Post on 05-Dec-2014
description
Presenting “Insight 2005: A Surveyof U.S. Technology Innovators”
November 2005
2
Study Sections
U.S. Competitiveness/Leadership in Technology Innovation Psychographic Profile of Technology Creators Addendum: Methodology and Respondent Characteristics Addendum: Women in Technology Innovation (upon request) Addendum: Under 30s in Technology Innovation (upon request)
3
U.S. Competitiveness/Leadershipin Technology Innovation
4
U.S. Technology Innovation/Leadership
Indicators of U.S. Technology Competitiveness Under Fire U.S. undergraduate S&E degrees (5.7 per 100) lag Japan (8 per 100), Taiwan and South
Korea (11 per 100), and many European nations (8 - 13 per 100)1
U.S. graduate S&E degrees only 25,000 out of 114,000 worldwide2
U.S. R&D investment as percentage of GDP in 30-year decline3
DOD funding of basic research dropped from 3.3%in 1994 to 1.9%in 20054
China intends to boost R&D funding 200 percent in next 10 years5
U.S. patent citation rate as percentage of world total dropping 52 percent in 1992; 44 percent in 20016
K-12 Education failing U.S. students in math and science7
4th grade students on par with peers worldwide 12th graders near bottom (1999)
The hidden indicator: U.S. technology creators’ view of the state of their profession Introducing the fourth psychographic study of engineers by CMP and McClenahan Bruer (prior
studies fielded in 1999, 2001 and 2003) In August 2005, 4083 electronics engineers were surveyed online In May 2005 qualitative research was conducted in the form of in-depth interviews with
8 engineers representing a spectrum of age, gender and ethnicity Presentation includes findings from CMP’s 2005 Salary & Opinion Survey
5
U.S. Technology Innovation andLeadership in Jeopardy
Scenario D: Q2. What impact does design outsourcing have on you personally?
64%
10%
I worry about thefuture of theengineering
profession in the U.S.because of the
impact ofoutsourcing
The U.S. will alwaysmaintain itstechnology
leadership position
2005 Psychographic Survey
641a. Has your company sent electronics design work offshore in the past year?41b. What type of work has your company sent overseas?
Status of Design Outsourcing
No, 54%
Yes, my company has
sent electronics design work
offshore, 46%
n = 2185
Salary Survey
Manufacturing, 39%
High-end software
development, 16%
Low-end software
development, 17%
Low-level hardware
design, 15%
High-level hardware
design, 14%
Type of work sent overseas
7
Impact on Technology Creators
2005 Psychographic Survey
D-1. There is an increasing trend in the global electronics industry towards outsourcing design anddevelopment activities to 3rd parties. Which of the following statements best describes yourview of design outsourcing?
I welcome design outsourcing, 9%
I don't necessarily welcome
outsourcing, but I'm not
concerned about it, either, 35%
I'm concerned about
outsourcing, 56%
8
Impact on Technology Creators
D-2. What impact does design outsourcing have on you personally?
39%
10%
4%
Designoutsourcingmakes our
engineeringprojects much
more complicated
I'm in danger oralready have lost
my job because ofoutsourcing
I'm too old toworry about
outsourcing nowat this stage in
my career
2005 Psychographic Survey
9
36%
27%
21%
15%
2%
Sell management on notoutsourcing
Look for a new job now
Don't worry about it
Spend time with senior designers sothat you're a survivor
Make sure others go before you
2005 Psychographic Survey
Outsourcing – What do engineers do about it? It has become clear that management at your company has decided to cut back the design staff drastically. They intend to keep only the few signal -processing experts whose skills differentiate the products and would be almost impossible to duplicate with contractors or design services. Everything else is going to be outsourced. What would you do?
1038. Do you think there’s a shortage of engineers at your company?
No, 44%
Yes, there is a shortage of engineers at my company,
56%
U.S. Engineering Shortage Seen
n = 2185
Salary Survey
11
Technology Creators Undervalued
Qualitative research indicates U.S. engineers feel they are undervalued asprofessionals
“I don’t think in our society we do value (engineering). And I think that’s why, Ibelieve, there are less and less people in the U.S. pursuing (engineering).” JimC., software development manager.
