In a corporation, research is an expense that is expected to be offset by
substantial future revenues.
As you worked toward your Ph.D., it might have crossed your mind that
your research activities seem to be of little short-term value and mostly curiosity
driven. Join the club. Relatively few academic scientists see an immediate or
short-term payoff to their work.
For better or worse--we do not judge whether it is right or wrong--the
science-related corporate world values research quite differently, as an essential
part of a business strategy. For scientists in industry, this means less
freedom--but it also means a higher probability of a substantial short-term impact.
The difference of values between academia and industry results in different ways of
working and a different set of required skills.
Here, we discuss several aspects of doing research for a company. It might help you
decide whether a corporate lab is an appealing destination for your research career.
Research in a business setting
The steps between idea and product vary widely in industry. A new gadget for a
mobile phone goes through different phases than does a drug developed at a
pharmaceutical company. Still, almost all products, in most science-based
industries, go through research, development, and engineering phases before they
enter final testing and production.
Industry's research phase comes closest to the type of work academic scientists
are most familiar with. Corporate research focuses on the company's long-term
product pipeline, the products it hopes to launch over the next 5 to 10 years.
Activities during this phrase often are not related to a product the company is
already selling or about to launch; rather, whole new products are
contemplated--even whole new technologies that may or may not become products
eventually.
Not every science-based company has a true research phase; some companies prefer
to bring promising ideas in from outside by licensing technologies and ideas
from other (usually smaller) companies or academic labs.
After the research phase comes the development phase, when the initial conception
is transformed into a prototype that demonstrates the product's desired
functionality. In the development phase, concepts are either proven or
abandoned.
Finally, it takes a lot of engineering to figure out how to produce a reliable
product, with the desired functionality and quality, at a reasonable cost. The
engineering phase is furthest from the type of research you're probably most
familiar with, but the challenges here are no less formidable. A good idea--or
even a good product--cannot serve a company's business needs if it's too late to
market or too expensive to produce.
Some scientists find the constraints imposed by industry undesirable restrictions
on curiosity-driven work or a compromise of pure science for commercial ends.
Yet there is an undeniable thrill in knowing you work on something that will
actually be used, whether it's to make the world a profoundly better place or
merely to serve consumers while improving a company's bottom line. Moreover,
resources such as people, equipment, and money are less constrained as you get
closer to a real product.
The difference between academic and corporate problem solving
One important difference between doing research in these two settings is that in
academia the line between colleague and competitor is vague, whereas in
corporate research it is quite clear. Everyone employed by the same company
works together (in principle at least) toward the same ends. Communication is
fast and open within a company, and interactions with the outside world are
restricted. Publishing is carefully controlled in industry so as not to put the
company's intellectual property at risk or disclose too much of the company's
strategy.
The academic world is not so starkly divided; today's competitor may well be
tomorrow's collaborator and vice versa. Alliances are always shifting.
In an academic setting, a surprising result can be a breakthrough, providing a
new way of looking at a problem. Even if it isn't a breakthrough, you always
have the freedom to redefine your problem and keep your science marching
forward. In such a setting, serendipity can be an important ally. This academic
attitude--being relatively relaxed on the direction of research--has facilitated
much progress in fundamental science.
Corporate researchers rarely have such freedom. In a corporation, research is an
expense that is expected to be offset by substantial future revenues. Only a
small fraction of conceivable research has profit potential within the limits of
a company's expertise and resources, and only the most promising projects are
likely to be undertaken. Every new project is a roll of the dice, and an
unexpected result requires a whole new calculation of risk and potential
benefit.
Thoroughness, too, must often be sacrificed: Too bad a problem can't be solved
completely; in industry, what's needed, especially in the development and
engineering phases, is not a completely rigorous solution but a way forward on
budget and on schedule. A pragmatic answer to a difficult problem has its own
sort of elegance and can be equally satisfying for certain researchers.
