Thursday, November 24, 2011

Management of R&D - Reaction Paper No. 6


1. Managing Scientists and Researchers
A. “Organizing for Product Development”
(Summary) Product development revolves around innovation. A successful product makes use of technology to satisfy a market need. Thus, the innovation process can be thought of as the process that mediates two streams of activities: developing technological knowledge (or technology, for short) and developing a set of market needs. The challenge is that these two streams have contradictory requirements. While technology requires that specialist keep abreast of state-of-the-art developments, responding to market needs require specialist to work together (since products are developed through the integration of multiple disciplines). The two most common organizational forms reflect this opposition. The departmental form of organization, which traces its origin from the university where the departments are grouped by specialization, facilitates the kind of knowledge sharing that keeps specialists up-to-date in their respective fields but limits the extent of cross-disciplinary coordination and knowledge integration required for new product development. The opposite is true for the project form of organization which promotes frequent interaction and coordination among specialists from different fields but at the cost of separating the them from their knowledge-base (since they have to be removed from their home departments, at least temporary, to form the project team under a common boss); thus, introducing the risk that they will fall behind from the state-of-the-art in their fields (which may lead to the gradual erosion of organization's technology base). A third form, the matrix form of organization, seeks to address both sets of requirements but combining elements of two. “In this form of organization, project teams and departments are supposed to interact in a way that accomplishes the necessary coordination, while maintaining current knowledge in the relevant technologies.” But in practice, it comes down to the following questions: who to assign in project teams, who to keep in their departments, and how to arrive at the decision. To answer these, there is a need to understand the parameters that dictate the need for current knowledge (i.e. for keeping up-to-date) and the need for coordination. On one hand, the need for current knowledge depends on the rate of change of the technology involved. Mature technologies change slowly and require less knowledge updates from specialists. While emerging technologies change rapidly and require specialists to be constantly updated or risk falling behind significantly. On the other hand, the need for coordination depends on subsystem interdependence. Interdependent subsystems require more coordination. Independent subsystems (such as those with well-defined interfaces) require very little coordination. Other parameters to consider are project duration and rate of market change.
(Reaction) In today’s world, there should no longer be a trade-off between cross-disciplinary coordination and keeping knowledge up-to-date. Advances in information and communications technology like instant messaging, video conferencing, and wikis (and similar tools that provide not a centralized knowledge repository but also a framework for online, real-time collaboration) when utilized effectively should allow cross-functional project teams to be agile enough for its members to remain in-touch with their home departments and still be able to coordinate effectively with other project-team members.

B. “Unique Features of an R&D Work Environment and Research Scientists and Engineers”
(Summary) Managing R&D is different from managing other functions in an organization due to the unique nature of R&D. A major feature that distinguishes R&D is the uncertainty associated with it not in only in terms of project duration and budget but also results. Another distinguishing feature is the difficulty in assessing the impact of R&D results on the organization. The challenge comes not only from the difficulty in predicting the quality, quantity or usefulness of the output but also from the delay between the time the project is completed and the time the impact of the results is felt or recognized. These two, together with the specialized technical knowledge required to evaluate a scientist's output, make fair and accurate annual performance appraisal of scientific staff very challenging. Another feature that makes R&D work unique is the rapid pace of change in science and technology. To adapt, it is important for R&D managers and scientific organization to operate in ways that assists their staff in avoiding obsolescence. Another feature that distinguishes an R&D work environment is the unique nature of research scientists and engineers. In general, they are “more oriented towards things or natural phenomena than people” and tend not to take on managerial responsibilities and positions. They care more about their profession and the opinion of their colleagues than their managers and organizations. Furthermore, there is a strong expectation from scientists and engineers that their immediate R&D managers will have a scientific or engineering background. This is related to the high value they place on technical excellence. They are also better motivated when they are allowed to satisfy their needs for achievement, recognition and to work on challenging, interesting projects. Another feature that makes R&D organizations unique is their extreme reliance on creativity and productivity. In view of these, it is important for the management of these organizations to adopt a participative rather than an autocratic approach. Sharing of decision-making authority is a key element in R&D organizations since the ability to make effective decisions concerned with the knowledge base of the organization lies at the “bottom” with the scientists and engineers. An R&D organization must also take a long-term view of their research activities since there can be a long time between investment of resources and tangible results that contribute to the bottom-line. “Another unique feature of science or engineering based organizations is the existence of the "dual promotion" ladder. Many progressive R&D based organizations have established a second promotional ladder so that scientists or research engineers can be "promoted" and rewarded or recognized by movement up this technical or scientific ladder.”
(Reaction) For any organization, it is important that decisions are made by people who understand the issues involved. By nature, R&D organizations are faced with complex issues that have multiple-dimensions (in technical and business terms). It is therefore essential for R&D organizations to involve not only its managers but also its scientists and engineer in the decision-making process since they bring with them technical expertise along with a different perspective that may prove invaluable.

