You are on page 1of 32

1

Book Review of Geoff Crocker’s


“A Managerial Philosophy of Technology
– Technology and Humanity in Symbiosis”

A Paper
Presented to the
Faculty of the School of Business & Economics
University of San Carlos
Cebu City, Philippines

In partial fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
Philo 357 Philosophy of Technology
Submitted to : Dr. Ali Mandane Jr, PhD

By
Exuperto P. Cabataña
October 6-9, 2017
2

I. Summary of Key Ideas:

Author Geoff Crocker, an Economist, Philosopher, Historian, and Business Consultant


brings into this compact book a wealth of knowledge and insights that connect centuries
of human yearnings for meanings and explanations and set them to help enlighten current
concerns in business especially in technology business and management.

The author intended to organize this work into 7 components:


1. A comprehensive review of the academic literature on Philosophy of Technology
2. A presentation of the Network Systems Model of Technology in Symbiosis with
Humanity and Nature
3. Statement of Assumptions
4. Typology of Technology
5. Business Management Models of Technology
6. Social Models of “Innovation Policy”
7. Synthesis of the Network Model through iteration the final version of the “Systems
Network Managerial Philosophy of Technology

A. Survey of Academic Literature


Big questions pursued:

P7 “First, technology must be defined partly as a freely given endowment to humanity, in


that the natural processes pre-exist, and partly as the product of humanity’s effort, first to
isolate the natural processes, then to harness them in a different configuration of
technology process/”

P8, “ Second, there is a clear symbiosis between humanity and technology….Does


technology now have independent status, determining the fundamental nature and
essence of humanity, the human condition and human life?”
3

P8, “Third , technology can well be defined as the cognitive reconfiguration of natural
resources and processes. But ‘reconfiguration’ and ‘processes are metaphysical concepts.
This necessarily renders the nature of humanity as not just physical, but a physical and+
metaphysical artefact”.

Table 2.1 in the book presents a tight and compact summary of all previous academic
work on the subject of Philosophy of Technology:

This was followed by a critique of the 4 main streams of thoughts on the Definitions of
Philosophy of Technology in Table 2.2:
4

Having reviewed and critiqued the past works, the author then presents his preferred
definition of Technology as:

“The cognitive reconfiguration of natural materials and processes”.

The author then reviews the various analytics of Philosophy of Technology. The cynical
and dark views of European Philosophers of Technology like Heidegger and Marcuse
were balanced out by the more optimistic and empiricist views of American Philsophers
of Technology like Borgmann, Dreyfus, Feenberg, and Ihde. Worth highlighting are the
central questions in Don Ihde’s Philosophy of Technology as crystallized by Peter-Paul
Verbeek:

Quote

 What role does technology play in everyday human experience?


 How do technological artefacts affect people’s existence and their relations with
the world?
 In particular, how do instruments produce and transform human knowledge?
5

Unquote

B. Presentation of the Comprehensive Systems Network Philosophy of Technology


The author presented 14 assumptions that underpin his Systems Network of Philosophy
of Technology and these are worth reproducing here in toto:
Quote
1. Technology is defined as the cognitive human reconfiguration of natural materials
and natural scientific processes;
2. Technology is therefore wider in capability than nature since it deploys
configurations of natural elements where the configurations are not necessarily found
in nature;
3. Nevertheless technology is limited to possible reconfigurations of natural materials
and processes;
4. Technology is therefore entirely contingent on natural materials, natural scientific
processes and human intention, decision and action;
5. Technology is therefore not uniquely determinist, not autonomous, and as an artefact
is neither independent of nor preceding humanity;
6. Technology harnesses science and impacts human artefacts of economy and society,
and thereby humanity itself through productivity;
7. Technology is located in an extensive systems network of nature, humanity,
productivity, the market economy, and society;
8. The artefacts of technology, productivity, market economy and society interact and
are co-determined in the systems network;
9. All interactions in the systems network are essentially multivariate and not bi-variate;
10. The symbiosis which is evident between humanity and technology is best understood
through this systems network and not directly bilaterally;
11. The systems network responds to exogenous change which can occur at any of its
nodes, and the system responds and converges to a new equilibrium;
12. The systems network is extremely dynamic with regular movement and systems wide
evolution;
13. Whilst nature and therefore technology are constrained, the result of their network
systems interaction on human economic systems and social structures is not readily
susceptible to prediction;
14. Heidegger was right in that understanding this complex systems network for the
philosophy of technology allows humanity to be free from any perceived threat from
an independent dominating technology – he simply failed to explicate any such model
as a liberating understanding.
Unquote
Here below is a reproduction of the model’s diagram:
6

Figure 3.1 The human symbiosis – nature mediated through science and technology via
productivity

There follows an elaboration of the 14 assumptions and the 7 entities in the model. Part
of the elaboration is the Illustrative Complex Network Typology of Technology. This diagram
may be looked at as the “sub-molecular” view of the Technology Entity in the bigger model. It
also highlights the fact that, even at the sub-molecular level, technology also works in a systems
network model not unilaterally or bilaterally with any one other entity.
7

Figure 3.2 An Illustrative Complex Network Typology of Technology

Among the most significant parts of the book is the key idea about productivity being the
mediator between technology and humanity. Along with the Economics and Society entities, the
Productivity entity is actually one of the 7 entities and one of the 5 artefacts in Crocker’s
Comprehensive Systems Network Philosophy of Technology. And being a business and
technology consultant himself, Crocker is putting a lot of emphasis on this particular aspect of
his model.

Among the notable passages on Productivity and Economics+ Society are the following:

Page 112 : The key variable mediating technology to humanity is productivity.

