Group items tagged

a paper with 3,000 authors came in 2008

By last year, a total of 120 physics papers had more than 1,000 authors and 44 had more than 3,000

independent contributions to joint efforts, usually in the form of data, that involve only weak intellectual interaction

Papers with hundreds of co-authors contribute to the apparent pervasiveness of collaboration between countries.

Consequently, distinguishing Malta's own science performance is already impossible. This blurring of national distinctiveness could be a growing issue.

The rapid growth of each nation's research base and regional links, driven by relatively strong economies investing in innovation, will undoubtedly produce a regional research labour force to be reckoned with by 2020

China's rapid growth since 2000 is leading to closer research collaboration with Japan

Taiwan

South Korea

Australia

Asia-Pacific region

India has a growing research network with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, although it is not as frequent a collaborator with China as one might expect

Middle East, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a strong research partnership that is drawing in neighbours including Tunisia and Algeria.

Latin America has an emerging research network focused around Brazil,

has doubled its collaboration with Argentina, Chile and Mexico in the past five years

Africa has three distinct networks: in southern Africa, in French-speaking countries in West Africa and in English-speaking nations in East Africa.

proximity is just one of several factors in networks

use paths of least resistance to partnership, rather than routes that might provide other strategic gains

Commonwealth countries

have adopted similar research structures

Students

proximity

lower cost of living

generous government scholarships

Job opportunities

countries in science's old guard must drop their patrician tendencies, open up clear communication channels and join in with new alliances as equal participants before they find themselves the supplicants.

Collaboration between the public and private sectors has become more apparent because of government interest in exploiting research for economic competitiveness. Some data show that industrial investment in research seems to be dropping — perhaps a reaction to the recession, but the trend seems to be long term, at least in the United Kingdom9

Incentives for collaborative innovation investment that draws directly on the science base would be a good start.

So what are the costs and benefits of collaboration? It provides access to resources, including funding, facilities and ideas. It will be essential for grand challenges in physics, environment and health to have large, international teams supported by major facilities and rich data, which encourage the rapid spread of knowledge.

Research networks are a tool of international diplomacy.

As for costs, collaboration takes time and travel and means a shared agenda

The risk is that international, national and institutional agendas may become driven by the same bland establishment consensus.

The iconoclastic, the maverick and the marginal may find a highly collaborative world a difficult place to flourish

systemic problems that arise from the R&D funding system and incentive structure that the federal government put in place after World War II

Researchers across the country encounter increasingly fierce competition for money.

unding rates in many National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) programs are now at historical lows, declining from more than 30% before 2001 to 20% or even less in 2011

even the most prominent scientists will find it difficult to maintain funding for their laboratories, and young scientists seeking their first grant may become so overwhelmed that individuals of great promise will be driven from the field

anxiety and frustration

The growth of the scientific enterprise on university campuses during the past 60 years is not sustainable and has now reached a tipping point at which old models no longer work

Origins of the crisis

ederal funding agencies must work with universities to ensure that new models of funding do not stymie the progress of science in the United States

The demand for research money greatly exceeds the supply

the demand for research funding has gone up

The deeper sources of the problem lie in the incentive structure of the modern research university, the aspirations of scientists trained by those universities, and the aspirations of less research-intensive universities and colleges across the nation

competitive grants system

if a university wants to attract a significant amount of sponsored research money, it needs doctoral programs in the relevant fields and faculty members who are dedicated to both winning grants and training students

The production of science and engineering doctorates has grown apace

Even though not all doctorate recipients become university faculty, the size of the science and engineering faculty at U.S. universities has grown substantially

proposal pressure goes up

These strategies make sense for any individual university, but will fail collectively unless federal funding for R&D grows robustly enough to keep up with demand.

At the very time that universities were enjoying rapidly growing budgets, and creating modes of operation that assumed such largess was the new normal, Price warned that it would all soon come to a halt

the human and financial resources invested in science had been increasing much faster than the populations and economies of those regions

growth in the scientific enterprise would have to slow down at some point, growing no more than the population or the economy.

