Definitions of R & D : report with evidence.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
1990
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Definitions of R & D : report with evidence. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    61/148 (page 59)
    23 November 1989] [Continued and interpretation of the underlying work. We fear that the collection of accurate statistics will not command a high priority from busy technical managers. We have already referred to the problems of MoD data, a problem which we believe is understood by MoD. Question 12 It has been suggested that the number of scientifically and technically qualified personnel employed in R&D is a better indicator of R&D effort than is R&D spending. Do you agree? We do not believe that the number of qualified staff employed on R&D would give a better indicator of R&D effort than R&D spend, for a number of reasons. R&D effort depends not only on the numbers of qualified staff and of the research and development facilities available to them. Also, companies may sub- contract research work elsewhere. Universities, and the relevant numbers of staff might not be readily identified. In the aerospace industry, some staff are employed on R&D within the Frascati definition and also on subsequent development activities; with problems in allocation of time to each. The use of qualified staff numbers would introduce further complexities in the comparison of R&D between different countries. We have a similar problem in production, where it is often suggested to us that ‘““man-hours”’ would more properly evaluate production effort. Again, this begs the definition of direct workers and indirect supporting workers, the machine tools and capital investment available to them. In the end, the overall cost is the only sensible applicable measure. I trust the above is of assistance to you and look forward to appearing before the Sub-Committee on 23rd November 1989. I. R. Yates 7th November 1989 Preliminary Memorandum by British Aerospace Introduction BAe welcomes the opportunity to give evidence to the Select Committee on this important topic. We consider that an adequate investment in R&D is essential for a healthy UK manufacturing industry and BAe businesses in particular. Accurate quantification of the real investment in R&D, by both Government and Industry, is important if policy is to be well founded and the Select Committee has correctly identified the need for a consistent and well understood definition of R&D. The following response addresses the three questions, and the sub-questions, posed in the letter to witnesses. We consider that the questions themselves are useful and would be appropriate for a wider survey. However, we also suggest that specific reference should be made to the value and clarity of the supporting explanatory notes which are needed for a proper interpretation of the Frascati definitions (see response to question 2). I. Do you use the Frascati definitions in identifying R&D and differentiating it from other activities? If not, what definitions do you use? BAe has not yet required its Aerospace Companies specifically to identify R&D strictly according to the Frascati definitions but in requiring the presentation of Technology Plans, Computing Plans and New Business Plans with their associated budgets there is a reasonably accurate identification of both research and development. Our research work is almost entirely “Applied Research” and it is clearly differentiated from “Experimental Development” (known in BAe as Product Development) in the planning, management and financial processes. Formal differentiation has stemmed from accounting procedures, such as the Frascati based SSAP 13, and those of our major customers such as MoD. Whilst BAe has had no major problems in identifying company funded R&D, there are problems associated with work performed by BAe under contract from MoD. In these cases, BAe has traditionally ‘accepted MoD’s own identification but recent analysis of several major development contracts has shown that many of the tasks covered did not contain the “appreciable element of novelty” which is at the heart of the Frascati philosophy. A BAe working party considered several established definitions of R&D, set against the nature of the work involved in the development of several aerospace products. This has led to a proposed definition of the limit of true R&D to “correspond to a point where sufficient knowledge is available to proceed to a decision to initiate, with confidence, the design of a product but not necessarily to proceed to a production decision”’. This corresponds to the Frascati definition, the end of the Advanced Development stage as defined by the US DoD and the end of feasibility and project definition for project management defined by Downey. This study created a better understanding within BAe and positive steps have been taken to work to a common standard as referenced in our 1987 Annual Report.