Definitions of R & D : report with evidence.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
- Date:
- 1990
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Definitions of R & D : report with evidence. Source: Wellcome Collection.
52/148 (page 50)
![2 March 1989] PROFESSOR KEITH PAVITT AND MR PaRI PATEL [Continued [Chairman contd.] 67. Thank you very much indeed. We are most grateful to you. (Professor Pavitt) Thank you for taking the time to listen. Letter from Sir Colin Fielding In response to your letter of 31 January, I am enclosing one copy of a note under the same heading. On thinking about how best to answer your questions, I decided to preface my answers with a short explanatory piece—I trust that your Sub-Committee will find it helpful to their deliberations. I hope that the Sub-Committee will be able to find a way of amplifying the current Frascati definitions to reflect the needs of countries to look much more broadly at the contribution of innovation to national wealth creation. Colin C. Fielding February 1989 DEFINITIONS OF R&D SPENDING In spite of Frascati, the term R&D is too frequently used to cover widely different quasi-innovative activities, particularly in technology and engineering which generates considerable confusion in interpretation by those who are not directly concerned with the particular industries or programmes. As might be inferred from that statement, there is very little difficulty with academia because the Frascati definitions are generally well matched to the kind of R&D going on in those quarters. But the vast majority of R&D is being carried out in Research & Technology Organisations (RTO’s), the manufacturing industries including aerospace, pharmaceuticals, chemical and power generation companies, systems and software companies and government research establishments. In these areas the term R&D is still used to describe innovative processes but it can often have quite a different meaning to that in academia. This ambiguity has led to considerable misinterpretation in the assembly of statistics across different spheres of activities in the UK. One unfortunate result has been that those trying to divine national policies for, and performance in R&D have been misled. Worse, there is more confusion still in the statistics across national boundaries. For example, if R&D is carried out in a technical institute, it is often classified as such _ within one of the Frascati definitions, but if similar work is carried out in private industry, it may only be partly referred to as R&D, within Frascati definitions. To clarify why such confusion should exist, it is worth looking at the whole process of evolution of (say) technology, for I appreciate R&D can encompass a broader spectrum than that, but it is in that area where there is the maximum scope for misinterpretation. Let us take the gas turbine engine as an example: Basic research— thermodynamics, properties of petroleum-based fuels, properties of metals. Applied research— ; optimisation of thermodynamic cycles, extension of turbine technology, metallurgical properties of required metals. Experimental development— design of laboratory gas turbines, design of performance measurement rigs, etc. Engineering development— general definition of a product, design of that product, manufacture of prototypes, development of an engine test facility, creation of drawings for manufacture, creation of technical specifications etc. The ambiguities stem from the last two headings. Applied research, in industrial terms is frequently, but not always, nearer to Frascati “experimental development”. Engineering development has no parallel in Frascati, but it does have a very finite innovative content, which could be 50% in some cases; but the whole](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32218540_0052.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
