A Newsletter Enabling Information Technologies by the IRMC IT Department

Fall 1999

What’s Inside

Testimony on Technology - Dr. Jay Alden relates an example of how technology can lead to mission success.

Technology/Education Debate – Lisa Cusick, Dr. Gerry Gingrich’s research assistant, discusses Neil Postman’s perspective on the application of technology in the classroom. This is the first in a series of continuing articles.

Wearable Computers – Carolyn Strano presents her recent research into this new way to dress for success.

Y2k Tidbits – This is a look at some interesting Y2K articles as we approach closer to January 1, 2000.

Testimony on Technology

By Dr. Jay Alden

When the President of our University - Richard A. Chilcoat Lieutenant General, USA - (think CEO) first took his position, he spent a month or two assessing the organization and formulating a new vision and strategic initiatives. He scheduled an offsite meeting for the 40 some odd senior executives in the organization to share his views with them and gather their reactions, comments, and suggestions.

As a strategic thinker who is very comfortable with technology, the President arranged for a portable network of 40+ notebook computers to be set up in the meeting area of the offsite hotel (one per senior executive) and loaded with group decision support systems software (GroupSystems).

During the initial session, when the President discussed his vision, the participants were asked to type in their comments or questions as he spoke. One screen displayed the president's visuals while another screen showed the participants' comments anonymously as they were entered. After about 30 minutes, when the President completed his remarks, there were approximately 150 comments and questions entered by the senior executives - some positive, some critical, but mostly asking for clarification or application to a particular condition. The President then went over each comment one by one - most briefly and directly but some in depth - either providing a specific answer or remarking that they need to consider that point in greater depth after the meeting Some issues led to immediate tasking. The participants were encouraged to further expand on a comment if they wished. The discussion lasted about another 30 minutes or so.

Although seemingly simple, the process overall was remarkable. In about one hour, the President was able to present his vision, gain candid feedback from each and every one of his senior executives, and directly address important issues that arose. The use of technology allowed the 40+ participants to make comments simultaneously and anonymously. In addition, a permanent record of all comments was also readily produced for further analysis. From the participants’ perspective, they rejoiced in the process. Each had the opportunity to say exactly what they felt without fear of retribution. Even though the software had more powerful functionality available (like consensus building), the President zeroed into the one component (brainstorming) that was easy to use and negated the need for an external facilitator.

The process worked so well, that it was used throughout the offsite meeting during presentations by other senior members of the staff and reports from committees working during the offsite. The quality and immediacy of the feedback, led to a highly effective strategic meeting.

Society has witnessed a surge in computer technology over the past 10 to 15 years. One area in which this phenomenon is becoming increasingly apparent is in the field of education. The introduction of personal computers, educational software, and the Internet has brought forth a rapid change in the way classrooms and educational institutions are designed.

As a result of technological advances, a debate has ensued in the education field. Should technology be used in the classroom? How much technology should be used? Is there a point where a classroom can have too much technology? In what ways should it be used? What is gained by the use of technology in the classroom? What is lost? Proponents of technology in education say that we are moving towards a time when teachers need to step back from being the "sage on the stage" and gravitate to the role of "guide on the side." Critics show concern over social isolation and information overload. They claim that by introducing increasing amounts of technology into the classroom, students will not only have trouble sorting through large amounts of information, but they will lose valuable, insightful interactions with fellow students as well as with teachers.

Neil Postman, Chair of the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at New York University, is one of the many prominent voices in the technology:education debate. He is the author of such books as Technopoly and The End of Education, and he offers interesting views on technology’s role in education and in society. On the one hand, Postman criticizes society’s and, more specifically, the education field’s increased dependence on technology—a phenomenon he terms "Technopoly." He defines Technopoly as "the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology" (Postman, 1992, p. 52) and claims that one of Technopoly’s major underlying assumptions is that the primary goal of human labor and thought is efficiency. On the other hand, Postman feels that technology becomes less harmful when people distance themselves from it in order to analyze and modify its effects.

