61-03-61 MANAGING PEOPLE, NOT JUST R&D: FIVE COMPANIES EXPERIENCES Robert Szakonyi Over the last several decades, many books and articles about improving the management of R&D have focused on managing R&D or on integrating R&D into the company s businesses. In other words, they have focused on the R&D itself, not on the people who carry out the R&D. Consequently, one question that needs to be asked is: Do R&D managers put enough emphasis on the management of the R&D people as opposed to the R&D itself? Moreover, if this is so, what can be done to put more emphasis on the management of the R&D people? Because R&D managers have been under great pressure from business managers to produce R&D on time and within budget, it is understandable that they would concentrate on the R&D itself. Nonetheless, if R&D managers are putting too much weight on managing the R&D and not enough on managing the R&D people, R&D organizations will be hurt in the long run. To investigate these questions, R&D organizations at five kinds of chemical companies were examined. They are R&D organizations in: a large chemical commodities company, a small adhesives company, a middle-sized specialty chemicals company, a small resins company, and a large specialty chemicals company. All of these R&D organizations are considered in terms of their management of R&D and the integration of R&D in the businesses. As part DR. ROBERT SZAKONYI is the director of the Center on Business and Technology Strategy at Northwestern University in Evanston IL.
of this discussion, the chapter also addresses the question of how well the R&D people are managed in these organizations. Each of the five cases of R&D organizations are first divided into three sections: background, management of R&D, and integration of R&D in the businesses. It becomes clear throughout these discussions that many of the problems of managing R&D relate to managing R&D people, and an analysis of this situation is provided at the end of the chapter. R&D ORGANIZATION OF A LARGE CHEMICAL COMMODITIES COMPANY The corporate R&D organization of a large chemical commodities company has approximately 100 R&D people, organized into four groups: research, product development, process development, and analytical support. Within the company as a whole, there are approximately 22 technical groups, counting the variety of engineering groups, the information technology group, quality assurance group, and a small product development group in the largest operating division. Altogether there are approximately 2,000 technical people employed by this organization in this country. This corporate R&D organization receives 50 percent of its funding from the corporation and 50 percent from the operating divisions. The head of the corporate R&D organization reports to an executive vice-president who is responsible for a variety of corporate functions, such as purchasing, legal, and administrative functions. Even though the executive vice-president is not a technical person, he has been learning about what the corporate R&D organization is doing through presentations by the corporate R&D managers. There is one technical person on the senior management policy committee of this chemical company. He is the head of the largest engineering group. This engineering executive, however, is not interested in becoming the chief technical officer. Thus, there is no chief technical officer, even though the corporate R&D managers would like to see this position created. This corporate R&D organization tries to keep its efforts involving technical support to 10% or less of its total workload by charging a high overhead for technical support. MANAGEMENT OF R&D This corporate R&D organization started making major strides in improving its management of R&D approximately 10 years ago when a new vicepresident of R&D was assigned. As opposed to his predecessors, this new vice-president of R&D did not have a technical background. Instead his expertise was in business. His primary goal for the corporate R&D organization was to develop close relations with the various operating divisions, and he instituted some changes to bring this about. At first, some of the R&D people, including some of the
R&D directors, resisted the proposed changes. One particular point of contention was the use of the term contract to describe the relationship between the corporate R&D people and their users. The corporate R&D people resented being thought of as contractors, and eventually the terms providers and customers were used to describe the relationship. Ultimately, the entire corporate R&D organization accepted this new goal. Those who continued to resist it either retired or left for other jobs in the company. Because of this, all R&D projects are now defined more effectively and, in turn, meet their objectives better. The corporate R&D organization also carried out training for the members of the R&D staff. Much of this training concerned ways of getting people to work cooperatively as members of a team. It also focused on total quality management. This training in teamwork has paid off, and the quality of the R&D has also improved. For example, three years ago the various corporate R&D groups were overly focused on serving their own internal customers. Communication within the corporate R&D organization as a whole suffered. Because of this, the various corporate R&D groups found it difficult to develop a common R&D strategy. Rather than exploit common opportunities and find the best places to use resources in the corporate R&D organization as a whole, the various corporate R&D groups competed for resources. Although this competition has not gone away entirely, training with regard to working as members of a team has helped the corporate R&D people bridge many of their differences. Nevertheless, even though the corporate R&D people do work together better, the corporate R&D organization still does not have a comprehensive R&D strategy. The biggest internal problem that the corporate R&D organization currently faces, however, relates to career development. As with most R&D organizations, the corporate R&D organization is not growing and may even be shrinking in the future. All of the corporate R&D people, therefore, may be doing the same type of work more or less over the next 10 years. The corporate R&D managers still have not figured out how to solve this problem. The corporate R&D organization measures the payoffs of its R&D by asking the businesses to measure the impact of specific R&D projects. Although some of the businesses do this, others are unwilling to invest the large amount of time necessary to provide this feedback. Integration of R&D in the Businesses The corporate R&D organization meets with business managers three times a year. The corporate R&D organization selects R&D projects by first developing a list of R&D projects that it wants to carry out and then sending this list to the various business managers. The business managers evaluate this list of R&D projects and then modify it in light of their own priorities. The business
