INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL RESEARCH AND THE THEORY OF INQUIRY ROBERT FRANKL Catalin Corporation of America, Fords, New Jersey
TEEPACE
of progress in chemistry has compelled chemical companies to recognize research as an integral part of their business. There is less risk involved in carrying the burden and hazards of research than in ignoring or underestimating its import to economic survival. Making genuine contributions to the industrial arts and maintaining a continual flow of technological advance have proved to be the safest insurance against disintegration and failure. Not mere love of science, not social or moral doctrines, but practical wisdom in matters of personal economic interest has made American chemical industry "research conscious." One serious obstacle, however, interferes with an unrestrained utilization of research as an instrument of private industrial enterprisethat is, its very low economio eficiency. Because of its complexities and peculiarities, research does not lend itself to statistical evaluation, but its economic e5ciency-the rate between effort and economic achievement-is generally appraised as being as low as one per cent. To cite two of many similar opinions of leading executives: Mr. W. B. Bell,' President of the American Cyanamid Company, in an address delivered before the American Section of the Society of Chemical Industry in New York, 1940, made the following statements: I n the Cyanamid company we are more than delighted if two of the hundred ideas that we start in the race eventually yield any substantial profit. If one in two hundred were to put us in a great basic industry with large profits over a long period of years, we would now be the greatest company an earth.
Mr. Charles Kettering,=head of M e r a l Motors' research organization, testifying in the Temporary National Economic Committee Investigation, said the following: You see, our st& fails so often; it is about 99 per cent failure, and our biggest problem is to keep the men enthusiastic. Especially, a young fellow will come in and set up something and develop it, and it does not work; then he is all down. We say, "You are just an amateur failure; you have to learn how to fail over and over and over again." But after they understand that, there is no trouble about working together then.
Growing more and more research conscious, industry has become more and more concerned about this uncomfortably low capacity of research to produce the desired results. Research itself has turned into a problem; and this problem is now being widely investigated, analyzed, and discussed in literature and private con-
BELL,W. B.,Ind. Eng. Chern., News Ed.,18,189 (1940). 'Cited in a decision of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Oficial GareUe o j t h e United Slates Patent Ofice,567,174 (1944).
versations. This "inquiry into inquiry" centers mainly around the question of how to increase the economic efficiency of industrial research (a) by improving the methods used by industry in organizing, directing, and controlling-in short, managing-its research affairs, and ( b ) by improving the professional education and training of research chemists in order to improve their skill in solving problems. It is the purpose of this paper to draw attention to the "Theory of Inquiry" as developed by Charles S. Pierce, William James, and John Dewey, which theory a p pears to be the only tool adequate to the proposed end of improving the efficiency of industrial research. Before introducing this somewhat intricate topic, i t may serve first to point out the particular position of research in industry. THE FUNCTION OF RESEARCH IN PRIVATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE
In studying the relationship between industry and research, it should be recalled that industry's primary concern lies not in research but in production. &search is wanted not as an end but as a means of getting other things. Industry works on a madel given in advance, "recomposing'the same whole with the same parts, repeating the same movement to obtain the same r e ~ u l t . " ~ The point of departure of industry is, of course, invention; but invention does not become industry until it has been developed into a design, a prototype, for reproduction. Industrial production-goeson as long as its results are economically or nationally valuable. In modem times products (and processes of their manufacture) age very rapidly. They become out-of-date, so that continued production can be maintained only if improved or new models are held in readiness to replace obsolete ones. But this rapid aging of products and processes is a specific characteristic of the last few decades only; some 50 years ago the aging process was so slow that industry did not have to be too much concerned about it. Salesmanship, the art of advertising. and trade agreements kept profitable production going. At that time new technological ideas were horn and carried through the pioneer stages almost exclusively outside of established industry. Not until it became evident that models have to be improved or replaced periodically and not until these periods grew shorter and shorter did i t occur to industry to guard itself against revolutions from without by deliberately instituting a
a BEROSON, H., "Creative Evolution," Henry Holt and Company, Inc., NewYork, 1937,~.164. 389
409
