It is per­fect­ly clear that to­day the me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing in­dus­try rep­re­sents the ba­sis for the op­er­a­tion and de­vel­op­ment of all oth­er in­dus­tries.

It is enough to imag­ine our mod­ern glob­al world with no ma­chin­ery – no house­hold ap­pli­ances such as cook­ers, fridges, wash­ing ma­chines, air con­di­tion­ers, etc.; no trans­port ve­hi­cles such as cars, trains, air­planes, and so on; no agri­cul­tur­al ma­chin­ery; no tex­tile in­dus­try or food in­dus­try ma­chin­ery; no med­ical ma­chin­ery; no smart­phones or com­put­ers; no ma­chines what­so­ev­er.

If some un­known force sud­den­ly wiped out all ma­chines in our con­tem­po­rary world, this would lead to a dev­as­tat­ing calami­ty com­pa­ra­ble to a nu­clear war.

The above facts de­ter­mine the top and lead­ing po­si­tion of the me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing in­dus­try among all oth­er in­dus­tries.

Тhe me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing in­dus­try com­pris­es nu­mer­ous me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­pris­es which pro­vide ma­chines and spare parts to all in­dus­tries as well as house­hold ma­chin­ery. The en­tire glob­al col­lec­tion of me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­pris­es can be com­pared to the glob­al pop­u­la­tion. Each in­di­vid­ual per­son is unique, but the blue­print of the hu­man body is the same and can be un­der­stood through the study of anato­my and phys­i­ol­o­gy. The same holds true for all me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­pris­es – they are all unique, how­ev­er the make­up of each one can be grasped through the knowl­edge of a mod­el which de­scribes its prin­ci­pal set­up and func­tion­ing as a sys­temic ob­ject and sub­ject.

In this sense, just as the un­der­stand­ing of the anatom­i­cal and phys­i­o­log­i­cal de­sign of the hu­man body
is a fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of med­i­cine, so too the un­der­stand­ing of a uni­ver­sal mod­el of a me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise pro­vides the fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of econ­o­my.

A uni­ver­sal eco­nom­ic mod­el for the pur­pos­es of ma­chine man­u­fac­tur­ers does ex­ist. It is wide­ly known as ‘dou­ble-en­try book­keep­ing’ and was con­ceived more than 500 (five hun­dred) years ago by an Ital­ian monk by the name of Lu­ca Pa­ci­oli. This mod­el has been in­valu­able to date, yet as ear­ly as the last decades of the 19^th cen­tu­ry it was found to suf­fer from great short­com­ings with re­spect to man­ag­ing the ef­fec­tive­ness of the in­dus­tri­al econ­o­my (specif­i­cal­ly, the ef­fec­tive­ness of in­dus­tri­al labour) in the con­text of the In­dus­tri­al Rev­o­lu­tion. Prac­ti­cal ne­ces­si­ty gave rise to three waves in en­gi­neer­ing aim­ing to rem­e­dy some of these short­com­ings.

The first en­gi­neer­ing wave of de­vel­op­ment dates back to the 1890s up to the 1920s. It in­volves the gen­er­a­tion, de­vel­op­ment, and dis­sem­i­na­tion of a knowl­edge of op­er­a­tional en­ter­prise process mod­el­ling. This wave is as­so­ci­at­ed with the names of the US en­gi­neers Hen­ry Robin­son Towne and Fred­er­ick Winslow Tay­lor.

The sec­ond en­gi­neer­ing wave of de­vel­op­ment of the fun­da­men­tal knowl­edge of econ­o­my cov­ers the 1930s, 40s and 50s. It in­volves the gen­er­a­tion, de­vel­op­ment, and dis­sem­i­na­tion of a knowl­edge of pro­duc­tion man­age­ment fo­cused on qual­i­ty. It is as­so­ci­at­ed with the names of the US en­gi­neers Wal­ter An­drew She­whart, William Ed­wards Dem­ing and Joseph Moses Ju­ran.

