The Technical M a n
- Prologue to
Technological Productivity
IN
CONSIDERING the role of the technical man in exploiting the new materials, energy sources, and control possibilities, we must take account of trends in the organization of research and development which may affect his ability to make this exploitation successful. One of the most significant trends in the past few decades, which promises to continue into the next, is the increasing tendency to organize R and D and to integrate it within an institutional framework-whether it is an industrial company, a government agency, a university, or another type of research-performing institution. Under these circumstances, it is important to examine the technical man in this relatively new environment-one in which he was seldom found 30 years ago and rarely found 50 years ago. What are the characteristics of this new environment which are relevant to the productivity of the technical man in research and development? Are there factors which will greatly increase the productivity of researchers (and developers)? Are there other factors which will inhibit the technical man and make him less productive in the aggregate or per man than a previous generation working under different conditions? There is strong evidence that the massive resources available to the member of a large organization’s R and D department have been tremendously important-in a n increasing number of cases indispensable-to exploiting new knowledge and converting it into products, processes, and services. But there is also evidence that these material resources alone-or even accompanied by the massive application of technical manpowerare not sufficient to assure successful results in research and development. I t is difficult to obtain reliable data on the input-output characteristics of R and D in terms of resources applied and results obtained. -4 group a t MIT and others, elsewhere, have been attempting to do this for individual firms and for specific industries with interesting, but far from conclusive results. One of our graduate students attempted this in the chemical industry ( 9 ) . No neat, quantitative answer was found, but the notion of a simple proportional relationship between R and D expenditures and economic results was dispelled. Studies in the textile, steel, and electronic industries are under way. T h e absence of a direct proportionality between input and output to the R and D process must be examined care-
10
fully, if we are to understand fully our ability toexploit these new fields of knowledge through organized effort. I n an attempt to contribute to this understanding, a number of researchers in economics, social science, engineering, and management have embarked on a new venture in the world of R and D. They have brought their theories and techniques to bear on the R and D process itself-that activity in our society on which we depend to generate knowledge and to apply it. These people are engaged in “research-on-research.’’ Research-on-Researc h
Research on the research process is fairly new. Until the recently instituted program of the Office of Special Studies, National Science Foundation, the annual rate of expenditure for this kind of investigation probably did not average 0.01% of the annual total spent on R and D itself. Prior to the establishment of the Manpower program in the Human Resources Division of the Office of Naval Research in about 1950, there had been virtually no systematic study of the research and development process in operating organizations. One such coordinated effort is that recently launched by the Study Committee for the Analysis of Research, Development, and Engineering-a group of about 35 industrial, government, and university research organizations, attempting to collect basic data on the economics of research and development projects. To date, about a dozen groups have been engaged in such research on the research process-supported by government, industrial, universit)., and foundation funds. A majority of these studies have been conducted within one or a few laboratories, focused on limited aspects of the research and development process. The findings of many of them tabulate and correlate attitudes, ratings of productivity and creativity, frequency and kind of communication, j o b descriptions, and behavior of researchers and ratings of superiors, subordinates, and colleagues and similar factors. R and D managers are becoming increasingly concerned with the productivity of their professional people. They are concerned, generally, with two aspects of the problem. T h e first is the problem of the technical man himself: What personal characteristics affect his ability to be technically productive? T h e second is the question of his work environment: What factors tend to
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
stimulate or inhibit his productivity? Consider the personal characteristics first. T o focus their attention more sharply, many investigators have attempted to distinguish between degrees of productivity which approach a difference in kind. At one end of the scale of behavior of the man engaged in R and D, they distinguish routine problem solving which may be characterized as “attempting to fill a recognized gap in knowledge by known means in order to accomplish a specified purpose.” While this is a minimum ability required of any young man aspiring to a career in R and D, it is not a characteristic ability of the general population, so some investigation is under way to identify and test for this ability among potential candidates for R and D and related work. David R. Saunders (78) of the Educational Testing Service, for example, has been engaged in a study whose longterm goal is to “make it feasible to guide, select. and place engineering graduates in the