more involvement by the SME, thereby opening up issues of limits that are related to being human, in the sense that, many times, computational results have to be taken at face value due to several factors (hence the duck test's necessity arises) that even an expert cannot overcome. The end proof may be the final results (reasonable facsimile by simulation or artifact, working design, etc.) that are not guaranteed to be repeatable, may have been costly to attain (time and money), and so forth.

Many domains, with a numerics focus, use limits logic to overcome the duck test necessity with varying degrees of success. Complex situations may require logic to be more non-monotonic than not raising concerns related to the qualification, frame, and ramification problems.

Examples[link]

Temperature[link]

The thermodynamic definition of temperature, due to Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot, refers to heat "flowing" between "infinite reservoirs". This is all highly abstract and unsuited for the day-to-day world of science and trade. In order to make the idea concrete, temperature is defined in terms of operations with the gas thermometer. However, these are sophisticated and delicate instruments, only adapted to the national standardization laboratory.

For day-to-day use, the International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS) is used, defining temperature in terms of characteristics of the several specific sensor types required to cover the full range. One such is the electrical resistance of a thermistor, with specified construction, calibrated against operationally defined fixed points. Therefore it can be seen that heat is hot.

Electric current[link]

Electric current is defined in terms of the force between two infinite parallel conductors, separated by a specified distance. This definition is too abstract for practical measurement, so a device known as a current balance is used to define the ampere operationally.

Mechanical hardness[link]

Unlike temperature and electric current, there is no abstract physical concept of the hardness of a material. It is a slightly vague, subjective idea, somewhat like the idea of intelligence. In fact, it leads to three more specific ideas:

1. Scratch hardness measured on Mohs' scale;
2. Indentation hardness; and
3. Rebound, or dynamic, hardness measured with a Shore scleroscope.

Of these, indentation hardness itself leads to many operational definitions, the most important of which are:

1. Brinell hardness test – using a 10 mm steel ball;
2. Vickers hardness test – using a pyramidal diamond indenter; and
3. Rockwell hardness test – using a diamond cone indenter.

In all these, a process is defined for loading the indenter, measuring the resulting indentation and calculating a hardness number. Each of these three sequences of measurement operations produces numbers that are consistent with our subjective idea of hardness. The harder the material to our informal perception, the greater the number it will achieve on our respective hardness scales. Furthermore, experimental results obtained using these measurement methods has shown that the hardness number can be used to predict the stress required to permanently deform steel, a characteristic that fits in well with our idea of resistance to permanent deformation. However, there is not always a simple relationship between the various hardness scales. Vickers and Rockwell hardness numbers exhibit qualitatively different behaviour when used to describe some materials and phenomena.

The constellation Virgo[link]

The constellation Virgo is a specific constellation of stars in the sky, hence the process of forming Virgo cannot be an operational definition, since it is historical and not repeatable. Nevertheless, the process whereby we locate Virgo in the sky is repeatable, so in this way, Virgo is operationally defined. In fact, Virgo can have any number of definitions (although we can never prove that we are talking about the same Virgo), and any number may be operational.

Duck typing[link]

In advanced modeling, with the requisite computational support such as knowledge-based engineering, mappings must be maintained between a real-world object, its abstracted counterparts as defined by the domain and its experts, and the computer models. Mismatches between domain models and their computational mirrors can raise issues that are apropos to this topic. Techniques that allow the flexible modeling required for many hard problems must resolve issues of identity, type, etc. which then lead to methods, such as duck typing.

Theoretical vs operational definition[link]

See also[link]

• Operationalization
• Pragmatic maxim
• Pragmaticism
• Pragmatism

References and notes[link]

Vandervert, L. (1988). Operational definitions made simple, useful, and lasting. In M. Ware & C. Brewer (Eds.), Handbook for teaching statistics and research methods (pp. 132–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Original work published 1980)

Further reading[link]

