Two angles:
- US is a mature state and doesn’t desire transformational technologies, as that transformation may destabilize the current US leadership and “efficiencies” in delivering the current solutions at known profit levels with existing cultural covenants
- Growing nations (China and India) desire the transformation to their economies and cultures that may be brought about by a new technology. Both nations having been born out of severe resource shortages, had fairly recent oppression by foreign powers, and desire to have an edge to improve their situation. Engineers and scientists have been critical historically to provide solutions that enable growth and long term stability to these countries.
Consider these two articles from Forbes and Quora about the fact that 4 out of 5 of the top government leaders in China are scientists or engineers. Counter that with the fact that only 22 members of the US Congress (out of 500+) even have a technical degree, most are lawyers. What does this say about US attitude towards innovation and transformation?
Final question for military acquisition: What is the impact to the acquisition system when engineers are told that they will never promote to leadership positions?
- Hypothesis 1: we will tend to acquire more of the same, as there will be few mid/senior experienced engineers available to design/oversee the effort
- Hypothesis 2: we will severely underestimate the amount of effort and other technical factors of production needed for novel systems, due to senior personnel lacking intuition or knowledge about complex system development
- Hypothesis 3: new technologies to be acquired by the government, will consistently cost more in total life cycle cost, due to an inability to evaluate technical plans and mitigate foreseeable risks
Of course, I wish these were hypotheses, because they tend to happen. Consider when a lead program manager responds that a technical risk doesn't exist because "we didn't write handling that into the contract" or "we don't have funds this year for any mitigation". We've made the business and legal constructs king in our culture, without regard for any technical feasibility. Worse, we want lawyers and MBA educated managers in charge, both of which are very transactional career fields; instead of technologists which tend to offer visions of the future without many bars as to how everyone will contribute.
Ultimately, so long as our system continues to tell engineers that they don't have any opportunities as leaders and that they are "geeks and outcasts", I worry that our national edge will continue to erode. Buck the system, develop your best engineers are leaders, and ride the transformational & innovative wave into future prosperity.
Of course, we may end up with our engineers going to China for better opportunities, but would that really happen? (Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal article referenced indicates that it is happening right now) Read More......