managers then send back a revised list of R&D projects, which becomes the basis for the R&D portfolio. Even though this process is quite formal, the corporate R&D people do have frequent often weekly informal discussions with their business counterparts about the progress of R&D projects. Over the last several years, a number of members of the corporate R&D organization have transferred to the various businesses. These transfers of personnel have helped communication between the corporate R&D organization and the operating divisions. Unfortunately, even though middle-level managers in the company businesses appreciate the value of the corporate R&D organization, on the whole the senior business managers do not. Consequently, the biggest problem that the corporate R&D organization faces is that many senior business managers would like to relegate the corporate R&D organization to a place within the biggest operating division perhaps at a reduced size. Over the last couple years, the corporate R&D organization has recommended ways of improving the manufacturing processes of a subsidiary of the company. It is estimated that the recommendations of the corporate R&D organization if followed could result in at least a 15% cut in the costs of the subsidiary. So far, even though the corporate R&D organization has tried for many years, it has never been able to gain a similar opportunity with the major operating division of its own corporation in order to show how it might help that operating division. Consequently, even though the corporate R&D organization is doing 80 percent of what it can do for the businesses, it is not given the opportunity to do any more. Such an opportunity would have to come from the managers of the operating divisions asking for the corporate R&D organization s help, which they have not done. There is concern in the corporate R&D organization that it will not continue to exist in the future. It is feared that if the R&D organization were moved to the major operating division, it would be forced to do a great deal of technical support and much less product and process development. In addition, there is the question of how much R&D the major operating division would support if the corporate R&D organization were located within it. Right now the corporation provides half the funding for the corporate R&D organization. It is unlikely that the major operating division would continue that funding for its internal R&D organization. On top of all this, the corporate R&D organization has great difficulty in working with the other technical groups within the company. Even though the corporate R&D organization has tried for many years to improve its relations with these other technical groups, it has not succeeded. R&D ORGANIZATION OF A SMALL ADHESIVES COMPANY Over the last eight years, the R&D organization of a small adhesives company has grown from 10 people to 45 people. The R&D organization
consists of three groups: product development, process development, and technical services. The R&D organization is part of the manufacturing organization. Being in the manufacturing organization, however, has not created any problems in the R&D organization s dealings with marketing. Although the company is financially driven, the value of R&D is not questioned by senior business managers. The most unusual feature of the R&D staff of this company is that almost half of the members of the R&D organization are university students who are science majors and who work 35 or so hours a week as part-time workers. This practice has allowed the R&D organization to double its size without having to justify a major increase in spending. The average university student works as a technician for three years and serves on project teams. Seven of these technicians have eventually been hired as full-time employees. These new full-time employees are then encouraged to do graduate work in their field. The remaining members of the R&D staff the other half or so are R&D professionals who are similar to R&D professionals in other chemical companies. People from other companies are recruited as R&D managers when positions need to be filled. Management of R&D Within the R&D organization itself, project management is fully accepted. Because of this, there are few problems related to defining clear technical objectives, setting and meeting milestones, and managing project teams. There are approximately 50 R&D projects. The 20 biggest projects have teams made up of members from various functions, such as R&D, marketing, and manufacturing. In all of these 20 teams, the teamwork is excellent. Typically the R&D people and the people from other functions serve on three or more teams at any time. One of the R&D organization s strengths is the capabilities of the vicepresident of R&D. With 37 years of experience in R&D management and with experience at four other large companies, including managing more than 125 technical people in one assignment the vice-president of R&D can easily deal with the challenges of managing 23 R&D professionals and 22 studenttechnicians. Because of his wide experience, over the last eight years the head of R&D has fashioned a very effective R&D organization. One of the head of R&D s continuing challenges is to maintain an innovative environment. Over the years, he has found it necessary to find ways of keeping the R&D people stimulated. Despite this stimulation, the R&D people still have not produced as well as they could (e.g., continuing to offer less imaginative solutions to technical problems). Another challenge for the R&D organization is to groom a good replacement to the current vice-president of R&D. The current vice-president of R&D is almost 63 years old. The right successor is needed to keep things going in the same way.