Dead-end solutions

studies sounded an alarm about the potential decline in U.S. global leadership in science and technology and the grave implications of that decline for economic growth and national security

Although we are not opposed to increasing federal funding for research, we are not optimistic that it will happen at anywhere near the rate the Academies seek, nor do we think it will have a large impact on funding rates

universities should not expect any radical increases in domestic R&D budgets, and most likely not in defense R&D budgets either, unless the discretionary budgets themselves grow rapidly. Those budgets are under pressure from political groups that want to shrink government spending and from the growth of spending in mandatory programs

The basic point is that the growth of the economy will drive increases in federal R&D spending, and any attempt to provide rapid or sustained increases beyond that growth will require taking money from other programs.

The demand for research money cannot grow faster than the economy forever and the growth curve for research money flattened out long ago.

Path out of crisis

The goal cannot be to convince the government to invest a higher proportion of its discretionary spending in research

Getting more is not in the cards, and some observers think the scientific community will be lucky to keep what it has

The potential to take advantage of the infrastructure and talent on university campuses may be a win-win situation for businesses and institutions of higher education.

Why should universities and colleges continue to support scientific research, knowing that the financial benefits are diminishing?

esearch culture

attract good students and faculty as well as raise their prestige

mission to expand the boundaries of human knowledge

faculty members are committed to their scholarship and will press on with their research programs even when external dollars are scarce

training

take place in

research laboratories

it is critical to have active research laboratories, not only in elite public and private research institutions, but in non-flagship public universities, a diverse set of private universities, and four-year colleges

How then do increasingly beleaguered institutions of higher education support the research efforts of the faculty, given the reality that federal grants are going to be few and far between for the majority of faculty members? What are the practical steps institutions can take?

change the current model of providing large startup packages when a faculty member is hired and then leaving it up to the faculty member to obtain funding for the remainder of his or her career

universities invest less in new faculty members and spread their internal research dollars across faculty members at all stages of their careers, from early to late.

national conversation about changes in startup packages and by careful consultations with prospective faculty hires about long-term support of their research efforts

Many prospective hires may find smaller startup packages palatable, if they can be convinced that the smaller packages are coupled with an institutional commitment to ongoing research support and more reasonable expectations about winning grants.

Smaller startup packages mean that in many situations, new faculty members will not be able to establish a functioning stand-alone laboratory. Thus, space and equipment will need to be shared to a greater extent than has been true in the past.

construction of open laboratory spaces and the strategic development of well-equipped research centers capable of efficiently servicing the needs of an array of researchers

phaseout of the individual laboratory

enhanced opportunities for communication and networking among faculty members and their students

Collaborative proposals and the assembly of research teams that focus on more complex problems can arise relatively naturally as interactions among researchers are facilitated by proximity and the absence of walls between laboratories.

An increased emphasis on team research

investments in the research enterprise

can be directed at projects that have good buy-in from the faculty

learn how to work both as part of a team and independently

Involvement in multiple projects should be encouraged

The more likely trajectory of a junior faculty member will evolve from contributing team member to increasing leadership responsibilities to team leader

nternal evaluations of contributions and potential will become more important in tenure and promotion decisions.

relationships with foundations, donors, state agencies, and private business will become increasingly important in the funding game

The opportunities to form partnerships with business are especially intriguing

Further complicating university collaborations with business is that past examples of such partnerships have not always been easy or free of controversy.

some faculty members worried about firms dictating the research priorities of the university, pulling graduate students into proprietary research (which could limit what they could publish), and generally tugging the relevant faculty in multiple directions.

developed rules and guidelines to control them

University faculty and businesspeople often do not understand each other’s cultures, needs, and constraints, and such gaps can lead to more mundane problems in university/industry relations, not least of which are organizational demands and institutional cultures

n addition to funding for research, universities can receive indirect benefits from such relationships. High-profile partnerships with businesses will underline the important role that universities can play in the economic development of a region.

