Mediaboss Marketing

The modern State Department was forged in an era of global transformation. In the 1930s, the department had fewer than 2,000 personnel and, as one historian emphasized, it was a placid place that was comfortable with lethargic diplomacy. World War II revolutionized the department, which readily transformed itself to handle the demands of planning a new international order. Between 1940 and 1945, the departments domestic staff levels tripled and its budget doubled.

Today, the State Department is once again confronting the challenge of how to organize itself to cope with new international challenges not those of wartime, but ones created by rapid technological change. There are ongoing conversations about how the department should handle cyberspace policy, as well as concerns about emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, next generation telecommunications, hypersonics, biotechnology, space capabilities, autonomous vehicles, and many others.

As Ferial Ara Saeed recently emphasized, the department is not structured in a way that makes sense for addressing these matters. She is not alone in having this view, and others have also offered ideas for reform. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeos proposal for a Bureau of Cyberspace Security and Emerging Technologies focused too narrowly on security, as Saeed correctly diagnoses. As an alternative, she proposes consolidating all technology policy issues under a new under secretary, who would report to the deputy secretary of state for management and resources.

The State Department should be restructured so that it can conduct effective cyber diplomacy, but establishing one bureau for all things technology-related is not the way to proceed. Conceptually, the core challenges for cyberspace policy are different from those related to emerging technology issues, and creating one all-encompassing bureau would generate multiple practical problems. Instead, the department should establish a Bureau of International Cyberspace Policy, as proposed in the Cyber Diplomacy Act. Consolidating cyberspace policy issues in a single bureau would provide greater coherence to overarching priorities and day-to-day diplomatic activities. Emerging technology issues should remain the responsibility of the appropriate existing bureaus. If they are provided with greater resourcing and if appropriate connective tissue is created, those bureaus will have greater flexibility in crafting individualized strategies for a very diverse array of technologies. At the same time, the department would be able to prioritize and adopt a strategic approach to technology diplomacy.

Cyberspace Matters Are Different from Other Technology Issues

Through our work as staff of the U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission, we have observed how cyberspace policy will have impacts on U.S. foreign policy and international relations that differ fundamentally from those produced by other technology issues. That is why cyberspace policy warrants a distinct foreign policy approach.

Unlike other technologies, cyberspace has created a new environment for international interaction. As Chris Demchak describes, cyberspace is a substrate that intrudes into, connects at long range, and induces behaviors that transcend boundaries of land, sea, air, institution, nation, and medium. Since the early 2000s, as one brief has put it, states have recognized cyberspace and its undergirding infrastructure as not only strategic assets, but also a domain of potential influence and conflict. At the same time, a lack of international agreement or clarity on key definitions compounds the difficulties of dealing with cyberspace as a new arena of state-to-state interaction.

A U.N. Group of Governmental Experts produced a consensus report outlining norms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace that was welcomed by the U.N. General Assembly in 2015. However, U.N. members were by no means agreed on how international law applies to cyberspace. Although that issue was addressed more successfully in 2021, diplomats are still negotiating critical questions like what counts as cybercrime, critical infrastructure, espionage, or many of the other foundational concepts in this area. All of these questions, and many others beyond the negotiations of the United Nations, have long-term implications for the future of the internet, as cyberspace policy experts navigate a path between security and surveillance, and between openness and authoritarianism. To be successful in this diplomacy, the State Department should prioritize these issues and provide its diplomats with organizational structures that will support Americas proactive leadership. In short, the State Department should have a dedicated cyberspace policy bureau.

The focus and activities of such a bureau would be functionally very different from what will be involved in addressing other technology issues. A Bureau of International Cyberspace Policy would be responsible for implementing a relatively established policy for cyber diplomacy. The head of the bureau would be working to ensure an open, interoperable, reliable, and secure internet, pushing back on authoritarian leanings in internet governance, and advocating for a multi-stakeholder model for the future of cyberspace. Certain details may change, but the core elements of this policy have been consistent across administrations and Congresses. Accordingly, the real added value of a cyberspace policy bureau is not in defining policy, but rather implementing that policy, which will require extensive engagement with non-aligned countries to help sway the balance of opinion toward an open internet, and international capacity-building efforts to help drive progress toward greater global cyber security.