Computer technology is one of Postman’s major complaints. In terms of educational institutions as well as political, social, and commercial enterprises, Postman claims that computers may or may not have contributed to making them more efficient, but what people fail to realize is that the use of technology in these institutions has taken the focus off more quality-oriented examinations such as how these institutions might be improved. "A university, a political party…even corporate board meetings are not improved by automating their operations. They are made more imposing, more technical, perhaps more authoritative, but defects in their assumptions, ideas, and theories will remain untouched" (Postman, 1992, p. 116). In other words, Postman claims that computer technology does not have the ability to generate radical, progressive, revolutionary thought. These views evoke questions regarding distance learning in higher education. Is distance education simply a matter of making our universities more efficient? Are universities losing sight of ways to improve the way students learn?

With distance learning utilized for higher education and computers increasingly taking over for teachers in secondary education, a concern arises in the education field as to the risks and benefits of using computers as teaching tools. Postman sees computer technology as redefining humans as "information processors." He argues that, with this redefinition, educators and technologists move from the notion that humans are like machines to human beings are machines, and they finally gravitate to the idea that machines are humans—an idea which he says is impossible to accept. "Human intelligence is not transferable. The plain fact is that humans have a unique biologically rooted, intangible mental life which in some limited respects can be simulated by a machine but can never be duplicated. Machines cannot feel and, just as important, cannot understand" (Postman, 1992, p. 112). In Postman’s mind, using computers in place of valuable human contact is a serious mistake for educators.

While Postman’s views come across as abrasive and unyielding, he does not think that technology should be abandoned. His argument is not against the use of technology as much as it is a plea for people to be more critical of their dependence on technology. Postman is concerned that society is viewing technology as an ultimate blessing, and he feels it is crucial to not only look at what technology can do, but to also examine what it can undo. He says that it is important to realize that any technological innovation does not just produce a one-sided effect—every technology, including computers, can help as well as hinder. Educators not only need to examine how technology can improve their students’ learning, but also how technology changes the way their students learn. "What we need to consider about the computer has nothing to do with its efficiency as a teaching tool—we need to know in what ways it is altering our conception of learning" (Postman, 1992, p. 19).

 

Steve Mann, a leading researcher in wearable computers, defines a wearable computer as "a computer that is subsumed into the personal space of the user, controlled by the user, and has both operational and interactional constancy, i.e. is always on and always accessible." He identifies six attributes for wearable computer as follows:

1. Unmonopolizing of the user’s attention
2. Unrestrictive to the user
3. Observable by the user
4. Controllable by the user
5. Attentive to the environment
6. Communicative to others

The industrial market typically uses a more generally accepted classical definition. "Wearable computers are light and compact belt-mounted PCs, typically offering speech input and a head-mounted or pocket-sized screen. Systems may also incorporate functions such as two-way video and global positioning." (Gartner Group Strategic Analysis Report, 1997)

The first actual wearable computer was invented by Ed Thorp and Claude Shannon in 1966 and was used to predict roulette wheels. That same year Sutherland created the first computer-based head-mounted (HMD) display and soon after that Bell Helicopter began experimenting with HMD’s. Wearable computers have come a long way since these early efforts. This year Stanford University’s Wearable Computing Laboratory managed to fit all of the software required to drive the worldwide web server into a computer the size of a matchbox. This type of technology improvement has made it feasible to produce useful, unobtrusive wearable computers and technology companies are beginning to show an interest.

One has only to use one’s imagination to easily envision a world that is quite different from the one we know today; a world that is changed by the personalization of computers. In his book, "When Things Start To Think", Niel Gershenfeld discusses some of the work being done at MIT Media Laboratory which could have a drastic impact on the way we communicate and essentially redefine the organization of life and the characteristics of what it means to be human. He introduces the concept of a Personal Area Network (PAN) to connect parts of a body. PAN provides a means to get rid of the wires in a wearable computer. It merges the logical and physical components. This works on the same principle of breaking the spectrum into cells except that PAN shrinks the cells down to one body to transmit data through the body.

