The Perils of Single-Source Dependency in Technology Development Strategy: Lessons from History

In the world of technology development, it can be tempting for governments to invest in a single, promising company or project, citing financial efficiency as the rationale. However, this approach, known as “single-source dependency,” can pose significant risks to a country’s technological progress. History has shown us that diversifying investments across multiple competing initiatives can yield better results, providing checks and balances to reveal problems early on and hedge against unforeseen difficulties.

Let’s examine some examples where single point of failure dependency proved to be disastrous for a country’s technological ambitions:

Concorde Supersonic Airliner

The Concorde supersonic airliner was a joint venture between the British and French governments. They bet heavily on the aircraft’s success, but high costs and technical issues severely constrained its viability. If multiple competing designs had been pursued, it’s possible that a more sustainable supersonic aircraft could have emerged. Instead, the Concorde project became an example of how single-source dependency can lead to significant financial losses and missed opportunities for technological advancement.

Soviet Lunokhod Lunar Rover Program

The Soviet Union’s Lunokhod lunar rover program was another case of single-source dependency gone awry. The USSR invested heavily in these rovers, which were designed to explore the moon’s surface. However, the Lunokhod rovers encountered numerous technical difficulties, and the Soviet space program’s lack of diversity limited its prospects for lunar success. By placing all their bets on this single project, the USSR’s space program missed out on alternative opportunities for lunar exploration.

Space Shuttle Program

NASA’s Space Shuttle program was once heralded as a major step forward in space exploration. However, it ultimately became a symbol of the pitfalls of single-source dependency. The Space Shuttle was intended to provide a cost-effective, reusable vehicle for launching satellites and conducting research in space. Unfortunately, the program was plagued by technical issues, huge costs, and tragic accidents. By focusing heavily only on the shuttle program, NASA missed opportunities to invest in alternative technologies and approaches that could have made space exploration more sustainable and cost-effective.

In a world increasingly driven by financial efficiency, it is easy to fall into the trap of prioritizing short-term financial efficiency over long-term sustainability. The economist, however, must consider the broader implications of such decisions, particularly when it comes to technology development. The Space Shuttle program, active from 1981 to 2011, was conceived as a cost-effective and reusable solution for manned spaceflight. However, its dependence on a single design and technology source left the program vulnerable to a myriad of technical issues, huge costs, and tragic accidents, such as the Challenger and Columbia disasters. This overemphasis on financial efficiency, at the expense of a more diversified approach, ultimately proved to be a hindrance to NASA’s progress.

Recognizing the need to move away from the single-source dependency, NASA adopted a new commercial program that sought to invest in alternative technologies and approaches. By opening up the field to several private companies, such as SpaceX, Boeing, and Blue Origin, the agency not only encouraged competition but also fostered innovation. This shift in strategy has led to significant achievements, including successful crewed missions to the International Space Station and the development of reusable rocket technology, all while reducing costs by an order of magnitude; i.e. almost 10th of the cost of the Shuttle program.

The benefits of this new approach extend beyond the huge cost reduction and improved mission success rates. A diversified technology landscape enables countries to become more resilient to disruptions, as the failure of one technology or company does not spell disaster for the entire industry. This, in turn, creates a more stable environment for scientific progress and economic growth.

Key Pattern

Despite its apparent counter intuitive thinking to the accountant mindset, the economist must champion the cause of long-term sustainability and innovation over short-term financial efficiency. By embracing a more diversified approach to technology development, countries can avoid the pitfalls of single-source dependency, as exemplified by the NASA Space Shuttle program, and reap the rewards of a thriving, innovative industry.

Across these examples, a key pattern emerges: governments put “all their eggs” into technologically ambitious but ultimately single point of failure programs. This approach has repeatedly led to costly failures and missed opportunities for progress. In contrast, investment in multiple competing initiatives, whether from the private sector, universities, or other government branches, could have provided checks and balances to reveal problems earlier and hedge against unforeseen difficulties.

The risks of single point of failure dependency in technology development strategy cannot be overstated. Governments should learn from these historical examples and avoid putting their resources into a single project or company, regardless of its perceived potential and perceived financial efficiency. It is counterintuitive, but we have learned from history such financial efficiencies resulted in huge losses in finance and morale. Instead, we should promote diverse investments in technology and companies to tremendously enhance the chances of success and foster a more resilient and adaptable technological ecosystem.

Visionary Leaders

In many organizations the accountant mindset of short-term financial efficiency still rules under the guise these principles are not applicable to small countries and small organizations. However, these principles are embedded in the nature of technological development, if we do not heed these principles, we are bound to repeat the same costly mistakes.

In contrast, the leaders of KSA Vision 2030 demonstrate visionary thinking. They are unencumbered by the accountant mindset, as demonstrated by the recent Saudi space mission to the ISS. The Saudi’s spaceflight program selected four candidates for training in 2023, two of whom, Rayyanah Barnawi and Ali Al Qarni, completed the mission. The other two candidates, Mariam Firdous and Ali Al-Ghamdi, trained on all mission requirements as backup crew members who could have replaced Barnawi or Al-Qarni if necessary.

Visionary leaders prioritize long-term gains over short-term savings in finance and resources, recognizing the risks of a single point of failure. They are not driven by the mantra of “unifying resources” to achieve financial efficiency by training only two candidates. Instead, they understood the importance of investing in backup crew members to mitigate risks and ensure mission success.