RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION CHARLES A L L E N T H O M A S , Executive Vic© Pm§id@nf, Monsanto Chemical Co., St Louis,, Mo*
SEARCH"
has
become a
muc:h-used,
magic word in the United States. iScience has carved itself a permanent plac*e as an essential part of progressive industry. The necessity for continuous research, particularly in industrial fields applying t h e physical sciences, is accepted as axiomiatically today as the fact that the heart must continuously beat to sustain life. Research organizations are growing in size; they are increasing in number; and, yearly, the expenditures needed to support them grow larger. The administration of these growing and multiplying organizations becomes more complex each year. It would be a sound investment of our time to examine the responsibilities of research administration and make a critical examination of our philosophy and methods. Not long ago, an intelligent man looking at research from the outside, asked me a question: "Why are industrial research organizations generally split up into small groups? Do you find that industrial research men operate better as a task force?" The answer I gave was, "Yes." And in marshaling my thoughts to give him a full explanation, I outlined some of the facts of my experience. Some of these facts may be worth our attention in their relation to research administration. Among the men engaged in research, we find certain highly competent research minds. Men who possess such minds are able to view problems in their fullest scope. They are able to discern the many ramifications of a problem and abstract the full significance of each facet. Most important, the type of mind I am describing can evaluate the worth of each part and recognize its relation to the main objective. Such minds are not likely to become lost in unraveling inconsequential strands; they are not likely to lose sight of the goal. This type of man is fitted to be the intellectual leader of a research group. Whether he functions best as a group leader or alone depends perhaps upon his personality or possibly upon his inclination. Notwithstanding, his caliber is determined by the breadth of his thinking. Many extremely high-caliber research men work best when working alone. It is particularly true in abstract or exploratory research and frequently true in applied science. Such men appear to function best when they can give a single problem their concentrated attention. In our own organization, we have singled out such men and conferred upon them the title of senior scientist. In the positions so titled, men can devote themselves to one problem without the necessity of supervising others or participating in the group work of a laboratory.
3678
An able research administrator expresses some random thoughts on guiding research through our .steadily g r o w i n g and multiplying research organisations .
I am defining types of research minds for trie purpose of" relating the types to research administration. We must remember that true research must start in a human mind. Apparatus is only an extension of our senses; laboratories are convenient places to assemble apparatus. Laboratories, apparatus, and experiments are necessary because our understanding of natural laws is far from complete. The essential purpose of experiments is to obtain data to be used in further thinking, in reasoning from one conclusion to the next, along a chain which extends toward some ultimate objective. A different type of research worker is familiar to you in men who have excellent laboratory techniques but who cannot work out a research problem to its logical conclusion without close supervision. Such people are valuable. Frequently they are extremely painstaking and remarkably persevering. But they cannot think on the level required for leadership of successful industrial research. They do, rather than think. With this broad division of types of research mind, it becomes apparent why group working is frequently more productive than individual effort. W e are in effect adding more hands to a guiding intellect. But we are doing something more —intangibly we are adding an "internal stimulant" to the group. Each individual appears to gain impetus by the association. The stimulation affects the group leader and the group members; the "hands" stimulate each other and the hands stimulate the "mind." The attack on an industrial research problem is usually built around one man. He is selected, if free choice is possible, because of his mental capacity, his special training and experience, and his ability as a leader. It is seldom, if ever, that a man is found ideally qualified in all respects. The group leader forms his team, which may consist of the leader, one or more assistants, and a group of technicians. The research assistants are usually of the thinker type but with less experience or lower stature. The technicians contribute activity, but do not contribute significantly in research thinking. This brings me to the first point, and one that has a decided significance from an administrator's viewpoint. A good research group has a definite personality, just as individuals have personalities. T h e personality, if you will ac-
C H E M I C A L
cept the term, is the sum total of the abilities and" energies of the members; it is an expression of the oneness that exists in the team. A good personality develops when the members adopt an agreeable and efficient pattern for working together, an effective method for dividing up the job to be done, and an almost unconscious habit of supporting one another. The strength of some members bolsters the weaknesses of others. When the team has developed intellectual and occupational harmony, the tempo of its work becomes an energetic counterpoint. A familiar analogy can be made with certain people who find it agreeable to be partners at bridge because each contributes his best and supports the other's play without prearrangement. And, as in bridge, a sense of satisfaction results which is hard to match. In a research organization, no matter how small, men draw strength from each other. Their ideas spark, the sum total of their thinking is greater than the component parts. This process takes place not only within the group but between members of the group and other men in the laboratory. The synergistic effect which results from the effective interchange of ideas in a well administered research laboratory is one of the marvels of our day and one of the important sources of industrial strength. In a heated research