The third en­gi­neer­ing wave cov­ers the 1970s, 80s and 90s. It in­volves the gen­er­a­tion, de­vel­op­ment, and dis­sem­i­na­tion of a knowl­edge of com­put­er-in­te­grat­ed mod­el­ling of the sales, man­u­fac­tur­ing, and man­u­fac­tur­ing sup­ply process­es.

The key con­cepts for this knowl­edge are MRP I (Ma­te­r­i­al Re­quire­ments Plan­ning) and MRP II (Man­u­fac­tur­ing Re­source Plan­ning). MRP I refers to a knowl­edge of com­put­er-in­te­grat­ed mod­el­ling of the process­es of sales, man­u­fac­tur­ing, and sup­plies to man­u­fac­tur­ing, with­out tak­ing in­to ac­count the pro­duc­tion ca­pac­i­ty of the en­ter­prise. MRP II refers to the same type of knowl­edge, how­ev­er con­sid­er­ing pro­duc­tion ca­pac­i­ty.

The third en­gi­neer­ing wave of de­vel­op­ment of the fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of econ­o­my stems from the work of two IBM en­gi­neers – Joseph Or­licky and Oliv­er Wight.

In the ear­ly 1990s, Gart­ner em­ploy­ees in­tro­duced the con­cept of ERP (En­ter­prise Re­source Plan­ning) as a vi­sion of the forth­com­ing de­vel­op­ment of the MRP sys­tems. They claimed that the ERP sys­tems were a new gen­er­a­tion of MRP sys­tems in­te­grat­ing a set of spe­cialised en­ter­prise soft­ware ap­pli­ca­tions for dig­i­tal mod­el­ling of the man­age­ment of fi­nance, hu­man re­sources, dis­tri­b­u­tion, man­u­fac­tur­ing, sup­ply chain, ser­vices, etc. ERP tools (both MRP sys­tems and busi­ness ap­pli­ca­tions) should share a com­mon dig­i­tal process and data­base.

The ap­proach of in­te­grat­ing many and di­verse busi­ness ap­pli­ca­tions to the clas­sic MRP sys­tem has en­sured the ex­cep­tion­al mar­ket suc­cess of the cur­rent ERP soft­ware (worth over 500 bil­lion US dol­lars per year). How­ev­er, as re­gards the func­tion­al con­structs of all mod­ern ERP sys­tems, this ap­proach sig­nif­i­cant­ly moves away from the cog­ni­tive uni­ver­sal­ism un­der­pin­ning the func­tion­al con­structs of any pure ap­pli­ca­tion-free MRP sys­tem. This hin­ders the de­vel­op­ment of this type of sys­tems as an in­dis­pens­able means of ad­dress­ing the ma­jor flaws of the fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of econ­o­my.

A clos­er look at the cur­rent fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of econ­o­my will show that it com­pris­es nu­mer­ous and con­cep­tu­al­ly dif­fer­ent el­e­ments that are un­re­lat­ed in terms of con­tent. For in­stance:

(1) a knowl­edge of ac­count­ing mod­el­ling, (2) a knowl­edge of pro­duc­tiv­i­ty and qual­i­ty man­age­ment, (3) a knowl­edge of plan­ning and con­trol, (4) a knowl­edge of hu­man re­sources (HR) man­age­ment, (5) a knowl­edge of change man­age­ment, (6) a knowl­edge of project man­age­ment, (7) a knowl­edge of cri­sis man­age­ment, (8) a knowl­edge of busi­ness mod­el­ling, among many oth­er.

It is clear that these el­e­ments do not form a ro­bust and sol­id foun­da­tion for the Eco­nom­ic sci­ence in the form of a sys­temic uni­ver­sal mod­el of a me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise, un­like the foun­da­tion (in the form of a sys­temic anatom­i­cal and phys­i­o­log­i­cal de­sign of the hu­man body) laid in med­i­cine — from the very start of the Re­nais­sance.