functional kinds of work in which they show most promise of success.” Among the tools used in this analysis is the Personality Research Inventory. A recent study a t the Iowa State College (27) has as its purpose to develop, and to evaluate, tests for the discrimination of creative from noncreative machine designers. At the other end of the scale is behavior that can be, and has been, described in fairly abstruse terms, but which we call, in common parlance, “creativity.” Here the question becomes much more complex. I t can be oversimplified in the following manner: Certain behavior among individual researchers may frequently be recognized as unusual. .4bility to formulate problems, to devise ways of attacking problems, or to solve problems is much beyond the ability of most of their colleagues. Furthermore, the consequences of this unusual behavior are often so desirable that we would like to have more such people behaving in a similar way. Leaving aside work environment factors for the moment, most of us are convinced that these abilities are not widespread in the population-much less even than the ability to solve routine problems. T h e difficulty arises, however, from inability to seek out or even recognize such a person prior to the first evidence of his abilities. If we had a reliable way of spotting him in high school, or college, or during the recruiting process, or even soon after he had come to work, we
could increase the number of such people contributing to our organizations. Among the studies on the characteristics of people whose creativity or scientific productivity was clearly recognized are those by Anne Roe (74) and Lewis Terman (24). The studies were attempts to learn something about these people, which might help explain why they were exceptional. The most recent study of the personal characteristics of research scientistsone of the few concerned with industrial research scientists-was a comparative study of two groups of industrial researchers in the chemical industry, carried out at the University of Chicago by Morris Stein (22). One group was rated “more creative” and the other “less creative.” The results do not show tremendous differences between these two groups, because they are both at the high end of the educational and creative scale. They were first compared on severaf psychological characteristics, and then on their attitudes, opinions, and feelings about the environment in which they work. I n this study we are bridging the gap between information about researchers independent of where they work, and information which takes account of their work environment. Most of the additional studies mentioned are in the context of the work environment-the R and D laboratory. The dozen or so groups engaging in such studies have tackled this problem from a number of vantage points, depending on their disciplinary background and the objectives of the specific study. Some have concentrated on the power structure in the organization where R and D is being carried out. Others have attempted to analyze the attitudes and perceptions of the technical man and to relate them to his performance as described in various ways. One main stream of research-qn-research has been a concern with the way in which the research man receives and transmits information. This stems from the view of research and development as a n activity whose raw material and product are primarily information. Stemming from this view are questions such as: Where does the researcher get his information and to whom does he transmit? What barriers to effective communication does he encounter? How importaht are particular communication channels and classes of information? What proportion of the researcher’s time is spent in communication? There have been a number of attempts to make systematic measurements in this field-to develop notions such as “relative frequency of use” of communication channels, preferred channels, most likely sources for certain classes of information. One of the earlier attempts to do this
in industrial research labs was in connection with a study of team research in the Engineering School a t CoIumbia University in 1951 (6). Other studies have been carried out a t the University of Michigan (7)’ the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia (Z), and Case Institute of Technology ( 5 ) . A complex aspect of all these studies of the communication pattern of the researcher is the value of the information he receives and transmits. I t is interesting and important to know how he communicates and with whom. But the relevancy, the quality, and the usefulness of information transmitted are fundamental to a n understanding of the research process and an ability to design research organizations to stimulate * the flow of useful information (77). Several studies have attempted to use fairly objective measures, such as patent and publication output (20). Such measures are complicated by the problem of relative weighting and rely too much on factors such as the field of technology, the state of the art, institutional policies about publication and patents, and the objectives of the technical work carried on. A second major criterion is a subjective one, which in many cases resists definition, but serves the operational purpose of distinguishing between individuals and groups of technical people: the subjective judgment of a man’s-competence or productivity as rendered by superiors, colleagues, and others familiar with his work. The most extensive work on the criterion problem-how to measure the performance of researchers-was carried on over several years a t the American Institute for Research ( 4 ) , which developed the “critical incident’’ technique for describing effective and ineffective behavior of research personnel and for differentiating critical