There is no pressure on this R&D organization to measure R&D payoffs. The R&D organization, however, does measure R&D payoffs, considering such payoffs as cost savings and R&D s contributions to increases in sales based on new products. The results of the measurement of R&D payoffs are presented to the head of the manufacturing organization, who then distributes the results to others in the company. Integration of R&D in the Businesses The R&D organization has good relations with both the marketing and the manufacturing organizations. Marketing and manufacturing representatives serve on the project teams and help lay the basis for the transfer of technology to manufacturing. The R&D organization has conducted surveys with its clients in marketing and manufacturing. These surveys show major satisfaction with the R&D organization s output. Above the project level, there is also very good teamwork among the functions. For example, the head of R&D meets regularly with the head of marketing and the head of new products (in marketing) to discuss new opportunities. Finally, there are five ideation groups that are made up of R&D, marketing, and market research people. These groups work well together in generating new product ideas. R&D ORGANIZATION OF A MIDDLE-SIZED SPECIALTY CHEMICALS COMPANY There are 130 people in the R&D organization of a middle-sized specialty chemicals company. The R&D organization is broken up into five groups: research, product development, process development, technical services, and analytical support. In addition, until a year ago, the R&D organization of this company was also divided into a separate research group, a separate process R&D group, and a separate product development group. Each of these groups reported to different organizations (e.g., to manufacturing or marketing). A year ago these separate R&D groups were combined into one R&D organization. Because of this, a key question that has faced this R&D organization involves the allocation of R&D resources across these different R&D groups. The R&D organization reports to the senior vice-president of operations and technology that is, it is part of the operations organization. The current senior vice-president of operations and technology has a background in manufacturing. Management of R&D Over the last year, this R&D organization has worked at improving how it generates new technical ideas. All R&D people are responsible for generating
new technical ideas and are allowed to generate new technical ideas that need to be implemented by other technical disciplines. In addition, the R&D group has worked on improving how R&D projects are selected. The approach consists of evaluating all R&D proposals in terms of various criteria, such as the probability of technical success and commercial payoffs. R&D people are expected to evaluate their own proposals. This R&D organization has also made significant progress in improving the management of R&D projects. Although problems in how well the R&D projects are carried out still exist, R&D project planning has become much better over the last several years. This R&D organization does have problems in terminating R&D projects. Although the R&D organization has established a specific process for evaluating the merits of ongoing R&D projects, many of the R&D people resist it. Integration of R&D in the Businesses After the R&D projects are evaluated by R&D people, they are evaluated by both R&D managers and business managers. Finally, evaluation teams, which include representatives from marketing, sales, manufacturing, engineering, finance, and international operations, consider the R&D proposals. The various evaluation teams eventually select a minimum level of R&D projects that need to be funded in each area. The evaluation teams base their evaluations partly on seeing what the cumulative scores of the R&D proposals are, though they also take into account the importance of an R&D project for a business. Eventually, these evaluation teams select the R&D projects to be supported, which is usually about two-fifths of the R&D projects that are proposed. The next stage in this R&D selection process involves a meeting of senior business managers, such as the head of R&D, marketing, operations, corporate development, and finance. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate the recommendations of the evaluation teams. Finally, the head of R&D meets with the president, who makes the final decision regarding how many R&D projects are funded. It could turn out, as it has in the past, that the R&D projects that are supported by the senior business managers are not approved by the president. One of the R&D organization s major concerns is that exploratory R&D projects are cut disproportionately. Because it is more difficult to evaluate the payoffs of these projects, they are typically cut more at each stage in this selection process. The head of R&D also attends meetings with the senior business managers of this company. This exposure to the thinking of these senior business managers has changed his perspective about the company s businesses. His being involved in these meetings has also provided the senior business managers of the company with another viewpoint on how to grow the company s businesses.
