Research and development — or research design and development?

Project management in R&D

Research and development - or research design and development? Peter J Cox The term ‘research and development’ (R&D) is often used with little sensitivity as to its significance or to the nature of activity involved in different circumstances. Existing definitions of R&D are identified as a basis for considering the nature of activities involved. The term ‘development’ may be used to encompass design or to signify distinctive activity. Attention is focused on the importance of the role of design, justifying adoption of the term ‘research, design and development’ (R, D&D). A perspective on the nature of design is offered, and issues in managing design in engineering projects are discussed. and development, design, research Keywords: engineering, technology, innovation, customization, project management

WHAT

IS R&D?

In advanced industrial environments, management of routine production is becoming a less dominant activity. Production may be automated or subcontracted to newly industrialized countries. Preparatory activities occupy a greater proportion of effort in such cases and in low-volume production, whether of complex advanced technology products or of high added value fashion goods. Know-how needs to be considered as an important asset that deserves valuation’. A project framework is increasingly the norm. While it is accepted that R&D has a growing importance in this Bristol

144

Business

School,

Frenchay,

Bristol

BS16

0263-7863/90/030144-07

IQY,

UK

context, the term is often used without adequate explanation of what it involves. Even in books offering advice on the management of R&D there is a tendency to treat R&D as a single broad area*. Recognition of the distinctive contribution of design is made by McLeod3, though he restricts development to those activities that follow research prior to the design stage. The need to define R&D is accepted in accounting, statistics and economics. Accountants share a collective caution against attributing a persisting value to R&D expenditure except in carefully defined circumstances, but they are now expected to record the expenditure, following the principles set out in SSAP 134. This draws upon the definitions established by the OECD in the Frascati manua15, specifying a range of activities to be included that may be summarized as follows: Experimental and theoretical work aimed at discovering new knowledge. Seeking applications for such knowledge. Formulation and design of applications. Testing in pursuit of or evaluation of alternatives. construction and test of pre-production Design, models, including development batches. Product design involving new technology or substantial improvement of existing ones. Construction and operation of pilot plants. also specifies some that should not be included, including routine remedial action. While this appears informative, the single item in published accounts can safely hide the breakdown, limiting the value of the information.

@ 1990 Butterworth-Heinemann

Ltd

Project

Management

Project management in R&D Bodies offering funds to support R&D are concerned that the nature of activities they support conform to whether in the pursuit of prescribed expectations, economic benefit or of political popularity. Such concern is reflected in the work of statisticians in recording the extent of R&D. Business Monitor MO 14” published at four-yearly intervals summarizes UK R&D expenditure. It, too, draws upon the definitions in the Frascati manual5 noting that R&D is distinguished by ‘the presence of an appreciable element of novelty or innovation’ -of breaking new ground. MO 14 highlights the extent to which UK R&D expenditure is extensive only in the areas of chemicals, aerospace and electronics. Of more immediate concern here, however, is the recognition of R&D as including: l l l

Basic research: undertaken for advancement of scientific knowledge. Applied research: undertaken for a general or particular application. Development: use of research to introduce useful materials, processes, products, devices and systems, or the improvement of existing ones.

While the authors accept that the distinctions are not clear-cut, it is instructive to note the magnitudes of expenditure in these categories for a selection of UK industries, as shown in Table 1. Extensive variation in the balance of effort between research and development in different industries is apparent, but no insight is offered into the balance of effort within the ‘development’ category, and into the inclusion of design in development. Research studies offer more detailed illumination of the nature of activities involved, as exemplified by the Policy Studies Institute review of the microelectronics applications support programme’. This report is valuable

Table 1. UK R&D expenditure,

selected manufacturing

Basic

*Data from Reference

Vol 8 No 3 August

l l

between between

context

in making

additional

fundamental and progressive product and process.

distinctions: changes,

The final reference for categorization must be the standard work breakdown structure used by an organization involved in development work - driven by forms of contract, departmental structures and historical precedent. While there appears to be extensive common acceptance of what constitutes research, there is less common understanding about development. In approaching the subject from the perspective of design management, the author has found the list of concepts below useful as a basis for discussion of the distinctive range of activities and processes: Pure research 0 Invention 0 Innovation l Design l Development l Applied research l