systematic evolution from within. Thus, organized research became a means of keeping production going in this quickly changing modern world of ours. For the first time in history, industry "has set itself the problem of combining the stability of routine with adaptations to fast and continuous change."' Modern industry believes in research in spite of its low economic efficiency because organized research has proved to be capable of providing the knowledge which is necessary to insure continuity (and expansion) of commercially profitable production. In this respect there is no difference between research activities aiming a t short range and those aiming at long range objectives; both are to provide knowledge not for its own sake but for the sake of the settlement of some issue directly or indirectly involved in the task of improving the present and preparing the future models of production. Whatever else research is or is not, its logical economio function as an instrument of private indue trial enterprise is to assure continuity and expansion of profitable production. We should, however, guard ourselves against the misconception that whatever goes on in industrial research affairs is actuated by plain logical or simple economic motives. In research affairs, as in other human activities, the psychological permeates and sometimes dominates the logical - sphere. Thereisno better way of failing to understand social phenomonathan to assume that each act,ionor thought happens became of same one cause.. . . Tho logical and economic purposes of men form a single thread in the total pattern of their lives, other strands of which are their affections and dislikes, their skills, their interpretations or understandings of events and things ahout them, t,heir many impulses and desires, and their accustomed farms of collaboration. Each pcrson's way of lifo is composed of innumerable factors of this sort, and each faet,or i s itself determined hv the remainder. The activities of neonlc
Research is no exception t6 this general truth, industrial research activities are a mawifestation of a complex and mobile balance between logical and psychological forces and tendencies of all the persons involved in it. Therefore, if we want tounderstand thecharacter of industrial activities, nre ail1 have to separate, in conception, the logical from the psychological factors in order to approach adequately the respective factors from the corresponding sides. THECONDUCTANDTHESTRUCTUREOF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
In order to get a sketchy picture of how research is being handled in modern industrial concerns, we may divide the various stages in the conduct of industrial research activities into three groups-research policy, research strategy, and research tactics. That we can think of the conduct of industrial research affairs in
' W-BEEAD, T. H., "Leadership ins. Free Society," Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1944, p. vii. "bid., p. 11.
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
terms of military affain is no accident, for there exist certain analogies, certain similarities of relations, between the conduct of war and the conduct of large industrial research organizations. The "art of warfare" has been highly developed, both practically and theoretically; the art of industrial research leadership is still in its infancy. Therefore, we may profit by attempting to apply the existing knowledge about the subject to which we are accustomed (warfare) to the more or less unfamiliar subject (research leadership) about which very little is known a t least theoretically. The analogy is, of course, imperfect,but its imagery will serve here two purposes: first, it will provide a quick orientation in an otherwise obscure environment; second, it will be helpful later on in economizing the presentation and discussion of some of the problems of industrial research. We should, however, keep in mind that such complex human activities as industrial research cannot truly be divided into isolated, nelf-contained compartments in the manner in which a piece of machinery can be taken apart. In conception the borderlines between policy, strategy, and tactics are distinct, but in reality they are shadowy and it u~illsometimes be difficult to decide where one movement ends and the other begins. A given company's research policy is part of its individual business policy. . The same chief executives who conduct the company's industrial business affain determine when and how organized research is to be used as a means of satisfying the company's economic needs. The individual character of a company's research policy is shaped by many elements of a logical and nonlogical kind. Some of the.logical factors are the financial and teEhnologica1 capacity of the company, nea scientific and technological developments in the company's own and related fields, general economic, social, or political changes, etc. Elements of a nonlogical kind which influence the character af research policy are the personal views of the chief executives on the various as~ects of the "industrv-research" relations. their preferences and prejudices, "their many impulses and desires, their accustomed forms of collaboration"-in short, their mental and emotional approach to the problem of how to use research as an instrument of private industrial enterprise. Industrial history shows a great variety of all shades of research policies from the Fabian policy of "watchful waiting" over the careful policy of directing small research forces a t moderate objectives to the gambling policy of throwing one's whole strength daringly in one direction. Research policy will be good or otherwise, depending on whether or not it keeps profitable production going. The company's individual research policy determines the master plan, the grand scheme of research strategy. The chief executives enforce their research policy and intervene in the strategy of research campaigns already underway by authoritative decisions, concerning primarily (a) research expenditure,( b) selection of the person-
AUGUST, 1947
