RoR 05-04 Utilization of Top
Technical Talent
February 27, 2007
Co-Chairs
Brian Heft
Dave Kashdan
Steve May
Subject Matter Experts
George Farris
Steve Green
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
1
Goals of Today’s Meeting

Review activities to date




Decide how to report to IRI membership





Industry Fellows Forum
Interview study results (quick summary, since reported earlier)
Surveys of Fellows and Managers
RTM article
Offer survey as a tool for IRI company use?
SIS?
Plenary?
Decide how best to close the project



Connect to Industry Fellows Forum?
IRI “Fellows Network?”
Possible new “Son of TTT” project?
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
2
Industry Fellows Forum

~ 25 companies, including IRI members


Meetings March 2006, November 2006, October
2007



E. g., Boston Scientific, Chevron/Texaco, Cray, Delphi,
EDS, Ford, GE, GM, Honeywell, HP, IBM, Lockheed
Martin, Los Alamos Lab, Microsoft, Motorola, Pitney
Bowes, P&G, TI, Westinghouse
Hosts: Bechtel, Intel, Boeing, DuPont, Northrup
Grumman
~ 45 attendees at last meeting, mostly corporate
Fellows
Topics


Fellows roles within company and professions
Technology programs for the 21st century
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
3
9:00-9:20
Forum Kick-Off and Welcome
9:20-9:35
Ice Breaker #1
Andy Taylor
Dir., Intel Fellows
Office
9:35-9:55
Pre-Conference Survey Results
Steve Coe, Prgm.
Mgr., Boeing & Andy
Taylor
9:55-10:40
Top Technical Talent
Steve Green Purdue
George Farris Rutgers
10:40-10:55
BREAK
10:55-12:15
Breakout Groups South View
Gene Meieran
Intel Senior Fellow
Introductions, Agenda, Opening Remarks
1)
2)
3)
4)
2 in North View/2 in
S. Green/G. Farris: Using Your Top Tech Talent
G. Meieran:
From Research to Product
P. Carrato/S. Coe: How Can Felows Close the Education Gap
K. Hayes/A. Taylor: Influence Your Company
12:15-1:40
GROUP PHOTO & LUNCH
View Lounge
1:40-2:40
Breakout Group Report Outs (15 minutes each) –
2:40-2:55
Ice Breaker #2
2:55-3:20
Technology Roadmap from SpaceShip One
3:20-3:45
Utilization of the Technical Fellowship at The Boeing Company
3:45-4:10
Mentoring Excellence in Technology
4:10-6:00
OPEN/Networking Time: Museum of Flight access until
Sponsored by the Center for
6:00 PM
Innovation Management Studies
6:00 PM - Busses available to transport attendees to Edgewater
ALL ATTENDEES
(Divide into 4 groups)
30 min. brainstorm
30 min. synthesis/solution
20 min. rewrite
North
Include a Recommendation of What Should Happen Next!
Four Breakout
Group Leaders
Andy Taylor
Ray Haynes Northrup
Ken Hays - Boeing
Cliff Cook - Chevron
Meet Outside
Museum
4
Utilizing Top Technical Talent (TTT)
Interview and Survey Results
February 27, 2007
George Farris
Steve Green
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
5
Interviews

5 Companies






A: chemical production
B: resource exploration
C: chemical production
D: large systems
manufacturing
E: technology development
and services
64 Individuals




TTT in the top 2 levels of
the technical ladder
TTT > 20 years with the
company - top 1% of the
personnel on the technical
ladder.
Business managers at the
VP, Director, and Business
Unit leader levels
Very smart and thoughtful!
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
6
Findings in 5 key areas
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Road to the top: becoming a TTT
Training and development for new TTT & their
managers
TTT role expectations by TTT & managers
TTT role as realized
Structure & policies affecting TTT
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
7
TTT Role Expectations
Jointly Held





Mentoring & give-back to technical
community
Corporate conscience
Technical go-to guy/guyette
Strong technology networker
Stimulates more radical innovation
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
8
Diverging Expectations for TTT
Issue
TTT
Managers
Stewards of technical ladder
Yes
To a point
TTT autonomy & budget
Yes
Maybe not—related
to reporting level
Linked to the top
Yes
Mixed opinions—co.
differences
Drivers of ideas to realization
Maybe
Yes
Gatekeepers on key business
decisions
Yes
Mixed opinions
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
9
Some Structure & Policy Questions










How are TTT connected to one another? – doesn’t happen naturally
Are there technology boards/councils/teams to draw value from
TTT? Do TTT have time for them?
Do budgeting requirements constrain or empower TTT?
Where do TTT report? When too low, TTT have limited voice,
leverage, and respect
Is the TTT in central R&D or a business unit? – different experiences
Is TTT a “hobby” or a “real job?” – confusion & conflict
How much autonomy for TTT?
How evaluate TTT performance? Who does it?
Do planning & decision structures fuel TTT value?
How many TTT should there be? Cap on the number?
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
10
Survey



