LCFB/VC/38A l8th July, 1979
VISIT TO I.T.L. , MONTREAL & B.& W., LOUISVILLE
3rd-12th July, 1979
I was very well received and given a broad coverage
of the two operations. A summary of the main general
discussions and observations is given below. Technical
points are reported separately.
1. Both B.& W. and I. T. L. made it clear that GROC will
be supported positively in the future provided attention is
given to a number of points:
a) The Main Associates should have the opportunity
of influencing the work programme - while
leaving R.& D. D. to retain sovereignty.
(There was a certain suspicion, that I
refuted, that Millbank/MPDC/BAT (UK&E)
have undue influence on the programme.)
b) The work programme is clearly exposed and
is seen to be a good balance between the
current technical priorities of key parts
of the Group and innovative -research for
the longer term.
O Associate's own "research" is effectively
r@l coordinated by BAT - but without damaging
the Associate's own commercially Oriented
developments.
d) A more overtly commercial approach is adopted.
Sometimes our proposals for work appear
academic: it is up to GR&DC staff to explain
and sell their ideas, not the 'customers'
to try to interpret them.
e) We become more 'politically sensitive" in
the areas of smoking and health, e.g.,
reporting of 'nastiest and biological
studies generally. ("Remember what pays
all our salaries".)
CC)
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 12 April 1999

2
f) Communications are improved. In
particular, too many of our reports give
information without a clear lead to
management as to the importance of the
findings. The concept of 'scientist
reporting to scientist' is not wholly
effective.
g) We recognise that Associates have their
own special circumstances and problems -
which may not always permit ready response
to our ideas, e.g., for plant trials.
h) We anticipate better the actions of our
competitors, and strive to lead in key
areas. (Our poor performance on
ventilation and expanded tobacco has
clearly raised doubts: our slow response
to primary processing and process control
was also noted.)
j) We should look at the return on investment
(or, alternatively, the consequences of
success) for the main programme areas - for
either the Group as a whole, Or for specific
territories. As an example, if we succeed
to a significant degree in the automation
of the secondary process (STRATEGY I)
which Companies will be able to benefit,
by how much and when?
2. I found no area of duplication worthy of action.
Where duplication may appear to be evident (e.g., CO reduction,
selective filtration, assessment of expanded tobacco,
automation of analysis and data computation), it is well
justified in my view.
3. The close working of R.& D. with Marketing, Production
and Leaf at both B.& W. and I.T.L. was apparent from my
discussions. It is, of course, relatively easy to achieve
close working in an operating company, compared with the
very different situation of CR&DC'and the Millbank departments.
The recent R.& D/Marketing meeting was recognised as an
attempt to have a direct marketing input to the R.& D.
thinking in market-related work - but it was felt that some
international input would also be desirable.
4. The need for a complete Te-think on communications,
and on control/co-ordination between GRUC and the main
Associates, was clearly recognised. The Research Conference,
as organised this year, was not regarded as the answer.
4:6
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 12 April 1999

3
It was agreed, however, the main Research Heads should meet
at least annually to consider progress and agree the future
R.& D. strategy. in particular, there should be a meeting
in, say, November to agree the 1990 programme in the light
of the comments and progress on the 'new' 1979 programme.
No firm conclusion was reached on how best to
achieve an input from Marketing, Production and Leaf.
The principle of the Working Party/Steering Committee
concept was accepted, but Dr. Hughes and Dr. Sanford are
to consider the implications for B.& W. and put forward
some firm ideas for discussion. Mr. Gibb will likewise
make suggestions in due course.
Underlying all these discussions about communications
and co-ordination was the feeling that in playing their part
for the good of the BAT Group, B.& W. and I. T. L. would have
to see a direct gain for themselves.
Copies to: Mr.P.Sheehy-
Mr. C. H. St ewa rt Lockhart
Dr.S.J.Green
Mr.R.J.Pritchard
Not on original:
Copies to: Function Managers
BATCo document for Province of British Columbia 12 April 1999