Thanks for this thoughtful piece. It also applies to NASA. I would argue that drawing a boundary between research and development is also perhaps too far, as R&D is not a linear, but a cyclical process. Venky writes in the most thoughtful way I’ve seen yet in these two books: Cycles of Invention and Discovery https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674967960; and the Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674251854
JG agree with breaking down boundaries for more dynamic, iterative development. The goal was to consolidate eight R&D categories into two to enable greater flexibility while retaining or even gaining insight into budget execution. Thank you for the book recommendations - interesting research ideas.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. It also applies to NASA. I would argue that drawing a boundary between research and development is also perhaps too far, as R&D is not a linear, but a cyclical process. Venky writes in the most thoughtful way I’ve seen yet in these two books: Cycles of Invention and Discovery https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674967960; and the Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674251854
JG agree with breaking down boundaries for more dynamic, iterative development. The goal was to consolidate eight R&D categories into two to enable greater flexibility while retaining or even gaining insight into budget execution. Thank you for the book recommendations - interesting research ideas.