By contrast, the challenge U.S. policymakers confront on emerging technologies is a question of establishing what Americas international policies and diplomatic strategies should be. As the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence observed in relation to the State Department, a lack of clear leadership on emerging technology hinders the Departments ability to make strategic technology policy decisions as part of a larger reorientation toward strategic competition.

Policymakers and officials working on emerging technologies will also face the challenge of adapting overarching policies as technologies emerge, develop, and ideally stabilize over time. Emerging technologies do not remain emerging indefinitely, and so an organizational structure that allows the development of cohesive strategies around these technologies should have the flexibility to shift between topics. Of course, cyberspace policy and the strategic considerations that guide it will also certainly need to adapt to changes, but its basic focus is likely to remain more stable. Much of Americas work in outlining cyberspace policy has already been done, and thus the missions that remain for example working with partners and allies on joint attribution of cyber attacks, rallying votes in the United Nations, and managing capacity building projects are unlikely to change dramatically any time soon.

Undoubtedly, there will be many areas of overlap between the work of those handling emerging technology issues and the responsibilities of a cyberspace policy office. But there will also be overlap between efforts on emerging technologies and matters handled by the Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs, the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, and many others. The fact that there is overlap between two organizational constructs should not be taken as a justification to merge them, and while technology obviously plays a central role in both cyberspace policy and emerging technologies policy, the actual work required to address them is very different.

It also makes sense to keep some technology issues in their current bureaucratic homes because of their historical legacy and the subsequent development of specialized expertise within those homes. No one would suggest, for example, that emerging issues in nuclear technology should be pulled out of the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation and made the responsibility of a new emerging technology bureau. And some technologies might only have globally significant implications for a relatively short period of time. Advanced robotics, for example, might have a major impact on manufacturing and broader economic areas, which could require the sustained attention of policymakers as they grapple with the initial implications of such technology. But once advanced robotics become a routine part of industrial operations, it would make less sense to have brought the issue under a new bureau when the pre-existing functional and regional bureaus might be best poised to address the relevant challenges.

Making every technology policy the responsibility of one under secretary would not solve the State Departments current problems. Instead, it would result in unclear prioritization, strained resources, and would leave one leader handling two very different mission sets.

The Importance of Avoiding a Security-Focused Approach to Cyberspace

In creating a Bureau of International Cyberspace Policy, the State Department should also avoid limiting that bureaus focus solely to security-related matters. That was one of the flaws with the previous administrations efforts to create the Bureau of Cyberspace Security and Emerging Technologies. While that bureau never materialized, the Government Accountability Office roundly criticized the State Department for failing to provide data or evidence to support its plans and for its lack of consultation with other federal agencies. Rep. Gregory Meeks, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, emphasized that the proposed office would not have been in a position to coordinate responsibility for the security, economic, and human rights aspects of cyber policy.

Any reorganization of the State Department should ensure that diplomats can take into account all dimensions political, economic, humanitarian, and security of cyberspace policy and elevate them within the department. That would allow a new bureau to lead the way in promoting a free and secure internet. Some of the reform proposals that have been put forward reflect this approach. For example, the Cyber Diplomacy Act, which has already passed in the House, would create an ambassador-at-large position, with rank equal to that of an assistant secretary, to lead a new cyber bureau. That person would report to the under secretary for political affairs or an official of higher rank, which leaves open the possibility that the position would report directly to the secretary of state or one of the departments two deputy secretaries. While some have proposed the deputy secretary for management and resources for this reporting chain, that position has a history of going unfilled, and having a new cyberspace bureau report to it is a recipe for undercutting the fledgling bureau before it can even get off the ground. A better alternative would be to allow the State Department some flexibility in determining a new bureaus reporting structure, which might include the more natural choice of reporting to the other deputy secretary.

An overly narrow focus on security is not the only trap to avoid in creating a new cyber bureau. Orienting it around the idea of strategic competition with China would also be a problem. No doubt China will remain a key driver of U.S. policy for years to come, but global threats and opportunities may look very different in future decades than they do now. Cyber diplomacy should not be oriented around one adversary specifically and the structure and functioning of a new cyberspace policy bureau should stand the test of time.