To gather information quickly from > 5
companies and check for general patterns
Survey drafts vetted by IRI Research-onResearch Committee members
Thank you to 73 Fellows and 37 Managers




24 Fellows, 15 Managers from 05-04 TTT
49 Fellows, 22 Managers from IFF
Questions: 4 scaled 1-7; 7 open-ended
Highlights of results
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
11
Fellow vs. Previous Position
(Open-ended question)

Fellows said






Managers said




Not much difference
More diverse work & perspectives; co. consultant
More influence on co strategy, policy, processes
Professional society roles
Added respect, credibility, compensation, freedom
No difference
More leadership and scope of influence
More strategic input and advice to management
“Fellow” can mean variety of things
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
12
Fellows’ Contributions to Technical
Fields and Business Success
(Maximum=7)
Total
Fellows’
Views
Managers’
Views
Technical
Fields
4.67
4.59
4.82
Business
Success
4.41
4.35
4.53
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
13
Technical Contribution Issues
(Open-ended question)

Fellows say:




Resources and time
Fellows not visible to one another; focus on
own specialties
Short-term emphasis of co.
Managers say



Time, freedom, and budget
WE keep them busy on short term
Need more proactivity
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
14
Business Contribution Issues
(Open-ended question)

Fellows say





More involvement in risk planning and project
evaluation
Business leaders do not understand our potential
contribution; not consulted
Narrow focus; compartmentalization in silos
Fellow communication and influence skills
Managers say



Lack “business savvy” and/or people skills
We need to connect technical and business sides
No clear mandate
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
15
Actual Roles for Fellows vs. Ideal
Roles: Fellow and Manager Views


Please think of your current work situation
as a Fellow. How do you see yourself
ACTUALLY functioning? (16 items, 1-7)
Now, please think of the IDEAL work
situation for a Fellow. How should a
Fellow ideally function? (same 16 items
and scale)
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
16
Fellow Activities—Most Able To:
Mean
Fellows
Say
Managers
Say
(Maximum=
7)
Be recognized within the profession for expertise and
leadership
5.11
5.02
5.31
Be knowledgeable about emerging technologies
developed in organizations outside the company
5.10
5.11
5.07
Contribute value to the company's business
5.08
4.95
5.34
Mentor junior members of the technical staff
5.07
5.06
5.09
Actively influence technical communities of practice
within the company
4.91
4.82
5.12
Drive new ideas to realization
4.89
4.95
4.77
*Influence top technical management
4.76
4.59
5.16
Be recognized for past accomplishments
4.74
4.75
4.72
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
17
Fellow Activities—Least Able To:
Mean
(Maxim
um=7)
Fellows
Say
Managers
Say
*Influence broad technology strategy
4.59
4.37
5.08
Have freedom to work on my own ideas
4.38
4.38
4.39
4.35
4.19
4.63
3.72
4.02
4.73
Challenge the company to undertake radical innovation
4.30
*Direct and control my own resources and budget
4.29
*Have time for 'Fellow activities' which are different
from my traditional technical role
4.26
Have access to resources and budget
4.03
4.14
3.84
Influence top business management
4.00
3.92
4.16
Be a gatekeeper on business decisions
3.41
3.38
3.47
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
18
Fellow Activities—Most Important Ideally
Mean
Be knowledgeable about emerging technologies developed
in organizations outside the company
Contribute value to the company's business
Influence top technical management
5.72
5.67
5.60
Influence broad technology strategy
5.56
Actively influence technical communities of practice within
the company
5.56
Mentor junior members of the technical staff
Drive new ideas to realization
5.42
5.38
Challenge the company to undertake radical innovation
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
5.33
Fellows
Say
Managers
Say
5.71
5.75
5.62
5.76
5.67
5.52
5.55
5.59
5.54
5.60
5.52
5.17
5.49
5.21
5.45
5.13
19
Ideal Fellow Activities—Lower Ranked
Mean
Fellows
Say
Managers
Say
Have freedom to work on his/her own ideas
5.27
5.29
5.25
*Be recognized within the profession for expertise and
leadership
5.21
5.09
5.62
Influence top business management
4.97
5.07
4.76
*Have access to resources and budget
4.87
5.26
4.29
Have time for 'Fellow activities' which are different from a
traditional technical role
4.83
4.85
4.80
*Direct and control my own resources and budget
4.76
5.19
3.93
Be recognized for past accomplishments
4.51
4.53
4.45
*Be a gatekeeper on business decisions
4.28
4.43
3.93
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
20
Most Important Actual-Ideal Gaps
(Open-ended question)

Fellows say





Lack of adequate time and resources
Business model requires billability
“Ivory tower” fellows hurt credibility
Lack “avenue” to truly influence co. business
decisions
Managers say



