Questions and Answers from IRI's Members

• Published in: Research technology management Vol. 54; no. 5; pp. 57 - 58
• Main Authors: George, Joseph, Farrington, Ted, Merrifield, Bruce, Lake, Michael, Russell, Paula, Quinn, Christopher, Kashdan, David
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Arlington Taylor & Francis 01.09.2011; Industrial Research Institute, Inc; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Competitive advantage; Criteria; Disruptive innovation; IRI COMMUNITY FORUM; Leadership; Managers; R&D; Research & development; Scholarships & fellowships; Technological planning; Technology transfer; United States > US
• ISSN: 0895-6308; 1930-0166
• DOI: 10.5437/08956308X5405011

Questions on forecasting disruptive technologies and the criteria used for research fellows are answered. Ted Farrington, senior director, PepsiCo Advanced Research, likes Clay Christiansen's original definition for disruptive technology: basically jumping from the end of one technology S-curve to the beginning of a new S-curve, in the same general product space. In Michael Lake's, IRI Emeritus formerly "Idea Hunter-Gatherer," Westvaco Corp, opinion, you must first identify the ballpark in which you want to play. Then "grow" individuals who have knowledge of the history of this ballpark and have or can develop networks of thought leaders within the targeted market. Meanwhile, David Kashdan, IRI Emeritus Member Director, Eastman Research Division, retired, suggests several concepts that make research fellows rewarding both to the Fellow and company: 1. The position of Fellow should be defined. 2. Managers need to be educated. 3. Both peers and managers should be delighted when a person is named Fellow. 4. Not every great scientist/engineer warrants being a Fellow.