R&D ORGANIZATION OF A SMALL RESINS COMPANY The R&D organization of a small resins company consists of 33 people. It is organized in four groups: research, new products, quality assurance, and a pilot plant. The R&D organization reports to the senior vice-president of operations. This small resins company probably spends less than it should on R&D. If one person in the R&D organization leaves, everyone else has to work together to fill the gap because there is very little technical depth. Four or five new people could probably be added to the 33 existing people in the R&D organization with great value. The R&D people, on the whole, are generalists, which means that they all work on a great variety of R&D projects. The R&D managers encourage this so that the R&D organization remains flexible. Although the R&D organization has traditionally done almost no exploratory R&D, it recently started to do some mainly R&D that the supplier organizations with which it has worked closely could not do themselves. The R&D organization uses this exploratory R&D to differentiate its products from the products of competitors. Over the last 23 years, there has been little change in the operations of the R&D organization. Most of the projects last 1 to 60 days. Each of the people in the R&D organization has many small projects. On the whole, the R&D organization carries out very little new product development. Most of its projects involve product line extensions. Management of R&D On the whole, the R&D people in this company manage their projects very effectively. Given the short duration of most of the projects, planning the R&D projects is done well. Because the R&D people work so closely together, they need to work together well. One major issue that continually needs to be addressed relates to keeping personality conflicts from disrupting operations within the R&D organization. Many efforts are made in this R&D organization toward fostering better communication among the R&D staff. Good communication among the R&D people is especially needed to handle technical problems that individuals may not know enough about to solve by themselves. On the whole, this R&D organization is able to solve most of the technical problems that crop up without using outside consultants. Efforts are also made to increase the R&D staff. Progress, however, has been slow. Each additional position for the R&D organization has to be bargained for based on specific needs. So far, over the last several years, very few people have been added. The major weakness of this R&D organization is that there has been little planning related to replacing experienced R&D people. Twelve of the 33 people in the R&D organization have more than 25 years of experience. So far there has been little attention given to how each of these R&D people will be replaced. For example, one of the R&D people
understands all of the manufacturing systems throughout the world involving a particular product. This person makes five-week trips visiting all of the various plants in South America or in Europe. Currently, there is no replacement for him. In addition, there is a serious gap in the R&D staff in terms of age distribution. Currently, there are many people in their late 40s and 50s; very few people in their late 30s and early 40s; and many people in their 20s and early 30s. Many of those R&D people who would now be in their late 30s and early 40s left the company because they did not think that there was much of a chance for advancement. Finally, there is no replacement for the current vice-president of R&D. He, in particular, would be difficult to replace. He has been with the company for more than 25 years. He knows everyone throughout the company. He also has worked hard to create a good work environment for the R&D people handling R&D budgets, setting up training programs, and taking care of other organizational matters. Finally, he is an R&D manager who works very hard at knowing how things are going in the laboratory. This R&D organization draws to some degree upon the expertise of other R&D centers within its parent corporation for technical help. Nonetheless, despite the opportunity for collaboration among various R&D centers in the corporation, most opportunities are not exploited because of friction between these R&D centers. For example, there have been meetings in which conflicts between the members of the various R&D centers overrode any chances for collaboration. Currently, there is only one major R&D project involving more than one R&D center in the parent corporation going on. This R&D organization does not consider it important to measure the payoffs of R&D. The one thing that the R&D organization measures is sales from a new product. Integration of R&D in the Businesses The R&D people in this company basically react to the marketing organization s projections of trends. Most of the development projects last nine months from conception to marketplace. In most cases, the technical challenge in these development projects is not that great. The R&D person who works on a development project stays with the project until it is commercialized, working closely with both marketing and manufacturing people in the businesses. On the whole, the R&D people in this company have good relations with both the marketing people and the manufacturing people. Despite great turnover among marketing people, the R&D people work well with them. In many instances, the more senior R&D people teach the new marketing people with regard to how things are done in their industry. The R&D people also have good relations with the manufacturing people, particularly the people who work in the production lines. From these manufacturing people, the