discussion when ideas are being born, men in our patent department tell me that it is difficult or often impossible to segregate an individual as the author of the idea. It springs into existence from the several key minds playing upon one another. Often a research team—one that has been outstandingly successful as a groupis broken up, usually to promote either the leader or men within the group as a reward for outstanding work. Then often we find that outside the group, without the support of their team mates, these men do not obtain the results one would have predicted. Perhaps it would be well for administrators to give more thought to the corporate value of research teams and recognize that the synergism is real, that when an effective harmony has developed it would be wiser to offer group compensation in bonus or salary rather than promotion of individuals. A winning combination is usually recognized readily. And the converse is also true. I must call attention to instances where the personality of the team is not
A N D
E N G I N E E R I N G
NEWS
a good one, w h e r e the g r o u p operates below rather t h a n above its full potential. This can h a p p e n when one m a n does not really belong. H e might never capture t h e real spirit of t h e team. I n discussions, his contributions are jarringly out-of-phase with t h e rest of t h e group. Regardless of his innate ability to think, which may b e great, h e may not he able to contribute constructively. His presence and his ideas may even distract others in the group. W h e n this h a p p e n s , t h e team operates at less t h a n the potential sum of all its members. In all fairness, it must b e remembered that a man w h o may create dissonance in one group may fit wonderfully well into another. H e may be extremely prolific with ideas. In one group, the man ina> be a distraction; in another lie may be the very influence required to spark a well m a n n e d b u t uninspired group to brilliant performance. In the research laboratory. as i-4l other segments of industry, problems \r h u m a n relations present a great challenge to administrators. 1 propose the thought to you that one way to determine something about the p r o b a b l e effectiveness of a company's research is to stud> closely the personalities of the research groups as a whole and analyze them on the basis of the contributions or hindrances that center in t h e team members. This should soon reveal t h e factors that make for effective harmony or lack of it with its inevitable consequence on the company's research progress. Money Isn't Everything It has frequently been said that money will not b u y happiness (even though it may enable one to be unhappy in comfort). Money alone will not buy research results. Expenditures can only provide materials to work with and the proper climate for encouraging research thinking. My next point is a ticklish one, but unfortunately a valid one. Industry often insists on spending money, ostensibly to promote research, in instances where the expenditure is more likely to chalk up a black mark against research than actually to assist it perform its function well. T h e ineffectualness of expenditure I have in m i n d can b e typified by a situation in which top m a n a g e m e n t applies extreme pressure for t l . j solution of a technical problem. Management insists upon action, a lot of action, p u t into motion at once. In such circumstances, the research administrator is likely t o marshal a large n u m b e r of men and set them to work. On a basis of results that under calmer circumstances would b e considered preliminary a n d incomplete, a project may b e rushed into pilot plant or even full scale construction. It is certainly far from a rare occurrence to find that a pilot plant or a full scale operation does not function properly a n d more research is needed. T h e project goes back into research and more d a t a along well t h o u g h t out lines shows that redesign, different materials, or different physical conditions are necessary. This involves costly changes, reV O L U M E
2 8,
NO.
4 3 .
construction, a n d wasted time. W h a t was n e e d e d originally was a period of calm t h o u g h t , a mental exploration of a l l the ramifications of the application of data thus far uncovered. T h e m o r e pressing t h e need for results, t h e more important is the requirement that t h e best, not necessarily t h e most, research brains available b e brought to bear on the problem. Merely putting a lot of men in motion is usually useless. W h e n a technical difficulty is encountered, the really important thing is to find a research m i n d capable of dealing competently with all phases of t h e problem a n d giving that mind a chance to function. I am aware that some research administrators arc* influenced by management and at times put on a false front of feverish activity while behind tlit- scenes they a r e trying desperately to solve basic- technical problems by logical means. ('lose timing of industrial research lias a high percentage of risk. T o be successful, research must be patient, persevering:, and exhaustive. In financing it, more attention must b e paid to the quality of the results than to the quantity or speed in obtaining them. The best administrators are courageous in d e a l i n g with management pressures. While they can appreciate the strong incentives which oftentimes make it seem vital to meet certain time schedules, they also know that the earliest completion ol a project cannot b o obtained by frantic, futile motion. The soundest solutions are not always t h e first solutions a n d good administration insists on a sound approach and thorough data even though obtaining these may at times appear to high-strung, nervous "brass" as sitting staring at the horizon. If researchers had sufficient theory at their command, it might b e possible to design plants that would work perfectly without t h e necessity for pilot plant operations. We are, in fact, part of the way along t h e road to such accomplishments. You will call to mind at once that it is now quite common to design large scale distillation equipment or heat transfer devices from mere laboratory data. In other fields, such as rotary kilns or in (.rushing a n d grinding, in designing plants w e must d e p e n d upon experimental results which are largely empirical. Even when good data covering these operations are at hand there is still the need tor experienced judgment in applying it While we have made great strides in t h e development ol technical theory, any large project still involves t h e accumulation of large amounts of experimental data. The general tendency is to h e too superficial i n t h e laboratory phases of a project, despite the fact that the laboratory stage usually consumes the least money of a n y of the principal steps i n the project's development. It could easily be true t h a t pilot plant research would consume five t o 10 times the total cost of laboratory work. T h e typical project is likely to show a cost distribution pattern in which t h e laboratory research represents not more than a few per cent of the
