If management just funds research indiscriminately, then they’ll end up with random research directions, and the exponentially-vast majority of random research directions suck. Xerox and Bell worked in large part because they successfully researched things targeted toward their business applications—e.g. programming languages and solid-state electronics.
That said, I think there’s still a compelling point in slack’s favor here; my impression is that Bell Labs (and probably Xerox?) put some pressure on people to research things that would eventually be helpful, but put most of its effort into hiring people with good taste and high ability in the first place.
That sounds plausible; hiring people with good taste and high ability is also a good way to filter out the exponentially-vast number of useless research directions (assuming that one can recognize such people). That said, I wouldn’t label that a point in favor of slack, so much as another way of filtering. It’s still mainly solving the problem of “which direction to go” rather than “can we get over the hill”.
If you can’t recognize who’s already done some good work autonomously, how can you reasonably hope to extract good work from people who haven’t been selected for that?
Alan Key of Xerox Parc makes the argument that hiring great people and giving them freedom is a key to get good innovation and that’s the principle on which Parc worked.
The funders are only supposed to provide a vision but not goals which are supposed to be picked by individual researchers.
This shows why I don’t trust the categories. The ability to let talented people go in whatever direction seems best will almost always be felt as freedom from pressure.
From The Sources of Economic Growth by Richard Nelson, but I think it’s a quote from James Fisk, Bell Labs President:
If the new work of an individual proves of significant interest, both scientifically and in possible communications applications, then it is likely that others in the laboratory will also initiate work in the field, and that people from the outside will be brought in. Thus a new area of laboratory research will be started. If the work does not prove of interest to the Laboratories, eventually the individual in question will be requested to return to the fold, or leave. It is hoped the pressure can be informal. There seems to be no consensus about how long to let someone wander, but it is clear that young and newly hired scientists are kept under closer rein than the more senior scientists. However even top-flight people, like Jansky, have been asked to change their line of research. But, in general, the experience has been that informal pressures together with the hiring policy are sufficient to keep AT&T and Western Electric more than satisfied with the output of research.
[Most recently brought to my attention by this post from a few days ago]
That said, I think there’s still a compelling point in slack’s favor here; my impression is that Bell Labs (and probably Xerox?) put some pressure on people to research things that would eventually be helpful, but put most of its effort into hiring people with good taste and high ability in the first place.
That sounds plausible; hiring people with good taste and high ability is also a good way to filter out the exponentially-vast number of useless research directions (assuming that one can recognize such people). That said, I wouldn’t label that a point in favor of slack, so much as another way of filtering. It’s still mainly solving the problem of “which direction to go” rather than “can we get over the hill”.
If you can’t recognize who’s already done some good work autonomously, how can you reasonably hope to extract good work from people who haven’t been selected for that?
Alan Key of Xerox Parc makes the argument that hiring great people and giving them freedom is a key to get good innovation and that’s the principle on which Parc worked.
The funders are only supposed to provide a vision but not goals which are supposed to be picked by individual researchers.
This shows why I don’t trust the categories. The ability to let talented people go in whatever direction seems best will almost always be felt as freedom from pressure.
From The Sources of Economic Growth by Richard Nelson, but I think it’s a quote from James Fisk, Bell Labs President:
[Most recently brought to my attention by this post from a few days ago]