Older project management styles, often called "waterfall", tended to spend months or years of careful planning and evaluating what users need and then handing developers a huge document to work from. When the developers finally deliver, it may not work. If it does, it may reflect older business needs which are no longer relevant.
For some projects (space shuttle navigation software, for instance), the older style of software management can work because you have very clear, rigid, unchanging requirements. For developing a new piece of Web software, finding out that a competitor has just trumped your killer feature means that you have to have the flexibility to respond now. A 300 page design document which you must not deviate from simply doesn't work in the fast changing world of Web software development.
Agile and waterfall project management techniques are loosely analogous to capitalism and Soviet-style "command economies". Having a five year plan for grain production doesn't make much sense when you can't control the weather, crop diseases, poor access to cultivating materials, international market conditions, etc. You have to be able to respond rapidly to changes. This is the major reason why capitalism is so successful vis-a-vis command economies.
During the Cold War, the US spent a lot of money on its military to counter the Soviet threat. The Soviets returned the favor. Since the US was so strong economically, it's clear in retrospect that the Soviets were at a disadvantage economically. Ultimately, a variety of factors, including spending too much on their military, led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In thinking about this, I started wondering: can we learn from this or is it a historical curiosity? I think the US can and should learn from this because there is a very real possibility that we could, in effect, become the next Soviet Union.
There's been some talk recently about China opening military bases in Pakistan. What is often being ignored in these articles is that this is not a new development. In May 2001, China started talks with Pakistan about creating a deep sea port in Gwadar, a Pakistani province bordering Afghanistan and Iran. In short, China wants in on the game.
Superficially, while we might view this as a threat, we might also naïvely think that we can simply outspend the Chinese like we did the Soviets and disrupt the Chinese economy. China, I expect, would welcome this.
There are several problems with this approach. First, the Chinese are not nearly as belligerent as the USSR. Their relations with friendly states are generally better than the Soviets enjoyed. Second, the Chinese have nothing near the internal dissent that the Soviets had, thus allowing them to be more outward facing with less of a feeling of insecurity.
The third problem is the serious one. The former leader of the Chinese Communist party, Deng Xiaoping, stated:
There is no fundamental contradiction between socialism and a market economy. The problem is how to develop the productive forces more effectively. We used to have a planned economy, but our experience over the years has proved that having a totally planned economy hampers the development of the productive forces to a certain extent. If we combine a planned economy with a market economy, we shall be in a better position to liberate the productive forces and speed up economic growth.
China is clearly following this path today. Though there are some who sharply dissent on this view, even a quick search on Google reveals plenty of evidence that China is, in fact, embracing capitalism while still retaining many elements of socialism and maintaining a firm single party state and stifling dissent. They're like the Soviet Union, but with McDonalds. In short, while there are many areas the US strongly disagrees with China on, the reality is that China is developing a powerful, robust economy which lacks the fragility of the Soviet "command economy" model.
Americans who think we can outspend China are sadly mistaken. No matter who does the counting, China is rapidly becoming a world economic powerhouse and they're doing it with their own unique version of capitalism. The US, meanwhile, sees the US credit rating at risk due to financial industry collapse and runaway spending on military and health costs.
We've already seen the US financial industry collapse. Even the US Republicans admit that something must be done about runaway health care costs (their proposed solutions are simply more market-based than Democratic ones) and the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are acknowledged by all. The US simply doesn't have a lot of room to maneuver here. China, however, does.
China is rich and getting richer. Many countries see China's (relative) lack of military adventurism in a very positive light. China is defying conventional wisdom by investing heavily in Africa. The world is souring on US behavior. We've clearly lost the support of much of the Middle East.
So from a Chinese perspective, what would be a rational response? They don't have the inherent economic weakness of the Soviet Union. If they want to expand their military might and dare the US to keep up with them, it might very well be a winning strategy for them. Either the US struggles to keep up and is forced to divert funds to military expenditures which have questionable economic benefit (an argument bolstered by the benefits of Soviet military spending) or they retract their military presence and let the Chinese start contesting US world dominance.
The shoe's on the other foot. The US, presently, cannot afford to maintain its military position and China has a perfect opportunity to assert theirs. The US is in serious trouble right now and many countries want them to pull out of this mess as their futures are intertwined. If China wants to exploit this position, now is the time to do it. If they continue on this route, it's going to be to exploit the US's poor economic position. The US might revel in their economic defeat of the USSR, but the Chinese have done one better: they've learned from it.