alities for research leadership, (c) ultimate choice of the objectives toward which large-scale research activities are to be directed, and (d) ultimate choice as to nhich research results are to go into production. Strategy begins where policy leaves off. Strateoto make use of the language of authors on n.ar strategy (Clausewitz, Moltke, G. F. Elliot)-maps out the proposed course of the different campaigns and regulates the "battles" to be fought in each. The main strategic task is the practical adaptation of the means, placed a t the disposal of research leaders, to the attainment of the proposed research objectives. Policy must take heed of strategic considerations, while strategy need concern itself with policy only as the latter sets it an impossible task or provides it with means inadequate to the accomplishment of its mission. It is the responsibiliti of the strategists to make plans which will bring the tactical forces under the most advantageous conditions so that "fighting," i, e., actual research work, is reduced to the slenderest possible proportions. A strategic artist will attain results with the minimum risk of spending money, time, and energy by concentrating sufficiently large research forces on wisely selected problems under the most favorable circumstances. The handling and maneuvering of research forces in action-that is, of research chemists working a t the bench on a particular problem-is the province of tactics. The aim of tactics is the development and oompletion of the strategic plan. The nature of tactics to be used in a particular situation is dependent upon the strategic disposition and, in turn, tactical possibilities as they show up in the progress of actual research work will redetermine the strategic plan of opera.tion. A great tactical success, for instance, may completely overthrow the strategy as originally planned. Although strategy and tactics influence and sometimes merge into one another, it m?y be said, in general, that strategy covers all planning, judging, and selecting of the basic lines of attacking a probhm set by the company's research policy, while tactics are concerned with leading the actual work of the research chemists in accordance with the strategic dispositions. To avoid possible misunderstandings it should he emphasized that the stated analogy between military affairsand industrial research affairscomes into bold relief only by comparing the methodical conduct of the respective organizations, not the two activities themselves. In fact, these two activities-"fighting" and "reflective thinking1'-are diametrically different in nature. "Fighting" in the sense of attempting to destroy an enemy is a physical contest; it means attacking an obstacle by brute force, blows, or weapons. There is not much time for reflective thinking in single combat; in military affairs tl?e ggher intellectual efforts lie exclusively in the plannmg of campaigns and in the methodical conduct of the military organization. The research chemist, too, struggles with obstacles, but these obstacles cannot be attacked by brute force;
401
they cannot be defeated physically. They have to he investigated, inquired into, and experimented with in order to be cleared up intellectually, scientifically. In industrial research affairs, not only planning of the campaigns and conducting of the research organization, but also the activities of the individual chemist as well; are exclusively intellectual operations. The stated similarity exists, therefore, in so far only as both kinds of activities-"fighting" and "doing research work1'-are capable of being organized, integrated, and methodically conducted toward a distinctly conceived practical end according to preconceived nlans. In both cases the res~ectiveorcanizations impose on their members the obligation of making their individual efforts subservient to the practical goal of the enterprise that instituted the organization. Breaking down the distinction between policy, strategy, and tactics does not matter much in the case of a small or one-man enterprise. The inventor-industrialist, in the early years of his enterprise, decides for himself all strategic and tactical questions in accordance with his own individual policy without being aware of exercising different functions. To the small group of chemists he may employ he mill be the leader somewhat in the primitive sense of the word: an example to follow. "There is little implication of an organizing function in such leader~hip."~As long as an enterprise stays small its owner or manager plans, directs, selects, and controls every phase of both production and research; he leads from mithin under his own responsibility, f r e e or comparatively free-from external relationship and free from the bonds of an internal qrganization. The research* chemists of a small company; while living or a t least functioning in close proximity with their boss who is at once their chief executive and their group leader, receive their tactical instructions together with a good deal of the logical and nonlogical motives behind the operations they are asked to perform. They get many first-hand impressions of the actual business-life situation, the antecedent, existential conditions which occasion their research work. They experience the original troubles, difficulties, and perplexities the company is up against, and they xitness and sometimes participate in the shaping of the company's research policy and straxegy. Such conditions, ~ ~ h i of c hcourse differ from company to company, are, in general, beneficial to the quality of research work for the following reasons. First, the chemist is aware of directly assisting the technological and economic needs of the company, and this involves the psychologically important satisfaction of meeting a visible situation of actual life interest. ". . .It is a well-known fact that people will not work cheerfully and well for an adequate income if the work itself is judged by them to be useless."' Under the above conditions, however, even frequent changes in the research program, vhich otherwise are usually resented, declare
-
"bid., p. 68. Ibid., p. 284.