Another consequence of the strong connection between research and the product
road map is that sometimes projects end prematurely. If your company decides for
financial or strategic reasons to abandon a line of activities, research in that
area will be curtailed. You may be required to abandon your professional passion
of the last months or years and embrace something entirely new. This can be
quite frustrating, but in the long run regular changes of direction can
stimulate your mind and serve your career well.
Companies care
Academic science still follows the tournament model, with all but the most
accomplished researchers often being taken for granted, or at least feeling that
way. Once you've survived and earned tenure, your academic freedom allows you to
do whatever you like--but outside your narrow research world, still no one may
care.
Although the years of lifetime employment are over, companies really care about
their employees, for very selfish reasons. Companies tend to regard their
people--especially their knowledge workers--as their most important assets. They
invest in developing, training, and retention in order to nurture and keep the
staff they need to meet their strategic objectives.
Who gets hired
Science-based companies are major employers of scientists, including some with
Ph.D.s. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the British-Dutch oil company, is typical of
large, science-based companies when it comes to hiring. They recruit more than
100 academic scientists each year from the Netherlands alone, about 30 with
Ph.D.s. ASML, a supplier of lithography
systems for the semiconductor industry with more than 2000 people working in
research and development (R&D) in the Netherlands alone, recruits more
than 150 engineers every year, about 30 of them with Ph.D.s.
One common theme in industry hiring is that intellectual attainment isn't the
only criterion. Shell company spokesperson Peter van Boesschoten has an acronym
for the skills they seek: CART, for capacity, achievement, relationships, and
technical ability. "Capacity" means the ability to analyze a wide range of
problems, not just those in your narrow area of technical expertise.
"Achievement" is the demonstrated ability to get things done. "Relationships"
means the ability to work well and communicate well with others. And
"technical"--well, that part is obvious to any science trainee.
How to find out if corporate research is for you
Companies provide information, via Web sites and recruiting brochures, about
their activities and employment opportunities, but such information tends to be
quite general and promotional. Career fairs, where you can talk directly to a
recruiter (or whoever is staffing the company's booth), is a better way to learn
what type of folks they are and who they are looking for.
Better still is to talk to people within the company with backgrounds similar to
yours. Perhaps a former fellow postdoc or grad student works for the company or
knows someone who does. Don’t be shy; pick up the phone and make an appointment,
even if you know them only remotely. Most will be happy to meet you face to face
and show you the type of work they do.
But the best way to figure out whether a particular corporate work environment is
right for you is to spend some real time there. Many companies provide such
opportunities.
ASML has a fellowship program that allows master's-degree students to experience
the ASML work environment, according to Frank Wolfs, ASML's human resource
manager. "Yearly, we sponsor 30 to 40 master students with a fellowship at the
Technical University Eindhoven. They work on lithography-related scientific
problems in collaboration with our R&D organization. After graduation,
they have a 3-year contract to further experience what it is to work for a
leading high-tech company." Many other high-tech companies--especially the
larger ones--have similar programs.
Not your final destination
It can be hard to leave an academic research post, especially once you have
tenure. Moving from a corporate research career back to academia is difficult
though not impossible; only a handful of people make the leap, but some do, most
in applied programs like engineering departments at the managerial level, where
corporate experience is of greater value to academia.
It may be difficult to return to basic science once you are in the corporate
world, but it's relatively easy to branch out within a corporate setting.
After several years of R&D experience, many people are eager for new
challenges. Many shift to management, production, sales, customer service, or
intellectual property. Shell, says spokesperson van Boesschoten, encourages such
changes. "Our people have the ability to move in and out of research within the
course of their career if they so wish. One could start and build a career in
R&D but also move on to an assignment in operations and project
management and then come back to R&D."
A corporate lab might be an interesting environment to do research with a
slightly different twist. It can also provide a step into new kinds of
stimulating work later on.
Bart Noordam is a professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and director of
development and engineering at ASML.
He has also worked for McKinsey and Co. |
10.1126/science.caredit.a0800131 |