Page 112 : Productivity is certainly the key variable in economic theory and economic analysis.

Page 112 : The ultimate driver of the economy is productivity.

Page 113 : …the rate at which capital and labour combine over time to produce units of output is
the definition of productivity.
8

Page 113 : Technology is also part of real capital in this production function, since ‘human
capital’ is the know-how of a technically educated workforce.

Page 113 : Productivity has grown exponentially in very short recent history. Vaclav Smil rightly
calls this a ‘saltation’ , - a quantum evolutionary leap compared to Darwinian micro level
mutations.

Page 115 : Technology-led productivity radically altered the economy, and the focus of
economic analysis. Prior to the exponential economic growth enabled by productivity, human
demand was chasing inadequate supply; following the boom in productivity and therefore in
output, Keynesian demand management became necessary to ensure adequate demand to
consume available supply and maintain full employment.

Page 116 : ..as the economist Adam Smith famously said ‘the end of all production is
consumption.’

Wrapping up his treatise on Productivity, the author summarizes it through Table 3.6 as follows:

Table 3.6 Productivity and social structures : how technology drives productivity which drives
the human condition
9

C. Resolving and Managing the Model


In Chapter 4 of the book, the author sought to resolve and refine the Network model while
presenting his ideas on Invention vs Innovation, Creation of Technology vs Commercialization
and Deployment of Technology. He did this while, at the same time, presenting his ideas on
Technology Management Strategy and system.

A major highlight of this section is the author’s finding about the concentration of technology
development (measured in terms of R&D expenditures) among a few countries and a few
industries: specifically, he divulged that 82% of R&D was undertaken by only 6 countries (USA,
Japan, Germany, France, UK, Switzerland). In addition, 52% of all R&D go to only 3 industries:
pharmaceuticals & biotechnology, technological hardware and equipment, automotive.

The author observes that “Despite technology’s key role as an economic driver, both the
economics and the philosophy of technology receive little attention in academia. Equally,
processes for the management of technology are not well developed and deployed in productive
industry.” Thus, the author re-emphasizes that “The key objective of technology for a business
operating in the global competitive market economy is to maximize competitive
price/performance positions.”

As another idea for technology and strategy management, the author brings out the idea about a
“marketplace for technology exchange and transfer”. This is illustrated by the following 2
diagrams:

Figure 4.4 The Technology Value Chain


10

Figure 4.4 above illustrates the alternatives sourcing of technology for each of the Value Chain
elements (Materials, Components, Capital Eqpt, Industrial Processes, Labour Skills, Product
Design). These may be sourced from combinations of University, Contract R&D, Commercial
Supplier, Restricted Competitor, Consortim Research, Own R&D.

Figure 4.5 Technology market interactions

Due to the multiplicity of possible sources of technology, the author tries to advance the idea of a
Market place for technology from a “technology market” in order to build up one’s own
price/performance competitive advantage for one’s own product market.

Figure 4.6 Technology Management Business Process


11

In a process quite common in Strategic Planning such as the one found in David (2007)i, the
author then proposes his “Technology Management Business Process”.

Figure 4.7 Technology Business Audit Process

In another process which exhibits some parallels with Dess et al (2010)ii and Michael Porter
(2017 ebook edition)iii, author Crocker proposes the process of evaluating one’s own current
technology and infusing it with the Best Process and Product Technologies available that will
add to one’s Price/Performance Competitive Advantage.
12

Figure 4.8 Dependencies in the Model

Another major part of the author’s development of his proposed model is his putting together an
evaluation of the Entities’ dependencies which resulted in concluding the multi-lateral, multi-
variate interactions among the entities.

Thereafter, the author tabulated his own subjective estimates of the Entities’ respective “Impact
Exerted” over “Impact Suffered” to arrive at what he calls the “Network Power Ratio”. As a side
note, this methodology of quantifying an originally qualitative evaluation is exactly the same as
what author David of “Strategic Management” employs. It is an attempt at making objective
13

something that would otherwise be lost in a pool of subjectivity. (There is, however, a major
error that will be pointed out in the critique. Very likely, it is a clerical error in publishing.)

This then allows us to revisit, the original question :

Quote

…whether technology determines humanity. We have seen that this question cannot be
adequately addressed simply bilaterally as an issue only between humanity and technology, but
has to be considered in the multilateral systems network model involving at least 7 entities, of
which 2 are real and 5 are artefacts. This complexity may make the answer to the question of
whether technology determines humanity even more difficult to answer. However does at least
inform the answer.

Unquote

By doing the above exercise, author Crocker arrived at the final relationship among the Entites
as shown on Figure 4.9 below.

Figure 4.9 The Main Causal Direction


14

Having now finalized the model, the author went back to review the original questions and
assessed the implications of the model from the point of view of various users and beneficiaries
of technology: person/people, consumer, worker, voter, business, education, society,
government.

Answers to the original question:

1. Existent technology is therefore contingent on nature and humanity


2. Applied technology is therefore contingent on society and market artifacts
3. Society and economy are therefore technology contingent
4. Nature’s ecology and humanity’s ontology are impacted and are therefore also
technology contingent

D. Conclusion – Technology as Artefact and Artefacts’ Effect on Humanity


Quote

The objective realities of nature and humanity do interact in a complex network through the
artefacts of science, technology, productivity, the economy, the market, productivity, and
political and social structures. Shifts can occur in any of these artefacts and any such shift will
work its way through the network redefining each artefact, and crucially redefining the reality of
humanity, and to some extent redefining nature itself. Science and technology are the artefacts
which more often generate exogenous change into the network, and as such it can be claimed
that technology does determine humanity.