The Devil Is in the Details, But a Cyberspace Policy Bureau Is the Best Approach

The unfortunate political reality is that reorganizing the State Department is hard. That alone is not a reason to forgo reform, but it does introduce constraints on what may be feasible. Any new office or bureau will need leaders, but current law strictly limits the rank that they can hold. Creating a new under secretary, or even a new assistant secretary, would require significant changes to the State Department Basic Authorities Act, and there is limited political momentum for that particular undertaking. The law currently authorizes the appointment of 24 assistant secretaries and six under secretaries. Although the Cyberspace Solarium Commission initially recommended creating an assistant secretary position to lead a new cyber bureau and although it has been clear for two decades that the State Departments structure should be overhauled making such drastic changes to the necessary legislation may be a nonstarter on Capitol Hill for the foreseeable future. The Cyber Diplomacy Act provides the best available work-around by placing an ambassador-at-large at the head of the new bureau, ensuring that the position has the stature necessary for effective leadership.

The new bureau would also have to contend with the challenges of prioritization. The Cyber Diplomacy Act lists a wide variety of issues including internet access, internet freedom, digital economy, cybercrime, deterrence, and international responses to cyber threats that would become a cyberspace bureaus responsibilities. Even without giving it emerging technology topics to handle, consolidating just cyberspace policy issues will require careful planning to determine which pieces get pulled from existing bureaus. To allow a new bureau to adequately deal with digital economy matters, for example, policymakers would need to decide which aspects of that issue get moved from the purview of the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. The new bureau would have a good case for inheriting responsibility for portfolios like investment in information communications technology infrastructure abroad, particularly as it relates to cyber security capacity building, but there is a strong argument for other pieces like e-commerce to remain in their existing homes. The more bearing a particular teams work has on preserving an open, interoperable, reliable, and secure internet, the more it should be considered a strong candidate for incorporation into a new bureau.

Moving the responsibility for particular policy matters is not the only tool available, however. The Cyber Diplomacy Act creates an avenue for the new bureaus personnel to engage other State Department experts to ensure that concerns like human rights, economic competitiveness, and security have an influence on the development of U.S. cyber policy. The proposed Cyberspace Policy Coordinating Committee would ensure that officials at the assistant secretary level or higher from across the department can weigh in on matters of concern for their respective portfolios.

With a new cyberspace policy bureau, a coordinating committee, and enhancements to emerging technology capacity in its existing regional and functional bureaus, the State Department would be structured to handle the digital age effectively.

Natalie Thompson is a Ph.D. student in political science at Yale University. Previously, she was a research analyst for the U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission and a research assistant and James C. Gaither junior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, working with the Technology and International Affairs Program on projects related to disinformation and cyber security. She tweets at @natalierthom.

Laura Bate is a senior director with the U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission and a 2021 Next Generation National Security Fellow with the Center for a New American Security. Previously, she was a policy analyst with New Americas Cybersecurity Initiative and remains an International Security Program Fellow. She tweets at @Laura_K_Bate.

Image: State Department (Photo by Freddie Everett)

Read the original post:
The Right Way to Structure Cyber Diplomacy - War on the Rocks

Yurchanka Siarhei / Shutterstock.com

Australian engineers recently overcame a major hurdle, paving the way for the development of a new generation of more powerful and compact quantum computers.

Although impressive progress has been made in recent years in quantum computing, the simultaneous management of a large number of qubit It is a big challenge for this type of machine. In the context of the work published in the magazine science progressand researchers fromUniversity of New South Wales (UNSW) I found a way to control millions of them at once.

Traditional computers store and process data in the form of binary bits (0 or 1). For their part, quantum machines use qubit , or quantum bits, which can exist in a simultaneous superposition of these two states, dramatically increasing computing power.

In quantum silicon processors, information is encoded in yarn An electron (that is, the property that gives it magnetically), with an upward and downward rotation representing ones and zeros, is generally obtained thanks to the magnetic field produced by wires arranged along qubits. Problem: These wires take up a lot of space and also generate a lot of heat, currently limiting the number of bits per chip to a few dozen.

the teamUniversity of New South Wales He recently developed a new approach to applying a magnetic field to a large number of qubits simultaneously. This is based on a crystal prism called a dielectric resonator, which is placed just above the silicon wafer. Microwaves are directed toward this prism reducing their length to less than a millimeter, creating a magnetic field that controls the rotation of the qubits below.

