There are multiple copies and versions of this paper, I haven't figured out the final copy, so saved them all. Please go to README file for some of the other versions.
Copies of his 1988 manuscript subtitled “A Critique of the Defense Science Board Report” were available to the audience after Warfield’s lecture on 22 June 1988 at a dinner meeting of the 2 IEEE societies, held in Rosslyn, (Arlington) Virginia. Subsequent requests for the manuscript followed, also some persons were interested in borrowing Warfield’s copy of the complete Defense Science Board Task Report. Warfield at one time had a copy of the Task Report in his office, but was unable to locate it on his bookshelves a few years later, believed he must have given it on loan to some visitor who failed to return it.
Here is a quote from Warfield's abstract for this article: “expenditures, together with the diversion of talent into areas that are not very productive, are helping to make us a second-rate economic power, and threatening thereby our national security... contents of the Science Board Task Report are excerpted, and the 38 recommendations are examined as a way to deal first with the Report in its own constrained context. Then the Report is critiqued in respect to that context, and some priorities are proposed for the Board’s recommendations, using categories which I identify. A set of what appear to be implicit assumptions behind the Report is offered…it is suggested that these form a basis for assigning the term “technomyopia” to refer both to the Report and to the larger surrounding situation with regard to Defense Systems Acquisition. Matters relating to the software dilemma and its management are discussed, with reference to prior nationally-significant institutional foulups in the steel and auto industries, which are historical versions of myopic vision that has cost us dearly. Problems related to current practices of the Department of Defense are discussed, and a few new recommendations are offered. These are believed to be more fundamental than the recommendations in the subject Report.” (end of author abstract)
Warfield made minor revisions and updates on this manuscript in the next four years, and in 1992 completed a second more formal paper with the same title, but it was never published.
[OK]