Universities have to see firms as more than just deep pockets, and firms need to see universities as more than sources of cheap skilled labor.

foundations or other philanthropy

We do not believe that research proposed and supervised by individual principal investigators will disappear anytime soon. It is a research model that has proven to be remarkably successful and enduring

However, we believe that the most vibrant scientific communities on university and college campuses, and the ones most likely to thrive in the new reality of funding for the sciences, will be those that encourage the formation of research teams and are nimble with regard to funding sources, even as they leave room for traditional avenues of funding and research.

It is essential that autonomy is combined with responsibility.

staff typically manage the whole work process from making sales, manufacture, accounts, to dispatch

they are also responsible for managing their own capitalization; a form of virtual ownership develops. Everything they need for their work, from office furniture to high-end machinery will appear on their individual balance sheet; or it will need to be bought in from somewhere else in the company on a pay-as-you go or lease basis. All aspects of the capital deployed in their activities must be accounted for and are therefore treated with the respect one accords one’s own property.

The result is not simply a disparate set of individuals doing their own thing under the same roof. Together they benefit from an economy of scale as well as their combined resources to tackle large projects; they are an interconnected whole. They have in common a brand, which they jointly represent, and also a business management system (the Say-Do-Prove system) - consisting not only of system-wide boundaries but also proprietary business management software which helps each take care of the back-end accounting and administrative processing. The effect is a balance between freedom and constraint, individualism and social process.

embodiment of meaning

But culture is a much more personal phenomenon

Culture is like climate- it does not exist in and of itself- it cannot exist in a vacuum, it must exist within a medium.

underlying culture

Incompatibility between the presenting culture and the underlying one provide a great source of tension

The truth of course is that when tension builds to a critical level it takes just a small perturbation to burst the bubble and the hidden culture reveals itself powered by the considerable pent-up energy.

Consider again the idea that for the health of an endangered species; the conditions in their habitat must be just right. In business, the work environment can be considered analogous to this idea of habitat.

A healthy environment is one that provides a blank canvas; it should be invisible in that it allows culture to be expressed without taint

The over-arching, high-level obligations are applied to the organization via contractual and legal terms.

But it is these obligations that the traditional corporate model separates out into functions and then parcels off to distinct groups. The effect is that a clear sight of these ‘higher’ obligations by the people at the front-end is obstructed. The overall sense of responsibility is not transmitted but gets lost in the distortions, discontinuities and contradictions inherent in the corporate systems of hierarchy and functionalization.

employees are individually rewarded for their contribution to each product. They are not “compensated” for the hours spent at work. If an employee wants to calculate their hourly rate, then they are free to do so however, they are only rewarded for the outcome not the duration of their endeavors.

Another simplification is the application of virtual accounts (Profit and Loss (P&L) account and Balance Sheet) on each person within the business.

The company systems simply provide a mechanism for cheaply measuring the success of each individual’s choices. For quality the measure is customer returns, for delivery it is an on-time-and-in-full metric and profit is expressed in terms of both pounds sterling and ROI (return on investment).

The innumerable direct links back to an external reality -like the fragile ties that bound giant Gulliver, seem much more effective at aligning the presenting culture and the underlying embodied culture, and in doing so work to remove the existing tension.

With a culture that responds directly to reality, the rules in the environment can be “bounding” rather than “binding”- limiting rather than instructive; this way individual behavior need not be directed at all. The goal is to free the individual to express himself fully through his work, bounded only by the limits of the law. With clever feedback (self-referencing feedback loops) integrated into the design, the individuals can themselves grow to collectively take charge of the system boundaries, culture and even the environment itself, always minded of the inherent risks they are balancing, leaving the law of the land as the sole artificial boundary.

the conventional company, which, instead of rewarding enterprise, trains compliance by suppressing individual initiative under layer upon layer of translation tools.

apply accountability to the individual not command-and-control.

without the divisive and overbearing management cabal the natural reaction of humans is to combine their efforts

a new member of staff at Matt Black Systems

recruited by another staff member (sponsor) and they will help you learn the basics of the business management system- they will help you get to know the ropes.

jobs are passed to new staff members, a royalty payment can be established on the work passed over.