These activities may be regarded as forming a spectrum of activities with distinct characteristics, but which may be strongly interrelated in particular situations. Invention is most easily definable by reference to the legal requirement of an inventive step ‘that would not be obvious to someone with good knowledge and experience of the subject” necessary to satisfy conditions for patentability. Innovation inherently means simply to introduce something new; transferring a concept from one environment to another can be a very cost-effective way of achieving valuable benefit. The Frascati manua15, however, reserves the term for ‘the transformation of an idea into a new or improved saleable product or

industries

(1985)* Development

Applied

Total R&D (;fm) (% of value added)

(Em)

(%)

(fm)

(%)

(.fm)

(%)

12.5

3.12

189.2

47.29

198.4

49.59

400.1

24.1

6.6

3.44

19.1

9.96

166.1

86.60

191.8

3.4

0.1 0.6 26.5 7.5 0.3

0.03 0.18 3.22 9.08 2.04

28.8 43.9 84.1 32.4 3.9

9.52 13.33 10.22 39.23 26.53

273.7 284.8 712.4 47.0 10.5

90.48 86.49 86.56 56.90 71.43

302.5 329.3 823.0 82.6 14.7

22.9 8.6 33.1 1.0 0.7

116.4

2.74

906.1

21.30

3230.7

75.96

4253.1

6.2

Pharmaceuticals Mechanical equipment Data proc. equipment Motor industry Aerospace Food and drink (Natural) Textiles Manufacturing total Service industries total research

in the present

171.8

59.3

231.1

6

1990

145

Project management in R&D process’, the point of first commercial application, implying a broadening of activity arising from the initial research result or invention. Coming to an understanding of the nature of design can be confusing, with specialists offering personal perspectives of the subject that range from the broadly philosophical to the restrictively precise. Adopting the dictionary definition of ‘adapting means to ends’ opens up the concept, succinctly implying that it involves the use of an existing capability to achieve a defined purpose without clearly distinguishing it from the earlier definition of development. In categorizing activities involved in R&D, it may be helpful to limit the definition of ‘design’ to the process of generating, defining and recording concepts in order to fulfil a requirement; or ‘to conceive the idea . . . and/or express it in embodiable form”. Similarly, while development was defined earlier as encompassing design, it can be useful to use the term in a more restrictive sense, limiting it to the process of improving an existing concept or product by progressive modification and test until a required performance or improvement has been achieved and/or demonstrated. The emergent view of design and development as distinct but closely interrelated activities is recognized by Caldecote” as characteristic of (hardware) manufacturing in contrast to chemical industries. Defining design and development in this way is also helpful in maintaining a distinction from other related activities that may be part of a product launch process but which are essentially of a more routine nature. The above activities may combine in different sequences in the process of generation of new products. Comparison may be made with the work of Wild” who has distinguished production, storage, inspection, transportation and sale as basic elements of the process of provision of goods. He has identified the characteristic alternative combinations in which these occur, with a key distinction between cases where production activity precedes sale, and those where production activity follows it. Similar characteristic combinations of the activities that constitute R&D may be identified to highlight project management issues. Exhaustive identification of the possible combinations is made difficult by the extensive scope for parallel activity, and also by the ephemeral and elusive nature of know-how as the basic work-in-progress. Feasible combinations include: (a) Research; requirement; design - production development . . redesign (b) Research (c) Invention;

- development

- production design production

design development

Pattern (a) is typical of major engineering projects where the design process is complex; (b) is perhaps more typical of food or pharmaceuticals, where the design of the product may be relatively straightforward

146

compared with the development of product and production technology; (c) might be appropriate for a product which, while innovative, offers few technological problems. Other activities may deserve inclusion, for instance service use where this is the source of new ideas; marketing; customer involvement in the design process. THE

NATURE

OF DESIGN

Having established that design may have a distinctive role in the context of the R&D process, it may be considered in its own right. The range of design specializations reflects the developing pattern of educational and professional practice. The key historical distinction between engineering design and so-called industrial design compares ‘hard’ design disciplines based on scientific analysis with more aesthetically based disciplines. The term ‘industrial design’ in turn reflects an older distinction from ‘craft design’ that dates back to the nineteenth century. The usage has been extensively replaced by ‘product design’, alongside other specializations such as fashion, graphics, furniture, transportation. Within engineering, concentration on design as a central focus is less prevalent, and developing specializations reflect emerging technologies. There is also a growing range of new disciplines such as systems design and organization design. While these specializations seem disparate, the central process remains one of iteratively identifying, generating or changing concepts to meet a requirement, and then determining the extent to which the requirement is satisfied. Designs emerging without such iteration are likely to reflect previous experience - at the progressive end of the fundamental/ progressive spectrum. In terms of understanding essential differences, it may be useful to make the distinction between objective design, where it is possible to verify whether the product meets its purpose by a process of independent objective test; and subjective design, where the acceptability of the product is determined by the subjective response of the customer, whether collectively or individually. This distinction is reflected in the characteristic preoccupation of engineering designers with responding to requirements with objective specifications, using quantitative analysis and tests to demonstrate conformance. The practice of designers from an ‘art and design’ background is to think in terms of preparing a design brief jointly with the client; developing mutual understanding and checking out acceptability of concepts to the client by a process of consultation. Acceptability of the product to the ultimate customer may only finally be demonstrated after it has been put on sale. Market research to test the acceptability of new products before familiarity has developed is less reliable and does not perform a directly analogous role to the hard tests carried out by the engineer. The successful ‘subjective designer’ needs empathy with the customer and an ability to anticipate emergent needs.

