A discussion of S.M. Krylov’s book «Neocybernetics» (2008)

A comparative analysis of the “general formal technology (GFT)” by S. M. Krylov is carried out in the context of the published book of the authors “General Theory of Technologies and Microelectronics” (2020) and on the basis of his work of 2008. Despite the abstractness of the algebraic-algorithmic approach, Krylov offers a number of specific constructions that are in demand during the fourth industrial revolution and for the future development of industrial technology in nanoelectronics and biotechnology. Industrial technology is considered as a complex object of management, i.e., it is the object of study of the new discipline «neocybernetics». Although the foundations of this approach were laid in 1930s–1960s within the framework of logical and mathematical research, its expansion is inevitable when using self-organization processes to obtain functional supramolecular structures in technological processes of nanoelectronics (for example, DNA origami engineering). The issues of complexity quantification for a product itself (structure) and its manufacturing technology, or, according to Krylov, the complexity of technological automata, have become even more relevant than before. The theoretical issues of self-organization, the development of artificial life, and the creation of self-replicating technical systems also seem promising for solution. In our opinion, Krylov’s formal technology is an important “block” in the advancement of general theory of technologies (GTT) useful for describing the technology at the levels: operation, route, and process. We would like to encourage a wide range of readers to study the book and form a steady interest in general technological issues. The value of GTT and GFT extends beyond the sphere of technology and, in a narrow sense, factory production, but also into the area of «fine» regulation of physiology in biological objects and pharmacy, as well as into the problem field of cognitive sciences, psychology, and education. when the focus is on the personality structure and heterogeneous constructs «floating in the sea of the unconscious». Both S.M. Krylov and we demonstrate that the issues of industrial technology cannot be considered without abstract formalization and without reference to philosophy.

Vad är teknik? Pedagogers uppfattningar om och erfarenheter av teknik och teknikundervisning i förskolan What is technology? Preschool teachers' conceptions and experiences of technology and technology education in the preschool

In recent years technology has become increasingly emphasized as educational content in the Swedish preschool, not the least with the introduction of the latest curriculum in 2010 (revised in 2016). Since preschool teachers have not had any formal technology education until just recently, it is of importance to investigate how they conceive of and experience technology in the daily activities of the preschool. The purpose of this study is therefore to describe and analyze Swedish preschool teachers’ views and experiences of technology and technology education in the preschool, focusing on what opportunities and obstacles that they see. The data consists of transcripts from focus group interviews with sixteen teachers in two Swedish preschools, and the data was coded and categorized with a thematic analysis. The results show that when it comes to opportunities, the teachers consider technology to permeate all preschool activities, and the challenge here is rather to make technology visible. In terms of obstacles, however, the teachers are also uncertain about what technology is and want to have more knowledge of technology themselves, for example, relevant concepts for various technologies or activities. They also want to know more about technology education in order to be able to educationally convey knowledge of technology to the children and to make the children conscious of the technology that surrounds them.

ARE FORMAL TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION PROCESSES NEEDED FOR SUCCESSFUL PRODUCT INNOVATIONS?

It has been documented in the prior research that there is a gap between technology development and product development. We explore a set of propositions through review of previous research and a case study from the semiconductor industry. Although the literature suggests that for successful integration of technologies into products, formal technology integration process and technology portfolio management are highly recommended to prevent a misalignment between technology development and product development processes, our results are indicating that formality of these processes may not be necessary. However, recognition of the importance of the integration process and development of organisational capability to allow the process evolve with various statuses of technological readiness as well as organisational maturity, are critical to successful NPD.

Formal Technology Transfer in Context

Collaboration between science and industry and the technology transfer activities of universities have been argued to be crucial in the development and sustainability of a competitive knowledge-based economy. Previous studies have mainly focused on indicators such as patents, license income and spin-offs to measure technology transfer activities. However patenting, licenses, and spin-off creation are argued to be only a small part of the technology transfer activities conducted at universities and have a smaller impact than traditional contract research. Very few studies systematically address the importance of contract research in general and service delivery in particular. This chapter addresses this gap by looking in concert and contextualised at the importance of contract research activities, patenting, and spin-off generation of public universities in a particular European region.

Managing Uncertainty in a Formal Standards-Based Industry: A Real Options Perspective on Acquisition Timing

Scholars have theorized that firms can intervene in the creation of formal technology standards to reduce uncertainty and influence the outcome to their advantage. One approach is through early acquisition: Firms can acquire targets with relevant technology prior to standardization. Using real options logic, the authors show how early acquisitions can be considered a growth option under certain circumstances. They find that acquisitions are more likely to occur before the passage of the standard when (a) acquirers lacked relevant technical knowledge, (b) target firms possessed relevant technical knowledge,and (c) acquirers had a prior equity investment in the target firm.