• Ballantyne, Paul F. History and Theory of Psychology Course, in Langfeld, H.S. (1945) Introduction to the Symposium on Operationism. Psyc. Rev. 32, 241-243.[1]
• Bohm, D. (1996). On dialog. N.Y.: Routledge.
• Boyd, Richard. On the Current Status of the Issue of Scientific Realism in Erkenntnis. 19: 45-90.
• Bridgman, P. W. The way things are. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1959)
• Carnap, R. The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language in Ayer, A.J. 1959.
• Churchland, Patricia, Neurophilosophy— Toward a unified science of the mind/brain, MIT Press (1986).
• Churchland, Paul., A Neurocomputational Perspective— The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science, MIT Press (1989).
• Dennett, Daniel C. Consciousness Explained, Little, Brown & Co.. 1992.
• Depraz, N. (1999). "The phenomenological reduction as praxis." Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2-3), 95-110.
• Hardcastle, G. L. (1995). "S.S. Stevens and the origins of operationism." Philosophy of Science, 62, 404-424.
• Hermans, H. J. M. (1996). "Voicing the self: from information processing to dialogical interchange." Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 31-50.
• Hyman, Bronwen, U of Toronto, and Shephard, Alfred H., U of Manitoba, "Zeitgeist: The Development of an Operational Definition", The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1(2), pps. 227-246 (1980)
• Leahy, Thomas H., Virginia Commonwealth U, The Myth of Operationism, ibid, pps. 127-144 (1980)
• Ribes-Inesta, Emilio "What Is Defined In Operational Definitions? The Case Of Operant Psychology," Behavior and Philosophy, 2003.[2]
• Roepstorff, A. & Jack, A. (2003). "Editorial introduction, Special Issue: Trusting the Subject? (Part 1)." Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9-10), v-xx.
• Roepstorff, A. & Jack, A. (2004). "Trust or Interaction? Editorial introduction, Special Issue: Trusting the Subject? (Part 2)." Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(7-8), v-xxii.
• Stevens, S. S. Operationism and logical positivism, in M. H. Marx (Ed.), Theories in contemporary psychology (pp. 47–76). New York: MacMillan. (1963)
• Thomson — Waddsworth, eds., Learning Psychology: Operational Definitions Research Methods Workshops[3]

By the mid 20th century, humans had achieved a mastery of technology sufficient to leave the atmosphere of the Earth for the first time and explore space.

Technology is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a preexisting solution to a problem, achieve a goal or perform a specific function. It can also refer to the collection of such tools, machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments. The word technology comes from Greek τεχνολογία (technología); from τέχνη (téchnē), meaning "art, skill, craft", and -λογία (-logía), meaning "study of-".^[1] The term can either be applied generally or to specific areas: examples include construction technology, medical technology, and information technology.

The human species' use of technology began with the conversion of natural resources into simple tools. The prehistorical discovery of the ability to control fire increased the available sources of food and the invention of the wheel helped humans in travelling in and controlling their environment. Recent technological developments, including the printing press, the telephone, and the Internet, have lessened physical barriers to communication and allowed humans to interact freely on a global scale. However, not all technology has been used for peaceful purposes; the development of weapons of ever-increasing destructive power has progressed throughout history, from clubs to nuclear weapons.

Technology has affected society and its surroundings in a number of ways. In many societies, technology has helped develop more advanced economies (including today's global economy) and has allowed the rise of a leisure class. Many technological processes produce unwanted by-products, known as pollution, and deplete natural resources, to the detriment of the Earth and its environment. Various implementations of technology influence the values of a society and new technology often raises new ethical questions. Examples include the rise of the notion of efficiency in terms of human productivity, a term originally applied only to machines, and the challenge of traditional norms.

Philosophical debates have arisen over the present and future use of technology in society, with disagreements over whether technology improves the human condition or worsens it. Neo-Luddism, anarcho-primitivism, and similar movements criticise the pervasiveness of technology in the modern world, opining that it harms the environment and alienates people; proponents of ideologies such as transhumanism and techno-progressivism view continued technological progress as beneficial to society and the human condition. Indeed, until recently, it was believed that the development of technology was restricted only to human beings, but recent scientific studies indicate that other primates and certain dolphin communities have developed simple tools and learned to pass their knowledge to other generations.

Definition and usage[link]

The invention of the printing press made it possible for scientists and politicians to communicate their ideas with ease, leading to the Age of Enlightenment; an example of technology as a cultural force.