"The trick is to allow "wearable" electronic devices to exchange data by capacitively coupling modulated picoamperes currents through the body. A low frequency carrier (below 1 MHz) is used so very little energy is radiated outside the body itself, minimizing interference and remote eavesdropping. A PAN device electrostatically induces picamp currents into the body which is used as a "wet wire" to conduct the modulated currents."

Although the above PAN concept has been prototyped and certainly stretches the mind to think about what could be, actual widely accepted capabilities today are much less developed. The basic package today consists of a Pentium 200 MHz, 32 MB RAM, 2.1GB HD with a flat panel or head mounted display and a deluxe package would use a Pentium 233/266 MHz with a 128 MB RAM and 4.3 GB HD. This describes the mobile assistant (MA IV) systems currently supplied by Xybernaut, one of the leading corporations in wearable computers. It can be worn on the sleeve, forearm, belt or vest and the monitor/display can hitch to a headset. It responds to voice recognition or one-touch commands, providing wearable, wireless, hands free computing capability. These can be standalone computers or can be connected to a wireless network through an antenna attached to clothing such as a hat. They are powered by small battery packs.

Wearable computers acquire all of the attributes and constraints of any wireless network. The gaps include limited bandwidth, seamless communication, and ubiquitous access. Other tough issues fall into four categories – technical, social, economical, and political. The technical issues involve protocols, mobility/disconnected operation, infrastructure maintenance, saturation and ubiquitous access. The social issues are primarily privacy and security. The economical issues are billing and commerce and the political issues involve access rights and spectrum ownership.

The technology limitations associated specifically with wearable computers are primarily with the screen and with the means for controlling the computer. The head-mounted displays are still low resolution and the user may lose vision when moving about. There is not a seamless mechanism for inputting and outputting. Additionally there are limitations with the power supplies, heat dissipation, and bulkiness.

Steve Mann experimented with the first class of Cyborgs this year at the University of Toronto. Students complained that the " Xyberbaut systems were not really all that wearable – at least, not comfortably for more than a few minutes at a time." The battery life was too short to allow online, extended use. Although the system supports a Windows operating system, it remains cooler with a more efficient, less user-friendly code. To gain wider acceptance, the cyborg outfit must become less cumbersome.

The wearable computer promises to bring major improvements to a wide-range of applications including surveying, inspection, medical and insurance tasks. The defense department has identified several uses such as maintenance, telemaintenance, telemedicine, training, and logistical support. The key will be incorporating these unique technological capabilities into the natural workflow in order to increase productivity, reduce cost, or in some way improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the business mission. "Telecommunications-based information technology offers the potential to assist an organization in accomplishing its goals and objectives. Whether or not this potential is realized depends on a thorough understanding of the business climate, of appropriate application of the technology, and of the particular organization’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats." (Vargo J., & Hunt R., Telecommunications in Business, Strategy and Application)

In addition to the technical limitations noted previously, there are other risk factors that could impede the growth and acceptance of this technology. Although the cost is dropping, there is still a high cost to benefit ratio. It is considered to be a small market niche that is below the one-percent threshold of interest in manufacturing. Another concern is the social acceptance of the technology. It is not yet fashionable to be seen wearing this somewhat cumbersome piece of equipment. Human factors’ issues must be adequately addressed before this technology will be likely to reach wide acceptance.

The Gartner Group believes that "the early applications for wearable computing will be primarily industrial. By 2002, wearable computers will begin to appear for a more general audience, mainly focused on communications and personal information management (i.e., evolution of display phones, pagers and PDAs). Continuing research will be required to determine the appropriate applications, input/output modalities and privacy implications for these wearable systems."

