1.6. EMPHASIS ON BASIC VERSUS APPLIED RESEARCH

We have discussed some research organization categorization and ways of developing an R&D portfolio. For planning purposes, three types of research organization categorization were presented. The emphasis on basic research versus applied research within each organization varies; consequently, there is a certain amount of conflict. The conflict is due to the fact that basic research is often dictated by the questions that science is asking. Such research may require activities that are not compatible with the mission-oriented research that a commercial or government organization is supposed to do. For example, a scientist while reading a scientific journal may have an insight that requires further experimentation. However, his supervisor may have already asked him to develop a particular product that meets particular specifications. Obviously the two activities are incompatible and some of the conflict that occurs within the scientist is due to the conflict between the need to discover and the requirements of the organization.

Some quite successful organizations—for example, 3M in Minnesota—have developed procedures that allow their scientists a certain amount of time to work on topics that are of interest to them. What percent of the scientist's time will be spent on such topics, and when such activities should take place, are matters of negotiation between the scientist and his or her supervisor. A successful scientist, who has had a better track record, may be given more time to discover other things by pursuing his or her own interest than one who does not have a good track record.

Pelz and Andrews (1966a) did a study of 1300 scientists in 11 laboratories. They studied scientists in both industrial and government laboratories and they used five criteria to identify successful scientists: (1) the judgments of their peers, (2) the judgments of their boss, (3) the number of papers they published, (4) the number of patents they were awarded, and (5) the number of reports they issued. They then conducted intensive interviews to identify what distinguished the effective from the less effective scientists. One of the findings was that the more effective scientists did both basic and applied research.

We will return to the study of Pelz and Andrews throughout this book, but for the time being one basic point that we should keep in mind when thinking about how to structure research and development organizations is that both kinds of research are done by the more effective scientists. It is obvious that if a scientist has an insight while reading a journal that requires an experiment, the inability to do the experiment will be quite frustrating. It is exactly this point that indicates that some sort of freedom to experiment should be allowed by the organization. If reading scientific journals results in frequent frustration, it is very likely that the scientist will become obsolete by giving up such reading. Similarly, the organization should encourage its scientists to publish, since this provides an opportunity for the organization to acquire prestige in the eyes of the scientific community and also tests the capabilities of the individual scientist to become effective in relating to the wider scientific community.

It should be remembered that there are over 8,000 journal articles published every day in the sciences. Thus the output of any particular individual is a minute contribution to a very large pool of activity. However, the fact that a person has made a contribution essentially "buys" the ticket that allows him or her to interact with other scientists, to learn from them, and to discover what they are currently doing.