IP: Re: grad school....

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> To: jcp () jcphome com
> cc: farber () cis upenn edu, mo () ccr org
> Subject: Re: IP: grad school....
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 18:28:55 -0400
> From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () ccr org>
>
>
> having been both inside and outside that world,
> it's a very interesting problem
>
> on the one hand, really revolutionary things often come
> from people who doggedly sit in the corner and ignore all
> the career advice they are given until they deliver a jackpot,
> and which point their vision and genius are celebrated
> and all the histories appropriately revised.
>
> on the other hand, when people in those environments *want*
> to do someting relevant to "the market", they are often
> confounded by both the usual "it's not pure research" sneers,
> but also the parent company's manifest inability to give
> away gold bricks on a streetcorner, much less launch a product
> in a  competitive market.  that's been an endemic problem
> at Murray Hill, and even worse at Bellcore where they were
> essentially prohibited from doing anything anyone wanted.
>
> IBM, though, manages to support both kinds of work, as do
> other organizations.
>
> part of it goes to a deep-seated misunderstanding of the
> nature of the R&D intellectual enterprise pioneered here in the US.
> my second area of study in grad school was history of science,
> and Tom Smith, my professor in that area, is the father of
> the history of "R&D", which is now recognized as an intellectual
> interprise quite distinct from "Basic Research" and "Technology".
> historically, Basic Research and Technology were at opposite ends
> of the spectrum - not actually enemies, but percieved as such by many.
> the former interested in "knowledge for its own sake" and the latter
> embracing "whatever works without regard for why".  Physics is usually
> cited as an example of the former, agriculture an example of the
> latter.
>
> anyway, R&D is a curious amalgam, pioneered in industry, which blends
> the two together, along with applied engineering and even market research,
> whose goal is "Innovation" - doing something brand new, but also equally
> valid, doing something we already know how to do better-faster-cheaper.
> most of computing falls under this latter rubric - there are very few
> things in computing we didn't know how to do before computers,
> but the computer changed the scale at which the activity could be attempted
> by many, many zeros.
>
> the organizations who "get it" understand the power of this
> blending - basic research, applied engineering, talking to
> the people from whom you wish to take money (ie, customers).
> a great example of that outside the computer/communications
> biz is 3M.
>
> there's a book, "Built to Last", which i'm told looks at some companies
> and finds several very counter-intuitive results.   i won't suggest
> it's right or wrong, but it seems thought-provoking.
>
>         -mo



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/