The Clinton administration, which once embraced conversion with religious zeal, has all but abandoned the idea and stood by while federal funding was gutted by Congress in the 1996 defense budget. To those hurt most by an industry writhing with change organized labor as well as middle managers, scientists and engineers it may be the only way they can continue to use their skills and keep their jobs. They, as well as arms control advocates and some industry analysts, believe that if the federal government commits the resources, conversion can turn billions of dollars of public investment that went into defense during the last four decades into a newly profitable, and practical, industrial policy of the future. The executives are joined by many leaders in the military establishment who believe it is dangerous to put too much emphasis on conversion because it could leave the nation with an inadequate production capability in the event of a major military conflict. They also fear conversion could undercut development of the next generation of weapons.
Big companies are highly specialized technologies.
No one suggests that the automotive industry should shift to toasters.'' Norman Augustine, chief executive of Lockheed Martin, the nation's biggest defense and aerospace corporation, has been outspoken in his opposition to conversion. Most industry leaders argue the cost of conversion is too high and markets for products too difficult to develop. The defense industry has developed a culture of working to strict specifications, a management model that has proven unwieldy in commercial markets. But not all executives are opposed. Conversion is something we really will have to work at,'' says William Swanson, vice president of Lexington-based Raytheon.