“For me, we just don’t have any class or status. If you’re a doctor of medicine ora lawyer with a shingle and a license to do whatever you do (sic), but someonewith a bachelor’s or master’s in electrical engineering or software, he’s just aflunky. There is no respect for them. And so, when things get bad they keep thedoctors and the lawyers and they get rid of the engineer and farm it out tosomebody else.” Harry B., bioscience engineer
“Engineers don’t really get the direct mention, but eventually, some day,somebody might sit down and do that. We don’t really get as much recognitionas a doctor would, that’s certainly true, because we do the backstage work andnot really the front and it’s mostly the people in the marketing area (sic), so wedon’t get the recognition that we really deserve.” Raje x. etc.
“Right now, it seems like, what the heck do I want to go into this profession for?There’s no money in it; there’s nothing but layoffs and it’s all being outsourced toIndia. That concerns me. I think it concerns me not only from the standpoint ofpersonal growth of the people that are potentially next-generation engineers.Frankly, I think there are some national interests involved there too. I think that ifthis country wants to continue to be a mover and a shaker and a leader in theworld, you won’t get that by having a country that is mostly all gardeners orpeople working at Wendy’s.” Keith F., design engineer.
12
Technology Creators Undervalued
Conversely, qualitative research indicates U.S. engineers feel theircounterparts abroad are highly valued, particularly in China and India
“People over there (China) in engineering probably will be treated morerespectfully than here.” Lei C., design engineer.
“Why are there so many people coming from India that are pursing that(engineering) as a profession compared to here? Because they value that intheir society. At the birth of their country (sic), they dedicated to doingtechnologically based universities and they are seeing the benefits of that.” JimC., software development manager.
“Over there it’s more concentrated in science and math and those fields thanhere. People tend to be more respected when you become a scientist doingresearch developing and space (sic) or mechanical field. It seems to be morerespectfully (sic) over there.” Lei C., design engineer.
13
44. Please grade U.S. elementary and high schools on the following. Use an ‘A’ through ‘F’ grading scale, where ‘A’ meansthey pass with a superior grade and ‘F’ means they fail.
45. Which of the following areas in education require the greatest improvement by U.S. elementary and high schools?(Select up to two areas.)
Technology creators have grave concernsabout elementary and high school education
% % % % %U.S. Elementary & High School A B C D F
Preparing students for careers in engineering 1 19 42 26 12Preparing students for careers in engineering in comparison to other countries 1 9 29 35 25
Quality of math and science education 1 19 39 30 10
Grades
73%
73%
22%
12%
8%
3%
Science
Math
Multidisciplinarytechnology
ForeignLanguages
Language Arts
Humanities
Areas requiringimprovement in U.S.elementary/high schools 2005 (n=2185)
Salary Survey
14
46. Please grade U.S. colleges and universities on the following. Use an ‘A’ through ‘F’ grading scale, where ‘A’ meansthey pass with a superior grade and ‘F’ means they fail.
47. Which of the following areas in education require the greatest improvement by U.S. colleges and universities? (Selectup to two areas.)
Also have grave concerns aboutcollege/university education
% % % % %U.S. College / University A B C D F
Preparing students for careers in engineering 16 55 24 4 1Preparing students for careers in engineering in comparison to other countries 25 39 23 10 2
Quality of math and science education 19 53 22 5 1
Grades
56%
50%
38%
14%
11%
6%
Multidisciplinarytechnology
Science
Math
ForeignLanguages
Language Arts
Humanities
Areas requiringimprovement in UScolleges/universities2005 (n=2185)
Salary Survey
1548. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
88%
86%
79%
77%
67%
36%
23%
U.S. should fund more pure research
Greater incentives should be provided forthe study of science and engineering
Greater funding should be provided toscientific and engineering programs
More favorable loans should be providedto students in scientific and engineering
programs
Greater funding should be provided to allcolleges and universities
U.S. should encourage more foreign-bornstudents to study at U.S. colleges and
universities
All U.S. colleges and universities shouldoffer the same engineering curriculum 2005 (n = 2185)
Technology creators firmly committed toeducation and basic scientific research
% Agree Strongly/Somewhat
Salary Survey
Proportion who feelthat US spends “toolittle…supportingscientific research”
Engineers – 58%US Avg – 39%
Proportion who feelthat US spends “toolittle…supportingscientific research”
Engineers – 58%US Avg – 39%
16
Lack of Faith in Future of Profession
Qualitative research indicates engineers are unlikely to recommend theprofession to today’s children in the U.S. When asked whether they wouldrecommend it, they replied:
“No. They’re living in the wrong country.” Jim C., software development manager. “I probably won’t want them (his children) to be engineers.” Lei C., design
engineer.
