Does Defense or Industry lead the Military Industrial Complex?

For many years there has been a question as to whether corruption is due to poverty, or is poverty due to corruption? The ballot came in several years ago establishing that corruption causes poverty.

A similar question might be posed today regarding industry and defense. Perhaps the most contested microcosm of general industry is that of space. Historically my experience is that Defense has lead the Space Military Industrial Complex. Today, in a conversation regarding the need for MBA programs in space, the challenge was made to justify that the old mantra is passed, and that the future will have Industry lead?

This is not a trivial question.

To elaborate a little bit, one might suggest that an MBA where Defense, not Industry, leads, the need for an MBA is formulaic. Where Industry leads, innovation is essential

The answer will determine the future of humanity in space.

There was a time in my life where to write the letters "NRO" in my OPR would have resulted in someone going to jail. Pseudonyms were used. Later in my career, out from under the umbrella, charged with developing new technology for the Space Defense Industrial Complex, efforts were inexplicably stymied; I could not see why.  As a student of physics and engineering I could see textbook answers which appeared obvious, but defense funded research seemed blind to. Still later, I had the opportunity to work with "Colonel Bob" on a cross-agency initiative (There were a couple on interoperability or cost and schedule savings; I cannot remember which one). I mentioned my earlier frustration, and "Colonel Bob" responded, "Isn't it great?!"

My intent on posing this question is not to challenge the need for the Defense component of the Space Military Industrial Complex. The question is, "Who is to lead?" Or to relate to the conversation of earlier today, do individuals looking for future education opportunities need to consider Business or an MBA?

Fortunately we have reached the stage where markets, not the Military Industrial Complex, will answer the question.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.

Is Space a Zero Sum Game?

{This note was prompted by a discussion on how the space Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) can and should work together. A position from one or more SDOs is reported to be there is opposition to cooperation due to concerns about competition in standards development and loss of potential revenue/market share.}

In a zero sum game for each transaction,  each party either gains or loses, with the net value of transactions equaling zero. This implies the market value is fixed. Commonly this kind of transaction is called a “win-lose”.

In a non-zero sum game the market value is not fixed. It is possible for the net value of transactions to be greater in value than the simple summation of transactions. Commonly this kind of transaction is called a “win-win”.

Is Space a zero sum game? No.

While funding may have been fixed in the past, relying primarily on government budgets, today and in the foreseeable future, Space will be a growing market.

What does this mean for Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)?

The expansion of the space marketplace is based on growth in small satellite markets, growth in space tourism, growth in all possible permutations and variations of space access, space capabilities, space command and control and space product delivery. The US Department of Commerce has estimated growth from about $300B/yr to $1T/yr in the next ten years.

SDOs serve markets, so as the market grows the need for standards will increase.  For the space industry, the lack of a large industry wide standards library means there will be a need to fill the vacuum and expand to meet future needs. There is a lot of work to do.

What is the impact if the US treats space standards development as a zero sum game? As the standards market expands in the global space market, non-US SDOs will provide the new international library. US companies, striving to succeed in the in the global market, will use any applicable standards that help them compete and grow. Therefore, if US SDOs follow a zero sum philosophy, only US SDOs will lose market share. That is not quite true: if one follows W. Edwards Deming’s teaching that “he who owns the standard owns the industry”, then the US will lose its leadership position in the global space market.

There is no mystery here. US space standards development, where there are multiple SDOs, must be done cooperatively. This can be at the national level, the international level, or both. Who leads is almost immaterial, as long as the leadership is done well.

Unless otherwise noted, the blog posts are written by Frederick A. Slane, Executive Director of the Space Infrastructure Foundation.