R&D people learn a lot about problems with their designs. The one thing that the R&D people do need to improve on, however, is their personal interactions with the marketing and manufacturing people (e.g., interactions over the telephone or at meetings). R&D ORGANIZATION OF A LARGE SPECIALTY CHEMICALS COMPANY Until a year ago, the R&D organization of a large specialty chemicals company was structured differently. There was a research group of 30 people, a product development group of 30 people, and a process R&D group of 30 people. As of a year ago, the product development group was eliminated. The people in the development group were split up. Half of the people went to the research group, which then became the product R&D group. The other half of the product development group, particularly those who worked more closely with the plants, such as process development, went to the process R&D group. Therefore, the product R&D group grew from 30 people to 45 people, and the process R&D group grew from 30 people to 45 people. Management of R&D This R&D organization has major problems regarding its management of R&D. Three years ago the communication within the entire organization was poor. There were walls between the various R&D groups, and R&D people were not open in their communication with their colleagues. R&D projects would be started by the research group, which then passed them to the development group, which then worked on them and then passed them on to the process R&D group for transfer to the plants. In addition, most R&D people had little idea about how to manage projects. Until recently they were not required to define their R&D to meet business objectives, to plan projects, or to set milestones. In addition they worked individually on their own work rather than as members of teams. Over the last couple years, efforts have been made to change the mentality of the R&D people to being more focused on business issues. These efforts were stated by a new head of R&D. He has made some progress. He has provided a great deal of training, particularly with regard to R&D project management. Because of this, some progress has been made in planning R&D projects. Nevertheless, improving the management of R&D as a whole while keeping the R&D people happy continues to be his major challenge. Over the last year, four focus groups have been set up within this R&D organization. These focus groups are aimed at helping the R&D people: handle stress, communicate better with one another, advance their personal careers, and maintain the quality of the R&D output under the current trying circumstances.
The R&D organization also has had difficulties in setting up R&D teams. For example, one self-directed team was established, but the members of the team never received any training concerning how to function as a self-directed team. Conflicts arose within the team regarding whether experts should be required to work outside of their expertise. In addition, the members of the team had difficulty trying to figure out how to operate without a leader. Another difficult issue related to teams concerns the problem of getting researchers who have worked individually for years to work on teams. This problem has been very difficult to overcome. The focus groups have helped the R&D organization address more openly some of the issues that had been neglected, such as whether R&D people should attend professional conferences and what should be the objectives of someone who attends a professional conference. Nonetheless, problems in this area remain, such as conflicts over how many professional conferences R&D people should attend. This R&D organization does not measure R&D payoffs and does not know how to do it. Business managers in the company, however, are asking for justification of R&D spending. The R&D organization, however, has not figured out how to deal with this problem. Integration of R&D in the Businesses Traditionally this R&D organization was relatively isolated from the businesses. In the old system, the marketing organization presented its plans. The R&D organization typically told the marketing organization that whatever the marketing organization wanted would take two years, regardless of the actual length of the tasks. Eventually the product R&D group produced its results and then passed them on to the process R&D group, which introduced the technology to the plants. The new head of R&D is trying to change this. The product R&D and process R&D groups are working more closely with marketing and manufacturing. Much of the coordination between the R&D groups and the other functions, however, still occurs at the level of the head of R&D. In the area of integrating R&D in the businesses, therefore, this R&D organization still has a long way to go. ANALYSIS All five of these R&D organizations, on the whole, have improved their management of R&D. For example, the R&D organization of the large chemical commodities company made progress by defining the relationship between its customers more effectively, which has helped R&D project planning, and by improving the quality of its work. In the R&D organization of the small adhesives company, project management has become fully accepted. Because of this, there are few problems in managing the R&D. The
R&D organization of the middle-sized specialty chemicals company has made progress in both selecting R&D projects and planning R&D projects. In the R&D organization of the small resins company, R&D projects are also managed effectively, particularly those of short duration. Finally, even in the R&D organization of the large specialty chemicals company, which had the most problems in R&D project management, some progress has been made. Through training, the R&D people have begun improving their R&D project management. With respect to integrating R&D in the businesses, the record is mixed. R&D is integrated effectively in the businesses at the small companies (i.e., at the small adhesives company and at the small resins company). In both of these companies, the R&D organization works closely with the marketing and manufacturing organizations. In the large companies, however, R&D is not integrated nearly as well in the businesses. In the large chemical commodities company, the R&D organization works with the businesses