Further commentary on the future of the profession: “Like engineering schools’ enrollment now is down, because everybody thinks it’s
all subcontracted out. They couldn’t even get a job as an engineer. So they don’teven bother with it. That’s the impression you see now.” Harry B., bioscienceengineer.
“I was thinking about going into the marketing field and get another degree orsomething. You get higher pay and you’ve got a broader range of positions youcan apply for and you probably don’t have the threat of off-shoring. In marketingyou are much safer in terms of the off-shoring.” Lei C., design engineer.
“As an undergraduate in the U.C. system it’s mostly people from California, but ingraduate school it’s mostly international students. I think it’s because we don’tvalue that as much. I don’t know why that is.” Jim C., software developmentmanager.
17
Psychographic Profile ofTechnology Creators
18Q-18. Are you:
Marital Status
Married83%
Single11%Divorced
5%
Widowed/ Separated
1%
Salary Survey
n = 2165
19
36%
40%
17%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
One child
Two children
Three children
Four or morechildren
Number of children in household
Those that have children under 18 living at home n=446Those that have children under 18 living at home n=446
2001 average number of children = 22001 average number of children = 2
2001 Psychographic Survey
20
57% 33% 10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2003
Very likely Somewhat likely Not likely
Sharing childcare responsibilities with yourspouse
*Among those where applicable 2003 n=479, 2001 n=446*Among those where applicable 2003 n=479, 2001 n=446
2003 Psychographic Survey
21
62% 33% 5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2003
Very likely Somewhat likely Not likely
Sharing household responsibilitieswith your spouse
*Among those where applicable 2003 n=608, 2001 n=446*Among those where applicable 2003 n=608, 2001 n=446
2003 Psychographic Survey
22
83%
17%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
A do-it yourselfperson
One who hiresothers
2003
Engineers are less likely to contract outhome projects
2003 Psychographic Survey
23
45%
36%
35%
24%
22%
22%
22%
18%
15%
12%
6%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Science fiction
History
Action/adventure
Self-help
Humor
Biography
Mystery
Classics
Current events
Drama
Horror
Romance
2003
Preferred type of book
*Aided - Summary*Aided - Summary
2003 Psychographic Survey
24
Prefer to have dinner with…
29%
24%
15%
13%
9%
6%
3%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Stephen Hawking
Condoleeza Rice
Tim Allen
Julia Roberts
Elizabeth Hurley
Michael Jordan
George Clooney
Serena Williams
*Aided - Summary*Aided - Summary
2003 Psychographic Survey
25
F-1. Which best describes the engineering colleagues you work with? (For each pair of terms, choose the term orphrase which best represents your views.)
F-2. Which best describes the non-engineering colleagues you work with? (For each pair of terms, choose the term orphrase which best represents your views.)
Personality Continuum
59%
87%
71%80%
48%
70%
92%
54%
69%
50%
15%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aboveaverage
intelligence
Introverted Modern Wide range ofinterests
Plain Socially active
Engineers' perceptions of other engineers Engineers' perceptions of non-engineers
2005 Psychographic Survey
26
74%
62%
36%
17%
49%
45%
22%
5%
My job requires thatI keep learning new
things
I get to do a numberof different things on
my job
My job requires thatI work very fast
I have too muchwork to do
everything well
Engineers US AVG*
Technology Creators Under More Pressure at Work
2005 Psychographic Survey
% Agree Strongly
*From General Social Survey (ICPSR) sample of college educated males between 21 and 65
27
39%
31%
29%
26%
23%
19%
16%
8%
7%
5%
61%
39%
37%
39%
58%
29%
51%
38%
6%
21%
I have a lot of freedom to decide how todo my work
I am proud to be working for my employer
I have a lot to say about what happens onmy job
On my job, I know exactly what isexpected of me
I have enough information to get the jobdone
I trust the management at the placewhere I work
Job security is good
I have enough time to get the job done
My main satisfaction in life comes fromwork
I am free from the conflicting demandsthat other people make of me
Engineers US AVG*
And Have a More Challenging Work Environment
2005 Psychographic Survey
% Agree Strongly
*From General Social Survey (ICPSR) sample of college educated males between 21 and 65
28
46%
43%
44%
22%
7%
53%
48%
27%
15%
5%
Participate withothers in helping setthe way things are
done on the job
Take part with othersin making decisions
that affect you
Not enough peopleor staff to get all the
work done
Demands of jobinterfere with family
life
Demands of familylife interfere with job
Engineers US AVG*
Technology Creators Have Less Control,Resources and Balance
% Often
*From General Social Survey (ICPSR) sample of college educated males between 21 and 65
2005 Psychographic Survey
29E-2. How important are these reasons why a person’s life turns out well or poorly?
