4 ms·

Hmmm, that doesn't sound like the problem with S Korea at all. The above commenter was making the point that too many South Korean projects are compromised by

Hmmm, that doesn't sound like the problem with S Korea at all. The above commenter was making the point that too many South Korean projects are compromised by bribes and nepotism. The German/French collaboration just sounds like it was badly organized. The end result may be the same, but it sounds like the root causes were different.

endymi0n 11y ago
Not at all. Every "research" effort that goes money first (and especially throwing it at already established entities), design, goals and culture second is going to end up the same way. It doesn't have anything to do with South Korea or Germany to be honest.
- pm90 11y ago
  I agree with this sentiment. Frankly, govt. sponsored research is very hard to get right. The US Federal Govt. is probably the only instance of a government agency I know of that consistently delivers good value for all that investment (through NSF, DARPA etc.) which is why it pains me whenever Congress announces budget cuts for those agencies.
- WhoBeI 11y ago
  Mmm.. the german governments funding of the Max Planck institutes seem to work well. As I understand it the Max Planck Society gets funding and then distributes that to projects meeting certain quality requirements. I think they do mostly base research, the kind that private companies tend to avoid as there rarely is any direct profit to be had.
  - gumby 11y ago
    That speaks to w1ntermute's point. Max Planck Institutes are dedicated to basic research (Grundlagenforschung). Thus they don't have an "objective" as such. Plus, by the very nature of fundamental research, it's hard to determine "success" (except in the aggregate, and after a long period of time -- which the MPG has had time to demonstrate. The "google-killer" or "SK AI project" or the "5th generation project" for that matter are quite different. First, they start with an ill-defined yet concrete goal, which makes success well nigh impossible. Second, they start from the position of a large sum of money being necessary -- which naturally attracts inappropriate as well as appropriate bids; the deciders are often more political than with the MPG (which itself, consisting of a group of people, must have its own politics, but presumably less intensely). Also this money is often a one-time or short term allocation rather than a long term investment as with the MPG. The one example I can think of in which this actually worked was Airbus, but that took decades, massive sums, and a stubbornness to change the structure a lot along the way. Not sure I can think of another example.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

endymi0n 11y ago

Not at all. Every "research" effort that goes money first (and especially throwing it at already established entities), design, goals and culture second is going to end up the same way. It doesn't have anything to do with South Korea or Germany to be honest.

pm90 11y ago
I agree with this sentiment. Frankly, govt. sponsored research is very hard to get right. The US Federal Govt. is probably the only instance of a government agency I know of that consistently delivers good value for all that investment (through NSF, DARPA etc.) which is why it pains me whenever Congress announces budget cuts for those agencies.
WhoBeI 11y ago
Mmm.. the german governments funding of the Max Planck institutes seem to work well. As I understand it the Max Planck Society gets funding and then distributes that to projects meeting certain quality requirements. I think they do mostly base research, the kind that private companies tend to avoid as there rarely is any direct profit to be had.
- gumby 11y ago
  That speaks to w1ntermute's point. Max Planck Institutes are dedicated to basic research (Grundlagenforschung). Thus they don't have an "objective" as such. Plus, by the very nature of fundamental research, it's hard to determine "success" (except in the aggregate, and after a long period of time -- which the MPG has had time to demonstrate. The "google-killer" or "SK AI project" or the "5th generation project" for that matter are quite different. First, they start with an ill-defined yet concrete goal, which makes success well nigh impossible. Second, they start from the position of a large sum of money being necessary -- which naturally attracts inappropriate as well as appropriate bids; the deciders are often more political than with the MPG (which itself, consisting of a group of people, must have its own politics, but presumably less intensely). Also this money is often a one-time or short term allocation rather than a long term investment as with the MPG. The one example I can think of in which this actually worked was Airbus, but that took decades, massive sums, and a stubbornness to change the structure a lot along the way. Not sure I can think of another example.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]