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
402
themselves as dictated by the needs of the company. Second, his intuition is stimulated by his knowledge of the total industrial business situation, the environment out of which his research problems arise. Third, his initiative gets encouragement because he not merely is invited to have ideas but is given the opportunity of taking the responsibility for his suggestions and witnessing their ultimate consequences. Thus, a small company under favorable management will promote the originality of its research chemists, and the research chemists of such a company will tend to become selforganized around the prosecution of the aims and intentions of management. There is no need of setting up an elaborate organization which plans, directs, and controls all tactical movements. As the company grows in size, expands into new fields, and intensifies its research activities, a process of decentralization of management sets in; the research organization acquires an elaborate structure which eventually necessitates a Tierentiation in the functions and responsibilities of research management. Policy, strategy, and tactics of research turn to separate and distinct agencies, which are now being discharged by different persons or groups of persons. We are indebted to Mr. E. K. Boltons for a highly instructive history of DuPont's research organization. The period that covers what is usually called the industrial revolution is described as follows:
.~
In 1911 a centralized Chemical De~artment was establisheb to take care of all rcscarch activities of the company, and this plsn continued in operation lor about ten yews. In 1921, however, a complete reorganization of the methods by which the business of the company was conducted marked the heginning of our present decentralized plan of research. Under this plan the manufacturing departments were organized with research divisions, the personnel of which was drawn from members of.the Chemical Department; these research divisions were, and still are, responsible only to the general managers of the departments. Furthermore, directon of the research divisions are on the same organization level as directors of production and sales. The organization remaining after departmental resexch divisions were established constituted the nucleus a f a central Chemioal Department, with lsboratories at the Experimental Station. This Chemical Department was wholly independent of any manufacturing department, reporting direetly to the resident and Executive Committee. The director of the Chemi-' eal Department has the m e status as general managers of manufacturing depmtments and directors of auxiliary departments. He serves as adviser to all departments on researoh matters. ~
~
~~
~~
~~
~~
~
~
~
~
~
Taking DuPont's present research organization as illustrative for the handling of research affairs in largesize chemical concerns, we may sketch the general structure of modem research management as follows: President and executive committee constitute the policy-making group. which in conjunction with the central chemical department (research high command) determines the master plan, the grand scheme of research strategy. It tells what to do. The central department in cooperation with the directors of research divisions map out the strategic plan of attack. It .tells 8
BOLTON, E. K., 2nd. Eng. C h m . , Aml. Ed., 37, 108 (1945).
how to do it. And each research director maneuvers his research chemists according to his own system of tactics. He endeavom to do it. The research chemists within each research division are divided into tactical units, each unit receiving its tactical instructions from the research director. A tactical unit may consist of a single chemist or of a group of several chemists. A group unit may be organized as a "team," its members working cooperatively on one and the same problem or on diierent parts of the same problem, usually under the guidance of a group leader. Or, the group unit may consist of a head and his assistants, the head assigning d e h i t e tasks to the members of his group. Short-range problems, such as "salesresearch," "trouble-shooting," are usually turned over to single chemists or small group units; long range problems, such as development of new products, fundamental research, to larger groups. Single chemists or small group units are sometimes used as "skirmishers" to scout the possibilities of new ideas and provide information for strategic decisions. Many variations and combinations of tactical formations are, of course, possible. To complete the analogy with military affairs,we may designate the operations of a research director maneuvering his research units as "grand tactics" and the performance of a group leader leading the members of his group in actual "combat" as "minor tactics." We may now represent graphically the structure of a modern rewrch organization showing how the relations of the parts involve the relations to the whole. Within this structure we can easily distinrmish three groups each having its own explic.it Zommon purposes and functions. ' ( A ) The research chemists a t the bottom of this hierarchy are a distinctly tactical force with little or no immediate knowledge of the company's research policy and research strategy. As compared with the chemists of a small company they will seldom have the opportunity of getting a lirstrhand impression of the logical and psychological background of their work and the industrial business situation which has occasioned it. They usually are put to work on a premeditated, "readymade" problem, and are directed toward a predetermined, preordained result. Their work is of the nature of an assigned task. The position of chemists within a large research organization has professional character. Research chemists are in fact professional men; they usually belong to some professional society and they follow a line of conduct conforming to certain technical and ethical standards. They are employed by private industrial enterprise because they profess to have acquired the special knowledge which enables them to solve, or competently try to solve, chemical problems. The research chemists of one company form a more or less distinct group with certain. p u p characteristics,
-
* HOENAY, K., "Self Analysis," Franklin Watts, h e . , distributed by W. W. Norton and Comprtny, Ine., New York, 1942, p. 143.