only through an extremely formal and written process through which projects are selected. In addition, this R&D organization, which is a corporate R&D organization, is struggling to be appreciated by the senior corporate business managers, who are considering relocating the corporate R&D organization to the largest operating division. In the other large company, the large specialty chemicals company, the head of R&D carries out most of the coordination with the rest of the company by himself. Finally, in the middle-sized specialty chemicals company, the situation is mixed. On the one hand, exploratory R&D projects have been cut disproportionately and the COO has cut spending on R&D. On the other hand, the head of R&D in this company participates in meetings with senior business managers. Many of the problems involving integrating R&D in these companies businesses derive from the kind of R&D done. In the two small companies, almost all of the R&D is marketing-oriented. Thus, the R&D organizations work closely with their marketing counterparts. In the two large companies, much of the R&D is exploratory, and some of it is selected by the R&D organization itself. In these companies, integrating R&D in the businesses is more difficult. In the one middle-sized company, there is a blend. On the one hand, exploratory R&D is not fully supported. On the other hand, the R&D organization is close enough to the company s businesses so that the head of R&D is invited to senior management meetings. With respect to the management of R&D people, all of the R&D organizations have had problems. Some of these problems stem partly from the ways in which R&D people have been managed. Other problems stem from the lack of planning related to human resources. Still other problems stem from technical groups within a corporation as a whole not working together well. In all of the R&D organizations, there were problems in getting the R&D people to accept improvements. In the R&D organization of the large
chemical commodities company, R&D people resisted efforts to improve R&D project management and the integration of R&D with the businesses. In the R&D organization of the small adhesives company, R&D produced less imaginative solutions unless they were continually stimulated to work better. In the R&D organization of the middle-sized specialty chemicals company, R&D people resisted the termination of R&D projects. In the R&D organization of the small resins company, personality conflicts occurred among the R&D people, which disrupted operations. In addition, the R&D people in this company do not communicate well with the marketing and manufacturing people in their company. Finally, the R&D organization of the large specialty chemicals company has had the most problems. Communication between the R&D people has been poor. The R&D organization has also had difficulties in setting up teams and in getting some individual R&D people to participate on teams. In addition, there have been problems in getting R&D people to agree on how many professional conferences should be attended. In three of the R&D organizations, there was also a lack of planning related to human resources. In the R&D organizations of the small adhesives company and the small resins company, there was inadequate planning of replacements. In addition, in the R&D organization of the small resins company, the distribution of ages of the R&D people is unbalanced there are too few people in their late 30s and early 40s. This R&D organization also has had difficulties in increasing its staff, which, however, is more the fault of the business managers than the R&D managers themselves. Finally, the R&D organization of the large chemical commodities company has not determined how to plan the career development of R&D people who must continue to do the same kind of technical work for the indefinite future. Finally, two of the R&D organizations have had difficulties in working with other technical groups in their corporation. The R&D organization of the large chemical commodities company has run into great difficulties in working with the other 21 technical organizations in its corporation. The R&D organization of the small resins company has run into difficulties fostering collaboration with other R&D centers in its corporation. All in all, therefore, there are many problems involving the management of R&D people in all of these R&D organizations. CONCLUSION As described, there has been significant progress with regard to the management of the R&D, moderate progress with regard to the integration of R&D in the businesses, and limited progress with regard to the management of the R&D people. Based on this writer s research at more than 600 companies in the United States, Europe, and Canada, much of this limited progress with regard to the management of the R&D people is due to a lack of training. In most R&D
organizations, training related to managing R&D people is usually too little and too late. This is unfortunate. Given most R&D managers lack of training in management throughout their education, which, on the whole, is almost solely focused on technical subjects, this lack of training related to the management of R&D people forces many R&D managers to learn by trial and error. Some of the key questions that often trouble R&D managers are: How does one foster excitement? What are the best ways to conduct a performance appraisal? How does one learn how to delegate authority? How can an R&D manager have more fun managing? How does one deal with individual R&D people one-on-one? What kinds of rewards should R&D managers give? How can individual and organizational needs both be met? In conclusion, the next step for improvement in R&D management is to increase the training of R&D managers related to the management of R&D people. Unless this is done, R&D organizations may produce the R&D results that are required in the short run, but in the long run, the R&D organizations will be weakened through poor management of the people.