How can be a task of research and developing management system building tackled today in a modern atomic corporation?

For a long time people in atomic sector have been trying to grapple with management of research and developings. The following questions can be related to this problem: Where does a scientist find the goals for research? Why does he treat these goals as his own ones? How can he change these goals, if necessary?

If talking about the problems in this sphere it is crucial to point out, that there three positions — a scientist, an engineer and a manager. A scientist traces regularities. An engineer creates things, but, as a rule, he is not able to sell them. A manager can sell a thing, but he knows nothing about it. If we don’t find a balance within this triangle, a project will not exist, as there will be nothing to manage.

Today a conflict between a scientist, an engineer and a manger is obvious in the research and developing sector. To eliminate this conflict is the goal of all three positions, however they will tackle such conflict in different ways, as it is unclear, who is the most important person in this trine. As long as this problem exists, there will be nothing good – scientist wouldn’t still transfer their ideas to managers and engineers, and a ‘manager to scientist’ conflict isn’t discarded.

And what are the goals of every ‘triangle’ participant?

A scientist goal is to generate new knowledge; I would say that it is the goal of his life. The essence of engineer’s activity is to create new objects, new things. Manager’s main goal is to unlock the potential. If nobody actually ‘hogs the blanket’, this mechanism would run like clockwork.

In your opinion, why a system of research and developing management should be built?

There are only two possible answers and two absolutely different logics correspondently. The first is commodity logic, when we produce goods and get profit at the end. The second is social logic, when we produce something even in the prejudice of our being, but it provides a better life for the society.

For instance, our projects management center stimulates the territory development by means of creating new products. It is a social logic example. And here is the commodity logic (for example, as it is done in Japan): there is one scientist, 3−5 managers are close to him and they constantly catch his ideas and implement them. If talking about atomic corporations staff, in Japan there are more managers than scientists. The USA is another example – they formulate an agenda for the whole world.

Can an agenda formulation in research and developing be regarded as one of the management formats?

Yes, it seems to me that in the early 20th century Einstein formulated a kind of agenda for the scientists – everybody turned to quantum physics. As the result many inventions were made in this field. Along with it, mechanics had been dominating until 50th when electronics complemented it, although it could happen earlier: all the efforts were hurled to quantum physics, a recently appeared breakthrough.

What concerns fundamental studies, there is no practical application of their results, and here the next step in management follows – when a collaider or Hubble telescope is being created, many by-products appear, which are further commercialized. For example, Internet was established to organize a fast information exchange between The European Nuclear Research Organization and world scientists – they did distributed computing in order to count fast on slow devices.

So today we can distinguish three ways of research and developing management: agenda management, by-product commercialization when conducting huge researches and an attempt to dictate a strategically important objective to the scientist.

Can foresight be regarded as a research and developing management tool?

Yes, foresight analysis allows to look ahead and to find out what should be investigated. Scientific Research Institute of Atomic Reactors in Dimitrovgrad, for instance, ordered a foresight for future 70 years in atomic energy production development and by virtue of it the Institute saw its competitors in Russia-World cross-section, mapped out its strategic direction. We have clearly seen possible ways of our competitors’ development – who does what and what will be done in future. Now we have a dashed curve and we mark real points on it, which yet coincide. As soon as divergence appears, we will do a new foresight analysis.

Japanese acted very amusingly: they performed 10 years foresight analysis, lived 10 years and looked at what had happened and how a forecast line diverged from real events. Then they updated a method, and now they precisely forecast future, distinguish development trends.

What is the essence of applied research management?

Goal setting for a scientist is typical for exactly applied research. Foresight is crucial for such research, as you take a decision and responsibility is rested on you. You say: “We will implement a fast neutron reactor” and at that very moment a future is formed. If you mistaken — you lose.

There is much engineering work in applied research, scientists are more like assistants. A goal is set to engineers and here a manager is in need, who will encourage scientists, telling them about their developings being in demand. However, logic is like ‘let’s do it, because it’s a matter of interest of a particular scientist’ or ‘every academy of science has it’ or ‘it was written in Nature journal’. And for what purpose? Why should we study exactly that matter? Why should I concentrate all the laboratory efforts on making the research and putting a report on the shelf?

Incidentally huge reports piles were accumulated during the Soviet period and now we are investigating these archives. Today we have an access to research reports that were done, put on the shelf and had been resting there for 25 years. We recalculate their results, check them on the modern level and commercialize. But something is definitely obsolete.

Is an archive considered to be a variant of research and developing management?

Yes, a well elaborated method of archive management can be a way of research and developing management. Archives should be valid, so that we would put our carried out research in archive and in 30 years we would be able to use them again.

Today we can call a problem, with which the world atomic industry and all the world management has faced, ‘documentocentrism’, as a report is of great value and the material is a research activity report but not the result itself.

And the goal today is to move from documentocentrism to datacentrism, when the data itself (research results) are useful. Such data base should be established, as knowledge management is the next step.