Unquote

Crocker’s clarification and simplification of Heidegger’s “Saving Power”:

1. We should like to prepare a free relationship to (technology)


2. The relationship will be free if it opens our human existence to the essence of technology
3. When we can respond to this essence we shall be able to experience the technological
within its own bounds.
15

II. Critique

A. Errors and Omissions

I actually read 2 versions of the book. At first, I read the soft-cover print edition
published in 2012.iv Two months later, I discovered a soft copy from an online source
with a publication date of 2011.v By reading both versions, I am able to make the
following observations:
1. While I prefer reading the printed page because it allows me to make highlights and write
notes directly on the paper, the soft copy has much better diagrams. The diagrams are in
color and are, therefore, easier to interpret. I copied the diagrams from the soft copy to
form part of this book summary / report;
2. I confirm that the print edition has some missing pages: pages 153-154 on the print
edition are missing and are found as page 205 on the soft edition. It contains a tabulation
of the top 25 companies in the world that had the highest R&D expenditures in 2009.
This table elaborates the previous Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 of the print edition (Figures 4.2a,
4.2b, 4.2c on the soft edition) which summarize the top countries and industries in terms
of R&D expenditures;
3. The print edition is also missing the 6 tables of dependencies found on pages 217-222 of
the soft copy and which should have formed part of section 4.3, pages 165-168 of the
print edition;
4. Table 4.3 of the print edition contains 3 tables. The last one re-arranges the sequence of
the entities from highest to lowest Network Power Ratio with Technology on top
followed by Productivity, etc. The soft edition has an error: it did not sort the Entities to
match the Network Power Ratio, thus still showing Nature on top followed by Science,
etc.;
5. Figure 4.9 (The main causal direction) on the print edition shows no arrow emanating
from entity Science. On the other hand, the soft edition shows an arrow from entity
Science to entity Technology indicating the contingency of Technology upon Science.
6. The elaboration of the hypothesized model in Chapter 3 includes a section on Ecology
(3.2.7). However, it is not shown on the diagram of Figure 3.1. Instead, there is an entity
Humanity on the diagram which is not elaborated in the text. There should have been a
16

section for entity Humanity to be consistent. And section 3.2.7 (Ecology) may have been
better folded into section 3.2.3.8 Ecological Technologies.

B. Critique on Substance

In addition to the above typographical and publishing editorial errors and omissions, I would like
to make a few comments on the content and substance of the book:

1. One of the key ideas in the book as expressed in the title itself is the “symbiosis” between
Technology and Humanity. The author did not present his formal definition of symbiosis and
perhaps he assumes that everybody understands the term. While that may be true, it would also be
important for completeness sake to present such a formal definition. So, I present here a
definition from Dictionary.com:

“interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association,


typically to the advantage of both; a mutually beneficial relationship between different
people or groups.”

In the above definition, we highlight the qualifier “mutually beneficial”. This qualifier, in fact,
pre-conditions Crocker’s eventual conclusion about the multi-variate, multi-directional
dependencies in the network.

2. On page xi of the print edition, it says: “This book combines academic content in the philosophy
of technology with practical methodologies for business management of technology strategy. It is
thus conceptual and practical, academic and managerial”. I think this description and promise was
well delivered for which I am truly thankful. As a practicing businessman and executive, my
orientation is strongly conditioned towards the practical and managerial. At the same time,
however, I do value the theoretical validations that the academic side of the book is offering.

3. On section 1.1, the author presented as one of the main deliverables of the book the presentation
of “Business Management Models of Technology” and “Social Models of Innovation Policy”. I
am able to clearly see that “Business Management Models of Technology” were delivered in
section 4.2 (Models of the Management of Technology in a Market Economy). But it is not clear
17

where “Social Models of Innovation Policy” is delivered. I can sense parts of it under section
4.7.4 (Voter response), 4.7.6 (Education response), 4.7.7 (Society response), 4.7.8 (Government
response), but it would have made his deliverable clearer to appreciate if the author assigned them
under a clear heading in the same way that he did with the “Business Management Models of
Technology”.
4. More than the thorough and concise presentation of the past and prevailing academic work on
Philosophy of Technology, I find it praiseworthy that the author made it a point to clarify and
simplify Heidegger’s “Saving Power”. The presentation of the original text of “Saving Power” on
page 37 (section 2.3.1) of the print edition is made tolerable because a prior attempt at
interpretation of the “abstruse and inaccessible Heidegger” is already found on page 29 (section
2.2.5.1). And what made this more fulfilling was that the author, after hinting at a “Correct
Conceptualizing of Technology” on Table 2.1 (page 9 : “Heidegger suggests but fails to define.
Therefore, a definition is offered in a ‘Systems Network Philosophy of Technology’) did, in fact,
deliver on that promise at the very end on page 203: “Our conclusion is therefore a clarified
simplified Heideggerian proposition that…”

5. With regards to the first of the 3 simplified Heideggerian proposition, the author stated: “we
should like to prepare a free relationship to technology”. Wouldn’t this be better stated as “we
prefer a free relationship with technology”?

6. On page 28 of the print edition, the author wrote: “Heidegger thought that technology led science
in the symbiosis, but I will argue later that science necessarily has the role of primary mover,
since I define science as both ’knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’.” This statement explains the
arrow from entity Science to entity Technology in the final model on page 239 of the soft edition.
This arrow, as previously pointed out, is missing from Figure 4.9 (page 178) of the print edition.

