Perspectives
R E P R I N T
N°
When “Reengineering”
Is Not the Answer
Many companies are successful in reengineering
routine, straightforward business processes, such
as order-to-delivery, where the goal is to take out
work that does not add value. Many fewer companies, however, are successful in improving nonroutine, more subtle processes such as the work of
scientists at research laboratories.
Companies trying to reengineer creative activity
using routine approaches often come up empty.
But a handful of companies have succeeded by
taking a very different tack.
This is not surprising, because to improve a
creative process you have to turn the principles of
reengineering upside down. In reengineering routine processes, you focus on what you can take
out. In rethinking creative processes like research,
it's more often a question of what you can add.
You need to go beyond the reengineering world
of workflow and look at how ideas grow. In the
case of researchers, it means understanding whom
they need to talk to and what kind of support they
need to produce commercially valuable technology.
Remaking Patent Creation at IBM Research
How do companies go about improving the
creative yield from research? Consider what
IBM's Watson Research Laboratories has done.
In the midst of the computer industry upheaval of
the early 1990s, I BM's Research Division took it
upon themselves to learn how it could deliver
more value for IBM, rather than just survive
within smaller budgets.
3 6 1
A key process that the Division's managers
chose to tackle was patent creation. Despite a history of developing breakthrough inventions,
senior Research managers came to the conclusion
that creating intellectual property was becoming
both more important and more difficult in the fastchanging computer industry. In the past, patents
were used primarily for cross-licensing to ensure
access to competitor's technology. Today, they are
an important source of revenue through direct
licensing.
Many IBM researchers, however, were skeptical
of reengineering, thinking any close examination
of how they work would lead to micromanaging
their jobs. But those researchers were surprised
when they were presented with an approach that
goes beyond conventional reengineering. It was
built around three principles:
1) Redesign how scientists interact,
not just their work.
Rather than redesigning the details of the process, IBM focused on shaping the broad context
of the overall work environment. Put simply, they
set out to discover what truly motivated people
and then to create an environment that would
move them in the right direction.
Most scientists are proud of their autonomy
and protect it passionately, yet, inventions are
developed most fully when inventors collaborate.
IBM's challenge was to create an environment
that fostered frequent collaboration among researchers – and between researchers, patent attorneys,
and business analysts – without destroying the
sense of individual initiative and pride.
A first step was to understand what influences
the researcher. IBM managers knew that researchers respected accomplished senior scientists, so
they designated a number of senior proven inventors as “master inventors” to act as mentors to
T H E B OSTON C O NS U LTI NG G RO U P
1
Perspectives
R E P R I N T
N°
3 6 1
rarely heard whether a particular patent had paid
off or not. Performance evaluations were generally
not influenced by a researcher's patent contributions.
… When “Reengineering”
Is Not the Answer
other scientists. They ask tough questions about
the scientific, commercial, and competitive value
of a potential patent. They help the individual
researcher create a network of colleagues who can
help develop the idea behind the patent.
Another important element of the more collaborative work environment at IBM Research is
known as the “invention team.” It was discovered
that there were some inventors who produced better and faster results by collaborating with patent
attorneys. Traditionally, however, the key players
in the patent process – researchers, patent attorneys, and business analysts – had little face-to-face
contact. For them, disclosing and filing a patent
was a long, serial process. They often did not
understand each other's perspectives and sometimes became adversaries.
Today, a researcher who has a promising idea
creates an invention team – the researcher, a
patent attorney, and a business strategist. This
brings together early in the process the three key
points of view – technical, legal, and commercial –
necessary to define an effective patent. Researchers like the team approach because once the
team agrees on a common strategy, there is relatively little review or second-guessing by other parts
of the organization. Not only do patent opportunities get identified more quickly, the result is a
more valuable patent.
2) Create a common understanding
of what needs to happen to succeed.
Not everyone at Watson Laboratories knew
what patents meant to IBM. It had been assumed
that researchers valued and sought patents, but
they didn't really see a connection between patent
disclosure and I BM revenue. The researchers
Common understandings are not brought
about by slide presentations or corporate bulletins.
Rather, they are built and reinforced primarily
through day-to-day work relationships. That's why
getting the key roles right is so important. Because
the invention teams include patent attorneys and
business strategists, a broader perspective on
patenting and its role in IBM's business is taking
hold. Furthermore, the master inventors, by serving as role models and mentors, are raising the
level of understanding of the individual researcher
about the importance of patents to IBM.
Tools and feedback can help as well. For
example, expert systems and on-line tutorials have
been put in place that more clearly define business
value to the inventing community. And the performance evaluation and compensation systems now
explicitly link individual and team rewards to the
commercial value of the resulting patent.
Roles, tools, and feedback add up to a consistent and explicit message: “Here's what we need
to do and why. What help do you need in order
to do it?”
3) Make the managers accountable.
While the individual creator clearly plays the
central role in the creation process, their managers
are important as well. In the past, most research
managers at IBM were often uncertain about the
role they should play in the invention process.
They knew that patents were important but were
unclear how they could contribute as managers to
improving the patent portfolio.
Today, the responsibility of the research manager is to make sure the creation engine is running.
T H E B O STO N C O NS U LTI NG G RO U P
2
Perspectives
R E P R I N T
N°
… When “Reengineering”
Is Not the Answer
Managers have clear targets for the value of their
group's patent portfolio. These targets are regularly reviewed with senior management, and compensation is tied to meeting them.
Managers send subtle signals about the importance of patenting in countless ways every day,
from their reactions to how the researcher is spending his time, to their enthusiasm when progress
is made, to their facilitating an “invention team.”
Managers cannot control creation, but can manage it.
3 6 1
tity and quality of Research Division patents. IBM
is considering extending this approach throughout
the entire company. Why has it worked? Because
IBM's Research Division looked beyond conventional reengineering and focused on building the
environment. As companies look to grow instead
of streamline, they will have to do the same.
Russell C. Lange,
Kenneth M. Keverian
Scott G. Stephenson
From Streamlining to Growth
Mr. Lange is an IBM Fellow at IBM Research. Mr.
Keverian and Mr. Stephenson are vice presidents in the
Boston office of The Boston Consulting Group.
Early results suggest that these three principles
have contributed to an increase in both the quan-
© The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. 1995
T H E B O STO N C O NS U LTI NG G RO U P
3