THE CHEMICAL WORLD THIS WEEK
"Lone Wolf" vs. Group Consultants C&EN REPORTS: Association of Consulting Chemists and Chemical Engineers
NEW YORK.—Argument for and against the individual consultant was heard during a meeting of the Association of Consulting Chemists and Chemical Engineers here on April 25 in the Shelburne Hotel. The meeting was informal and 'was followed by open discussion from the floor by members and nonmembers. The case for the individual consultant was stated in an address by Charles DavidofF, consulting metallurgist of NewYork City. The value of consulting associates as against the individual was set forth by Robert S. Aries, head of R. S. Aries and Associates, Brooklyn, engineering consultants and economists. Stating that approximately 30% of the ACCCE membership are individual consultants, Mr. DavidofF said that the latter preferred the 'loose" type of alliance with fellow consultants as offered by the ACCCE, rather than the closer ties as found in associates or corporate organizations. The individual, he thought, can direct his entire effort to the tasks in hand without diversion through "interoffice politicing." The group, on the other hand, must constantly strive for accord. The speaker admitted that the individual consultant cannot serve in fields outside of his knowledge and specialization. However, he is at liberty to engage other experts and specialists whenever the clients' needs are best served by such service. His choice of a specialist is without prior commitment. As to the economics, the individual's time is free for productive work; his sales expense is small, and he depends upon the recommendations of fellow consultants and satisfied clients for new business. This eliminates the expense of elaborate publicity campaigns and leaves his net income unaffected by extraordinary sales expense. Discussing the consultant's type of service, Mr. DavidofF said that most of them have a field in which they specialize, yet this specialization was not necessarily a confining feature. He may also assay the role of a "Chinese doctor" at a manufacturer's plant and find weak spots before a breakdown; or he may b e called in as a trouble-shooter to analyze and correct a technical ill. Again, he may act as economic adviser with regard to raw materials and process selection. Dr. Aries, in behalf of the consulting associates, offered the following breakdown of the ACCCE membership, based on the association's 1949 directory:
Corporations Single consultants Associates Partners Total VOLUME
2 8,
NUX1BER
% OF TOTAL
66 38 11 8 123
53.4 30.9 8.6 6.9 99.8
NO.
20
This would show, Dr. Aries said, that single or "lone wolf' consultants account for only slightly less than a third of the membership, while those who have chosen to work in a broader framework constitute more than twice their number. The growth of American economy and business unit, he suggested, had provided the pattern for the future growth of the consulting chemical organization. He cited the instance of three chemical manufacturing interests which were all started about the same time—Chas. Pfizer & Co.; the Henry Bower Chemical Co.; and the Cooper Chemical Co. The first is listed on the New York Stock Exchange; the second is a reputable small manufacturer and jobber; and the third is hardly known to most of us, he said. Another example was cited in the histories of Arthur D. Little and Andrew Fairlie. The first organization has far surpassed the scope of work during Little's lifetime. Mr. Fairlie's labors with sulfuric acid for many years will doubtless leave only memories of his accomplishments. The speaker felt that consulting associates can render better service to industry. Modern chemical industry is complicated and diversified. A single consultant may have difficulties in coping with the task of serving it. Consulting associates also have a better chance of survival, Dr. Aries thought, and it is not hard for a lone consultant to "dry up" on his specialty. Also, fewer or no interruptions of work, and better continuity, are assured by association. One of the oldest and most famous members who is a specialist in one field had told the speaker recently that he faces more competition today than he did in the 1920's. Some of it comes from manufacturing companies who also perform consulting work. In the discussion which followed these two papers, questions were asked as to the percentage of gross income spent by consultants for making themselves known through luncheons, reading of papers, advertising, etc. One estimate was less than 1%; others pointed out that it would run "10% in money and 20% in time." With regard to the experience in other professions, it was pointed out that in medicine "group practice" at one time was frowned upon but that it has now become an accepted procedure in that field. The same member also thought that the lone consultant was liable to find himself a specialist in a narrow field. As an example, a son who boasted that his father was one of the most accomplished chemists in the nation was asked what this fame rested On. "Methoxy determination," the son replied.
» » » » M A Y 15,
1950
In a discussion on E>T. Aries' paper, some members wondered if the ability of the staff in a consulting group was as good as that of the heads of the firm. Attention was also called to t h e fact that jobs are rarely staff scheduled in an organization of consultants; hence, the task goes to an individual anyway. Editors of technical and trade journals have been helpful, and no criticism was intended, but the members felt that they should "scrutinize t h e field" better, and give more consideration to material offered by consultants, especially when the client's permission has been obtained for release of information. Percy L. Landolt, New York consultant, president of the association, presided at the meeting. Mr. Landolt announced that the speaker at the fall meeting would be Paul Slawter, of the House of J. Hayden Twiss, who will discuss the general question of publicity. The ACCCE is planning to hold an outing, its first, at the Westchester Country Club on June 23. Golf, dinner, and other activities are on the program. A E C Probes Fire at Berkeley Radioactive Lab A secret investigation directed by an Atomic Energy Commission safety engineer is proceeding into all phases of the $150,000 fire that destroy sd a laboratory and office building on the University of California Cyclotron Hill at Berkeley. The probe will attempt to fix the exact cause of the blaze and appropriate safety measures will be recommended to prevent a recurrence. The fire broke out late on April 23. The burned building, a unit of the radiation laboratory, accounted for $66,000 of the loss. The remainder consisted of costly but replaceable laboratory equipment. No atomic research projects were affected and no secret documents were lost. One source blamed the fire on workmen engaged in renovating the building. C o m m i t t e e Named f o Select Quartermaster L a b o r a t o r y Site Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson has announced that the chairman of the Research and Development Board, William Webster, has established a committee for the selection of a site for the $11 million Army Qnartennaster Corps research laboratory, construction of which is under consideration by the Department of Defense. The six-man committee will be composed of the following members: Chester M. Alter, dean of the graduate school, Boston University; Id. S. Coleman, Mellon Institute of Industrial Research, Pittsburgh; Donald S. Loughridge, Office, Assistant Secretary of the Army; Gilbert Scribner, Winston and Co., Chicago; John T. Traynor, Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York; Black H. Vanleer, president, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. 1647
