Response and Reflection

Williams, R. (2000). ’All That Is Solid Melts into Air:’ Historians of Technology in the Information Revolution, Technology and Culture, 41, pp. 641-68.

Out of all the articles from this module, this one was most easy for me to identify with due to its relevance to my previous knowledge.  Further, Williams makes her points with little ambiguity (descriptions of certain ideas without assuming the reader knows what she is talking about) and has a way of connecting previous information with the present.  I also have some formal training and experience in enterprise resource planning systems, and the tenets of re-engineering. This article is intended to focus on the change process involved with SAP R/3 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), but is much larger in scope and focuses on: defining technology and engineering, change,  meeting individual needs of faculty members, students and administration at a very complex organization, and the implications of these things on the history of technology.  The discussion is much more epistemological than practical.

The first major issues brought to light by Williams are the evolution of the terms engineering and technology.  Williams describes the history of the term technology, and like many others, suggest that many automatically associate the term with computing.  Williams also discusses the evolving term of engineering referring to two camps found within academic institutions: those that look at the theoretical and scientific aspects of engineering and those that focus on the application of engineering.  She mentions these things to preface a discussion about the attitudes and perspectives of faculty, staff, and administration about the reengineering process at MIT.

Unsurprisingly, many in the administration and support staff carry more of a positive attitude about the change process, while faculty have more of a dim look on the process.  As described by Williams, much of this is attributable to the SAP R/3 system interfering with the cultural practices of the faculty and students.  Many applications are developed in house by graduate students and many of the previously confidential purchase orders are no longer confidential.  The reengineering process is finding resistance due to the system not specifically meeting their needs and traditions.

Williams then moves into an epistemological change associated with the broad field of engineering by discussing how traditional engineering focused on electrical, mechanical, civil, and mechanical.  These traditional tracks have evolved and have paved way for engineering more focused on the development of software - software engineering, and a multitude of interdisciplinary foci, like bioengineering.  Williams also emphasizes the meshing of traditional engineering and management curriculum as a highly desired combination by students at MIT.  The main premise is that the traditional meaning of engineering has dissipated over time.

Rather awkwardly at first, Williams shifts her focus to a description of the status quo of the historians of technology and their role in the academy and society.  Her real premise is to summarize the impact of the evolving meaning of engineering of the history of technology as a line of inquiry.  Her next step is really a question of morality: are we master of our technology or is our technology masters of us? She speaks of "having" to adjust culture to meet the new upgrade or having to change a process to accommodate a technical system, and she cringes at the implications of such decisions.

It would appear that Williams calls for the establishment of conceptual boundaries to better define the field that do not restrict the vision of the field.  She also makes a call for sound theories to explain the history, and states that the field will have to converge across many disciplines as the discipline of technology (engineering) has already done so.