Along with that job you will be given a cash float (risk capital), P&L Account, a Balance Sheet and computer software to help plan and record your activities. Your operation is monitored by your sponsor to see if you increase the margin or volume, and so establish a sustainable operation. Training and mentoring is provided to support the steep learning curve - but without removing the responsibility of producing a return on the sponsor’s risk capital.

You will, in the meantime be looking to establish some of your own work for which you will not have to pay a commission or royalty to your sponsor and this will provide you with more profitable operations such that eventually you might pass back to the sponsor the original operation, as it has become your lowest margin activity. It will then find its way to a new employee (along with the associated Balance Sheet risk capital) where the process is repeated by the sponsor.[4]

Remuneration for staff is calibrated in a way that reflects the balance of different forces around ‘pay’

there is an obligation upon the company to pay a minimum wage even if the profitability of the operation does not support this

there are therefore two aspects of the basic pay structure: one is “absolute” and reflects the entrepreneurial skill level of the employee according to a sophisticated grading scale

A further 20% of the original profit will be paid into his risk capital account, which will be his responsibility to deploy in any way he sees fit as part of his Balance Sheet. Of the three remaining 20% slices of the original profit, one is paid out as corporation tax, another as a dividend to the shareholders and the last retained as collective risk capital on the company’s balance sheet- a war chest so to speak.

Julian Wilson and Andrew Holm sell products / services to their staff (such as office space and software) they have an identical customer/supplier relationship with the other employees.

Naturally there are some people that can’t generate a profit. The sponsor’s risk capital will eventually be consumed through pay. After a process of rescue and recovery- where their shortcomings are identified and they are given the opportunity to put them right, they either improve or leave, albeit with a sizeable increase in their skills.

there is a gradual process of accustomisation; the void of the new employee is surrounded by others dealing with their particular activities, offering both role models and operations they may wish to relinquish. One step at a time the new employee acquires the skills to become completely self-managing, to increase their margins, to make investments, to find new business, to become a creator of their own success. Ultimately, they learn to be an entrepreneur.

responsible autonomy as an alternative vision to traditional hierarchy

Matt Black Systems it is not simply commitment that they targeted in their employees, rather they aim for the specific human qualities they sum up as magic- those of curiosity, imagination, creativity, cooperation, self-discipline and realization (bringing ideas to reality).

a new form of association of individuals working together under the umbrella of a company structure: a kind of collective autonomy

The business is called Matt Black Systems, based in Poole in dorset

Turning an organisation on its head- removing all management, establishing a P&L account and Balance Sheet on everyone in the organisation and having customers payment go first into the respective persons P&L account has revolutionised this company. 

This innovative company’s approach views business success as wholly reliant upon human agency, and its wellspring at the individual level.

problem (of unnecessarily high overheads placed on production) that arguably is behind the decline in western manufacturing

over-managed business

Autonomy Enables Productivity

organizational design brings to light the unconscious socio-philosophical paradigm of the society in which it exists, organizational development points to how change occurs.

a mechanistic approach to organization

scientific management employs rationalism and determinism in pursuit of efficiency, but leaves no place for self-determination for most people within the system.

Command and Control

today, a really “modern” view of an organization is more likely to be depicted in terms that are akin to an organism.

When it comes to getting work done, the simple question is: are people the problem or the solution?

the Taylorist approach may be more real in theory than in practice: its instrumentalist view of the workforce is cursed by unintended consequences. When workers have no space for their own creative expression, when they are treated like automata not unique individuals, when they become demotivated and surly, when they treat their work as a necessary evil; this is no recipe for a functional organization.