Fate, Faith or Chance?
% Very/Somewhat Important
2005 Psychographic Survey
94%
40%
32%
29%
27%
97%
54%
33%
40%
15%
Some people usetheir will power and
work harder thanothers
Society gives somepeople a head start
and holds othersback
Some people areborn with better
genes than others
Such things aredecided by God
It's just a matter ofchance
Engineers US AVG*
*From General Social Survey (ICPSR) sample of college educated males between 21 and 65
30E-1. During the past 12 months, how often have you done any of the following?
Compassion, Generosity and Honesty
Behavior during past 12 months
2005 Psychographic Survey
85%
82%
82%
47%
45%
43%
40%
38%
33%
28%
15%
88%
77%
72%
40%
43%
34%
29%
48%
30%
34%
10%
Given directions to a stranger
Allowed a stranger to go ahead of youin line
Given money to a charity
Offered your seat on a bus or in apublic place to a stranger who was
Looked after a person's plants, mail, orpets while they were away
Done volunteer work for a charity
Returned money to a cashier aftergetting too much change
Given food or money to a homelessperson
Let someone you didn't know wellborrow an item of some value - like
Carried a stranger's belongings, likegroceries, a suitcase, or a shopping bag
Donated blood
Engineers US AVG*
*From General Social Survey (ICPSR) sample of college educated males between 21 and 65
31
56%
33%
31%
31%
24%
19%
13%
12%
12%
6%
4%
3%
2%
57%
49%
40%
33%
24%
26%
32%
24%
18%
17%
12%
9%
10%
Scientific community
Medicine
US Supreme Court
Military
Banks and financial institutions
Education
Major companies
Organized religion
Executive brand of federal government
Press
Congress
Organized labor
TV
Engineers US AVG*
Technology Creators Lack Faith in PeopleRunning Institutions
% Great deal ofconfidence
*From General Social Survey (ICPSR) sample of college educated males between 21 and 65
2005 Psychographic Survey
32
65%
58%
57%
55%
49%
36%
35%
34%
33%
32%
29%
28%
27%
15%
13%
13%
13%
67%
39%
64%
63%
44%
58%
63%
27%
40%
50%
55%
44%
35%
20%
34%
15%
5%
Improving the nation's education system
Supporting scientific research
Improving and protecting the environment
Improving and protecting the nation's health
Mass transportation
Dealing with drug addiction
Halting the rising crime rate
Space exploration program
Highways and bridges
Solving the problems of the big cities
Assistance for childcare
Social security
Parks and recreation
The military, armaments and defense
Improving the condition of African-Americans
Welfare
Foreign aid
Engineers US AVG*
Social Views / Budget Priorities
*From General Social Survey (ICPSR) sample of college educated males between 21 and 65
2005 Psychographic Survey
Spending toolittle
33
In ConclusionIn Conclusion……
U.S. competitiveness and leadership in technology innovation is in decline,according to seminal psychographic research of the innovators themselves
Nine out of ten technology creators believe America will lose its leadershipposition in technology innovation
Little-considered factors such as U.S. society’s perceived lack of respect foror valuation of the engineering profession may be contributing to thisdecline
Fewer college students choosing S&E degrees Fewer people entering the profession Unsettling tolerance for poor math and science performance in K-12 schools
Technology creators are among the most stereotyped of professionals:geeks, nerds, pocket-protector-wearing.
In actual fact, they are huge contributors to our society in terms ofcontributing to the backbone of our economic well-being and enabling ourstandard of living.