7. I find the following passage controversial and slightly offensive: on page 145 “..according to the
Bible’s book of Genesis, humans are charged to subdue nature. Hughes quotes Lynn writing ‘We
will continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the Judeo-Christian domination
axiom’”. That position may have been true decades ago but definitely need to be upgraded in
light of the current movement about Climate Change and Pope Francis’ Laudato Si.
18

III. Reactions / Reflections / Applications

In the following paragraphs, I present my Reactions, Reflections, and Applications from the point of view
of what I am and where I am. I am a Student of Philosophy who is also at the same time a Business
Executive, an Entrepreneur, an Economist, and a Develomental Manager. I am also a Cebuano/Filipino
who cares much about my country and my people.

In developing my thoughts below, I organize them by following the method of Strategic Management by
asking:

As a society, a people, a country, an economy-

1. Where did we come from?


2. Where are we now?
3. Where are we going?

I present my thoughts using Crocker’s “Comprehensive Systems Network Philosophy of Technology” as


a background paradigm with emphasis on 4 aspects:

a. Technology and Humanity in Symbiosis


b. Productivity as the Mediating Entity between Humanity and Technology
c. Science, Technology, and Innovation as our Saving Power
d. The way to the future

1. Where Did We Come From?


In the Comprehensive Systems Network Philosophy of Technology, one entity that has been with us since
the beginning of time is Nature: our geography, our sea, our peninsular configuration. Waves and waves
of peoples (Malays, Austronesians, Arabs, Chinese, etc.) came to these islands and learned to live with
what were available. The tropical heat and the bountiful fruits, crops, and fish shaped our ancestors’
culture and social structures. The so-called “Filipino Indolence” (as described and explained by Dr Jose
Rizal) had its roots in this immutable geographic constant. At the same time, the bountiful natural
resources made our people too complacent in the thought that we have had more than we need.

Nature also dictated that we have more than 7000 islands. Beautiful islands set in beautiful seas. That
island configuration unfortunately dictated or strongly influenced our narrow insularism and
fragmentations. I call that our “barriotic” mindset which manifest in various ways: we are good at
19

working with our own small groups while failing to develop strong affinity with the bigger community
and nation; our “culture of smallness” is also a byproduct of our small and limited seafront
environs/barrios.

Technology as an artefact in the Network did interact with our ancestors in a big way first through their
seagoing vessels and their heaven/stars-based navigation capabilities. Their balangays brought them to
visit and trade with other peoples in other lands while the other peoples also came with their own
seagoing vessels from all over. Faster advancement in navigation and shipbuilding technologies along
with the evolution of stronger social and economic structures enabled some people to come all the way
from the opposite side of the Earth to come and explore these islands. Magellan and his band of explorers
connected us to a bigger network.

The Spanish colonizers easily took over the fragmented tribes and tiny kingdoms of the islands, united
them into one country/nation which they then named Las Islas Filipinas. Their language and their social
and economic systems connected us with the first globalized trade: the Galleon Trade. In such an
expanded network, we were able to sell products derived from our natural resources. Our country used to
be the world leader in the supply of the so-called Manila Hemp, Manila Envelope, and copra,
commodities that the world used to value a lot. And we complacently thought there would be no end to
the large international demand for such commodities.

Our rich natural resources made us too complacent and too short-sighted (too barriotic) to learn more
technology. At the time when the Spaniards ruled us and kept us solely agricultural, our neighbors Japan
and China were already developing their own indigenous technologies in ceramics, metallurgy, weaponry,
and bigger and better seagoing vessels. Or if we had to stay agricultural, couldn’t we at least have done
something as the Dutch did with their tulips which earned them tons of money during those days. Such
was the curse of abundant natural resources.

The Americans took over very easily again because of our fractiousness and fragmentation. While the
Americans did (sincerely) believe in E Pluribus Unum, they also believed in “divide and conquer”. And
that enabled them to advance their own geopolitical ambitions at that time. Our artefact “Society” was
very easy to manipulate because of the fragmentations.

Nonetheless, the Americans did bring us some incremental benefits which enabled our Network to once
again get connected to a much bigger Network this time getting to be dominated by the new world
Superpower America. From them we also got English for which we are today very thankful (I am right
now writing in English). And we get connected to the bigger world education and knowledge base and
Economic artefacts via America.
20

The Americans also gave us our political system and system of governance in form but not in substance.
The underlying feudal, dynastic, fragmented instincts remained. Our 71 years of self-rule after the
Americans released us (but did not really entirely leave us) allowed us to prove President Quezon’s wish:
that it’s better to be ruled like hell by Filipinos than to be ruled like heaven by the Americans. Our Socio-
Political and Economic Artefacts badly need bigger and better exogenous transformations.

That’s where we came from: fragmented, feudal, resource rich, technology poor foundation.

2. Where/What Are We Now?

1. Technology and Humanity in Symbiosis in Asia

The past 50 years or so may be described as a race towards human, social, economic development
unprecedented in its speed and breadth. East Asia for one has seen its Tiger Economies (South Korea,
Taiwan, HongKong, Singapore) become developed economies all in a span of 30-40 years. As developed
economies, their people now live in relative comfort and happiness that money can buy.

The success of the Tiger Economies is attributed primarily to: a. their Confucian values and work ethic, b.
their social harmony, c. their effective acquisition of technology and development of their own thereafter.
All of these countries started out as low-cost manufacturing bases for Foreign Direct Investors. With their
Confucian work ethics and social harmony, they generated tremendous amount of productivity and
quality improvements. Their subsequent economic success pushed their cost structure upwards which
they then counteracted not by cost cutting but by moving up to the higher-value-added product design and
manufacturing. Taiwan became the world leader in Foundry Wafer Fab operations,
PC/Laptop/SmartPhone design and manufacturing. South Korea also became a world leader in electronics
and shipbuilding and strong contender in automotive. Hong Kong became a world Financial Center and
gateway to Mother Chine. Singapore became a world leader in Bio Research, Oil Refining, in addition to
being a World Financial Center as well.