The use of the term technology has changed significantly over the last 200 years. Before the 20th century, the term was uncommon in English, and usually referred to the description or study of the useful arts.^[2] The term was often connected to technical education, as in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chartered in 1861).^[3] "Technology" rose to prominence in the 20th century in connection with the second industrial revolution. The meanings of technology changed in the early 20th century when American social scientists, beginning with Thorstein Veblen, translated ideas from the German concept of Technik into "technology." In German and other European languages, a distinction exists between Technik and Technologie that is absent in English, as both terms are usually translated as "technology." By the 1930s, "technology" referred not to the study of the industrial arts, but to the industrial arts themselves.^[4] In 1937, the American sociologist Read Bain wrote that "technology includes all tools, machines, utensils, weapons, instruments, housing, clothing, communicating and transporting devices and the skills by which we produce and use them."^[5] Bain's definition remains common among scholars today, especially social scientists. But equally prominent is the definition of technology as applied science, especially among scientists and engineers, although most social scientists who study technology reject this definition.^[6] More recently, scholars have borrowed from European philosophers of "technique" to extend the meaning of technology to various forms of instrumental reason, as in Foucault's work on technologies of the self ("techniques de soi").

Dictionaries and scholars have offered a variety of definitions. The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers a definition of the term: "the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area" and "a capability given by the practical application of knowledge".^[1] Ursula Franklin, in her 1989 "Real World of Technology" lecture, gave another definition of the concept; it is "practice, the way we do things around here".^[7] The term is often used to imply a specific field of technology, or to refer to high technology or just consumer electronics, rather than technology as a whole.^[8] Bernard Stiegler, in Technics and Time, 1, defines technology in two ways: as "the pursuit of life by means other than life", and as "organized inorganic matter."^[9]

Technology can be most broadly defined as the entities, both material and immaterial, created by the application of mental and physical effort in order to achieve some value. In this usage, technology refers to tools and machines that may be used to solve real-world problems. It is a far-reaching term that may include simple tools, such as a crowbar or wooden spoon, or more complex machines, such as a space station or particle accelerator. Tools and machines need not be material; virtual technology, such as computer software and business methods, fall under this definition of technology.^[10]

The word "technology" can also be used to refer to a collection of techniques. In this context, it is the current state of humanity's knowledge of how to combine resources to produce desired products, to solve problems, fulfill needs, or satisfy wants; it includes technical methods, skills, processes, techniques, tools and raw materials. When combined with another term, such as "medical technology" or "space technology", it refers to the state of the respective field's knowledge and tools. "State-of-the-art technology" refers to the high technology available to humanity in any field.

Technology can be viewed as an activity that forms or changes culture.^[11] Additionally, technology is the application of math, science, and the arts for the benefit of life as it is known. A modern example is the rise of communication technology, which has lessened barriers to human interaction and, as a result, has helped spawn new subcultures; the rise of cyberculture has, at its basis, the development of the Internet and the computer.^[12] Not all technology enhances culture in a creative way; technology can also help facilitate political oppression and war via tools such as guns. As a cultural activity, technology predates both science and engineering, each of which formalize some aspects of technological endeavor.

Science, engineering and technology[link]

The distinction between science, engineering and technology is not always clear. Science is the reasoned investigation or study of phenomena, aimed at discovering enduring principles among elements of the phenomenal world by employing formal techniques such as the scientific method.^[13] Technologies are not usually exclusively products of science, because they have to satisfy requirements such as utility, usability and safety.

Engineering is the goal-oriented process of designing and making tools and systems to exploit natural phenomena for practical human means, often (but not always) using results and techniques from science. The development of technology may draw upon many fields of knowledge, including scientific, engineering, mathematical, linguistic, and historical knowledge, to achieve some practical result.