34
Addendum: Methodology andRespondent Characteristics
35
Methodology Engineering Psychographic Study - 2005
Online survey Fieldwork dates August 3rd through August 5th, 2005 Email addresses provided by EE Times A total of 4,083 useable responses received (margin of error +/- 1.7% Objectives
Social, political and religious attitudes Work attitudes Psychographic and lifestyle profile
Engineering In-Depth Interviews – 2005 In person interviews Conducted April 28th, 2005 in Sunnyvale, CA Total of seven (7) interviews Objectives
Motivation Risks and rewards of engineering Collegiality, decision-making
Salary and Opinion Study - 2005 Online survey Fieldwork dates June 21st through June 29th, 2005 Email addresses provided by EE Times A total of 2,185 useable responses received (margin of error +/- 1.3%) Objectives:
Gauge satisfaction with career, job, and employer
36
Methodology Engineering Psychographic Study – 2003
Online survey Fieldwork dates March 18th to March 24th, 2003 Email addresses provided by EE Times Total of 680 usable responses received (margin of error +/- 3/6%) Objectives
Work and family Leisure activities Personal preferences
All projects managed by Beacon Technology Partners LLCBeacon Technology Partners (BTP) of Maynard, MA, is a full-service primary market research firmdedicated to the technology industry. Founded in 1996, its purpose is to provide managers and marketersin high tech firms more penetrating insights into their customers and prospects.Beacon provides its clients a full-range of primary market research tools, including:
Survey research (including telephone, Web-based, mail and hybrid methodologies)Statistical modeling (including correspondence analysis or perceptual mapping, regressio
modeling, conjoint analysis, market segmentation, and other statistical tools and methods)Qualitative research (focus groups – both in-person and on-line, in-depth interviews, small group
studies, and so on)International research capabilities
Its many clients include many of the largest technology and tech publishing firms in the world. For acomplete list of these clients, see BTP’s Web site (www.beacontech.com)
37A-1. What is your gender?
Respondent CharacteristicsGender
Male94%
Female6%
n = 4072
Psychographic Survey
38A-2. What is your age?
Respondent CharacteristicsAge
60 years or older6%
50 to 59 years23%
40 to 49 years37%
30 to 39 years24%
Younger than 30 years
10%
n = 4078Mean = 43.7 years
Psychographic Survey
39
Respondent CharacteristicsGender By Age Cohort
A-1 What is your gender?
Psychographic Survey
89% 95% 98%
2%11% 5%
Under 35 35 - 49 50 +
Male Female
Noticeincrease inproportion offemaleengineersamongyoungest agecohort
40
A-3. What is the zip code at your business address?
Respondent CharacteristicsGeographical Region
n = 3715
Pacific = 29%
Mountain = 10%
West SouthCentral =10%
East SouthCentral = 2%
South Atlantic = 12%
West NorthCentral = 6% East North
Central =13%
MiddleAtlantic =10%
New England = 8%
Psychographic Survey
4110. What is your country of origin?
Respondent CharacteristicsCountry of Origin
North America84%
India3%
PRC3%
Other Asia3%
UK2%
ROW3%
Other Europe2%
Salary Survey
42A-4. Which of the following describes your higher-education background? (Multiple response)
Respondent CharacteristicsEducation
n = 3986
8%
25%
7%
5%
6%
12%
45%
6%
7%
5%
1%
PhD
MSEE
MA/MS
MSCS
MBA
Engineering Post Grad (no degree)
BSEE
BSCS
Associates
College (no degree)
No college
Psychographic Survey
43B-3. How many people are employed by your company at all its sites and locations?
Respondent CharacteristicsCompany Size
n = 4080
Median = 2,950 employees
25,000 or more26%
10,000 to 24,999
8%5,000 to 9,999
8%
1,000 to 4,99917%
500 to 9996%
100 to 49913%
Fewer than 10022%
Psychographic Survey
44B-1. Which of the following best describes your job function?
Respondent CharacteristicsJob Function
n = 4082
Corporate mgmt4%
Engineering mgmt25%
Engineering staff71%
Engineering staff includes:
-Design & development engineer-Component engineer-Engineering services-Engineering assistant/technician
Engineering management includes:
-Engineer manager-Project leader
Psychographic Survey
45
References
• 1 NSF Ind. 2004, Fig. 2-34 www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/c2/fig02-34.htm
• 2 NSF Ind. 2004, Appdx. Table 2-36 www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/append/c2/at02-36.xls
• 3 American Association for the Advancement of Science. www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guidisc.htmCompiled by the APS Office of Public Affairs
• 4 S&E Indicators, 2004
• 5 “OECD Countries Spend More on Research and Development, Face New Challenges.”OECD, 2004www.oecd.org/document/2/0,2340,en_2649_201185_34100162_1_1_1_1,00.html and Jia,Hepeng. “Funding Boost for Basic Science in China.” SciDevNet, 2005,www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1941&language=1
• 6 NSF Ind. 2004, Appdx. Table 5-48 www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/append/c5/at05-48.xls
• 7 Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a BrighterEconomic Future www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html