The migration of the export manufacturing operations from the developed economies to the developing
economies benefitted the next-tier countries Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
These countries are not as homogeneously endowed as the Tiger Economies in terms of Confucian values
and social harmony. Thus, they will have to obtain their future success factors differently from the Tiger
Economies and from each other. Among these 5 next-tier countries, only Thailand and Vietnam may be
considered to closely follow the Confucian values and social discipline and harmony of the Tiger
Economies. Malaysia benefits mainly from its relatively low population and close geographic proximity
21

to Singapore. Indonesia and the Philippines will have more challenges, especially the Philippines. And the
reason mainly is its failure to acquire, absorb, and develop technology as it continues to be mired in
inward-looking feudal, “barriotic” mindsets still caught up in the belief that our natural resources will
make us self-sufficient. Nothing can be more erroneous than that belief. That belief fails to factor in the
need for : PRODUCTIVITY.

To expound on the view that poor technology (acquisition, absorption, development) is causing poor
productivity due to insufficient or ineffective symbiosis, we take a look at some actual Philippine
examples:

Telecommunication

After decades of monopoly, the Philippine telecom industry was deregulated in the mid-90s. That
government policy change attracted a number of new players and foreign investors into the country
resulting in an infrastructure that is comparable to the best in the world (GSM digital quality, test
messaging, etc). Over the following two decades, the industry consolidated resulting in the current
duopoly. While this development may be attributed partly to some inherent characteristics of the artefact
Society and Society/Political structure such as the presence of rent-seeking, extractive behavior, weakness
in the artefact Technology is also a major contributing factor: a. poor capacity planning resulted to the
saturation of bandwidth especially in the light of increased Smartphone use and resulting in the
complaints about low internet speed; b. the threat of government coming in as a competing telecom player
is being looked at with much apprehension because government has by nature been poor both in business
management as well as in technology acquisition/deployment/development; c. recent developments in the
world produced the Chat Bot as a means of improving customer service, but when Globe deployed that
technology recently, it was mocked because the Chat Bot flirted with me instead of helping resolve my
service concerns.

Transportation

Philippine economic and population growth caused the demand for mass transportation and expanded
road network to increase rapidly over the past 4 decades. Similar to the story in Telecommunications
above, the current congestion crisis is an offshoot of 3 top factors: a. Weaknesses and flaws in the artefact
Society and Society Structures; b. Weaknesses in Artefact Technology especially in forecasting, planning,
project development and execution; c. Weaknesses also in Artefact Technology which made us stick to
22

that inefficient (though barriotically familiar and comforting) remnant of World War II called the
Jeepney; d. it is also a weakness in Artefact Technology that our political leaders wasted 20 years in
debating BRT vs LRT when in fact these two technologies are really solutions to two different problems
(they don’t have to compete. In fact, they complement: BRT is for in-city transport needs while the LRT
is for city-to-city Carcar to Danao transport needs.); e. it is also weakness in Artefact Technology that
caused us to fail in forecasting and project development and project execution for the Manila airport
expansion; it is also weakness in our Artefact Technology when the LTFRB shut down UBER (in
fairness, this squabble between government and UBER is not confined to the Philippines. It is also
happening elsewhere such as in UK, China.)

Internet / Social Networking / eCommerce

In technology acquisition and deployment, the Philippines has gained a parity position with the rest of the
world in a few specific technologies. One case is the internet and some of its component sub-technologies
such as Social Networking and eCommerce.

With telecom as the basic enabling infrastructure, the past 20 years saw the Philippines brought up to
speed in its depth of participation in Social Networking - abnormally heavy participation as it turns out.
After having gained the reputation of being the texting capital of the world, the Philippines also gained
the reputation of being the Facebook capital of the world. Do we consider this a success in our Artefact
Technology? Or, is it really an aberration? Note how FB was used to influence the result and conduct of
the 2016 National Elections with the proliferation of fake news and bullies. Again, in fairness, this
technology problem is not something that is unique to the Philippines. It is also happening to the US
which invented the technology. But comparing ourselves to our Asian neighbors, we seem to be
experience greater difficulty with this technology. China, using a combination of Confucian value for
social harmony and communist insistence on communal control, limits the “abuse” of the internet

While the Philippines has excessive participation in Social Networking (and excessive participation in
online gaming too), it has an excessive desire to participate in eCommerce but is much constrained by
logistics. A combination of weaknesses in Artefact Society Structure (barriotic and chaotic house address
system) and Artefact Technology (congested transport system) and Artefact Economy (low penetration of
credit card use) cause our eCommerece to be inordinately small relative to our population and size of
economy.
23

Food Production and agriculture

Our problem in rice production is both a weakness in Artefact Society Structure/Politics and a weakness
in our Artefact Technology. Rice is a highly political crop. Politicians love to pander to the farmers
because there are millions of voters in that segment. Thus, politicians continue to push for wasteful
programs such as in irrigation. However, our politicians and farmers need to understand some
fundamental geographic and endowment constraints that cannot be solved by irrigation. Specifically,
unlike the top rice producers Thailand and Vietnam, we don’t have the large contiguous farmlands and
massive Mekong River irrigation water required to achieve high level of rice production. Prevailing rice
technology is not enough to compensate for our lack of irrigation water and economically inefficient farm
ownership fragmentation. So, in this case, the failure is not in the technology per se but in our
appreciation of the limits of technology. Furthermore, better appreciation of technology and deployment
of better agro-industrial management should result in better agro productivity if we shift our focus to
higher-value crops that are more suited to our geographic, soil, social, farmland configuration such as
cacao and high-value fruits.