The biggest potential seen by many wearable computing researchers is in medicine. Small, unobtrusive monitors could continually read health indicators from the body (e.g., heart rate, body heat and muscle stress) and relay them to a small receiver worn or carried on the body that, in turn, could transmit them to a physician or alert a monitoring service. Assistive technology is also a major theme. For example a camera worn by someone who communicates through sign language could pick up the gestures and translate the words, using neural networks, into synthesized speech. Another area being assessed is "affective" computing which involves detecting a user’s moods and emotions by the computer, which then makes appropriate changes (e.g. responds with better help if confusion is detected). (Gartner Group Research Note, 1997).

Examples of applications include the following:

• In Ohio a registered nurse who suffers from dyslexia and attention deficit disorder is able to function as efficiently as his non-disabled counterparts by using a wearable computer. He is able to look up medical terms on his wearable computer without having to drag out huge reference documents.
• Technicians use wearable computers to build complex wiring bundles on Boeing airplanes. Head-mounted displays track the technicians head movements and present schematic diagrams of where the technician is looking.
• Students in Florida are gaining access to their school using a ring worn on their finger or as a necklace. The wearable computer, called the iButton grants them access to the school by opening electronic doors when the ring is pressed against special receptors on the doors.

In each of the above examples and other similar uses it was difficult to obtain an objective assessment of the user satisfaction with the products. Most of the news items had more than a hint of supplier bias and indicated that the user could not be happier with the new capabilities. However these are all pilot programs and it is important to realize that most new technologies require an adjustment period before users feel comfortable with the new paradigm.

There are many factors that affect the adaptability of the user to the new technology, including ease of use of the system, user experience with similar technologies and so forth. The scope of this paper will not cover an in depth assessment of the relative success of the uses presented here; rather it is intended to indicate that there are several instances of actual use currently in existence.

"Several research groups both in industry and academe, vying to develop products for the still nascent wearable computer market, are a good indication that the market is poised for explosive growth, according to a new Futuretech report from Technical Insights, a unit of John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Wearable Computers: From Personal Area Networks to Smart Clothing. Companies such as Xybernaut, IBM, and Syvox are actively developing wearable wares. Researchers at several universities including MIT, Georgia Tech, Carnegie Mellon, and the University of Toronto are working on novel concepts with applications for everything from factories and warehouses to emergency services and even covert surveillance.

Xybernaut has expanded their outreach to several world markets. This summer they expanded operations into Central and South America. Most of the start-up companies such as Xybernaut are firmly establishing their legal rights to protect their intellectual capital, with the expectation of earning significant royalties through the growth of the industry. Large companies such as IBM, Casio, and Nokia are conducting research and developing products.

The Department of Defense is one of the primary sponsors of research today for wearable computers. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funded several projects aimed at providing commanders with immediate access to information from the battlefield. Earlier this year Boeing awarded Irvine Sensors a one million dollar contract in add-ons for the Advanced Humionics Platform (AHP), a wearable, voice-activated system of integrated electronics and sensors, intended to be part of future soldiers’ clothing.

NASA’s Johnson Space Center is also testing a wearable personal computer to monitor human statistics and speed up astronaut flight-simulator training. They are working with MIT and St. Leo College to determine the effectiveness of the wearable computer to enhance training.

The medical field is another area that is supporting research on wearables because there is such tremendous potential for use. Emergency-medical technicians could have instant access to lifesaving information, procedures and communications with specialists. People with disabilities could have increased mobility and enhanced living conditions.

In addition to these specific service areas, several corporations such as IBM are investing a portion of their research dollars into wearable computers and supporting technologies. For example the telecommunications industry has been adding data transfer capabilities over specialized mobile radio spectrum. Nextel Communications in McLean, Virginia has expanded its services from data over analog to digital voice. As the market interest in such capabilities expands, continued research in providing these types of services will respond accordingly.