Project

Management

Project management in R&D While the methods of evaluation are distinctive, the two approaches are inextricably linked in many products, perhaps most extensively in vehicles and buildings. In automobile design, considerable effort is put into a process of both developing and reacting to customers’ feelings about appearance; in the latter an extensive process of consultation with the client, and sometimes with the community, is involved. There may be a subjective reaction even to clearly objective criteria. While there is increasing dialogue between visual and engineering design, there remains a reluctance among product designers to recognize the nature of engineering design, simply drawing upon engineering analysis or tests to verify the acceptability of ‘hard’ aspects of their designs. Ergonomics may be regarded as an intermediate area where user response is a central issue, but which can be extensively evaluated by objective test. The extent to which effective use of design is a consistent feature of successful UK firms is identified in Reference 12, which highlights a wide range of points which need to be effectively considered to achieve success in design, but stresses in particular that a market-led approach is generally more successful than one driven by technology. ‘Getting close to the customer’ is important as a source of design ideas. More recently, Urghanawa l3 has developed this work to highlight the view that the dominant area for improvement is the involvement of top management in supporting design activity. THE

DESIGN

PROCESS

While it is possible to prescribe methods that will achieve consistent results in analysis and tests subject to scientific rigour, the outcome of design is less inevitable. The practice of design should be recognized as an art or skill (but not a fine art). It is interesting to note the extent to which fine art may be regarded as a research and development area for design - generating new concepts, influencing consumer taste, but not in response to requirements. In looking at visual form as the subject of design, Pye14 notes that form is decided by choice, it is not entailed. This perspective of design is set out more formally by Archer’ as a process of constrained choice, noting even in the early 1970s the extent to which formal expression of options would make the evaluation of the range of feasible alternatives amenable to systematic computer evaluation prior to selection. Choice is increasingly well informed with the development of CAD applications. The choices made will reflect views on the compromises or trade-offs that are central to design. Distinctive contributions of the designer may be in the recognition of the areas within which trade-off analysis is worth while, or where the boundaries of the problem or customer acceptance may be responsive to extension. Choice may be constrained to the adoption and modification of established concepts; or it may extend to the identification and validation of novel approaches.

Vol 8 No 3 August

1990

This arbitrariness in the generation and selection of design solutions may be less strong in engineering, but only occasionally is the choice offered by technology so limited or methods for comprehensive optimization available such that a unique solution becomes inevitable. Even optimal solutions may become superseded as new technology emerges, or as assumptions about what are the variables change. Following existing design reduces the likelihood of prolonged development testing for engineering products: adopting an established approach capitalizes on past experience, minimizing uncertainties in development or of failure in service. It may be a preferred approach for an established producer, but it leaves scope for those with less to lose to adopt a more innovative approach. Adopting an existing formula can easily result in a jaded palate in the fashion arena where it is likely to be too late to use by the time it is identified. Judgements regarding the choice between revolutionary and evolutionary approaches may depend as heavily on the commercial position of the organization as on purely technical issues. The perspective that is often offered of the design process is one of steady progress from requirement, through design and testing, to production. This ignores the progressive modification and elaboration between successive iterations of design and analysis or testing that is fundamental to the process, as indicated in Figure 1. Much of the activity that is described as ‘design’ involves recording the design definition or appraising it; but that should not lead to an undervaluation of the importance of these processes in the generation of design concepts. The mechanism of generating new concepts is less understood and documented. Lawson” sets out a five-stage process for the creation of new solutions where the key stage of idea generation is unconscious, but he also recognizes the role of a process of continual involvement with a problem, of working through alternative solutions. More recently, interviews with expert designers reported by Davies and Talbot16 have identified the importance