Speaking of high-value fruits, our mango is also an interesting case study of technology successes and
failures. Justin Uy (a USC Chem Eng alumnus) successfully used technology to expand his
manufacturing base and make use of mango even if they are not from Cebu or Guimaras. Justin Uy was
also part of the technology success in the development of the process to convert mango waste products
into mango flour.

On the other hand, there is a failure of mango orchard technology when we are unable to produce the
needed quantity of real Cebu mangoes. Thus, while we can rightfully brag that we have the best mango in
the world, we are limited in our ability to satisfy the demand for fresh mango.

Automation

For this item, I shall focus only on PCOS – the system that automated our national elections the past 3
cycles. The PCOS achieved its primary objectives of speeding up the counting process and ensuring data
integrity. However, there are a number of individuals and groups who, either out of ignorance in
technology or due to some vested interests, continue to question the integrity of the past elections. Again
in this case, we may say that there is : a. a weakness in appreciation of technology, as well as b. a
weakness in our Artefact Society Structure / Politics.
24

Export Manufacturing

We are more a country of consumers rather than producers. Our economic growth has been mainly
consumer-driven the past 2-3 decades. Our failure to grow both our agriculture and our manufacturing
sector is mainly a failure of our Artefact Technology. Let’s take the case of our Export Manufacturing.
Around 50% of our exports are in electronics and semiconductors. We do simple assembly and test using
designs, processes, and materials mostly coming from outside the country. As a result, the local valued-
added used to be low at less than 20%. Now it has gone up to more than 20% due to some local
technology development. But that level is still not enough to put us at a solidly stable level that Japan,
Taiwan, South Korea, etc have achieved.

BPO/KPO

We also have both technology success and technology failures in the BPO/KPO industry. One success is
that we have been able to attract a lot of investments (both foreign and domestic) in BPO/KPO as a result
of the good telecom infrastructure installed after the deregulation. We also succeeded because of our
qualified, English-speaking people. Today, we are #1 in the world in the “Customer Contact” segment of
the industry.

Where is the failure? The failure is that we have not attracted more of the high-value non-Voice segments
especially in the KPO side. India’s non-Voice and KPO segments are at least 7 times bigger than those of
the Philippines. And we failed because we don’t have the necessary depth and quantity of skills required
in software programming, product designs, domain expertise in medical technology, law, etc.

Weather Forecasting / Climate Change

We’ve had some success in Project Noah for geohazards monitoring and the Japanese-Philippine co-
development of the Diwata satellite. Future Societal/Government support will be necessary to complete
the beneficial symbiosis.

On the other hand, we as a society must not forget the technological failures/lessons from the Yolanda
fiasco. It was the world’s first Cat 5 typhoon and, yes, that fact can partly be used to excuse ourselves.
But, on the other hand, we did fail in fully making use of the available technology to save our people.
Two days before Yolanda hit, CNN already broadcast an animated illustration of how storm surge would
hit Tacloban. That animation showed the specific entry point from the sea where water would come in
25

and the specific roads in Tacloban that will be inundated. People didn’t appreciate the danger of “storm
surge” and did not heed the warning. There will surely be more Cat 5 typhoons coming. Hopefully by
then we shall have been technologically and societally better equipped to mitigate the effects.

Similarly, the forecasted sea rise from climate change must be paid attention to. Forecasts are already
available showing the specific areas that will be inundated with specific water depths. Not heeding that
warning may not necessarily result in high casualty as the speed will take place over years, but the
amount of economic and societal dislocations will be so immense that preparations are better undertaken
already right now.

Environmental Degradation

There are two areas that need to be highlighted. First is the urban blight. Second is environmental damage
brought about by mining.

To put it bluntly, most Philippine cities are dirty, chaotic, ugly. Contrast that with the beauty, harmony,
and surprising serenity that one finds in Japanese and South Korean cities. I don’t think it is mere
coincidence that both Japan and South Korea happen to be technologically among the most advanced
countries in the world. Having now read Crocker’s Comprehensive Systems Network Philosophy of
Technology with the attendant symbiosis between Technology and Humanity, we can view Japan and
South Korea as having reached a certain level of Network equilibrium where the Artefacts Technology
benefitted Society because of conducive societal structures and values.

On the other hand, both Japan and South Korea don’t have the natural resources that the Philippines has.
We have minerals that Japan and South Korea don’t have. Our country does not have a shortage of
interested foreign investors willing to pour in billions of dollars into the mining industry. But there is
ongoing debate and tension because of the mining industry’s track record of damaging the environment
while only minimally leaving economic benefits to the people. Artefact economy is hardly sufficient to
justify the degradation as what Gina Lopez and PNoy had been harping on. Sadly, just the past few days,
15 mining operations in Mindanao that were closed down by Gina Lopez were allowed to resume
operations. We may not be as total a loss as the Republic of Nauru, but we will neither be as much of a
mining success as Australia too. The equilibrium of our Network will have to locate the true good of the
greater number of people and not just the influential extractivists. In this case, where is the technological
failure? The failure is in: a. implementing a clean and sustainable mining industry, and b. acquiring
downstream technologies and industries that will add more local value and benefits.
26

Surveys

Our people have an ambivalent, if not intellectually dis-honest, view about surveys. When the survey
results are favorable to one’s political position, we say that the survey is truthful. But when the survey
results are unfavorable, we say the survey is wrong. Our people will have to learn better mathematical and
statistical technology to resolve their confusion.