requirements according to position, discipline, and type of work. A group at M I T is attempting to trace through the effects of corporate decentralization on the R and D activity in a large number of companies in several industries (76). Some of the specific constraints investigated are : the influence af project selection and approval procedures, the functions assigned to the various laboratories in the company, and the way in which objectives for R and D are formulated an&communicated throughout the organization. Work carried out several years ago a t UCLA ( I ) , traced through the effects of a basic change in laboratory goals over a 2-year period, indicated the importance of factors such as group loyalties and the effects of factions on the conduct of work. The change in objectives led to some major changes in the power structure within the lab. One attempt to get directly at the in-
fluence of the institutional setting on research productivity was a questionnaire study by Meltzer (70) of about 75% of all the physiologists in the United States. The criterion of productivity was “number of research papers published during the past three years.” The analysis dealt with physiologists working in government, academic, and industrial laboratories. The environmental conditions considered were : freedom allowed, funds available, and publication policy. An intriguing notion in organizational design of the research laboratory arises out of some results by Shepard (79) a t M I T about 6 years ago. I n studying research and development groups in 21 industrial companies, he found a n inverse relationship between “group age”-the number of months the average group member had been in the group-and ratings of the group’s performance by laboratory executives, other groups, a n d themselves. Suggestions for organizational design arising out of this study and related ones led to the notion of planned rotation of group membership to provide the stimulation and challenge associated with lower average group age. Additional suggestions for organizational design of the laboratory come from the findings of Pelz (72) and others at Michigan in their studies of the National Institute of Health: Junior investigators, compared with senior, seem to need attention and from chiefs and colleagues. Senior, more mature investigators, no longer need the sense of identification with a small group. I t is no longer necessary or even desirable for the senior man to be surrounded by others of the same scientific discipline. These findings imply that a different structuring of research groups can be achieved which will fit the needs of the various levels of researchers better than the traditional pyramidal structure. These and additional findings lend weight to the idea of advantages for the project form of organization over the traditional disciplinary or functional form, under certain limiting conditions. What’s in Store for the Future?
A number of the studies described have focused on the relationships between the researcher and the two major institutions to which he belongs-the scientific or professional community and the organization for which he works. The constraints imposed by these two demanding institutions often place the researcher in a position of internal conflict, reflected in the projects he chooses or is willing to work ori, the methods he uses, and the dissemination of his results. Some investigators of this phenomenon believe that the researcher who is most VOL. 91, NO. 1
0
JANUARY 1959
11
responsive to the expressed needs of the organization in terms of fields to be studied and projects to be undertakcn may ultimately make less of a contribution to the organization than the researcher who pursues a line of research stemming from his scientific interests and the research work itself. But the proof of the pudding, of course, is in the ultimate results; and so far none of the studies in operating organizations has adequately confirmed or denied the above proposition. If it is sound, however, industrial laboratories must find some way of preserving the independence of the latter type of researcher, while he still retains his scientific and professional orientation. Methods must be found for providing the incentive and opportunity to carry out his own ideas in the face of institutional constraints such as lack of promotional opportunity, failure to get necessary funds and facilities, and lack of cnthusiasm for his ideas on the part of superiors. The attempts to resolve this situation so far have not been very promising. I t is possible that their focus has been directed too much a t providing the honorifics of independence-e.g., scientific titles-and not the substance. Another main focus of this research-onresearch has been the influence of organizational form within the laboratory. Several studies have indicated that perinanent groups aiong traditional disciplinary or functional lines can seriously limit the productivity of the laboratory. The blurring of lines between disciplines. the rapid progress in particular fields, and the complex nature of new products and processes make the older forms of organization obsolete. There are indications that flexibility of organizational lines, and deliberate and systematic stirring up of traditional groups may have a salutary effect on creativity and productivity. The project form of organization-all the requisite skills mobilized around a problem-is gaining some attention in the chemical industry. I t has been the primary mode of organization in the electronics industry for some time. I n the future we can expect more experimentation on organizational form within the laboratory and an increase in importance of the project group. The demand for courses in economics and management by industrial researchers is increasing. The requirements for more systematic planning, project selection, and evaluation, and other business aspects of R and D are attracting the attention of many scientists and engineers who had previously been uninterested in management or economics. Many of them are finding intellectual challenge in selecting projects, estimating profitability of alternative investments, and related problems. Such matters will achieve an increasingly respectable status among researchers and we may even