Concept generation and specification

published information, existing test Analysis, mock-up, information, ad-hoc test, prototype, etc. service trial, service use +

Figure 1 The design process

147

Project management in R&D of the combination of opportunity, chance and readiness in identifying design solutions. Formal techniques for encouraging new ideas, such as synectics or brainstorming, are valuable for stimulating different ideas, but such approaches are not uniformly adopted by professional designers. The value of a systematic approach to the overall design process is extensively recognized. It may improve the immediately emergent design by encouraging consideration of a wider range of options at the outset; but it is also valuable in ensuring that data generated remain accessible. Assumptions should be made visible and open to challenge; changing circumstances may permit concepts previously set aside to become viable. Hubka’s General Procedural Model of Engineering Design is usefully illustrated” by a range of practical examples demonstrating the extent to which the pattern of activities may vary within a general framework.

MANAGEMENT

AND DESIGN

In what have been described as subjective areas of design, the selection of the designer is itself a subjective matter. Subsequent problems often centre on the relationship between the (consultant) designer and client. Topalian’8 identifies the need to understand the client’s awareness of problems in design and business areas in understanding how the designer should handle the development of the brief. Project management issues are liable to be more extensive in larger projects where the product is more complex. It is many years since Burns and Stalker” came to the conclusion that an organic style of management was conducive to innovation, and that traditional hierarchical structures were more appropriate when tasks could be well defined in advance. Matrix forms of organization have subsequently emerged, but a consultative style of management remains appropriate if innovation is to be achieved. Innovation is important in the initial stages of design; but control of innovation may be a more critical issue in later stages - as indicated by the prevalence of change control (or configuration management) systems in advanced technology organizations. The danger is that initial efforts may not be exhaustive; that by the time it is necessary to freeze design for production, benefits of a more radical approach, or of major modification, may have become apparent. Realization of the implications of an emergent design proposal at a late stage can only too easily result in a reaction that typically achieves reduced cost only by undermining the consistency of the ultimate product. It is vital that initial design effort is conducted in an open atmosphere, so that when the need to freeze arises, the design is well ‘crystallized’. The change not only in style but also in extent of detail in moving from conceptual to production design requires a change of attitude that may be best served by use of specialist staff in the roles of conceptual and production design. Care must be taken that a complete redesign does not take place after the handover due to

148

the ‘not invented here’ syndrome. Prior liaison and transfer of staff may be beneficial in minimizing such tendencies. CAD systems offer the benefits not only that a wide range of alternative designs can be rapidly evaluated, but that it may be possible to incorporate and evaluate major changes at a late stage with minimal delay. This offers the opportunity of aligning the design more closely with emerging market trends. It also offers some help in coping with the production manager’s nightmare, the designer who won’t let go. If the art of good compromise is at the heart of good design, recognizing the right time to release design is also crucial. A week during initial design is as long as a week in final assembly; a week of additional progress in design can seem unnecessary compared with the foreseeable problems involved in getting the first order out of the factory gate on time. Yet adequate time and care in the design process may be more than repaid in eventual time saved in production. It is central to the increasingly popular concept of total quality management that it is cheaper to devote adequate time and resources to ‘getting it right first time’ than to spend greater effort retrieving the situation later, even in the absence of apparent impact on the customer. It is worth drawing attention to Figure 2 in defence of designers who want to get it right first time. It can be tempting to take the view that since design is a creative process it cannot be planned. It is much nearer the truth to say that those involved in design are liable to resent having planning, monitoring and control imposed upon them, especially if these processes are carried out with an inadequate understanding of the nature of the design process. Active involvement of design staff from the outset will bring expertise to bear and engender commitment to estimates during implementation. Many of the activities associated with design, such as testing or preparation of detailed instructions, are routine in nature and should be recognized as such. The key uncertainty regarding their magnitude is the extent to which they may have to be repeated if a design concept proves inadequate. This uncertainty is generally greater and more persistent the more fundamental the design concept is. It is necessary, however,