The fact is that the last Presidential exercise did confirm and validate the integrity and accuracy of our
survey technology. It would be wasteful if our people continue to keep its schizophrenic attitude towards
surveys. While it is true that there are indeed biased sponsored surveys, it is also true that there are
reliable and honest surveys and survey agencies like Pulse Asia and SWS. Just as we as a people need to
learn to distinguish real news from fake news, we also need to acquire that ability to distinguish good
surveys from bad surveys.

Urban Planning

Problems with the urban blight had already been discussed above. In this section, I wish to discuss Mega
Cebu. Mega Cebu started as a privately-initiated project of planning and developing programs to improve
the total community (environment, quality of life, commerce and industry, education, transporation, etc.)
of the geographic area spanning Carcar to Danao. Nobody can dispute that the plans and objectives of
Mega Cebu would definitely be good for Cebu. The big question is : why is it not moving as fast as it
should? Pointing fingers at obstructionist politicians and ineffective leaders would be the easiest way of
answering that question, but that will not yield sufficient solutions. If there exists a Systems Network, I
wish there were an Uber man up there, a Super man, or a God that would move this Network to its desired
equilibrium. So far, there is none. Meanwhile, the default action is to try and get the legislation passed to
formalize the government structure to manage Mega Cebu. That would then be an Artefact Society
Structure that will still need more effective symbiosis from Artefacts Technology and Economy. Still, the
Uber man would be necessary.
27

2. Productivity as the Mediating Entity between Humanity and Technology

On page 185 of Crocker’s book, we find the following passages:


“Productivity is a systems concept. Simple technology transfer of advanced automated equipment
into cultures without high productivity work skills, targets and practices will not achieve the
productivity potential.”

Further down, we also find the following:


“…firms seek the results of profit, worker-consumers seek high real wage outcomes, without
always focusing on the productivity which drives both. The result of this focus on the derived
phenomenon of profit and real wage, rather than the causal factor of productivity, leads to a
classic struggle over distribution of the economic product, rather than its initial creation. There
is more heat generated over the question of how the cake should be divided, than of how big the
cake itself is and could be.”

Some years ago, when Left-leaning groups were still strong, there was greater tension between
management and workers. Management and capitalists were demonized as being too greedy and were like
slave drivers squeezing the last ounce of productivity from their hapless workers. Today, we may no
longer have such a view dominating our communal minds. Labor strikes no longer occur with the same
frequency as before. I’d like to believe that our managers and workers have reached a more mature level
of understanding with regards to productivity.

On the other hand, I think there is a need to further enhance and expand our understanding of
productivity. On the leadership and management side, I think that there still exists a fairly strong feudal
tendency especially in places where dynastic political families still control the local economy. In those
places, the leadership are more interested in maintaining control and protecting their self-interests. They
get voted election after election through the feudal system of patronage which hardly lead to expanding
the cake and productivity. Artefact Society Structure needs correction in this case.

On the worker/employee side, I think there is an ongoing need to engender the desire for better economic
rewards coming from determined efforts to acquire new knowledge, skills, technologies. The past 2-3
decades have seen waves of young people choosing certain professions because they can get money more
easily: e.g. nursing, hotel and restaurant management, and the like. We still need to motivate and recruit
more of our young people to take up the more difficult but more economically valuable professions like
engineering, technology, science. Here, our Artefact Technology need to grow more along with Artefact
Society.
28

3. Where/What Do We Want To Be?

c. Science, Technology, and Innovation as our Saving Power

In the Philippine setting, higher, faster economic growth (7-8% per year) can be achieved by investing
heavily in infrastructure: both the hard infrastructure (transportation, communication, cities) as well as
soft infrastructure (education, skills, knowledge, social harmony, teamwork, patriotism). The
Comprehensive Systems Network of Philosophy of Technology is good framework for determining the
current equilibrium point and identifying the next targeted equilibrium point in order to determine which
Artefacts to focus on.

On the basis of the preceding reflections and reactions, we see that we need heavy development in
Artefact Technology with strong symbiosis with Artefact Society in order to generate the needed
Productivity and consequent Economic benefits. Technologies in appropriate agriculture, fisheries and the
Blue Economy paradigm must be part of this effort. A stronger response to the imperatives of the 4th
Industrial Revolution is also badly needed to address the threats being faced by our BPO/KPO segments
especially the Voice segment.

Page 115 of Crocker’s book mentions the case of Fairchild Semiconductors, the “Father” of the
semiconductor industry worldwide based at Silicon Valley:

“Smil is less persuaded by quantitative econometric analysis and prefers qualitative description.
He cites the case of the $1.3m investment in Fairchild Semiconductors in 1957 which led to the
foundation of Intel in 1968 and the subsequent founding of over 200 companies incuding AMD
and National Semiconductor. Such technological proliferation depended in Smil’s view on
education, accessible venture capital, innovation, risk-taking, an enabling legal framework, and
protection of intellectual property rights.”

I happen to have been the first local engineer hired by Fairhchild in Cebu (Badge #10) when it opened its
assembly and test facility in 1979 at the Mactan Export Processing Zone. At that time, while Fairchild did
seem to be the most attractive tech company in Cebu, it was already overtaken by Intel worldwide (a
company founded by former Fairchild scientists). Today, Intel is the world’s biggest and most successful
and profitable semiconductor company. And what’s the secret? Technology & Innovation. Intel makes
something better than others, specifically: the microprocessor. In the meantime, Fairchild got stuck in the
commodity discrete and IC products. While Fairchild-Cebu did have its own share of innovations
especially in the area of automation, systems development, and packaging technologies, those innovations
29

benefitted only Fairchild and not the local community at large. The reason? There was limited symbiosis
with the local Entity/Artefact Society. Fairchild-Cebu (and almost all other electronics and semiconductor
export manufacturers in the Philippines) existed in an international silo. And this leads us to the idea of
having to develop the local business/industry ecology.