Two major innovations are included here , he explains Jared Blah, lead author of the study. First, we dont need to use a lot of energy to get a strong magnetic field for qubits, which means we dont produce a lot of heat. Second, the field produced turns out to be very homogeneous, so the millions of qubits on a silicon chip would all benefit from the same level of control..

So far, this field has made it possible to invert individual qubit states, and more work will be needed to achieve the overlap between two states simultaneously. According to the team, this method should eventually allow up to four million qubits to be controlled simultaneously.

Continue reading here:
This breakthrough paves the way for more powerful and compact quantum computers - Tech News Inc

The collaboration of the School of Physics and Astronomy, of the University of Minnesota and Cornell University, has revealed some unique properties of a new semiconductor such as a superconducting metal. It has created a breakthrough in quantum computing and can be utilized in the nearby future. The metal is known as Niobium diselenide (NbSe2) that can conduct electricity or transport electrons or photons without any resistance. Quantum computing can reap the benefits of this new superconducting metal effectively and efficiently for new innovations.

Niobium diselenide is in 2D form with two-fold symmetry that makes it a more resilient superconductor. There are two types of superconductivity found in this metal conventional wave-type consisting of bulk NbSe2 and unconventional d- or p- wave type for a few layers of NbSe2. These both have the same kind of energies due to the constant interaction and competition between each other. The research teams from both universities have combined the results of two different experimental techniques to generate this ground-breaking discovery. The scientists wanted to investigate the properties of NbSe2 further to able to use unconventional superconducting states to develop advanced quantum computers.

Superconducting metals, help to explore the boundaries between quantum computing and traditional computing with applications in quantum information. The quantum bits transform the functionalities of quantum computers with much higher speed than the traditional ones. Quantum bits exist in a superposition state along with two values 0 and 1 simultaneously with alpha and beta. Quantum computers require around 10,000 qubits to work smartly and help in the entanglement of natures mysteries. Superconductors can create a solid state of the qubit with quantum dots and single-donor systems. These superconductor metals are known for transforming electrons into a single superfluid that can move through a metal lattice without any resistance.

The discovery of 2D crystalline superconductors has opened a plethora of methods to investigate unconventional quantum mechanics. The top-notch quality of monolayer superconductor, NbSe2, is grown by chemical vapor deposition. The growth of these superconductors depends on the ultrahigh vacuum or dangling bond-free substrates that help to reduce environment and substrate-induced defects.

Hence, the world is waiting for further discoveries of some unique properties of any superconducting metal to help in the advancement of quantum computing that can bring certain breakthroughs in industries.

Share This ArticleDo the sharing thingy

About AuthorMore info about author

More here:
Quantum Computing Breakthrough: Unveiling Properties of New Superconductor - Analytics Insight

Imagine a technology that could undo all encryption on the internet. It would be impossible to trust any information communicated, impossible to verify any identity. The security of our society and our economies would crumble.

Thats the potential threat posed by future quantum computers. For all the good that quantum computing promises eradicating disease, helping us understand climate change, identifying new molecules and materials in the wrong hands it could pose an existential risk to classical computers and existing technologies. Fault-tolerant quantum computers with enough processing power would be enough to unravel all the cryptography used in the modern internet.

This threat is especially relevant when it comes to blockchain. More and more companies are adopting blockchain technology given the transparency, security and reduced costs. 84% of companies had some involvement in blockchain in 2018. Quantum threatens the very fabric of the distributed ledger, with the ability to break everything the secure, decentralised, transparent networks stand for.

Quantum computing wont destroy blockchains themselves. It instead threatens to break the security features that underpin them; the features which make it the unique and trusted network it is today.

As public data structures that rely heavily on cryptography, blockchains are natural targets for hackers looking to exploit cryptographic vulnerabilities. Whether its a public chain used to send, verify and receive cryptocurrency, or a private version built for business, each one relies on blocks of data placed one after the other. For data to be included in this chain, it needs to be added and then verified by other members of the group.

Take the example of a private enterprise blockchain. When one company wants to move assets to another company they put the transaction on a block and add this block to the chain. Other members of the community look at the block, confirm that the correct value has gone from company A to company B and they verify the transaction. Once its added, this transaction (or any flow of data) is locked into the chain for life. Its kept not only for posterity, but so that everyone involved knows exactly where that data has come from. The latter is particularly useful for supply chains or tracking the sources of ingredients in food or materials in devices.