» OCTOBER
2 3,
1950
total expenditure for bringing a project successfully from t h e idea state to commercial status. If an honest appraisal is made, we are quite likely to find that w e have probably spent far more than all the laboratory work cost just to compensate for lack of information needed for a good design job and for construction costs which could have been avoided if a more thorough laboratory job had been done. The Facts of Life It is, frankly, a little mysterious (and disheartening) that the industrial research system seems to rush ahead of its information pretty consistently. It may b e that the respective personalities of those in top management and those in research arcso related that the former overwhelms t h e latter with insistence on speed a t any price. At best, this could only he an excuse and not a reason, for it would represent a failure on the part of scientists and technologists to sell business management on t h e best methods of project development. The real cure, obviously, is education of management on the brutal facts of life as a research administrator knows them. T h e lack of understanding that is apparently current should be dissipated somewhat as scientists continue to invade the upper echelons ol business management. At present, however, I feel that all administrators need to think more rigorously about the proper allocation of effort in project development. Another phase of administrative problems is the cost of equipment. We must remember the numerous examples of fundamental discoveries made with nothing b u t t h e simplest apparatus. Langmuir's classical experiments with monomolecular films were made- with simply a dish of water, a piece of wire, and a fewdrops of stearic acid. Raman employed only t h e simplest materials in his work on molecular configuration. The lesson to b e learned is that by using creative thought in t h e laboratory, we should be able to supply designers, construction men, and the operators with a host of useful figures. We need only reali/e that all pertinent data will ultimately b e needed and recognize its necessity early in the project. This is t h e summary of a very important point. I suggest that administrators clearly recognize that laboratory research should he as thorough and complete as a given project will justify. A definite effort should be made from the very start of the laboratory work to anticipate and accumulate whatever information will be needed to make economical design, sound construction, and efficient operation. This should be regarded as a normal part of the laboratory research. T h e laboratory should not be a half-way house. It is too costly merely to p a y lip service to the principle of making mistakes on a small scale. Let us do so in truth. And most of all, let us be courageous in dealing with management on t h e necessity of this method of administration. In the proper research climate, w e can afford to highlight the tilings we d o not know and be in a posi3679
tion to strike hard to fill in missing data. Over a long period of time, the effect will be most impressive in the enlargement of our store of knowledge. A dollar spent in the laboratory can save 50 in a new plant; and data obtained on one project—thoroughly a n d scientifically investigated—will serve to fill the gaps on projects to come. Research Tragedies From time to time there are research tragedies of a sort that might be avoided if research is administered realistically. The sort of happening I have in mind can be described with a hypothetical case. Let us assume that it appears desirable to enter the plastics field with a new plasticizer. It seems particularly desirable b e cause our hypothetical company already produces a line of alcohols which would lit nicely into synthesizing a certain new type of plasticizer. A research program is begun and excellent research talent is brought to bear with gratifying results. Splendid processes are worked out for manufacturing a number of these n e w types of plasticizer, and adequate quantities are prepared for trial in the plasticizer field. These are sent to consumers for evaluation. After a considerable amount of time has passed, answers come back that none of the materials is suitable. Volatility, water solubility, bleeding, or some other property or combination of properties is simply not right. Or, t h e final properties are not consonant with the price that they must command. There are two aspects of such an occurrence that I would like to bring out. In the first place, how can one rely on t h e evaluation of t h e people reporting on your plasticizers? W h a t assurance can you have that they are giving you the whole truth? T h e second aspect is the amount of time and effort that may or may not have been wasted on an unfeasible project. At this stage, however, how can you be sure either of the evaluation or the value of the data on processes. The situation typifies an error of administration. In t h e field of plasticizers, the physical properties of the plasticized resin is the criterion of value—not the synthesis or physical properties of the plasticizer itself. T h e final plastic doesn't know or care how the plasticizer was ma.de. Since a great amount of special techniques and experienced know-how must enter into the evaluation of plasticizers, for a project of any consequence—it should have been recognized early that it would probably be unsafe to depend upon the evaluation by others. Actually, there would have been no necessity for working out manufacturing details until the most reliable possible evaluation information had been obtained. It would have been wiser to buy, rather than make, the necessary chemicals for evaluation testing, if they were available. However, in our hypothetical case, it is definitely putting the cart before the horse to work out processes, cost estimates, and pilot planting before enough evaluation of the end product had been reliably carried out.