This means that, in our dig­i­tal in­for­ma­tion tech­nol­o­gy era, the fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of econ­o­my has on­ly evolved to the lev­el of me­dieval scholas­ti­cism in com­par­i­son to the fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of med­i­cine.

The above is the re­sult of two ma­jor flaws in­trin­sic to the fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of econ­o­my the way it is wide­ly taught to­day:

First ma­jor flaw:

The fun­da­men­tal knowl­edge of econ­o­my does not pro­vide a com­pre­hen­sive and clear view of the prin­ci­pal set­up and func­tion­ing of the en­ter­prise as a sys­temic ob­ject. Just as me­dieval med­i­cine could not pro­vide a sys­temic ex­pla­na­tion of the hu­man anato­my and phys­i­ol­o­gy, so is the mod­ern Eco­nom­ic sci­ence in­ca­pable of pro­vid­ing a sys­temic ex­pla­na­tion of the “anato­my” and “phys­i­ol­o­gy” of the me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise..

Sec­ond ma­jor flaw:

The fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge of econ­o­my does not pro­vide an un­der­stand­ing of the prin­ci­pal set­up and func­tion­ing of the me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise as a sys­temic sub­ject.

In oth­er words, the Eco­nom­ic sci­ence does not pro­vide any sys­temic knowl­edge of the na­ture and mean­ing of col­lec­tive and there­fore of in­di­vid­ual pro­fes­sion­al re­spon­si­bil­i­ty for sus­tain­ing the op­er­a­tion of a me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise.

These flaws keep the fun­da­men­tal sci­en­tif­ic knowl­edge in a state of ut­ter in­for­ma­tive help­less­ness in the con­text of one sig­nif­i­cant eco­nom­ic and po­lit­i­cal in­for­ma­tion­al de­fi­cien­cy: the de­fi­cien­cy of qual­i­ty sci­en­tif­ic un­der­stand­ing of the strate­gic de­vel­op­ment man­age­ment of the pub­lic re­search and ed­u­ca­tion­al sys­tems.

This de­fi­cien­cy un­der­lies the om­nipresent in­ca­pac­i­ty of the Eu­ro­pean so­cial sci­en­tif­ic and po­lit­i­cal elites to de­vel­op and im­ple­ment tru­ly ef­fec­tive strate­gies for en­sur­ing na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty by de­vis­ing and im­ple­ment­ing strate­gies that would en­cour­age the ful­fil­ment of the phys­i­cal­ly avail­able po­ten­tial of the work­force with­in their coun­tries while pro­mot­ing spir­i­tu­al­i­ty of work. These should be con­cise and com­pre­hen­si­ble strate­gies, in­still­ing rea­son­able faith and hope for the fair and de­cent eco­nom­ic fu­ture of these na­tions in the fu­ture glob­al world.

The om­nipresent in­ca­pac­i­ty of the Eu­ro­pean so­cio-sci­en­tif­ic and po­lit­i­cal elites is man­i­fest­ed in the com­par­i­son of the de­vel­op­ment of the work­force po­ten­tial with­in the me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing tech­nolo­gies sec­tor of the USA and the EU to­geth­er, com­pared to that of Chi­na.

The tech­no­log­i­cal labour force par­i­ty be­tween the West and Chi­na as seen in late 2015 might have been slight­ly ex­ag­ger­at­ed; how­ev­er, the ex­ag­ger­a­tion is in favour of the West.  In all fair­ness, with its work­force po­ten­tial in me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing tech­nolo­gies, Chi­na is al­ready far ahead.

If this process – as un­pleas­ant as it is for the whole Eu­ro­pean world, and par­tic­u­lar­ly for West­ern Eu­rope – does not hap­pen to lead to a world war in the com­ing years, by the end of 2030 the ear­ly 21^st cen­tu­ry po­si­tions will have swapped.