12
look for new ideas on the economics of the firm from such work. Finally, we can expect a shaking out of companies doing research and development in their own laboratories. Many companies which have supported R and D reluctantly, without appreciating the nature of the research process. will express disappointment in its results by turning away from support of less specific investigations and concentrate their technological dollars in support of current operations. I n part, this will result from inability to exploit the results of their research, despite generally favorable economic implications. Another group of companies which have had substantial success with relatively uncommitted research will probably increase support of such activity and establish or enlarge central research facilities not directly tied to current operations. These, in general, will be the more diversified, larger companies. The implication is that the industrial researcher will find fewer places in industry where he can pursue his own ideas, but these places will provide a better atmosphere than now exists in most companies for this kind of work. The atmosphere in these larger labs wilI not approach that of university laboratories, because they will continue to operate under the constraint of ultimate usefulness of research results to the company. But there will be more freedom for the technical man to pursue studies that do not have immediate demonstrable applications to specific current operations of the company. References (1) Brown, Paula, Clovis, Sheperd, “Factionalism and Organizational Change in a Research Laboratory,” Social Problems, pp. 235-43 (April 1956). (2) Bur. Applied Social Research, Columbia University, study supported by Natl. Science Foundation on Communication Practices of Three Academic Departments. (3) Davis, R. C., “Factors Related to Scientific Research Performance,” Interpersonal Factors in Research, Part I. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1954. (4) Flanagan, J. C., “Selection Techniques for Research Workers,” Research Operations in Industry, Columbia University, New York, 1953. (5) Halbert, M. H., Study on Industrial Chemists, supported by Natl. Science Foundation. (6) Hertz, D. B., Rubenstein, A. H . , K m Research, Eastern Technical Publications, Cambridge, Mass., 1953. (7) Jacobson, Eugene, Method for Studying the Relationship between Communication Structure and Attitudes in Complex Organizations, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, February 1952. (8) Jewkes, John, Sawers, David, Stillerman, Richard, Sources of Invention, Macmillan, London, 1958.
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
(9) Lafigenhagen, C. F., Jr., Evaluation 6f Research and Development in the Chemical Industry, M.S. thesis, School of Industrial Management, MIT, 1958. (10) Meltzer, Lee, “Scientific Productivity in Organizational Settings,” J . Soczal Issues 12, No. 2. 32-40 11956). (11) Natl. ’Science Foundation,’ Reviews of Data on Research and Development, February 1958. (12) Pelz, D. C., Mellinger, Glen, Baumgartel, Howard, Practical Implications of the NIH Study, Interpersonal Factors in Research, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, Universitv of Michican. Ann Arbor. February 1957. (13) Riegel, J . W., Administration of Salaries and Intangible Rewards for Engineers and Scientists, Bureau of Industrial Relations, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1958. (14) Roe, Anne, “Psychological Study of Eminent Psychologists and Anthropologists, and Comparison with Biological and Physiological Scientists,” Psychological Monographs 67, No. 2 (1953). (15) Rubenstein, A. H., Problems of Financing and Managing New ResearchBased Enterprises in New England, research report to Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. No. 3. 1958. (16) Rubenstein, k. H., Some Effects of Decentralization on Research and Development, Operations Research Sorirty of America, November 1957. (17) Rubenstein, A . H., Avery, R . W., Idea Flow in Research and Development, - Natl. Electronics Conferencr, Chicago, October 1958. (18) Saunders, D. R., Measured Personality Differences between Engineers Employed in Several Functional Types of Work, - American Psychological Association Meetings, San Francisco, Sept. 6, 1955. (19) Shepard, H. A., Field Studies in the Organization and Management of Research, MIT, 1954, and Some Social Attributes of Industrial Research and Development Groups, MIT, January 1955. (20) Shockley, William, “Statistics of Individual Variations of Productivity in Research Laboratories,” Proc. I R E (March 1957.) 121’1 Smith. J. F. D.. Owens. W. A . . “Creative Ability in ‘Machine Design,’; Research Revs. (June 1956). (22) Stein, M.I., Report to the Industrial Research Institute, Pittsburgh, 1957. (23) Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., Block. C . H.. Administratiue Science Ouarterly, C. June 1958. (‘Does Group Parti‘cipatich When Using Brainstorming Facilitatr or Inhibit Creative Thinking?” (24) Terman, L. M., “Scientists and Nonscientists in a Group of 800 Gift?: Men,” Psychological Monograjhs 68, No. i (1954), (25) Wilson, Mitchell, American Science and Invention, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1954.
-
%
,
ALBERT
H. RUBENSTEIN
School of Industrial Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Mass.