3680
Our fictional example has had counterparts in t h e plastics industry. During t h e war and immediately after, plastics were thought to be replacements for all types of materials. I n the scramble for r a w materials they w e r e used in places where they -were unsuited to t h e requirements. The result was that plastics in general were getting a b a d name; and there was a precipitous drop in plastics sales. This was about two years ago. A few of t h e leading plastics manufacturers realizing this insisted on knowing where the plastic was going and what use was to b e made of it. In effect, the plastics manufacturers were administering t h e research for their customers, spending much time a n d effort in evaluating t h e applications and researching the properties their materials would need to meet the end use by t h e consumer. Today the smart producer of plastics turns down as much as 4 0 % of the requests for purchases when h e considers that the e n d uses will not b e served by t h e materials. Thanks to this policy, the industry is again moving sv/iftly ahead. But until the materials prove their worth in specific applications thoroughly evaluated—it is foolhardy to spend money on research and production development. One can cite many examples. T h e glaring fact remains that it is distressingly common for research problems to be undertaken without full thought being given to all t h e ramifications of the end product use, the data on related materials, and the fund of information needed as a guide from laboratory to full scale production. W e again return to research being primarily mind at work. Research administrators should think with complete objectivity about proposed research projects. If dependable means of evaluation cannot be visualized, if complete data cannot be obtained, perhaps w e should think twice before undertaking such projects. In this day of advanced and elaborate application research, the thought may occur to you that t h e dangers I describe are no longer real, that we are beyond that stage. T h e y are very real. T b e y still represent a major criticism of t h e administration of industrial research. My next point is economic. Despite a considerable a m o u n t of market research, administrators are still not likely to possess the sixth or seventh sense that enables them to forecast the economic climate. As a result, n e w prodigies are frequently not properly conditioned in all their technical aspects to withstand the rigors of our competitive economy. It is wrong, for example, to turn out a product in arbitrarily selected grades when its marketability would have been increased if the administrator had looked for the economic danger signals. W e must know w h a t a product can d o a n d where it should go. This is frequently different from what we feel is sufficient for it to do and where we think it ought to go. T h e administrator must also have enough faith in his product based on full information t o be able to evaluate the calculated risk of turning it over to sales.
CHEMICAL
W h e n research work has progressed far enough to substantiate firmly t h e merits of a product, w h e n t h a t product has been worked out to t h e last detail as far as t h e lowest cost of production—then the a d m i n istrator should have sufficient faith in t h e p r o d u c t to make the best case possible for it and courageously present t h e facts to management. It has b e e n the experience of American industry that research is the best investment it can make. N o intelligent m a n a g e ment denies this. There is no longer any doubt that by diverting a reasonable portion of income to well administered r e search, industry not only buys itself an "insurance policy" b u t it also catalyzes its growth. Companies with competent r e search under competent top m a n a g e m e n t are likely to grow t h e most rapidly. And this growth poses still other problems. Since such rapid g r o w t h is largely d e p e n d e n t u p o n free markets for goods, h o w long can this process of rapid growth, spurred as it is b y research, continue? Perhaps there is no immediate probability of t h e shrinkage of free markets. If so, then t h e growth r a t e curves for industry will continue to proscribe growing amounts of money for research. Research Produces G r o w t h T h e important thing to remember is that well administered research produces an accelerated growth a n d will d o so as long as free markets exist. Consequently, unless management is willing to undertake the manifold responsibilities of continued expansion—the problems of finance, organization growth, procurement of additional personnel—management should not blindly set u p research b u d g e t s at a traditional level to continue research a t a traditional rate. T h e r e comes a period of diminishing returns, unless management is resolved upon continued expansion a n d acts accordingly. So, too, does the research administrator have a responsibility for t h e expenditures of research budgets. Unless research administration is prepared to face and solve t h e problems of procurement of qualified personnel, organizational set-up, and expansion of facilities—then research administrators should be properly reluctant about proposing or accepting budgets which, if properly administered, will inevitably lead to an expanded company a n d a still further expansion of research expenditure. M y last point is simply this: both top management and research administrators should look at t h e research budget h o n estly. T h e relationship between research and corporate expansion should b e clearly understood a n d t h e consequences clearly foreseen. W h e n top management a p proves research b u d g e t s , it is committing itself to future financing; plant expansion, production, advertising, a n d selling r e sponsibilities. T h e full realization of this fact should influence management's j u d g m e n t w h e n determining t h e r a t e of r e search expenditure. PRESENTED before t h e Joint Technical Meeting of Standard Oil Co. ( I n d . ) , French Lick, Ind., May 15, 1950.
AND
ENGINEERING
NEWS