In line with the the­o­ry of “knowl­edge econ­o­my” and its in­her­ent idea of dein­dus­tri­al­i­sa­tion, for more than two decades now the Eu­ro­pean world has un­wise­ly been cut­ting down the re­pro­duc­tion, in terms of both quan­ti­ty and nat­ur­al qual­i­ty, of its me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing hu­man cap­i­tal. At the same time, it has been pro­duc­ing on a mass scale a range of so­cial sci­en­tif­ic pro­fes­sion­als, es­pe­cial­ly pro­fes­sion­al econ­o­mists.

This is all the more un­wise, be­cause it is the finest Eu­ro­pean youths who be­come pro­fes­sion­al econ­o­mists. Af­ter four, five or more years of study at lead­ing uni­ver­si­ties, these peo­ple can write bril­liant the­o­ret­i­cal es­says on econ­o­my but none of them can ac­tu­al­ly give a de­cent ex­pla­na­tion of the ob­jec­tive mean­ing of the term “econ­o­my”. They are even less ca­pa­ble of ex­plain­ing a per­fect­ly clear con­struct – the uni­ver­sal set­up of a me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise as an ob­ject and a sub­ject.

It turns out that the Eu­ro­pean ed­u­ca­tion­al sys­tem has been turned in­to a ma­chine for in­tel­lec­tu­al and pro­fes­sion­al dis­tor­tion of its most valu­able hu­man re­sources. It sounds ab­surd, but this is a fact. A fact which presents a grave is­sue for the fu­ture of the Eu­ro­pean world.

Today’s dig­i­tal in­for­ma­tion tech­nol­o­gy mar­ket of­fers a wide range of dif­fer­ent ERP sys­tems. Along­side these, there is a sim­i­lar in na­ture wide range of tech­nol­o­gy parks, en­gaged in de­sign­ing and sub­se­quent­ly de­vel­op­ing these ERP sys­tems.

The process of de­sign­ing and de­vel­op­ing ERP sys­tems in­volves the em­ploy­ees ac­quir­ing spe­cif­ic as well as gen­er­al knowl­edge of the sys­temic set­up and func­tion­ing of var­i­ous types of en­ter­pris­es, in­clud­ing me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­pris­es.

Through this process every em­ploy­ee pos­sess­ing the in­tel­lec­tu­al ca­pac­i­ty to in­de­pen­dent­ly gen­er­ate such knowl­edge would in­evitably be able to de­scribe the na­ture of a me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise us­ing the fol­low­ing three com­mon pro­jec­tions:

First com­mon pro­jec­tion:

Every me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise is a sub­ject which in turn be­longs to a set of sub­jects all of which – in their ca­pac­i­ty as cus­tomers and/​or sup­pli­ers of me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing prod­ucts and/​or ser­vices – col­lec­tive­ly make up a log­i­cal frag­ment of the glob­al me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing in­dus­try.

Sec­ond com­mon pro­jec­tion:

Every me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise is a sys­temic ob­ject which com­pris­es a set of ob­jects de­fined as cap­i­tal as­sets, some of which owned, oth­ers at­tract­ed.

Third com­mon pro­jec­tion:

Every me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise ex­ists in its ca­pac­i­ty as a sys­tem­i­cal­ly and con­tin­u­ous­ly re­alised ob­ject by re­tain­ing and re-al­lo­cat­ing (al­ter­ing) its cap­i­tal as­sets through the coör­di­nat­ed op­er­a­tion of five tech­no­log­i­cal sys­tems:

(1) (1) Sales sys­tem; (2) Man­u­fac­tur­ing sys­tem; (3) Sup­plies sys­tem; (4) Fi­nanc­ing sys­tem; (5) Sys­tem for im­ple­men­ta­tion of the en­ter­prise tech­no­log­i­cal en­vi­ron­ment.

