COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub[let,jmc]" source
∂AIL Professor Delbert Tesar↓Department of Mechanical Engineering
↓University of Florida↓Gainesville, FLA 32601∞

Dear Professor Tesar:

	I agreed entirely with your article in %2Science%1.  However,
it seems to me that the prospects of getting the government to do
what you advocate in the near future are not very good.  Therefore,
it may be worthwhile trying to promote an analog of EPRI for the
light manufacturing industry.  EPRI is the Electric Power Research
Institute, and is supported by (one?) percent of the gross revenues
of the electric power industry in the U.S.  It is a voluntary organization
and was formed about five years ago and supports research of interest
to the electric power industry.  Its first head was Chauncey Starr,
former Dean of Engineering at UCLA, and its headquarters happens to
be locatedi near here in Palo Alto.
In its formation, the analogy with Bell Laboratories which is supported
by a percentage of the gross of A.T & T. was important, but EPRI does
not operate laboratories; in fact most of its money goes to projects
carried out by its members.  Certainly an institute getting a percentage
of the gross of American light manufacturing industry (if that was
the piece of industry that got split off) could accomplish the objectives
of your paper.

	I have occasionally discussed the idea of such an institute aimed
at manufacturing productivity with people from industry, and because of
your article, I again raised the matter with people from General Motors
at their recent symposium on Computer Vision and Sensor-Based Robots.
The reaction was the same as before, namely that the government would
not allow it for anti-trust reasons.  This time they cited the fact
that the goverment won't allow the automobile companies to  collaborate
on anti-pollution research for fear they will conspire not to solve
the problem.

	I think that if the proposal came directly from industry, especially
if companies like General Motors were involved, this might indeed
be the Government reaction.  Moreover, quite apart from fear of
Government displeasure, the companies show little initiative.

	Therefore, it occurs to me that the best way might be to persuade
the Government to take the initiative in organizing a "(Light)
Manufacturing (Productivity) Research Institute" supported by a
"contribution" of a fixed percentage of the gross of (light) manufacturing
industry.  The parentheses indicate that the adjectives might
be omitted if more scope were desirable.  One extreme would be for
Congress to create the organization and support it by a tax on
the gross of industry.  Most likely, the management should be
in the hands of an industry committee, and like EPRI and unlike
Bell Labs, the organization should farm out work rather than
operate its own laboratories.

	It seems to me that the Government people like Jordan
Baruch who are interested in the problem might find it easier
in this parsimonious age to propose to coerce industry than to
try for a large increase in Government money devoted to the same
purpose.

	It occurs to me that Chauncey Starr might be willing to
offer advice and support, and if you are interested, I could call
him, or you could do it yourself.

.sgn