Technology is often a consequence of science and engineering — although technology as a human activity precedes the two fields. For example, science might study the flow of electrons in electrical conductors, by using already-existing tools and knowledge. This new-found knowledge may then be used by engineers to create new tools and machines, such as semiconductors, computers, and other forms of advanced technology. In this sense, scientists and engineers may both be considered technologists; the three fields are often considered as one for the purposes of research and reference.^[14]

The exact relations between science and technology in particular have been debated by scientists, historians, and policymakers in the late 20th century, in part because the debate can inform the funding of basic and applied science. In the immediate wake of World War II, for example, in the United States it was widely considered that technology was simply "applied science" and that to fund basic science was to reap technological results in due time. An articulation of this philosophy could be found explicitly in Vannevar Bush's treatise on postwar science policy, Science—The Endless Frontier: "New products, new industries, and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of nature... This essential new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research." In the late-1960s, however, this view came under direct attack, leading towards initiatives to fund science for specific tasks (initiatives resisted by the scientific community). The issue remains contentious—though most analysts resist the model that technology simply is a result of scientific research.^[15][16]

History[link]

Paleolithic (2.5 million – 10,000 BC)[link]

A primitive chopper

The use of tools by early humans was partly a process of discovery, partly of evolution. Early humans evolved from a species of foraging hominids which were already bipedal,^[17] with a brain mass approximately one third that of modern humans.^[18] Tool use remained relatively unchanged for most of early human history, but approximately 50,000 years ago, a complex set of behaviors and tool use emerged, believed by many archaeologists to be connected to the emergence of fully modern language.^[19]

Stone tools[link]

Hand axes from the Acheulian period

A Clovis point, made via pressure flaking

Human ancestors have been using stone and other tools since long before the emergence of Homo sapiens approximately 200,000 years ago.^[20] The earliest methods of stone tool making, known as the Oldowan "industry", date back to at least 2.3 million years ago,^[21] with the earliest direct evidence of tool usage found in Ethiopia within the Great Rift Valley, dating back to 2.5 million years ago.^[22] This era of stone tool use is called the Paleolithic, or "Old stone age", and spans all of human history up to the development of agriculture approximately 12,000 years ago.

To make a stone tool, a "core" of hard stone with specific flaking properties (such as flint) was struck with a hammerstone. This flaking produced a sharp edge on the core stone as well as on the flakes, either of which could be used as tools, primarily in the form of choppers or scrapers.^[23] These tools greatly aided the early humans in their hunter-gatherer lifestyle to perform a variety of tasks including butchering carcasses (and breaking bones to get at the marrow); chopping wood; cracking open nuts; skinning an animal for its hide; and even forming other tools out of softer materials such as bone and wood.^[24]

The earliest stone tools were crude, being little more than a fractured rock. In the Acheulian era, beginning approximately 1.65 million years ago, methods of working these stone into specific shapes, such as hand axes emerged. The Middle Paleolithic, approximately 300,000 years ago, saw the introduction of the prepared-core technique, where multiple blades could be rapidly formed from a single core stone.^[23] The Upper Paleolithic, beginning approximately 40,000 years ago, saw the introduction of pressure flaking, where a wood, bone, or antler punch could be used to shape a stone very finely.^[25]

Fire[link]

The discovery and utilization of fire, a simple energy source with many profound uses, was a turning point in the technological evolution of humankind.^[26] The exact date of its discovery is not known; evidence of burnt animal bones at the Cradle of Humankind suggests that the domestication of fire occurred before 1,000,000 BC;^[27] scholarly consensus indicates that Homo erectus had controlled fire by between 500,000 BC and 400,000 BC.^[28][29] Fire, fueled with wood and charcoal, allowed early humans to cook their food to increase its digestibility, improving its nutrient value and broadening the number of foods that could be eaten.^[30]

Clothing and shelter[link]

Other technological advances made during the Paleolithic era were clothing and shelter; the adoption of both technologies cannot be dated exactly, but they were a key to humanity's progress. As the Paleolithic era progressed, dwellings became more sophisticated and more elaborate; as early as 380,000 BC, humans were constructing temporary wood huts.^[31][32] Clothing, adapted from the fur and hides of hunted animals, helped humanity expand into colder regions; humans began to migrate out of Africa by 200,000 BC and into other continents, such as Eurasia.^[33]

Neolithic through classical antiquity (10,000BC – 300AD)[link]

An array of Neolithic artifacts, including bracelets, axe heads, chisels, and polishing tools.

