Connecting Data to Wealth Creation
Connecting Data to Wealth Creation
IEEE just announced its Board of Directors for 2025, and the profiles are now public. It's the usual mix of academics, industry veterans, and standards wonks. But let's cut through the PR fluff and look at what the data tells us about who's really steering this ship, and more importantly, where they're steering it to.
First, the raw numbers: Antonio Luque, Ravinder Dahiya, and Joseph Wei. Three individuals, each with impressive credentials, but representing very different segments of the IEEE ecosystem. Luque, the professor pushing biomedical applications and cybersecurity; Dahiya, the flexible electronics guru; and Wei, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
The common thread? All three are deeply involved in emerging technologies, but their approaches diverge sharply. Luque is focused on the application of existing tech. Dahiya is all about creating new materials and sensors. Wei is concentrated on commercialization. It’s a microcosm of the broader IEEE itself – a sprawling organization trying to balance cutting-edge research with real-world impact.
But here's where the data gets interesting. Look at their publication records. Dahiya boasts over 550 research publications. Luque has a more modest (though still respectable) 20 journal articles and 40 conference papers. Wei? His bio focuses on mentorship and startup success, not academic output. (To be clear, that’s not a knock against Wei, but a reflection of his different role.)
The discrepancy in publication volume raises a crucial question: Is IEEE prioritizing academic pedigree over practical experience? It's a perennial debate in engineering circles. Do you want leaders who are pushing the boundaries of theoretical knowledge, or those who are building and scaling actual products? Maybe it’s both, but is the balance right?
The article about DARPA's new 3D heterogeneous integration (3DHI) fab in Texas provides a contrasting angle. It highlights the need for bridging the "lab-to-fab valley of death" – the gap between academic research and commercial production. The fab is designed to prototype and manufacture ideas that are "too weird for anywhere else."
That's a critical point. IEEE, for all its influence, can sometimes feel like an echo chamber of established ideas. The risk is that it becomes a self-perpetuating system, rewarding incremental advancements within existing frameworks, rather than fostering truly disruptive innovation.
Now, consider this: Dahiya's work on flexible electronics aligns perfectly with the 3DHI concept. His research could directly benefit from a facility like the Texas fab. But what about Luque's cybersecurity focus? Or Wei's startup mentorship? Do these areas have a clear pathway to leverage advanced packaging techniques?
The answer, probably, is yes. But the degree to which they benefit is the key question. The 3DHI fab is receiving $840 million from DARPA and $552 million from Texas. That's a massive injection of capital into a specific area of microelectronics. It suggests a strategic bet on heterogeneous integration as a key driver of future technological progress.
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling: If 3D heterogeneous integration is such a big deal, why isn't it more prominently featured in the IEEE board members' profiles? Dahiya's work is relevant, sure, but it's not the defining characteristic of his career. Shouldn't the board be more explicitly focused on this area, given its strategic importance?
Maybe the IEEE is playing a longer game, spreading its bets across multiple technologies. Or maybe it's simply not as agile as DARPA when it comes to identifying and prioritizing emerging trends. Either way, the data suggests a potential disconnect between the IEEE's leadership and the direction of technological innovation.
The IEEE is undeniably important. But is it shaping the future, or just reacting to it? The composition of the 2025 Board of Directors, viewed through the lens of current technological trends and investment priorities, raises some uncomfortable questions. The individual achievements of Luque, Dahiya, and Wei are not in doubt. But the collective impact of their leadership remains to be seen.
The smart glasses article is also relevant here. It highlights the tension between two competing visions: AI-powered assistants versus monitor replacements. The IEEE, like the smart glasses industry, is at a crossroads. It needs to decide what it wants to be: a provider of niche technical knowledge, or a driving force behind the next wave of technological disruption. You can read more about the different visions in What Do Consumers Really Want in Smart Glasses?.
It's important to emphasize that this is an early-stage analysis. More data is needed to draw definitive conclusions. What are the specific priorities of each board member? What initiatives will they champion? How will they allocate resources? These are questions that only time will answer. But based on the available information, a healthy dose of skepticism seems warranted.
The data hints at a potential gap between the IEEE's stated mission and its actual priorities. The new board has impressive credentials, but does their collective expertise align with the most pressing challenges and opportunities facing the tech industry? Only time will tell.