If these three per­son­al con­clu­sions are analysed thor­ough­ly on a tech­nol­o­gy park lev­el, and are then em­ployed as a study foun­da­tion in or­der to de­sign the func­tion­al con­structs of a new type of ERP sys­tems – „di-in­no­v­a­tive ERP“ sys­tems²„Di-in­no­v­a­tive” ERP sys­tem – a new con­cept coined by the au­thors of this Man­i­festo. Di-in­no­v­a­tive refers to the qual­i­ty of be­ing in­no­v­a­tive on two lev­els. This is an ERP sys­tem which on the first lev­el , up­dates the user’s knowl­edge of the prin­ci­pal set­up and func­tion­ing of the en­ter­prise, and on the sec­ond lev­el, serves the pur­pos­es of hu­man cap­i­tal de­vel­op­ment man­age­ment and se­lec­tion of a tech­no­log­i­cal élite – peo­ple who en­sure the de­vel­op­ment of the enterprise's in­no­v­a­tive po­ten­tial., this would mark a re­turn, on a new and high­er lev­el, of this cat­e­go­ry of dig­i­tal sys­tems to the cog­ni­tive uni­ver­sal­ism in­her­ent to their his­tor­i­cal ori­gin. This type of sys­tems should have no more or less than sev­en func­tion­al sub­sys­tems, or­dered and de­fined as fol­lows:

1. “Ob­jects” func­tion­al sub­sys­tem;
2. “Sub­jects” func­tion­al sub­sys­tem;
3. “Func­tion­al tech­no­log­i­cal sub­sys­tem for im­ple­men­ta­tion of the en­ter­prise tech­no­log­i­cal en­vi­ron­ment.
4. “Sales” func­tion­al sub­sys­tem;
5. “Man­u­fac­tur­ing” func­tion­al sub­sys­tem;
6. “Sup­plies” func­tion­al sub­sys­tem;
7. “Fi­nances” func­tion­al sub­sys­tem.

These sev­en func­tion­al sub­sys­tems are just a first step in build­ing the work­ing con­structs of this new type of ERP sys­tems. It is of key im­por­tance that these ERP sys­tems in­cor­po­rate a func­tion­al knowl­edge of man­age­r­i­al mod­el­ling of the pro­fes­sion­al de­vel­op­ment of peo­ple who can per­ceive the en­ter­prise as a sys­temic ob­ject and sub­ject, and on this ba­sis, be ac­tive­ly re­spon­si­ble for in­tro­duc­ing in­no­v­a­tive changes to its de­vel­op­ment. In­cor­po­rat­ing such knowl­edge would turn this new type of ERP sys­tems in­to the most ef­fec­tive fea­si­ble so­lu­tion to the co­nun­drum of the cur­rent un­favourable de­vel­op­ment of the hu­man cap­i­tal in the Eu­ro­pean me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing in­dus­try. This is due to the fact that sev­er­al months of study, both the­o­ret­i­cal and ap­plied, of the func­tion­al con­structs of such a dig­i­tal sys­tem would help ac­quire an un­der­stand­ing of the me­chan­i­cal en­gi­neer­ing en­ter­prise econ­o­my which com­pares much more favourably to that ac­quired af­ter 4 or 5 years of metic­u­lous study of mi­cro­eco­nom­ics at any lead­ing spe­cial­ized uni­ver­si­ty, both in terms of va­lid­i­ty as well as in terms of prac­ti­ca­bil­i­ty for the re­al in­dus­tri­al world.

All that is need­ed, is for these dig­i­tal sys­tems to be stud­ied on a mass scale.

Nat­u­ral­ly, ques­tions arise:

What is the con­di­tion of the tech­nol­o­gy parks cur­rent­ly en­gaged in the de­sign of a pro­to­type of a “di-in­no­v­a­tive” ERP sys­tem? Has any of these parks made a ma­jor break­through in de­sign­ing such a pro­to­type?

This leads us to one lit­tle-known fact.