On the plus side, this process means the entire history is preserved, locked and protected. On the other hand, it means that the entire history and its security is dependent on the last block placed. If a criminal were to bypass this security and transmit a fraudulent block, every point forward would be based on a modified version of history. Or worse, blockchains could fork, with different parties holding different versions of the past. It would be unclear which parties owned valuable assets, potentially allowing criminals to steal what isnt theirs.

This is bad enough when the data held on blockchain is financial, let alone as the technology is adopted by health providers, governments and even used to underpin the digital data of entire countries all routes that could be, and are being, explored.

In its current form, the security used to protect each of these blocks is robust and resistant to traditional cracking methods. Yet its facing a significant threat; one that has already been proven the threat of quantum-based algorithms. These algorithms can and will break such keys, and they will eventually do so with relative ease. This means its only a matter of time before robust quantum computers currently under development will be able to break larger and larger keys. Some estimates place this moment as little as five to 10 years away.

The only way to keep blockchains safe is to protect them with quantum-proof cryptographic keys in the first place; keys that are impenetrable from even the fastest, most advanced quantum computers we can envision today. To fight quantum with quantum.

The only way to keep blockchains safe is to protect them with quantum-proof cryptographic keys in the first placeTo fight quantum with quantum.

In a paper, published this month with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and Tecnolgico de Monterrey, we have developed a proof-of-concept that can be built as a layer on top of existing blockchain technologies. This layer relies upon CQCs IronBridge Platform to generate provably-perfect, quantum-proof keys that address two particular areas of weakness uncovered in blockchain technology. These are the internet communications between blockchain nodes, and blockchain transaction signatures used by businesses to verify their identity when submitting transactions or validating blocks.

By quantum-proof, we refer to keys that are generated using quantum computers, harnessing the innate randomness of quantum mechanics. Not only are these keys completely unpredictable to a quantum attacker, but they are also based on algorithms that are believed to be unbreakable by quantum computers. This technology, available through the IronBridge platform from CQC, works today, even on the limited quantum computers that currently exist, and without ever interfering with a blockchains functionality. It represents the first time ever such a solution has been built and proven in this way.

Yet because securing a blockchain involves applying the same remedies as for other technologies, the work weve done here is not unique to blockchains. It has vast potential.

However, the system is not perfect. Its far more efficient for quantum cryptography to be built into the very bones of blockchain technology, rather than layered on top. It is hoped this research encourages blockchain vendors towards earlier adoption of quantum-proof algorithms and key generation.

Others are approaching the quantum cybersecurity threat in different ways. Companies such as British Telecom and Toshiba are exploring how to share keys using quantum physics; a process known as quantum key distribution (QKD). These QKD systems are still in their infancy, with many technical challenges ahead, but they show promise as another area where quantum will strengthen cybersecurity.

The threat posed to blockchains by quantum computing isnt new, nor is it something thats going to hit in the next few months. But every baby step we take towards faster, cheaper quantum computers today is bringing it more starkly into view. It may be five years from now, it could be 15, but the sooner we protect blockchains and get the basics right today, the more protected it and us will be in the future.

Duncan Jones is Head of Quantum Cybersecurity at Cambridge Quantum.

Go here to see the original:
The only answer to the quantum cybersecurity threat is quantum - Sifted

Published 14 hours ago

Submitted by Keysight Technologies

Keysight Blog

By Brianne McClure | Brand Storyteller

Two years into the electrical engineering program at Rutgers University, Elizabeth (Liz) Ruetsch called her father in tears. She told him that she wanted to quit the program. The problem was, as her father pointed out pragmatically, she didn't have a plan B.

Liz shared this story with me when I invited her to participate in our Refusing Limits interview series to celebrateInternational Women in Engineering Day. Despite her initial feelings that the electrical engineering program was too challenging and she could not see herself working in research and development, Liz would go on to graduate as one of six women in a class of 160 engineers. She has since become an inspiration to many engineers especially women.

On her way to the finish line, Liz saw many of her female peers come to a similar crossroads and drop out. Thats when she realized how important it is for women in engineeringto have beacons. Liz explained that beacons are people in the industry who inspire you and give you a reason to stick with the engineering journey when things get tough. Once she found her own beacons, Liz wanted to help other women do the same, so they would be inspired to complete the engineering program.