’ Design

Time

Figure 2 The costs of getting design wrong

Project

Management

Project management in R&D to recognize that even small differences in a design can have profound consequences that may not emerge until routine use has commenced, as so tragically illustrated in the de Havilland Comet crashes in the 195Os, or more recently by the Challenger Space Shuttle boosters. The fact that the process of generation of new design concepts inherently involves uncertainty need not prevent subjective assessment of progress by those directly involved, rather than by measures which may mislead while giving an impression of objective accuracy. The costs of conceptual design are small when amortized over a production run; the costs of getting design wrong and then correcting it can be crippling. The broader issue of ensuring that progress of design is not impeded has been tackled by the Japanese in terms of Rugby tactics*‘. The flow of advanced consumer electronic products into the market reflects their view of the value of capitalizing rapidly on emergent technology - that the value of rapid implementation is great enough to justify ‘flooding’ new product development with staff from a range of disciplines, so that progress is not lengthened by sequential processing by relevant staff. A different perspective on this issue, in the context of perhaps more complex products such as aircraft, may be offered by looking at the relationship between marketing (or project management), design and production in successive stages of development. During initial design, the key relationship is between design and marketing; during production design and development, the relationship is between design and production; during routine production, allowing production to proceed with a minimal stream of changes from design should help the achievement of efficient and timely production; in dealing with customization, cooperation is required between all three areas. Recognizing that desirable levels of cooperation do not uniformly apply, it is worth setting out some of the mechanisms whereby the demands on such cooperation can be minimized, in terms not of the stage of the process but of the extent to which the consequences are perceptible to the customer: (a) Purely technical solutions: use of standard components, materials, processes, etc.; design education - understanding of production capability; Computer Integrated Manufacture. (b) Affecting product policy: o Standard models; standard options; customer options. o Modular design; an effectively planned product range. (c) Achieved by organization: o Co-location of involved staff; progress chasers. o Matrix management - achieving alignment with the customer. While (a) may be regarded as a constraint, good designers will take advantage of the time released by use of standards to create distinctive products. The concepts involved in (b) are extensively illustrated by

Vol 8 No 3 August

1990

the product policies of major car manufacturers. Effective adoption of (a) and (b) should minimize the extent to which demands are placed on production to meet customer needs; (c) should facilitate the process of communication when necessary. A related issue is the point during progress at which the customer becomes involved, potentially adding to problems, or, more formally, generating additional uncertainty. Working to customer requirement from the outset should minimize uncertainty about the eventual outcome of the project, but is likely to result in a flow of customer generated changes from all but the most phlegmatic of customers. At the other extreme, generating a sale when the product has reached the end of the production line makes for smoother transition from design and development to production, but imposes demands on the ability to customize at short notice if the standard product cannot meet requirements.

CONCLUDING

NOTE

It is hoped that this paper will raise awareness R&D is not of a uniform nature; that design distinctive activity within the framework of R&D; that approaches to project management in R&D to reflect the nature of the balance between design development in the generation of new products.

that is a and need and

REFERENCES

10

11 12 13 14 15

Sveiby, K E and Lloyd, T Managing knowhow Bloomsbury, UK (1987) Beattie, C J and Reader, R D Quantitative manugement in R&D Chapman and Hall, UK (1971) McLeod, T Management of research, design and development in industry Gower, UK (1988) SSAP 13 ‘Accounting for R&D’ (1977, rev 1989) Frascati The measurement of scientific and technical activities OECD, France (1981) Business Statistics Office Industrial research and development expenditure and employment Business Monitor MO 14, HMSO, UK (1988) Northcott, J et al Promoting innovation Policy Studies Institute Report 645, UK (1984) Patent Oftice ‘Introducing patents’ DTI (1989) Archer, L B Technological innovation - a methodology, Inforlink for the Science Policy Foundation, UK (1971) Caldecote, Viscount ‘Investment in new product development’ (1979) in Roy, W and Wield, D (Eds) Product design and technological innovation Open University Press, UK (1986) Wild, R Concepts for operations management, John Wiley, UK (1977) Rothwell, R et al Design and the economy Design Council, UK (1983) Ughanwa, D 0 ‘In search of design excellence’ Design Studies Vol 8 No 4 (1988) p 219 Pye, D The nature of design Studio Vista, UK (1964) Lawson, B How designers think Architectural Press, UK (1980)

149

Project management in R&D 16 Davies, R and Talbot, R J ‘Experiencing ideas: identity, insight and the imago’ Design Studies Vol8 No 1 (1987) p 17 17 Hubka, V, Andreason, M M and Eder, W E Practical studies in systematic design Butterworths, UK (1988) 18 Topalian, A The management of design projects Associated Business Press, UK (1980) 19 Burns, T and Stalker G The management of innovation Tavistock, UK (1961) 20 Takeucbi, H and Nonaka, I ‘The new new product development game’ Harvard Business Review (Jan/Feb 1986) pp 137-146

150

Project

Management