Each year the Gartner Group identifies ten technologies that are expected to attract the most attention due to marketing hype, rapid technology evolution or growing application adoption. Wearable computers have been on that list for the past three years. Their analysts speculate that wearable computing will remain largely a curiosity for the next few years, with an unstable and rapidly-evolving vendor marketplace. However they suggest that enterprises with hands-busy mobile applications should investigate and prototype the technology and deploy tactically if appropriate. In this year’s technology trends report released by the Gartner Group, wearables were predicted to enter the mainstream by the year 2006.

"New research from International Data Corporation (IDC) estimates the United States demand in the industrial, manufacturing, government, and medical sectors will drive growth in the wearable PC marketplace in the United States, pushing the potential market opportunity to $600 million by 2003. Because of the growing demand and the compelling applications in the manufacturing and military sectors, wearable computing rates 34 (on a scale of 1-100, 100 being most valuable) on the IDC Emergent Technology Markets Commercial Viability index."

The industry sector of wearable computers is today in the very early stages of its evolution. Although research has been conducted for over two decades, there is still ambiguity in even the definition and standards are in the early phases of development. Small start-up companies dominate the corporate interest and energy. They are establishing legal rights to their intellectual capital and forming partnerships with large vendors who have an established market and can easily integrate wearable computers into their product line and expand customer services. Most of the uses are prototype projects and are facing many human factor limitations. Continual advances in technology such as the increased processing power available in very small sizes of components and the expanded wireless telecommunications capabilities, have provided the foundation for an infrastructure to support the advancement of the wearable computer industry.

Wearable computing is still largely an emerging technology with considerable interest and potential for future growth and expansion. Today the technology is available and is beginning to be cost effective. These factors make it more than science fiction. There are tremendous opportunities for many applications. Only when a good business case is made, will the full potential of the market be recognized. Investing in this area still remains speculative. It is considered to be a small niche market with limited potential.

Not long ago many people thought the same of the personal computer. What will happen to this industry in the next decade? Will Cyborgs become the norm? My opinion is that today the technocrats are excited about the future for wearable computers because they recognize the capabilities. At the point in time when the business leaders recognize these capabilities, the market could see a very rapid explosion. Will it happen by 2009? That is the key question today. How long will it take to unleash this market? The answer is dependent on many factors.

One thing is certain, wearable computers are here now and will forever be a part of our future. Exactly the role that they will play remains to be seen.

Y2K Tidbits

Experts predict Y2K will get falsely blamed for all sorts of problems. Earlier this year, the New Jersey Department of Human Services in Trenton was one of the first organizations to experience media attention that comes with a year 2000 glitch -- even though there really was no Y2K problem after all. The media discovered that $23 million in food aid had been awarded 10 days early to welfare recipients. At first, an agency spokesperson and reporters assumed the error was Y2K-related because the software had recently been fixed to handle the century date rollover. Later, technicians knew what had happened -- a worker had manually typed in the April 1 distribution date but had omitted the last digit in 1999. As a result, a contractor's computer read the year as 1990, prematurely distributing the benefits. That incident likely won't be the only year 2000 false alarm. Companies may have trouble distinguishing ordinary problems from Y2K computer glitches. (Computerworld)

Eager to calm Year 2000 jitters and head off any apocalyptic cash hoarding, the American Bankers Association has found religion. The trade group has delivered a model "Y2K Sermon" aimed at reassuring worshipers that government and industry--particularly U.S. banks--will be ready when computer clocks make the big flipover. "Whatever you do, don't bury your money in the backyard," says the text, which is sprinkled with allusions to Moses leading the children of Israel into a bright, hopeful future" with God's help. (PC World)

Dr. Edward Yardeni, the chief economist for Deutsche Bank Securities and a year 2000 doomsayer, thinks Y2K problems will cause a global recession. Specifically, he figures a 25% chance of a six-month recession, a 40% chance of a yearlong recession, a 5% chance of a Y2K depression and a 30% chance nothing much will happen. (Computerworld)