Man's technological ascent began in earnest in what is known as the Neolithic period ("New stone age"). The invention of polished stone axes was a major advance because it allowed forest clearance on a large scale to create farms. The discovery of agriculture allowed for the feeding of larger populations, and the transition to a sedentist lifestyle increased the number of children that could be simultaneously raised, as young children no longer needed to be carried, as was the case with the nomadic lifestyle. Additionally, children could contribute labor to the raising of crops more readily than they could to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.^[34][35]

With this increase in population and availability of labor came an increase in labor specialization.^[36] What triggered the progression from early Neolithic villages to the first cities, such as Uruk, and the first civilizations, such as Sumer, is not specifically known; however, the emergence of increasingly hierarchical social structures, the specialization of labor, trade and war amongst adjacent cultures, and the need for collective action to overcome environmental challenges, such as the building of dikes and reservoirs, are all thought to have played a role.^[37]

Metal tools[link]

Continuing improvements led to the furnace and bellows and provided the ability to smelt and forge native metals (naturally occurring in relatively pure form).^[38] Gold, copper, silver, and lead, were such early metals. The advantages of copper tools over stone, bone, and wooden tools were quickly apparent to early humans, and native copper was probably used from near the beginning of Neolithic times (about 8000 BC).^[39] Native copper does not naturally occur in large amounts, but copper ores are quite common and some of them produce metal easily when burned in wood or charcoal fires. Eventually, the working of metals led to the discovery of alloys such as bronze and brass (about 4000 BC). The first uses of iron alloys such as steel dates to around 1400 BC.

Energy and transport[link]

The wheel was invented circa 4000 BC.

Meanwhile, humans were learning to harness other forms of energy. The earliest known use of wind power is the sailboat.^[40] The earliest record of a ship under sail is shown on an Egyptian pot dating back to 3200 BC.^[41] From prehistoric times, Egyptians probably used the power of the Nile annual floods to irrigate their lands, gradually learning to regulate much of it through purposely built irrigation channels and 'catch' basins. Similarly, the early peoples of Mesopotamia, the Sumerians, learned to use the Tigris and Euphrates rivers for much the same purposes. But more extensive use of wind and water (and even human) power required another invention.

According to archaeologists, the wheel was invented around 4000 B.C. probably independently and nearly-simultaneously in Mesopotamia (in present-day Iraq), the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe. Estimates on when this may have occurred range from 5500 to 3000 B.C., with most experts putting it closer to 4000 B.C. The oldest artifacts with drawings that depict wheeled carts date from about 3000 B.C.; however, the wheel may have been in use for millennia before these drawings were made. There is also evidence from the same period of time that wheels were used for the production of pottery. (Note that the original potter's wheel was probably not a wheel, but rather an irregularly shaped slab of flat wood with a small hollowed or pierced area near the center and mounted on a peg driven into the earth. It would have been rotated by repeated tugs by the potter or his assistant.) More recently, the oldest-known wooden wheel in the world was found in the Ljubljana marshes of Slovenia.^[42]

The invention of the wheel revolutionized activities as disparate as transportation, war, and the production of pottery (for which it may have been first used). It didn't take long to discover that wheeled wagons could be used to carry heavy loads and fast (rotary) potters' wheels enabled early mass production of pottery. But it was the use of the wheel as a transformer of energy (through water wheels, windmills, and even treadmills) that revolutionized the application of nonhuman power sources.

Medieval and modern history (300 AD —)[link]

Innovations continued through the Middle Ages with innovations such as silk, the horse collar and horseshoes in the first few hundred years after the fall of the Roman Empire. Medieval technology saw the use of simple machines (such as the lever, the screw, and the pulley) being combined to form more complicated tools, such as the wheelbarrow, windmills and clocks. The Renaissance brought forth many of these innovations, including the printing press (which facilitated the greater communication of knowledge), and technology became increasingly associated with science, beginning a cycle of mutual advancement. The advancements in technology in this era allowed a more steady supply of food, followed by the wider availability of consumer goods.

The automobile revolutionized personal transportation.