When I spoke with Liz, I was eager to learn how she went from almost dropping out of engineering school to forging a fascinating career in the test and measurement industry - spanning twenty-seven years of sales, marketing, and leadership. She has worked in the US and internationally during her career, including a two-year assignment living and working in China. She was also recognized by the Society of Women Engineers with a Global Leadership Award and the North Bay Business Journal with a Women in Business Award. She now leads the quantum engineering team at Keysight.

Liz, how much of your ability to stick with the engineering program came down to sheer determination? And do you think women with grit are more likely to succeed as engineers?

The women in my engineering program were brilliant and had plenty of grit. So, I think it's more likely that they didn't have good enough reasons to keep going. The program is very demanding, and if you can't picture yourself coming out of it and entering a career that excites you, changing course makes a lot of sense. That's especially true at a university like Rutgers, where you can pursue degrees outside of engineering.

During the program, I found myself looking for inspiration. When I was introduced to a broader range of engineering careers, I became more excited about being an engineer. I wanted to inspire that same kind of excitement in my peers, soI got involved with the Society of Women Engineers (SWE). As co-president of our local section, I introduced a weekly speaker series where people from different engineering disciplines and roles (sales, marketing, operations) would talk about their work. Those speakers became beacons who showed the women in our sectionthat even if mechanical or electrical engineering wasn't for them, they might enjoy industrial, packaging, or environmental engineering. I'm proud to say that the program made a difference in retaining women in the overall engineering program.

We also started a program where girls in high school spent a weekend at the university getting a feel for studying engineering by working on some projects and meeting women studying in various engineering fields. When I received my leadership award at the SWE conference, I sought out the current president of the Rutgers SWE section. I was thrilled to hear from her that this weekend program is still going today - almost 30 years later.

In hindsight, do you think working through the most challenging parts of the engineering program helped prepare you for the real world?

I learned a lot about myself between the time I called my father - ready to quit - and graduation. Sticking with the program taught me how to navigate a hard situation, that I knew would last at least another two years until completion. Along the way, I realized that I dont have to have all of the answers on day one to keep moving forward. Once I could break the unknown down into smaller, solvable problems, the challenge suddenly became exciting and ultimately rewarding. And Im glad I learned that lesson early on because the most pivotal points in my career came down to taking on big challenges that I did not have a clear path to solving on day one.

Can you describe some of those pivotal points in your career?

When I started my career as a sales representative for Hewlett Packard (HP), my customer was a big defense contractor. At that time, I was twenty-something years old and trying to sell to a bunch of guys who were radar, missile, and satellite engineers. The first time I walked into a meeting, they said, "you know nothing about radar, right?" They said, "sure; maybe you have an engineering degree. And maybe you understand circuits and electromagnetics or digital signal processing from your textbooks. But what do you really know about radar? How can you possibly help me?" That was an intimidating situation. Luckily, I was learning at that time how to be comfortable with not having all the answers. So, I said, "You know what? I know absolutely nothing about radar, but I'd love to hear about it." And thankfully, people love to talk about what they are working on. And the more they talked, the more I listened to their challenges and learned what solutions we could bring to bear. Many of these customers became close friends, and here it is twenty years later, and I'm still in contact with them even though they are well into retirement.

Another significant challenge in my career was living and working in China. I had traveled to China frequentlyand managed people there and in 14 other countries. But living and working in China is far different than staying at the Marriott there for a few days. During my first three months, I struggled with learning the most effective way to lead the local team. But once I solicited some excellent mentors and did some deep reflecting, it turned into a tremendous experience. I learned more in my two years there than in other roles I had held for over five years.

Twenty-seven years later, I'm still doing work that stretches me as a leader. Because as I like to tell my teams - it's good to feel scared every few years. Thats how you know you are pushing yourself out of your comfort zone. Before taking on my latest role, I had expressed interest to my management about getting involved with mergers and acquisitions. In late 2019, an opportunity came about where we planned to acquire a company in Boston and set up a research and development team there. My leaders were looking for a general manager to integrate the acquired company with Keysight. It was one of those opportunities that's equal parts thrilling and terrifying. On the one hand, I had an excellent background in many of the areas that touch quantum, including aerospace and defense, markets like China, business models for selling software and services, and providing complete test solutions. On the other hand, I was not a quantum physicist. Since Keysight is a results-oriented company, and I've delivered results consistently in multiple business units, the management team supported me to stretch myself into this new GM role. When they offered me the role, I took on the challenge enthusiastically and started to navigate this new territory.

