Smart manufacturing was born with a powerful mission. It was supposed to be the next great public good — an open technological commons that would make production more efficient, more resilient, and more equitable. The dream was bold: an interoperable ecosystem where data flowed freely, hardware was modular and plentiful, and anyone — from the smallest startup to the largest factory — could innovate without barriers.
At its core, the promise was simple. Waste not, want not. By tracking every input and output with precision, society could reduce waste, improve safety, and maximize yield. Supply chains could become resilient instead of brittle. Workers could gain better jobs with better pay. Communities could share in the wealth created by smarter, leaner, more sustainable production.
Billions of public dollars have been spent chasing this vision. Yet more than a decade later, the results are paltry at best — and in many ways, worse than nothing. Instead of a flourishing public commons, we are left with an ecosystem dominated by a handful of industry associations and OEMs who have turned a public mission into a private feeding trough.
Captured Institutions
Organizations like CESMII, ISA, A3 and countless others were supposed to be the vanguard of this movement. They presented themselves as neutral, mission-driven bodies, stewarding taxpayer funds into projects that would democratize technology. But in reality, their boards are packed with executives from the very corporations that profit most from closed systems. The fox was put in charge of the henhouse.
These groups have collectively managed billions in federal and state public funds. Their processes for distributing funds are opaque, proprietary, and shielded from scrutiny. Conflicts of interest are rampant — board members sit at the very companies that receive the funding. And most damning of all, there are no requirements that the results of publicly funded projects be released to the public.
Inquiries made into each state's programs dedicated to this cause, like New York State's NYSTAR (Empire State Development's Division of Science, Technology, and Innovation) and all of its counterparts, have clarified they do not have any interest or policies mandating any discoveries made with the public funds to be public. To go even further, there are no internal policies or risk management assessment to merely CONSIDER open technologies as part of their technology stack portfolio when advising customers who purchase their services, let alone actually using them.
A Fraudulent Machine
This is not simply mismanagement. It is systemic fraud: public money disappearing into consulting contracts, vanity projects, or “initiatives” that never see daylight. Taxpayers subsidize the risk, while private corporations pocket the rewards.
Try following the money. Ask for records. You’ll find roadblocks at every turn. These organizations insist on their neutrality, but will not disclose the criteria by which they select projects. They will not say how much weight they give to small businesses or startups. They will not explain why public money flows so easily to entrenched incumbents, while grassroots innovators are left starving.
The parallels to defense contracting and infrastructure boondoggles are striking. The money is allocated, the press releases are glowing, the ribbon-cuttings are staged — and then the results quietly vanish into private hands. I found out first hand when my email address was blocked by the OPC Foundation, ISA, CESMII. My repeated inquiry then resulted in board members blocking me on social media and turning off comments sections when I made inquiries or challenged their claims.
Silencing Critics
Those who attempt to shine light on this corruption quickly learn how deep the rot goes. Journalists and watchdogs like myself who send critical inquiries are stonewalled. Public records requests are delayed, denied, or buried under bureaucratic games.
Industry press, which should serve as an independent watchdog, is largely captured as well. Trade publications rely on advertising dollars from OEMs and industry associations, and so they dutifully echo the talking points they are fed. Instead of journalism, we get propaganda. Instead of scrutiny, we get hype.
The Propaganda Narrative
And what a narrative it is. The story these associations sell to industry is simple: you need us. You need the good old boys club. You need legacy OEMs, proprietary systems, and closed ecosystems, because anything else is unsafe, unreliable, or unprofessional.
It is a myth propped up by nostalgia — “back to the way things were” — as though the past was more capable or resilient than today. In reality, today’s needs are more complex than ever. Real-time data analytics, interoperable devices, and open systems are the only way to track resource use, optimize production, and build resilience. Yet the associations use fear and doubt to keep customers locked into their closed systems.
**Grassroots Innovation
Contrast this with the grassroots. Arduino, FlowFuse, United Manufacturing Hub — just some examples of projects operate on shoestring budgets, fueled by community contributions and volunteer labor. They embrace openness, publish their work, and invite collaboration. And unlike the billion-dollar associations, they actually produce results.
They are proving that smart manufacturing does not require authoritarian monopolies. It requires openness, collaboration, and accountability. It requires systems designed to be shared, not hoarded.
Taking Back The Mission
The betrayal of smart manufacturing is not just a disappointment. It is a crime — a fraudulent use of public funds that demands accountability. Legal, financial, and cultural reforms are urgently needed. Public money must come with public obligations: transparency in allocation, publication of results, and real safeguards against conflicts of interest.
We do not need the good old boys club. We do not need captured associations that exist to serve themselves. We need a true technological commons — one where the benefits of smart manufacturing are available to all, not siphoned off by a few.
The mission is still worth fighting for. The only question is whether we allow it to remain hijacked, or whether we take it back.
Education For Sale
One of the core promises of these associations was education. With billions in taxpayer funding, they were supposed to create a freely available training infrastructure — curricula, certifications, and resources to upskill workers, empower small businesses, and prepare the next generation of manufacturers.
Instead, they’ve turned education into another profit center. Despite being bankrolled by public money, these organizations routinely charge obscene fees — sometimes tens of thousands of dollars — for access to training programs. The very people whose tax dollars funded these initiatives are asked to pay again, and at premium rates.
This is not just bad optics; it is a betrayal of the public mission. Education is the easiest area to make open and accessible. A video series, a digital textbook, an online lab environment — all of these could be made freely available at minimal cost once developed. But instead of building a true public learning commons, the institutes have built gated platforms designed to extract revenue.
The irony is painful. While small businesses and community colleges struggle to cobble together resources to train workers affordably, the organizations sitting on taxpayer billions have chosen to hoard knowledge behind paywalls. What was supposed to be a democratizing force has instead become another barrier to entry.
Conclusion: Reclaiming the Public Mission
Smart manufacturing began as a vision of openness, efficiency, and shared prosperity. Instead, it has been hijacked by institutions that siphon off public funds, lock away discoveries, and even sell back “educational opportunities” at extortionate prices to the very taxpayers who already paid for them. The mission that should have democratized technology has been twisted into yet another mechanism of exclusion and control — a “good old boys club” that tells industry it cannot survive without them.
But the truth is the opposite. The most meaningful progress is already being made outside these captured institutions — by grassroots communities, small innovators, and open-source projects. They are proving that resilience, efficiency, and interoperability do not require secrecy, paywalls, or monopolistic control.
The fraud must be called what it is: a systemic looting of public resources. Accountability must be demanded. Transparency, open publication of results, real conflict-of-interest rules, and free public education must be the baseline conditions of any future public investment. Otherwise, we will keep paying for promises that never materialize, while the benefits remain privatized.
The choice is stark but simple. Either we accept a future where smart manufacturing is another closed, extractive system controlled by a few — or we reclaim the mission and build the open technological commons we were promised. One future deepens stagnation. The other fuels innovation, sustainability, and shared prosperity. The stakes are too high to let the hijackers win.
Follow me
› Linktree: https://linktr.ee/governmentaudit
Top comments (0)