Starting in the United Kingdom in the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution was a period of great technological discovery, particularly in the areas of agriculture, manufacturing, mining, metallurgy and transport, driven by the discovery of steam power. Technology later took another step with the harnessing of electricity to create such innovations as the electric motor, light bulb and countless others. Scientific advancement and the discovery of new concepts later allowed for powered flight, and advancements in medicine, chemistry, physics and engineering. The rise in technology has led to the construction of skyscrapers and large cities whose inhabitants rely on automobiles or other powered transit for transportation. Communication was also greatly improved with the invention of the telegraph, telephone, radio and television. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a revolution in transportation with the invention of the steam-powered ship, train, airplane, and automobile.

F-15 and F-16 flying over a burning oil field in Kuwait in 1991.

The 20th century brought a host of innovations. In physics, the discovery of nuclear fission has led to both nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Computers were also invented and later miniaturized utilizing transistors and integrated circuits. The technology behind got called information technology, and these advancements subsequently led to the creation of the Internet, which ushered in the current Information Age. Humans have also been able to explore space with satellites (later used for telecommunication) and in manned missions going all the way to the moon. In medicine, this era brought innovations such as open-heart surgery and later stem cell therapy along with new medications and treatments. Complex manufacturing and construction techniques and organizations are needed to construct and maintain these new technologies, and entire industries have arisen to support and develop succeeding generations of increasingly more complex tools. Modern technology increasingly relies on training and education — their designers, builders, maintainers, and users often require sophisticated general and specific training. Moreover, these technologies have become so complex that entire fields have been created to support them, including engineering, medicine, and computer science, and other fields have been made more complex, such as construction, transportation and architecture.

Technology and philosophy[link]

Technicism[link]

Generally, technicism is a reliance or confidence in technology as a benefactor of society. Taken to extreme, technicism is the belief that humanity will ultimately be able to control the entirety of existence using technology. In other words, human beings will someday be able to master all problems and possibly even control the future using technology. Some, such as Stephen V. Monsma,^[43] connect these ideas to the abdication of religion as a higher moral authority.

Optimism[link]

Optimistic assumptions are made by proponents of ideologies such as transhumanism and singularitarianism, which view technological development as generally having beneficial effects for the society and the human condition. In these ideologies, technological development is morally good. Some critics see these ideologies as examples of scientism and techno-utopianism and fear the notion of human enhancement and technological singularity which they support. Some have described Karl Marx as a techno-optimist.^[44]

Skepticism and critics of technology[link]

On the somewhat skeptical side are certain philosophers like Herbert Marcuse and John Zerzan, who believe that technological societies are inherently flawed. They suggest that the inevitable result of such a society is to become evermore technological at the cost of freedom and psychological health.

Many, such as the Luddites and prominent philosopher Martin Heidegger, hold serious, although not entirely deterministic reservations, about technology (see "The Question Concerning Technology^[45])". According to Heidegger scholars Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Spinosa, "Heidegger does not oppose technology. He hopes to reveal the essence of technology in a way that 'in no way confines us to a stultified compulsion to push on blindly with technology or, what comes to the same thing, to rebel helplessly against it.' Indeed, he promises that 'when we once open ourselves expressly to the essence of technology, we find ourselves unexpectedly taken into a freeing claim.'^[46]" What this entails is a more complex relationship to technology than either techno-optimists or techno-pessimists tend to allow.^[47]

Some of the most poignant criticisms of technology are found in what are now considered to be dystopian literary classics, for example Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and other writings, Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange, and George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. And, in Faust by Goethe, Faust's selling his soul to the devil in return for power over the physical world, is also often interpreted as a metaphor for the adoption of industrial technology. More recently, modern works of science fiction, such as those by Philip K. Dick and William Gibson, and films (e.g. Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell) project highly ambivalent or cautionary attitudes toward technology's impact on human society and identity.