Just an “honorary title;” no mandate
Time and resources
Individual differences
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
21
Most Important Behaviors for
Fellows (Open-ended question)

Fellows say





Technical leadership, vision, integrity, breadth
and depth
Strong networks, internal, external, crossfunctional
Mentoring
Drive new technologies to commercialization
Disagree with senior management when
needed
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
22
Most Important Behaviors for
Fellows (Open-ended question)

Managers say





Deep technical knowledge and curiosity
Broad business understanding
Technology leadership
Networking inside and outside company
Mentoring
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
23
Best Features of Your Company’s
Fellows Program—Fellows Say
(Open-ended question)







Relative freedom to explore, lead, impact
Direct access to senior management
Internal recognition and respect
Networking opportunities with Fellows
Small discretionary funding
Breadth of exposure to business groups
Support of top management for Fellows concept
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
24
Best Features of Your Company’s
Fellows Program—Managers Say





(Open-ended question)
Outstanding individuals, very selective
Diversity and breadth of exposure of
Fellows
Mentoring
Allows freedom and independence
Provides vision to grow as an expert in
technical field important to company
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
25
Summing Up: Dimensions of TTT Programs

Recognition




Knowledge management




Recognize and reward TTT contributions to business
Support a viable technical ladder
TTT as mentors and role models
Facilitate TTT role in knowledge acquisition, sharing, utilization
Internal technical communities
External leadership in technical specialties
Influence on company technology



Facilitate TTT involvement in broad technology strategy
Freedom, time and resources to explore technical leads
Ability to influence top technical and business management
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
26
Summing Up: Major Trends



Recognition—most TTT programs seem
pretty good at it
Knowledge management—wide range of
success, from virtually nothing to internal
“Fellows Academies”
Influence on company technology—an
area for improvement in many companies
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
27
Q&A
Thank You
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
28
Fellows' Actual and Ideal Roles: Views of Fellows and Managers
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Influence broad technology strategy
Have time for "Fellow activities"
Be recognized for past accomplishments
Contribute value to the company's business
Actively influence communities of practice in co.
Be knowledgeable about emerging technologies
developed outside co.
Be recognized within the profession for expertise and
leadership
Fellows' Self-Reports
Drive new ideas to realization
Be a gatekeeper on business decisions
Managers' Views of Fellows
Fellows' Ideal
Managers' Ideal for Fellows
Influence top technical management
Influence top business management
Mentor junior members of the technical staff
Challenge the company to undertake radical innovation
Direct and control my own resources and budget
Have access to resources and budget
Have freedom to work on my own ideas
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
29
Gaps between Ideal and Actual
Roles—Fellows’ Views
BIGGEST GAPS
 Access to resources
 Influence top business
management
 Gatekeeper on business
decisions
 Influence broad
technology strategy
 Time for “Fellow
activities”
SMALLEST GAPS
 Recognition for past
accomplishments
 Recognition in profession
 Direct own budget
 Drive new ideas to
realization
 Contribute value to
company
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
30
Gaps between Ideal and Actual
Roles—Managers’ Views
BIGGEST GAPS
SMALLEST GAPS
 Challenge co. to radical
 Recognition for past
innovation
accomplishments
 Freedom to work on own
 Time for “Fellow
ideas
activities”
 Influence top business
 Recognition in profession
management
 Direct own budget
 Access to resources
 Mentor junior staff
 Knowledgeable about
emerging technology
outside co.
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
31
Managers and Fellows Agreements
and Disagreements about Gaps
AGREEMENT
 Biggest gaps



Access to resources
Influence top business
management
Smallest gaps



DISAGREEMENT
 Have time for “Fellow
activities”


Fellows: not enough
time
Managers: more than
enough time
Recognition for past
accomplishments
Recognition in
profession
Direct own budget
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
32
Correlates of Perceived Fellow Contributions
Fellows’ Views
Technical Fields None
Business
Success
--Contribute value
to co. business
--Drive new ideas
to realization
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
Managers’
Views
--Influence top
business
management
--More freedom
--Direct own
budget
--Less freedom
33
Other Comments
(Open-ended question)

Fellows





Free time
Fellows need to learn to sell themselves
Benchmarking with other cos.
Our Fellows are well networked to share best
practices within the co.
Managers say


Our business unit structure inhibits recognition of a
Fellows group
Fellows are too narrowly focused
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
34
Some Possible “Best” and “Worst”
Practices





Nomination by future
managers, clear TTT job
description; final decision
by top executive
Internal “academies”
Orientation for TTT &
TTT’s manager
TTTs help find & evaluate
business opportunities—
corporate-wide
TTT as mentors/role
models





Self-nomination?; unclear
job description; final
decision in BU
TTT connections only
informal
Reporting too low
No discretionary budget
(charge no.)
Full time day job—no
clear release time for TTT
activities without
“begging”
Sponsored by the Center for
Innovation Management Studies
35