1. So you are working in Research & Development...
Main page |
Welcome to a corporate world of being misunderstood and disliked. Hope you survive the experience.
No it's not that bad.
Really!
It can be a hard and unpleasant experience though. Science is often unpredictable and the further the desired technological target is from the current technological level at the company, the more unpredictable it's going to be. Strategic planners don't handle the unpredictable very well, and looking at the R&D department from an economic point of view, it's just one big expense.
Think about it. The R&D department does not really make any money. The buy a lot of expensive equipment and raw materials, and whatever they are making isn't sold. It is thrown out. The things they make in the R&D department do not make any money. The sales department and production are the ones making the money. There is a direct correlation between the effort put into the work and the money coming out. It may not be a linear correlation, but people can relate to more work giving more money, and if not then someone is not doing things right. Arguing that R&D should have less money and sales or production should have more is incredibly easy, especially for investors who are only interested in getting the most out of their money this year.
The R&D department can work on a project for years without getting anywhere, much to the frustrations of investors and marketing/sales divisions. While scientists often take courses in economics and management, you never see the people in management taking courses in technology. They get their knowledge from Hollywood productions and the lack of real knowledge show. Development of a new pharmaceutical takes more than 10 years from idea to an actual tested product ready for marketing, and investors often want their profit within one to three years. Best case you are looking at seven years of impatient investors who want a product out yesterday. Threats on being fired or project funding being stopped because things are going too slow are not uncommon.
Want to take a wild guess at why the majority of the innovation is not in high-tech and why we see more and more examples on scientist getting caught in falsifying results?
The trick to avoiding many of the problems lies in the use of strategic R&D. It is not a miracle cure or a quick fix to problems. To the best of my knowledge they don't exist. It is a way to get the most out of your time and money both in and outside projects. It's still going to be hard and unpleasant from time to time but now at least you'll have options and knowledge to help you move forward.
No it's not that bad.
Really!
It can be a hard and unpleasant experience though. Science is often unpredictable and the further the desired technological target is from the current technological level at the company, the more unpredictable it's going to be. Strategic planners don't handle the unpredictable very well, and looking at the R&D department from an economic point of view, it's just one big expense.
Think about it. The R&D department does not really make any money. The buy a lot of expensive equipment and raw materials, and whatever they are making isn't sold. It is thrown out. The things they make in the R&D department do not make any money. The sales department and production are the ones making the money. There is a direct correlation between the effort put into the work and the money coming out. It may not be a linear correlation, but people can relate to more work giving more money, and if not then someone is not doing things right. Arguing that R&D should have less money and sales or production should have more is incredibly easy, especially for investors who are only interested in getting the most out of their money this year.
The R&D department can work on a project for years without getting anywhere, much to the frustrations of investors and marketing/sales divisions. While scientists often take courses in economics and management, you never see the people in management taking courses in technology. They get their knowledge from Hollywood productions and the lack of real knowledge show. Development of a new pharmaceutical takes more than 10 years from idea to an actual tested product ready for marketing, and investors often want their profit within one to three years. Best case you are looking at seven years of impatient investors who want a product out yesterday. Threats on being fired or project funding being stopped because things are going too slow are not uncommon.
Want to take a wild guess at why the majority of the innovation is not in high-tech and why we see more and more examples on scientist getting caught in falsifying results?
The trick to avoiding many of the problems lies in the use of strategic R&D. It is not a miracle cure or a quick fix to problems. To the best of my knowledge they don't exist. It is a way to get the most out of your time and money both in and outside projects. It's still going to be hard and unpleasant from time to time but now at least you'll have options and knowledge to help you move forward.