​Globalisation and the role of engineering – opportunity or do you fear it?

You may have recently seen a speech by Vice President J.D. Vance at the American Dynamism Summit. A video recording of this speech has been circulating online, with a particular three-minute segment going viral.
 
Take a moment, about 3 minutes, to watch it.

The speech addresses several key concepts:

• The separation of design and manufacturing: Can it be done or not?
• The idea that design ability is innate, potentially influenced by race or culture.
• The tension between lower costs (especially from labor) and innovation.
• The issue of stagnating productivity.

 
I've noticed that people tend to focus on different aspects of these notions, often influenced by their prior beliefs, especially those regarding globalization.
 
This newsletter is called "The Global Engineer". It emphasizes the importance of being an engineer capable of working anywhere in the world and in any role (within reason). Therefore, I do not identify as an anti-globalist. In fact, I believe globalization offers significant advantages for engineers.

• The laws of nature are universal, allowing engineers to work in different countries and leverage their qualifications for greater adventure in their careers.
• Globalization enables regions to specialize, fostering advancements and accelerating the progress of engineering, which can lead to a more engaging career for all engineers.

 
I think the Vice President's speech raises important questions about how globalization has affected engineering and what we can anticipate for the future. He rightly points out that design should be closely linked to manufacturing. I often discuss the importance of concurrent engineering. It’s refreshing to see a politician with such insights into technology — from my experience, there are only a few who possess this understanding. Given the significance of concurrent engineering, we can expect that regions previously thought of as mere manufacturing hubs will also start to engage in design work. Additionally, as wealth becomes more evenly distributed, we will see manufacturing return to other areas – maybe after going those areas still not developed.

I don't believe we will see the old design leaders reclaim their dominance. Despite Japan's recent economic challenges, it has not lost its engineering design capabilities developed in the mid-20th century - capabilities that the rest of the world learned. Instead, we are likely to see more regions cultivate their own ingenuity. Engineers everywhere aspire to do more; they seek to innovate, and as I argue in "The Global Engineer," anyone can develop the essential skills needed.

I agree that many managers often prioritize low costs over investing in innovation, viewing the latter as an expense rather than an investment. This perspective is common among shareholders as well. Al Dunlap, known for his aggressive cost-cutting strategies, serves as a poignant example; despite his controversial practices, many supported his approach.
 
However, innovation should also focus on cost reduction, as improving efficiency can enhance our quality of life without necessitating a trade-off. The use of low-cost labor is often a case of arbitrage that may eventually become unfeasible, yet it has helped lift around 400 million people out of poverty globally, making it difficult to argue against from a moral standpoint. However, we must consider the long-term effects: as skills develop in less affluent regions, those areas may no longer remain inexpensive.

The Vice President also suggests that the preference for low-cost labor over innovation has contributed to stagnating productivity. While this viewpoint may resonate with those outside the engineering field, engineers understand the principle of diminishing returns. Increased productivity typically arises from larger, more efficient production systems, but eventually, it becomes challenging to scale much more, leading to a slowdown in productivity growth. Therefore, attributing stagnation to a drop in innovation caused by globalization is misguided.
​
In summary, while the Vice President raises valid points about the importance of keeping production close to design and the role of innovation, the assumption that any location can inherently excel in innovation is flawed. There must be continuous investment in this capability at the societal, organizational, and individual levels. You can take responsibility for your own development. Then you can leverage globalization to further enhance your skills even more. You can also lobby your respective organization an government for such investment – you can also expect less opportunity as an engineer when your country chooses not to engage the rest of the globe.