Should we mingle research and development, disruptive innovation and technological optimisation?

After numerous positions as a technical director within the industry, Jean-Michel SCHULZ is a professor at the HES-SO (Switzerland) and at the EIGSI La Rochelle (France). He is also in charge of the new “Engineering and Industrial Management” stream at the HEIG-VD (Switzerland) and founder of the French-Swiss entity in research and innovation “Flight-Alternatives”. Based on his professional experiences, he delivers here an analysis of the actual problem of R&D in Companies and suggests an original organisation.

The piloting of research and development has necessitated a subtle dose of projection and pragmatism. Yet, over a few decades, industrialisation has transformed this difficult decision into a headache, which often requires the intervention of Top Management. Indeed, the increase of rules and regulations, the contradictory demands from clients, studies that never see the light of day, the politics of profitability along with society distrust in regards to science and technology are at the fore-front of the unease of technicians and researchers in the fields of R&D.

Talking about the difficulties in managing the departments of R&D would certainly put a smile on the face of some production directors, who are used to strained, manly and often conflictual environments. It is not the point here to oppose nor the managers nor the employees. Generally, those of a more intellectual mind are often critical and vindictive, especially when they don’t understand or don’t want to understand that which is being imposed. Otherwise, tasks are less formalised, less quantifiable and more impacted by the atmosphere generated at work, which therefore requires intelligent and properly constructed management. This hasn’t been the case in recent years. Depreciation of research counterbalanced the mass of projects which appeared during the ‘glorious thirties’ and the cold war. This led to a form of “Taylorism of the studies” which was badly seen as employees who used to be so motivated and devoted to their work and company, who found themselves unmotivated and discouraged with respect to their hierarchy. Finally, since management is the only criteria to evolve within a company, it has suspended all possible progression and recognition linked to scientific expertise and has created a ditch between directors and those involved in research and development.

We could have thought that getting carried away in our disruptive innovation could have allowed for a certain reconciliation. This is not the case whatsoever. It is most often leaders who begrudge research budgets, who believe the most in a salutary miraculous innovation. It is possible though for this methodology to change. We measure the technicality of a project to the number and quality of experts working on it. However, more often than not, it’s efficiency and creativity are proportional to not needing them. Indeed, expertise is knowledge taken from experience, and hence from the past. It naturally slows down originality. De facto, two philosophies clash: invention and optimisation.

“Electricity has not been invented by trying to improve candles” Niels Bohr

To go further, it is desirable to go back on the definition of research and development. The term R&D encompasses three activities: fundamental research, applied research and final development. Fundamental research consists in experimental work or theories undertaken primarily to acquire new understanding on foundations of phenomenon’s and observable facts without considering particular use. Applied research also consists in new work being done in order to acquire new knowledge, however it is mainly directed with a practical aim in mind. The development consists in a systematic work approach based on known facts obtained from research, with the aim to launch the manufacturing of new materials or products, create new procedures, systems and services or to considerably improve those already existing.

The fundamental difference between applied research and development is in the notion of originality (still unknown) and hence the risk that is associated with it. Metaphorically, we could associate this to the explorer and the traveller. The explorer accepts that his adventure might not go as planned whereas the traveller will straight away seek indemnity. Our society is so afraid of failure that it prefers not to take any risks. And this is the biggest risk to take. In 1492, the courage of Louis de Santangel will illuminate Spain for many centuries, whereas the cowardice of the consulates of Jean II, will be the decline of Portugal.

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work” Thomas Edison

It is not the idea to imply irresponsibility. No collective adventure can be achieved without ambition, without engagement, without discipline or planification. But one must make sure that the method does not impede on initiative.

“It is by logic we prove. It is by intuition we discover” Henry Poincaré

As a consequence, it is not ideal to regroup research and development. This forced cohabitation gives way to a conflict relationship. Depending on the company, their stories, their individuals and managers, either research takes over or development does and this creates a dangerous balance for the company. This dangerousness is short-term when research takes the lead over development, and long term otherwise. An organisational proposition consists in establishing a healthy equilibrium between research and development. This evolves over 4 principles.

1/ Systematically disassociate projects between research and development

The company should only suggest to its clients’ technologies that are already validated. They can then fully commit to time limits and contractual costs with the notion of results. By another, the contractual relation for research will take the form of a risk sharing and that of contractualisation of results. Within these risks could be that of a new project in development or integrate this research into a project already in progress but only after validation.

2/ Development projects (with client and obligation of results) become an operational activity of “study production”

At this stage, it would be more intelligent for the project to be lead directly by the project entity who will ensure the organisation, planification and the management. The whole development will then be directly managed by the programs director. The technologies director will participate at the comities for project development. He’ll assure the respect of the technology standards of the company and guarantee the coherence of the project to come.

3/The research entity is piloted by the technology director

This entity will have the responsibility to suggest and realise for the company an evolutive program with a deadline between 5 to 20 years (based on the different fields). They will do associative research individually or as a partnership. Once a technology is approved, it will then be at the development team’s disposition. The research personnel will then be able to ensure the continuity of the work done by the development teams. This natural way of working and taking responsible action will be encouraged and will permit new blood within the research faculty. Non-reversible, this will favour the exchange between research and development.

4/ Managing technological excellence

The company will draw up and tabulate career evolution, exclusively based on the level of technical expertise (study, production, information…). This evolution will favour autonomy, diverse knowledge of different technologies and competencies. The technology director will be in charge of establishing and doing the annual validation of this table which will allow to define a chart with the control of current future technologies to come. The management of these skills will further allow to develop technological excellence of companies.

Thus organised, the company will simultaneously insure its development short and long term. In the face of technological challenges within our society (numerical, energy deficiency, environment, medical, foodstuffs, city mobility…), it is certain that we are on the brink of a new invention. Despite the attempts of big groups in blocking the market, within all sectors, innovative start-ups are created and jostle the equilibrium. This fresh and new approach will impose research organisations to be more reactive, flexible and agile. In such a context, this will pose a bit of a handicap for large companies and those with the foresight will be able to re-think their R&D strategy.

Jean-Michel SCHULZ