3 ms·

> I’m absolutely certain that Elon musk isn’t the first person to come up with the idea of reusable rockets, and the people who actually did the work of designi

by Kadin 5y ago

> I’m absolutely certain that Elon musk isn’t the first person to come up with the idea of reusable rockets, and the people who actually did the work of designing those rockets were already around before Elon musk hired them. Tom Mueller, who was the first rocket engineer Musk hired, was building rocket engines in his garage out of frustration that nobody was taking him seriously at work. So the question is, how deep does institutional rot have to go to stifle innovation on this level industry wide? How does an organization dedicated to exploration become so utterly unable to take risks? I don't think this is a NASA problem, it's really a problem across the US Federal government. You see it on the military side of government-funded technology programs as well. (If you want to see a really terrible example, look at the ongoing failure to produce a replacement for the M109 howitzer.) My personal theory is that it's mainly driven by funding mechanisms, especially those covered by FAR. It's not, as some people allege, that the government is particularly bad at things; the government is roughly as competent as any large corporation when it comes down to task execution. I've consulted both to private sector corps and the government, and the fundamental challenges are largely the same. Yes, government compensation structures (heavy on pensions) do tend to attract people in different phases of their careers and lives than, say, equity-heavy packages at a startup. But there's not much evidence linking this to performance. Rather, the difference is that the US government has an institutional attention-deficit disorder. What gets funded one year might get cancelled the next. No plan can possibly be accurate beyond the end of the current budget cycle, no priority fixed beyond the next election. Everyone is going for "quick wins", because they want to be able to justify the continuation of the project. This is not conducive to risk-taking, at all. Quite the opposite. What government PMs want are projects that can set a ~24 month goal, and then show monotonic progress towards that goal every month, like clockwork. Projects that can't show those kind of clean metrics are often managed to death, if they are even started at all. Private-sector organizations, particularly those run by single individuals without regard for short-term profitability, can take on risks that the government won't—basically can't—deal with. Elon Musk made some pretty big technical bets that paid off... but the government isn't allowed to play at that table with tax money.

baryphonic 5y ago
> It's not, as some people allege, that the government is particularly bad at things; the government is roughly as competent as any large corporation when it comes down to task execution. I've consulted both to private sector corps and the government, and the fundamental challenges are largely the same. Yes, government compensation structures (heavy on pensions) do tend to attract people in different phases of their careers and lives than, say, equity-heavy packages at a startup. But there's not much evidence linking this to performance. I generally agree with the overall gist that large organizations are basically incapable of achieving excellent results. However, having worked as an employee for both large corps and government, I see two or three attributes that cut against government being effective. 1. Private industry is mission oriented whereas government is process-oriented. Government bureaucracies value adherence to process above all, regardless of what they create or impede. It's all process all the way down. Even when large, ossified firms make process a centerpiece of management, they still ultimately are attempting to pursue a mission. 2. The government's culture is homogenous and based on a mythos about "serving something bigger than yourself," whereas each firm in industry tends to have some more concrete aspirational statement. 3. Government always has many more people on the critical path who can seriously impede work, because they're hard to get rid of or move out of the way, whereas private companies would have no problem firing such people. On the whole, I think even the largest monopoly firms would tend to be at least a few degrees more efficient than government just for missional focus and the ability to remove bad performers. If a competitive firm were to be as (in)efficient as government, it would die. However, communication, internal politics and management are major challenges for any organization at scale. It really is a difference of degrees, not orders of magnitude.

by Kadin 5y ago

baryphonic 5y ago

> It's not, as some people allege, that the government is particularly bad at things; the government is roughly as competent as any large corporation when it comes down to task execution. I've consulted both to private sector corps and the government, and the fundamental challenges are largely the same. Yes, government compensation structures (heavy on pensions) do tend to attract people in different phases of their careers and lives than, say, equity-heavy packages at a startup. But there's not much evidence linking this to performance. I generally agree with the overall gist that large organizations are basically incapable of achieving excellent results. However, having worked as an employee for both large corps and government, I see two or three attributes that cut against government being effective. 1. Private industry is mission oriented whereas government is process-oriented. Government bureaucracies value adherence to process above all, regardless of what they create or impede. It's all process all the way down. Even when large, ossified firms make process a centerpiece of management, they still ultimately are attempting to pursue a mission. 2. The government's culture is homogenous and based on a mythos about "serving something bigger than yourself," whereas each firm in industry tends to have some more concrete aspirational statement. 3. Government always has many more people on the critical path who can seriously impede work, because they're hard to get rid of or move out of the way, whereas private companies would have no problem firing such people. On the whole, I think even the largest monopoly firms would tend to be at least a few degrees more efficient than government just for missional focus and the ability to remove bad performers. If a competitive firm were to be as (in)efficient as government, it would die. However, communication, internal politics and management are major challenges for any organization at scale. It really is a difference of degrees, not orders of magnitude.