2. R&D Managers From The Perspectives Of Researchers
A. “Managing the Innovator”
(Summary) Managing R&D professionals is challenging because they are unusual in certain respects. They are highly educated, have a scientific mindset and value independence of thought. They strongly identify with their scientific discipline and as a result, they may be torn between scientific imperatives and corporate goals. To manage them effectively, it is necessary to understand their unique attitudes and perspectives. A notable difference in opinion between most employees and R&D employees is on how they rate their supervisors and senior managements. R&D employees tend to rate their supervisors significantly higher and their senior management significantly lower than non-R&D employees do. This has been attributed to the R&D employee's tendency to value technical ability over managerial ability and to the fact that most supervisors are principal investigators (PIs) and highly regarded for their technical competence. Thus, an organization must leverage this positive relationship by including PIs visibly in company-wide initiatives. Despite this, a common complaint by R&D employees is that supervisors don't have people and leadership skills. It is therefore imperative for organizations to also give significant weight to those skills when considering people for promotion. Furthermore, they must provide people skills and leadership training to those who are already in position. Another area in which R&D employees differ from the rest is on empowerment. R&D employees generally feel that they are not empowered enough to make decisions to do their jobs well. They feel that their company does not have the culture to allow the challenge traditional ideas and for senior management to respect their judgment. This may be due to the fact that many R&D employees were trained in environments (e.g. universities) where they have autonomy and where emphasis is on the quality of ideas and where their judgment is respected. In general, they also consider only scientific merit and not financial goals when assessing projects. It is therefore important for R&D managers to take time to explain the business aspects of projects to R&D employees as well to listen to them and consider their ideas (which may have long-term value behind them). Another aspect that differentiates R&D employees is on the way the view their companies' performance appraisal systems. Due to their training they are more likely to see the limitations of performance appraisal systems and criticize them especially those that appear arbitrary and not transparent. It therefore helps to be open and involve the employees at the onset. Another factor that makes appraising R&D employees particularly challenging is the uncertain and highly specialized nature of R&D work. In view of this it is important for R&D organizations to “spend more time and effort designing and implementing employee reviews” and provide training to those charged with completing R&D performance reviews. It is also important to use a standard measurement and to conduct measurements frequently. R&D employees also feel more insecure about their jobs due to recent economic events (such as smaller corporate and government funding, mergers, acquisitions, etc.) that lead to major layoffs in their sector. However, R&D employees find more satisfaction in their working relationships and work/family balance. They also report a higher sense of personal accomplishment from their work. It is also suggested that the four key motivators for R&D employees are: the opportunity to work on challenging problems, the experience of working with world-class scientists, the potential to receive peer recognition for superior work and freedom to explore new ideas.
(Reaction) By training, scientists and engineers are critical and independent thinkers. They are not as easily influenced by group-think and base their judgment on their own assessment. It would serve managers well to be transparent with them and to make it a point to clarify the reasons or motivations behind key policies and decisions.

B. “Creating an Effective Managerial Environment for Maximizing Productivity”
(Summary) Effective management of industrial R&D requires managers who understand technology, has insights from “hands on” experience and has the ability to make technical assessments. It is therefore important to have periodic seminars where scientists can present their ideas informally to improve technical understanding or managers as well as communication between scientists and managers. It is also important for R&D organizations to adopt the appropriate organizational structure and to reduce the layers of the review process to enable (rather than impede), progress, effective communication of goals and quick decision-making. Managers could also make use of electronic technologies for instantaneous communication so that different groups can work together on a project. Though it is crucial to make a direct link between business and research to maintain a competitive edge, it is equally crucial promote creative ideas. Thus, it could prove beneficial to allocate time to scientists to work on their creative ideas and satisfy their intellectual curiosity without disrupting profit and margin. It is also imperative for organizations to not to neglect long-term R&D as studies have shown that successful firms have corporate strategies that are shaped by technology opportunities. It may be a good strategy to create a sub-unit that would attract scientists to work on the cutting edge of their fields. It is also critical for R&D managers to understand the organization and inner workings of the business division to allow for successful technology transfers. “Constant interaction with the business divisions could help ensure that business managers see the same opportunities in the proposed work as do the scientists and R&D managers” Just as critical is the need to allow R&D managers to focus on producing technologically superior products and processes. This implies providing enough financial support that would allow them to pursue long-term research policy without being constrained by restrictive fiscal climate. Another important success factor is effective utilization of the scientists’ time. Scientists must be allowed to do their work rather than spend a significant amount of their time in meetings whose purpose could have been achieved through other channels like email or handout.
(Reaction) A flat organizational structure suits R&D organizations well since it reduces both red-tape and communication overhead; both of which detracts scientists from doing productive work. Furthermore, it promotes a more fluid exchange of ideas between managers and scientists that leads to a more dynamic and collaborative environment; the type of environment that is conducive to creative and innovative work.

No comments:

Post a Comment