A computer system in Van Nuys, California failed a Y2K test when it caused 4 million gallons of raw sewage to spill into the streets. The spill occurred when the plant was testing its Y2K contingency plan by mimicking various computer malfunctions. Experiencing a power outage was one of the scenarios and, in that case, the plant switches to its emergency generator. The error occurred when a computer closed a gate, blocking a major sewage line serving the western San Fernando Valley and causing the sewage to back up and overflow. (www.channel2000.com)

Rep. Stephen Horn who provides the Y2K report card on the Government's progress on Y2K reported in September 1999: "The overall federal government improved its compliance rate by a measly one percent during the last three months. This performance rate is simply not acceptable. Five percent of the government’s most critical computer systems are still not upgraded for the Year 2000. Most of these systems are in the Defense Department, which accounts for 37 percent of all mission-critical systems in the executive branch. Again this quarter, the Defense Department revised its number of mission-critical systems, this time adding 333 systems to its total count. Defense’s numbers are about as consistent as the stock market. I hope this fluctuation is not an indication that the department is still inventorying its systems, because time is running out. Within the next 112 days, the laggard agencies must complete the necessary computer fixes, fully test their systems, and have their business continuity and contingency plans in place. Only time will tell whether this goal can be achieved. " (House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, Sept. 10, 1999)

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Peter A. Kind was appointed chief of the Y2K Information Coordination Center earlier this year. It serves as the government's command center to track the rollover and events in the days immediately following December 31. Serving as an information processor, the center will detect problems then contact the appropriate emergency response teams in the administration for resolution. (Government Computer News)

Although the Federal Aviation Administration has made progress in making its systems Year 2000-compliant, the millennium bug still threatens other computers in the U.S. and international air traffic systems. Non-compliant computer systems used at airports, airlines and by FAA's international partners threaten to adversely affect FAA's operations, said Joel Willemssen, director of civil agencies information systems at the General Accounting Office's Accounting and Information Management Division. For example, the latest information shows that about 20 percent of the 113 U.S. airports reported that they had completed Year 2000 preparations, Willemssen said. About 33 percent of the 146 international airlines reported to the FAA that their systems were Year 2000-compliant, Willemssen yesterday told a joint hearing of the House Government, Management, Information and Technology Subcommittee and the House Technology Subcommittee. (Federal Computer Week)

Gartner Group issued its own year 2000 forecast pronouncing things in pretty good shape. "In the United States, we don't expect any real significant problems to the public at all" on January 1, said Lou Marcoccio, Gartner's top Y2K analyst. "The day probably will go by somewhat unnoticed, except for the panic issues." Gartner also believes there won't be a recession. (Computerworld)

The head of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem warned today that hackers, people engaged in industrial espionage and even other countries may seize the year 2000 problem as their best shot to attack corporate and government information systems. "Those who wish us ill will for one reason or another," said U.S. Sen. Robert Bennett, will use Y2K "as an opportunity to attack." (Computerworld)

The scuttlebutt in the field is that malicious hackers, particularly internal attackers, will take advantage of year-2000 paranoia to launch attacks. After all, why not launch an attack during the confusion? Most of the problems discovered following Jan. 1 will probably be blamed on year-2000 programmers, not security compromises. Worse yet, what havoc could insiders wreak by purposely creating chaos? The year-2000 problem has not received top billing as a security vulnerability because it is potentially present in any software or firmware. With careful planning and judicious placement of code, extortionist Cobol programmers could trigger disaster at the touch of a button. (InfoWorld)

Fewer than half of America's largest companies (48 percent) expect all of their critical systems to be prepared for the Year 2000, according to a new survey by Cap Gemini America, Inc., an information technology and management consultant. (Year 2000 Information Center)

U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, vice chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, warned that the public panic might cause more harm than any Y2K computer failure. "The greatest fear that I have is that you are going to get panic setting in . . . from those who predict dire consequences," Dodd said. (Computerworld)