The late cultural critic Neil Postman distinguished tool-using societies from technological societies and, finally, what he called "technopolies," that is, societies that are dominated by the ideology of technological and scientific progress, to the exclusion or harm of other cultural practices, values and world-views.^[48]

Darin Barney has written about technology's impact on practices of citizenship and democratic culture, suggesting that technology can be construed as (1) an object of political debate, (2) a means or medium of discussion, and (3) a setting for democratic deliberation and citizenship. As a setting for democratic culture, Barney suggests that technology tends to make ethical questions, including the question of what a good life consists in, nearly impossible, because they already give an answer to the question: a good life is one that includes the use of more and more technology.^[49]

Nikolas Kompridis has also written about the dangers of new technology, such as genetic engineering, nanotechnology, synthetic biology and robotics. He warns that these technologies introduce unprecedented new challenges to human beings, including the possibility of the permanent alteration of our biological nature. These concerns are shared by other philosophers, scientists and public intellectuals who have written about similar issues (e.g. Francis Fukuyama, Jürgen Habermas, William Joy, and Michael Sandel).^[50]

Another prominent critic of technology is Hubert Dreyfus, who has published books On the Internet and What Computers Still Can't Do.

Another, more infamous anti-technological treatise is Industrial Society and Its Future, written by Theodore Kaczynski (aka The Unabomber) and printed in several major newspapers (and later books) as part of an effort to end his bombing campaign of the techno-industrial infrastructure.

Appropriate technology[link]

The notion of appropriate technology, however, was developed in the 20th century (e.g., see the work of Jacques Ellul) to describe situations where it was not desirable to use very new technologies or those that required access to some centralized infrastructure or parts or skills imported from elsewhere. The eco-village movement emerged in part due to this concern.

Technology and competitiveness[link]

An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (May 2012)

In 1983 a classified program was initiated in the US intelligence community to reverse the US declining economic and military competitiveness. The program, Project Socrates, used all source intelligence to review competitiveness worldwide for all forms of competition to determine the source of the US decline. What Project Socrates determined was that technology exploitation is the foundation of all competitive advantage and that the source of the US declining competitiveness was the fact that decision-making through the US both in the private and public sectors had switched from decision making that was based on technology exploitation (i.e., technology-based planning) to decision making that was based on money exploitation (i.e., economic-based planning) at the end of World War II.

Technology is properly defined as any application of science to accomplish a function. The science can be leading edge or well established and the function can have high visibility or be significantly more mundane but it is all technology, and its exploitation is the foundation of all competitive advantage.

Technology-based planning is what was used to build the US industrial giants before WWII (e.g., Dow, DuPont, GM) and it what was used to transform the US into a superpower. It was not economic-based planning.

Project Socrates determined that to rebuild US competitiveness, decision making throughout the US had to readopt technology-based planning. Project Socrates also determined that countries like China and India had continued executing technology-based (while the US took its detour into economic-based) planning, and as a result had considerable advanced the process and were using it to build themselves into superpowers. To rebuild US competitiveness the US decision-makers needed adopt a form of technology-based planning that was far more advanced than that used by China and India.

Project Socrates determined that technology-based planning makes an evolutionary leap forward every few hundred years and the next evolutionary leap, the Automated Innovation Revolution, was poised to occur. In the Automated Innovation Revolution the process for determining how to acquire and utilize technology for a competitive advantage (which includes R&D) is automated so that it can be executed with unprecedented speed, efficiency and agility.

Project Socrates developed the means for automated innovation so that the US could lead the Automated Innovation Revolution in order to rebuild and maintain the country's economic competitiveness for many generations.^[51][52][53]

Other animal species[link]

This adult gorilla uses a branch as a walking stick to gauge the water's depth; an example of technology usage by non-human primates.

The use of basic technology is also a feature of other animal species apart from humans. These include primates such as chimpanzees, some dolphin communities,^[54][55] and crows.^[56][57] Considering a more generic perspective of technology as ethology of active environmental conditioning and control, we can also refer to animal examples such as beavers and their dams, or bees and their honeycombs.

The ability to make and use tools was once considered a defining characteristic of the genus Homo.^[58] However, the discovery of tool construction among chimpanzees and related primates has discarded the notion of the use of technology as unique to humans. For example, researchers have observed wild chimpanzees utilising tools for foraging: some of the tools used include leaf sponges, termite fishing probes, pestles and levers.^[59] West African chimpanzees also use stone hammers and anvils for cracking nuts,^[60] as do capuchin monkeys of Boa Vista, Brazil.^[61]

Future technology[link]

Theories of technology often attempt to predict the future of technology based on the high technology and science of the time.

See also[link]

	Book: Technology
Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.

Technology portal

Theories and concepts in technology[link]

References[link]