Research Managers' Meeting
Amatil, 4th September 1986
Present: Dr. R.R. Baker Mr. R.G. Nicholls
Mr. W.D. Irwin Mr. 1. Pedro
Dr. S.&. Massey Mr. M.L. Reynolds
Mr. T.I. Wilson
Research Managers present at the Conference
considered and
reported on three issues relevant to the
co-ordinated Group
Research Programme:
1. Priorities
-Under the current system there is a danger that
the
Group programme is built up from individual
company
programmes and does not represent the proper
priority
needs of the Group viewed as a whole and covering
various
timescales.
Based on the current (plus additional if
necessary)
business objectives, what effort allocation would
the
team give to each?"
The teas distinguished between projects defined by
short
to medium term business needs and the longer term
projects associated with company or industry
survival.
Since the Group programme is a composite of the
individual company allocations under the various
objectives, and each has the approval of its own
parent
company, it is considered that the present effort
allocation is sound for short to medium term
projects.
It was recognised by the Research Managers that
there is
an immediate need for technical support for
current
business needs and a requirement to demonstrate
some
return on R&D investment to encourage further
funding of
research.
The team believes a problem may exist in handling
longer
term survival projects. It is recognised that
there is a
need for long term projects on key generic
problems which
require fundamental research input. Two key areas
requiring such work are : (i) mainstream
deliveries
(chemical constituents, control of deliveries,
tar/nicotine ratio, chemosensory properties,
biological
assessment); (ii) alternative products. It was
suggested that a significant R&D effort across the
Group
should be directed towards generic issues
requiring
fundamental research. Lack of investment in such
activity will lead to a paucity of development
ideas for
the future. It also suggests to staff a lack of
confidence in the long term future of the
business.
The first initative must be to identify long term
goals
and thence projects; we should then identify the
resource
requirement.
13 ATCO document for Province of British Columbia
28 October 1999


2. Duplication
-Are there any important areas of overlap or
duplication
in the Group R&D programme?"
The team defined quite a number of areas of
duplication.
These included analytical method development, Ames
testing, processing, computer model development,
chemosensory research, nitrosamines and Project
Ship.
After deliberation the team considered this
duplication
was to an extent inevitable, was not necessarily
bad and
was even of benefit due to the synergistic effect
if the
projects were well co-ordinated. Many examples in
the
list of duplication were considered areas where
effort
had been particularly successfully co-ordinated,
but
analytical methods and Ames testing were less
satisfactory.
It was considered that a formalised system of
co-ordination either by a central person or a
centrally
delegated person was not the beat way of achieving
the
aim. It was considered that -self regulation
co-ordination' was more likely to succeed where
the
co-ordination sprang from the scientists working
on the
project meeting together from one, two or more
laboratories involved in that area.
It was considered that the specialist meetings
played an
importadt part in this co-ordination but were not
the
complete answer.
It was felt that there was a need for the
technical
managers to meet on a more regular basis to study
programme co-ordination. The RPG agreed that this
would
happen annually at the new format Research
Conference.
It was considered that the new management
information
system database, was of great use. It was believed
that
the six monthly reports by projects would be
invaluable
in keeping people aware of progress in the
different
areas. The size of the 'print-out' document is
such that
it serves as a reference book. It was suggested
that
computer print-outs be generated in the different
companies covering only the areas of concern to
the
senior scientists.
The committee also saw a need for improved
reporting of
all work both as standard Group reports and in a
less
formal form, as agreed in the January MIS meeting.
The specific need was seen for clarifying
co-ordination
in the area of biotechnology in relation to
tobacco. A
co-ordinatiag meeting under Mr. G.A. Read had
already
been agreed at this Conference.
C7 \
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 28
October 1999


3. Competitive Intelligence
-Can the integration of worldwide intelligence
help us in
technical areas? If so, what can we reasonably
expect to
learn, how should we gather information and
communicate
findings?'
Items considered Included blend analysis,
competitors'
patents, competitors' job advertisements, new
launches,
conferences, publications and details of
competitors
processes and material usage.
The team concluded that the effort involved in
setting up
such a large computer intelligence file was not
commensurate with benefits likely to be derived.
With
one exception the Group has not benefitted
significantly
from competitor intelligence accumulated over the
last
five years.
They did, however, consider it worthwhile to
establish a
computer file like the Interbat STAB bulletin. On
this
file each company would enter Pertinent
Information Gems
(PIG). It was recommended that one person in each
company be responsible for gathering and entering
these
gems for running off the file once a mouth. Such
entries
could be keyvorded to allow recovery of specific
information spread in the file over time.
This fil:e should be restricted to the technical
areas
only.
The cost effectiveness of PIG should be evaluated
in
about one year, possibly at the next RPG.
Mr. Heard will ask Dr. F.S. Marsh to set up a
suitable
system for the Group.
0 N
Q111
BATCo document for Province of BritiSh Columbia 28
October 1999