An ecology, by definition, consists of diversity and symbiosis. We may have a certain degree of
diversity: electronics semiconductor assembly, PCB assembly, test, mold makers, stamping operations,
piece parts manufacturer, etc. But they don’t serve each other domestically. They mostly serve and export
all their production. Domestic symbiosis is limited.

An exogeneous intervention is needed. And that can only come from the government. And this brings us
to the important point on page 187 about Voter response: Innovation policy is politically contingent.

d. The way to the future

Innovation policy is politically contingent. For the Philippines to replicate the Tiger performance of
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippine government will have to more effectively perform
its role as the main driving force to steer the Network to the right equilibrium point. Leaving everything
up to the laissez faire forces of globalization will only result in us remaining the low-valued added
outsourcing, offshoring minor hub that we have been the past 3-4 decades. The Vietnamese government is
doing a much better job.

Already, after spending years of trying to sell K12, we are finally on our way to getting the K12
implemented. There are still some remnants of opposition from parents and their pandering politicians.
We have to make sure that this opposition goes totally away. That can come more easily once the
economic benefits come in.

One very encouraging development is that the DOST for the first time is getting a big boost in R&D
funding which it is administering to be rolled out starting next year. I for one am a direct participant in
that program. Next week, I will be meeting with the DOST Undersecretary for R&D and a panel of
industry interrogators to get my project proposal passed. Looking far beyond myself, I am praying and
hoping that this program will finally yield the technologies that will generate the requisite productivity
improvements and innovation creation that our country badly needs.

Within this month, the DOST is also expected to finalize its program for developing 1000 AI (Artificial
Intelligence) experts nationwide. I and my company are also participating in that
30

The way to the future is defined by the need to develop our own indigenous technologies that will
establish our competitive advantage.

IV. Closing Remarks


I am a student of Philosophy while at the same a practicing Business Manager, Entrepreneur, Economist,
a Development Manager who is motivated by my love for my country and my people. My source of
meaning and fulfillment is in doing something good for them. And my learnings from Crocker’s “A
Managerial Philosophy of Technology – Technology and Humanity in Symbiosis” provide me with
additional handles with which I can fulfill my mission.

I close this paper with some final quotes and thoughts that to me capsulize the essence of this book:

On page 199, we find the following passage:

“Trying to manage an economy by acting on its financial indicators is like


trying to drive a car by manipulating its dashboard instruments”.

The field of philosophy belongs to the more rarefied space of pure thought which, though fulfilling in the
fullness of its use of that which is unique to human beings (the brain), is in danger of being marginalized
by its lack of direct daily participation in what most people are really engaged in. By putting emphasis on
“Managerial”, author Crocker has brought Philosophy back closer to the real world of living.

As an intellectual work meant for practicing Managers, Crocker’s book is a valuable reference for
viewing society and the economy in the context of the Network of Artefacts that all have an influence on
one another.

Network and Systems thinking are necessary for nothing is ever in isolation of everything else. Ceteris
Paribus is made necessary because of that fact. Network and Systems thinking enable us to minimize the
constraints of Ceteris Paribus.

Network and Systems thinking also forces us to think in terms of the Ecology of business and industry.
By definition, ecology requires diversity and symbiosis. A healthy ecology is one with a much diverse
community of members that work together in symbiosis. Though competition and evolution do result in
some loss and defeat and death to some, the ensuing survival of the remaining strong members makes the
ecology as a whole much stronger.
31

By way of adding my own contribution to what Crocker has brought forward, I hereby offer my graphic
visualization of what he and Heidegger are trying to say. Using the currently available technology in
computer software, I hereby present my graphic illustration of their thoughts:

First, a graphical representation of the attempt to present Heidegger’s Saving Power in a more accessible
language:

Secondly, a graphical representation of Crocker’s clarification and simplification of the Heideggerian


propostion:
32

And my final quotes from Crocker:

Page 182
“Rather than technology enframing humanity as Heidegger claims, it looks
rather as though humanity has enframed technology although in reality the
two are in powerful symbiosis.”

Page 51
“Systems equilibrium is not the stable equilibrium of a cone sitting at rest on
its base, nor the unstable equilibrium of a cone pivoted on its apex, but the
neutral equilibrium of a cone on its side, constantly rolling along, almost in
perpetual motion”.

I thank my Professor, Dr. Ali Mandane PhD, for patiently shepherding me along this path.

References :

i
David, Fred. “Strategic Management – Concepts and Cases”, 2011

ii
Dess, Lumpkin, Eisner. “Strategic Management” 5th ed, 2010 McGraw-Hill Irwin

iii
Porter, Michael. “The Competitive Advantage of Nations”, orig 1990, updated 2017 ebook “Competitive
Advantage of Nations: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance”

iv
Crocker, Geoff. “A Managerial Philosophy of Technology – Technology and Humanity in Symbiosis”. 2012,
Palgrave-McMillan

v
Crocker, Geoff. “A Managerial Philosophy of Technology – Technology and Humanity in Symbiosis”. 2011, self-
published ? found online at https://jeedonsel.firebaseapp.com/aa188/a-managerial-philosophy-of-technology-
technology-and-humanity-in-symbiosis-by-mr-geoff-crocker-b008rwzhtm.pdf

You might also like