The Disconnect Between Supply and Demand in Science & Engineering

A Reply to Michael S. Teitelbaum

On The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

Thanks to Michael S. Teitelbaum for this reporting. It’s about time someone started bringing data and science to bear on this question of shortages in S&E. Data tell us a couple of things, on two different levels. First, and most directly, to what extent and in what way is there evidence for or against our claims? Second, at a higher level of analysis, to what extent and in what way do the data suggest that we should revise or refine our claims? Mr. Teitebaum's reporting makes an important contribution to the first question, and it is sufficiently broad and deep to stimulate edifying commentary and contribution from other sources. Thus, I will address the second question that generally, I believe, is relatively neglected in the discussion about putative S&E shortages.

The focus of Mr. Teilelbaum's clear and insightful analysis is the relationship between claimed shortages (e.g., as suggested by test-based measures of S&E competencies or headcounts across different countries) and the actual number of jobs or job openings and the salaries they command (presumably reflections of demand). His analysis strongly suggests that claims about S&E shortages are wrong and that such assumptions are invalid. So, as in science generally, we should ask whether there is some modification of the claim that pulls the dialog further, that begs for a deeper layer of dialectic? Maybe, maybe not, but I will suggest one.

What if there are latent opportunities for S&E to satisfy needs on the demand side that are not explicitly about S&E, that is, opportunities that would manifest as supply-side offerings that don't deliver S&E, per se, to consumers? What if consumers wanted a product or service that is outside the portfolio of a company's current offerings? And what if that need is something that influences the experience that customers have (or could have) with the products or services currently offered by that company? A customer-centric strategy suggests that the company, to the extent possible and reasonable, should be agnostic with respect to the solutions it provides to its customers. My assumption in revising the claim about S&E shortages is that S&E can help translate those needs into new solutions that can be developed by the company, and it can help realize particular offerings that embody those solutions.

My revised claim is that employers don't fully understand what S&E can do beyond what it already is doing in their own company or perhaps in other companies. The “shortage” then is the understanding of employers about the potential of S&E and the potential of particular scientists and engineers. The latter is especially important because it also requires that employers understand that the capabilities scientists and engineers eventually can bring to a company will be different from the details of their training and education or attendant subject matter expertise. This is an important consideration because the culture and mindset of S&E is more about continual learning and self-development than it is about momentary mastery of some subject matter.

So maybe there currently aren't as many S&E jobs as we assume there should be because employers don't fully understand what they need from S&E and how it corresponds with the more explicit demand on which their companies owe their very existence. The implication is that there are widespread gaps and shortcomings in recruitment, selection, assessment, and training of S&E talent. How can people without broad experience in S&E be expected to understand the potential of S&E? This is compounded by the generally accepted problems with human capital development in business; for example, guiding employees into their “zone of proximal development” and growing leaders from within (or even just retaining “high potential” employees).

Here is where it gets a bit tricky. How do we close the implied gap between S&E supply and demand? We have something of a chicken-and-egg problem. The solution, I believe, is collective intelligence in development of individuals and organizations. In particular, there needs to be a collaborative vision among S&E leaders and business leaders for development of S&E talent. It should be noted that S&E leaders will gain from this collaboration as much as business leaders. There is no reason to believe that S&E professionals, by themselves, will understand the development potential of S&E talent with respect to the needs of business or the markets they serve. Most S&E professionals are even averse to the notion of “selling” which, of course, depends critically on understanding demand and communication across cultures.

I believe the most important competency S&E leaders can bring to business is the mindset and experience of education in doctoral programs (as opposed to undergraduate education). This is a mindset of sponsorship: long-term relationships and commitments between superiors and subordinates in which they are accountable for initiative in taking risks on behalf of each other. Perhaps at best, business can be a kind of post-doctoral training and education that is at least as valuable and more strategic than what occurs in academe. As in the best doctoral or post-doctoral programs, superiors learn and develop as much as subordinates. I believe this is the only way to solve the disconnnect between S&E supply and demand (my conjecture).

Finally, my revised claim begs the question of what sort of evidence can help us falsify, partially verify, or further refine this claim. I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this because, to date, my focus has been simply trying to generate a conversation about this claim. My guess is that one source of evidence would be in case studies of companies that are noted for having conducted successful strategic campaigns in open innovation.

Gary E. Riccio, Ph.D. (March 21, 2014)

The picture at the top of this post is Schlieren photography used for Nascent Science & Technology LLC with permission from Andrew Davidhazi (2004). Schlieren photography allows the visualization of shock waves in fluid flow (www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-033-DFRC.html). It thus represents the strategic breakthrough in business by increasing and directing motivational energy while overcoming environmental (i.e., multi-organizational) friction.