The natural, human reaction to this is unionization, defiance and even outright rebellion; to counter this, management grows larger and more rigid in pursuit of compliance, organizations become top heavy with staff who do not contribute directly to the process of value creation but wield power over those who do.

voluntary slavery of ‘wagery’

Even when disgruntled employees strike free and start their own businesses they seem unable to resist the hegemony of the conventional command-and-control approach

Making the transition involves adherence to a whole new sociology of work with all the challenging social and psychological implications that brings.

first principal that people in the business have the ability to provide the solution

In the “theory of constraints” the goal is to align front-line staff into a neat, compact line for maximum efficiency. Surely the most considered approach is to have front-line staff self-align in pursuit of their individual goals?

The removal of hierarchy and specialization is key to a massive improvement in both profitability and productivity. In summary: there are no managers in the company, or foremen, or sales staff, or finance departments; the company is not functionally compartmentalized and there is no hierarchy of command. In fact every member of staff operates as a virtual micro-business with their own Profit & Loss account and Balance Sheet, they manage their own work and see processes through from end to end

Formal interaction between colleagues takes place via “customer and supplier” relationships.

autonomy enables productivity

if one creates a space in which staff pursue their own goals and are not paid by the hour, they will focus on their activities not the clock; if they are not told what to do, they will need to develop their own initiative; if they are free to develop their own processes, they will discover through their own creative faculties how to work more productively- in pursuit of their goals

The human qualities which are of greatest potential value to the business are: curiosity, imagination, creativity, cooperation, self-discipline and realization (bringing ideas to reality)

These qualities are the very ones most likely to be withheld by an individual when the environment is ‘wrong’.

Any elements in the business environment that undermine the autonomy and purpose of the individual will see the above qualities withheld

High on the list of undermining elements come power-hierarchy and over-specialization

the responsibility of the individual is formalized, specified and restricted. An improved system is not one where responsibility is distributed perfectly but rather one where there is simply no opportunity for responsibility to be lost (via the divisions between the chunks). Systems must be reorganized so responsibility -the most essential of qualities -is protected and wholly preserved.

Matt Black Systems believe this can only be done by containing the whole responsibility within an individual, holding them both responsible and giving them ‘response-ability’

The experience of Matt Black Systems demonstrates that radical change is possible

productivity is up 300%, the profit margin is up 10%[3], customer perception has shifted from poor to outstanding, product returns are at less than 1%, “on time and in full” delivery is greater than 96%, pay has increased 100%.

staff develop broader and deeper skills and feel greater job security; they get direct feedback from their customers which all go to fuel self-confidence and self-esteem.

the staff manage themselves

“only variety can absorb variety”.

What is particular about their story is that behind it is a very consciously crafted design that surrounds the individualism of each person with hard boundaries of the customer, the law and the business. It is these boundaries rather than the instructive persona of ‘the boss’ that gives rise to the discipline in which individuals can develop. Autonomy is not the same as freedom, at least not in the loose sense of ‘do as you please’. An autonomous person is a person who has become self-governing, who has developed a capacity for self-regulation, quite a different notion from the absence of boundaries. Indeed, it is with establishing the right boundaries that the business philosophy is most concerned. The company provides the crucible in which the individual can develop self-expression but the container itself is bounded. Wilson calls this “designing the void”. This crucible is carefully constructed from an all-encompassing, interconnecting set of boundaries that provide an ultimate limit to behaviours (where they would fall foul of the law or take risks with catastrophic potential). It is an illusion to think, as a director of a company, that you are not engaged in a process of social conditioning; the basis of the culture is both your responsibility and the result of your influence. The trick is to know what needs to be defined and what needs to be left open. The traditional authoritarian, controlling characters that often dominate business are the antithesis of this in their drive to fill this void with process, persona and instruction. Alternatively, creating an environment that fosters enterprise, individuals discover how to be enterprising.