Funding Tech For Government, Instead of Tech For Industry

An anonymous reader writes: If you're a creative engineer looking to build a product, you're probably going to end up starting your own business or joining an established one. That's where ideas get funding, and that's where products make a difference (not to mention money). Unfortunately, it also siphons a lot of the tech-related talent away from government (and by extension, everybody else), who could really benefit from this creative brilliance. That's why investor Ron Bouganim just started a $23 million fund for investment in tech companies that develop ideas for the U.S. government. Not only is he hoping to transfer some of the $74 billion spent annually by the government on technology to more efficient targets, but also to change the perception that the best tech comes from giant, entrenched government contractors.

Comments

Edit needed

[SternisheFan]

"If you're a creative engineer looking to build a product, you're probably going to end up starting your own business or joining an established."

I assume the ''one'' got dropped. :^0

Tricky proposition

[tloh]

Having skimmed through the article, it seems to me the elephant in the room is being ignored. A much more compelling case can be made for the fact that too *much* information technology already at the disposal of the government is making it way too easy to abuse the American public. It isn't a question of funding, it is a question of priorities.

Re:Tricky proposition

[unimacs]

I've worked in union environments and non-union ones. Let's just say the union environments don't have the market cornered on dysfunction. In fact, probably the most dysfunctional place I ever worked as a programmer would never happen under a union.

I suppose it depends on your perspective though. If you like 18 hour days and being considered basically being unemployable by the time your 50, a job as a corporate programmer is an ideal career choice.

Re:Tricky proposition

[jmac_the_man]

Generally speaking, engineers that work for the Federal Government fall under civil service laws and do not belong to unions. These laws, which are intended to prevent a Democrat president from firing all the Republicans when they take office, and then four years later having the new Republican president fire all the Democrats, make it generally hard to fire government employees or to degrade working conditions so much that they quit. Government Engineers are also almost uniformly on the General Schedule (GS scale), which means that their pay and promotion procedures are set by law for the entire GS system, rather than individuals being able to advocate for their own salaries like you'd see in private industry.

Union contracts are written with the same protections for the workers as goals, so the conditions are similar to what you'd see in a union. However, with a union, there's an organization which you're supposed join and pay dues to. Among government engineers, you see similar conditions, but there's no organization to which you pay dues.

Good Luck With That

[the eric conspiracy]

The government-it industrial complex is controlled by the same sort of corrupt relationships that the military-industrial complex. Come in to that situation with new ideas and you will get slapped down by entrenched interests intent on making use of networks of people moving back and forth between government and industry in order to create personal wealth. New ideas and new technologies only rock the boat.

The classic example is the PPACA web site. Hundreds of millions spent on something that would be a 5-10 million dollar project in a sane world.

Re:Good Luck With That

[khakipuce]

Big contractors and political parties share a mutual benefit from big contracts in that a profitable contractor will make donations to political campaigns, lobby groups and support "government" initiatives such as employing more young people to reduce bad headlines about youth unemployment. Anything that attempts to break up this cosy relationship will be strangled at birth

Tricky proposition

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I think it's a problem of culture. Government jobs with union-y environments are not fun, for anyone. Good engineers quit because of dysfunction and poisonous workplace culture. The ones who stick around are either incompetent or just don't care about doing cool stuff and doing it well.

No amount of money in the universe is going to change the culture of working closely with the government.

unfortunately?

[roman_mir]

So 'unfortunately' if you are going to build a product that people may need and enjoy you are going to start a business, that may create new products and create investment opportunities and jobs in the process, you are going to 'siphon'? 'Siphon' talent away from government ('and everybody else')?????

This 'story' is one gigantic flamebait.

There is nothing unfortunate about building your own company to pursue your own goals and you are not siphoning anything from anybody by building your own business. Under all circumstances, it is better if government doesn't get any talent whatsoever, why should talent be wasted in government rather than be applied where it is actually needed: in the private sector, doing something useful?

This entire premise is insane and asinine.

Re:Government s a crappy investor

[dbIII]

I'm paying more than that despite it being generated from cheap and high quality coal in efficient boilers, large turbines and well maintained generators. The middleman in a monopoly market is taking a huge cut - that's not just a local situation, it's come out of California where Enron played those games and went global. There's so little substance in that Forbes article that there is no way to tell if it's a problem of high generation costs or rent seeking vampire tactics by monopolists sucking everyone dry as is happening in many other markets.
Also your "disaster" appears not to have actually happened, while it is described as that in the headline the body of the text is only talking about potential problems in the future. So have things slipped your mind a bit here or are you being deliberately misleading to push an agenda? I'll assume the former instead of branding you the sort of childish scum sucking luddite political opportunist that thinks little of lying and is really making it annoying to discuss anything technical that may have social implications on this site. Such pricks annoy me far more than it is polite to write and seem to delight in leading the younger generation away into their land of lies and corruption.

Re: Government s a crappy investor

[TheRaven64]

My 'precious electronic toys' use about a tenth of the power that the ones I was using a decade ago for the same purpose did. Even lighting power consumption has dropped. My fridge, freezer and washing machine are the big electricity consumers in my home - efficiency has improved there, but nowhere near as fast as for gadgets.

Re:tinfoil hats

[ChrisAshcroft]

Regulations are a first step that paid lobbyists can work at ensuring a business has an advantage to lock-out the competition so enormous profits are easily possible. It is not real corruption, since the laws are made and followed, it is just very morally wrong and should be illegal and punishable as a form of corruption.

Re: Government s a crappy investor

[TheRaven64]

Not really. They've increased a bit above inflation, but the amount I'm spending on electricity has remained pretty constant, increasingly slightly below inflation (increases in device efficiency offsetting increase in costs). The amount I'm paying for gas has gone up a bit more.

Re: Government s a crappy investor

[mbeckman]

In California price increases average 5-7% per year not counting inflation. That's compounded, of course, so that in just ten years we are paying 80% more for electricity than we did in 2004, again discounting inflation. And the trend is accelerating as a result of carbon caps and increase regulation.