AUGUST. 1947 President and Executive Committee I
I
Research High Command
,,
I
Research Division under Separate Directors
I
I
r
Policy Master Plan Strategy
!
Research Leader Group
Tacties
Tactical units
1
Group Leaders
Grand Tactics
inseparable from intellectual help. Second, as members of the adminiResearch Administrator strator group, they are the experts Group npon whose knowledge of the battlefront the strategic decisions have to be based. Research directors and group leaders may rightly be called research leaders.
SUMMARY We may now summarize this survey of industrial research affairs as follows. Research The logical economic function of Chemist research as an instrument of ~ r i v a t e P......~ -."Up industrial enterprise is to assure continuity (and expansion) of profitable production by providing the technical knowledge which is necessary to improve existing models of production or replace them by new ones. The methodical conduct of the research organization of a large chemical concern may be divided into three stages, i. e., research policy, research strategy, and research tactics. The complex structure of a large research organization may be looked upon as consisting of three distinctly different but interrelated and intieracting groups: the group of research administrators or research managers, the group of research leaden, and the group of research chemists. The ultimate'purpose of the methodical conduct of this elaborate organization is to keep the individual efforts of the members of the research chemist groups in line with the needs and desires of the company's business and research policy. Thus far, o w investigation8 have clarified rather than answered the question of how to increase the economic efficiency of industrial research. However, in breaking down the complex whole of industrial research affairs into some of its component parts, we have gained a basis for further analysis Ofthe mental prwesses that go on in the minds of the members of an industrial research organization. The results of this analysis will enable us to describe the various ways in which individuals of such organizations usually think. We then shall have to substantiate the fact that knowledge about the "theory of iuqniry" can make us understand that some of these ways of thinking are better than others.
I
J
sentiments, and attitudes. The members of this research chemist group have a daily face-to-face relation to each other and affect each other's lives in a number of ways. Outside of their professional activities, they have no other explicit common purpose within the organization of the company. . ( B ) The group of senior executives heading the structure of a large chemical concern have no intimate face-to-face relation with the members of the research ohemist group and little or no immediate first-hand knowledge of the day-byday activities of that group. The explicit common purpose of the group of senior executives in research affairs is to shape the company's research policy and to organize research around the prosecution of the aims of this policy. Senior executives do not lead actual research work; they direct, superintend, or administer it. They are not research leaden but research managers or administrators. ( C ) The group of junior executives consisting of research directors and group leaders are clearly in an intermediary position. They have intimate relations to both the research administrator group a$ the research chemist group; they have, more or less, first-hand knowledge of the conditions antecedent to research and of the actual research work itself; they know what goes on in the laboratories and in the minds of the members of the administrator group. The members of the group of junior executives obviously have two explicit functions to perform. First, they are the tactical leaden of the research chemist group and in this capacity they have to make tactical decisions. But in addition thereto, they are expected to give to the ohemist professional help, provide stimulation and encouragement, and look after his "research morale." To some extent "general human help"g is
'
The author wishes to express his appreciation to W. R. Thompson, Technical Director of the CataIin Corporation of America, for his encouragement in the preparation of this paper, and to Dr. R. E. Davies for his helpful suggestions.
