Tale of Two
If computing were a snake, it would have two heads. On the one side would be the business world, driving, pushing the snake toward the automation model. On the other would be the academic, focused on the core definition of computing and its mathematical heritage. As a computer scientist, computer engineer, software developer, or what have you, I often find myself conflicted in finding a unifying theme, a universal purpose for what computing really is.
Ask the economist and he/she will tell you that the two forces of our world are gravity and currency. The latter force is the one that drives our innovation, because, as fate would have it, capitalist societies encourage those who give back value in the form of money. This basic driving force for innovation is key to the technological golden age we are in today. Here, for the reason of financial gain, is where we find the birthplace of a lot of software computing ideas. CRM, ERP, Help Desk, and generalized financial software are all forms of software innovation that had risen to face the challenges of a world ever increasing in its demand for automation. Software products succeed and fail on the central criterion of: “Does it solve my problem, and can I afford it?” This is perhaps why, if you read material intended for the industry, you’ll often find it 90% business and, if your lucky, 10% technical. For example, you can ask, in a typical company, how much of the CIO’s roles are business related? How many are conversely technical? What backgrounds and experiences are important for a CIO/CTO?
On the flip side, you have academic computer science. Being research based, the primary actors might or might not be motivated by immediate financial gain. Most of the innovation here comes from a deep down passion for the subject and for a will to make a change to the technological landscape, however big or small. Unfortunately, the lack of monetary stimuli leaves much of it to the personal desires of the individuals involved. As a result, you will typically have few students of computer science interested in the theories and the fundamentals. Having much experience in this matter myself, I can tell you not many people go into the computer science degree expecting to learn what it is they learn. Where they expected a practical curriculum mirroring the demands of our external society and industry (like implementing solutions in a multitude of languages) they instead find deep mathematical theory involved in no one concrete, intended application. Even those who check “Computer Engineer” instead of “Computer Science” on their applications are typically in for a surprise. Look at each school’s degree conferal summary and you will find something like: “A degree in Computer Science from (insert school here) is a guarantee by the school that you are well prepared in the breadth of knowledge to tackle problems faced in a computer science occupation.” Is that so? Many understandably doubt it, and as a result, many people simply do not see the point and drop out.
Computing has come down to two threads of existences. One survives to automate - to solve practical problems in the business world and find financial reward. The other survives to truly further our world through innovation. While the former certainly has played a big role in our world (just think of all the big software businesses out there), the latter thread is the one that, at the end of the day, creates the great leaps we enjoy as a society today and in the years to come. Just think of the internet and its roots as a military/academic project to provide a way to decentralize computing. With it came email, and then the web. These are the truly essential technologies that even the automation world depends upon.
We have been given the gift of technology - but this gift is no promise. When it comes down to it, it’s up to the many brilliant minds out there toiling away in the land of academia to create new ways we can change computing. Perhaps an interesting question is then: can we find a blend of computing that is both viable as an academic pursuit and as an industrial success? To that, I’d have to point out that the Google boys did. They are one example of how an academic innovation can bear both intellectual gain (in the form of benefitting our society in knowledge) and financial gain. In the end, I believe that perhaps the reality is that there will always be financial success guaranteed in a truly brilliant leap in technology, but conversely, there is not always a leap in technology guaranteed for every financial success.
- LW