And youve been in that role for over a year now. Would you make the same decision again?

It was a massive leap for me with a lot of unknowns. But I knew that I would be able to figure things out along the way. Part of the reason I was confident was because of the caliber of the team that I had the opportunity to work with and learn from. And we have since added to that team with some exceptional industry and university talent. Having the opportunity to lead theteam that is enabling our customers to advance quantum computing has been one of the most exhilarating adventures of my career. And were just getting started!

Immediately after we founded our quantum research lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the world went into quarantine due to the pandemic. Like many people, we had to learn how to interview, hire, onboard, and manage a new team remotely. Hiring both quantum physicists and software engineers for research and development was entirely new to me, so we formed a group of managers with experience in this area to assist.

In parallel with this work, we also started the process to acquire another company,Quantum Benchmark. Quantum Benchmark was the first acquisition that I led from beginning to end, which was an even more complex challenge. It takes a lot of preparation to identify and promote an acquisition target to your CEO and board of directors. Once again, I called on a team of people with experience in this area to coach and guide us. And it worked out as Quantum Benchmark became part of Keysight in April.

Youve talked a lot about the importance of taking on challenges that push you out of your comfort zone. How does that belief manifest in your leadership style?

For the first time in my management career, there are more people on my team with Ph.D.'s than not. These individuals are at the leading edge of quantum, and they are very comfortable pushing the boundaries of technology. But I did encourage our team to be intentional about cultivating a diversity of thought across the ecosystem as they hired new team members.

Right now, the physics part of quantum is reasonably known. But the engineering part of actually building a computer is a big challenge. To progress this technology forward, you need very cross-disciplinary teams. You need physicists, software engineers, and FPGA [field programmable gate array] engineers. You also need to balance university experience with start-up experience and corporate experience to ensure that the solutions are innovative, scalable, and supportable.

And it's exciting to see this unique combination of talent working together to challenge what's possible. The most rewarding part about leading this team is seeing them engaging with customers and partners, being excited about their work, and having opportunities to stretch themselves.

And now that youve helped launch the Women in Quantum mentoring program, youre empowering people inside and out of the company to grow. Can you give an update on how thats going?

Sure. We introduced theWomen in Quantum mentoring programearlier this year. The idea behind creating a network of women in quantum goes back to our conversation earlier about setting up beacons to illuminate paths forward when people are feeling stuck or just needing some inspiration. When I learned about theWomen in Quantumorganization led byDenise Ruffner, I saw an opportunity to leverage Keysight's internal mentoring platform to connect mentors and mentees across the industry. I then sought out support from our Director of Diversity and Inclusion,Leslie Camino-Markowitz, and she made it happen. We have had over 400 people sign up for the program to date. It is also exciting that it keeps coming up on my calls with customers who've told me how glad they are that Keysight is sponsoring this effort to help with the talent pipeline in the quantum ecosystem.

The program is open to people of all gender identities who want to be a mentee or mentor. And it's not just mentoring on technical topics. A lot of people have called me out of the blue about career navigation. Or they have great ideas but can't get any buy-in, and they want coaching on how to improve their influencing skills. I'm always amazed when I'm speaking with mentees that sharing the simplest things can help somebody get unstuck and make them feel empowered to move forward.

Youve touched a lot of lives over the years. How do you feel when people call you inspirational?

I was surprised by how many people came up to me and said something along those lines after I received the Global Leadership Award during the Society of Women Engineers conference in Austin, TX. I have never intentionally set out to challenge the status quo or to inspire anyone. I like to challenge myself and try new things and somehow that inspires other women in the process. When that happenswhen I hear their success storiesit is special.

Keysight Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: KEYS) is a leading technology company that helps enterprises, service providers and governments accelerate innovation to connect and secure the world. Keysight's solutions optimize networks and bring electronic products to market faster and at a lower cost with offerings from design simulation, to prototype validation, to manufacturing test, to optimization in networks and cloud environments.

More from Keysight Technologies

Read the original post:
CSRWire - Refusing Limits with Liz Ruetsch - CSRwire.com