Are In-House R&D Labs Outdated?
from the maybe-possibly dept
Has start-up culture completely changed the idea of research and development? This isn't a new idea, as many companies have made this point in the past. However, here's an article raising the idea again. These days, with a (mostly) healthy venture capital industry, and a strong startup culture in the US, many tech companies are realizing that in-house R&D just isn't worth it. In some ways, it's the typical "decentralized vs. centralized" argument at work. With an in-house R&D system, you have a centralized solution, where limited resources force researchers to focus on specific problems, and they tend to focus on improving core products, without cannibalizing existing lines too much. This shows why they often get blind-sided by more disruptive technologies that change the market. With the decentralized startup model of research, lots of companies (funded by VCs) do all different types of research, and the bigger tech companies get to pick the more successful ones and buy them out. They may pay more, but the results are more proven in the marketplace, and they end up spending less on completely wasteful projects. Of course, it doesn't always work out that way, and there are plenty of stories of acquisitions gone bad (though, in many cases, this is because bigger companies losing marketshare tend to buy companies that simply prop up their obsolete offerings, rather than really jump into more revolutionary areas). The big downside of this model, of course, is that it makes integration much more difficult (another reason why many of these deals fail), but that doesn't seem to offset the upside. It will be interesting to see if the pendulum shifts back, or if the focus will remain on this more decentralized means of R&D.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Doesn't solve everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes
Also a lot of very targeted reasearch will only ever be done by companies that are already in an existing market. Some vertical markets are too narrow and too expensive for a real startup to get into them. Some types of research can take many millions of dollars a year for a decade or more before you see results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
R & D can be worth it
- within a well-defined area, researchers get free reign to make discoveries.
- the company also has marketing people capable of understanding what the researchers are doing, and seeing how to make future products from their work.
I consulted at AT&T in 1985, 86 and 87, the period during which Bell labs started to die. It was particularly clear that Marketing people in the AT&T computer business had neither the patience nor the understanding to mine the labs for future products. Much valuable work died in this period, because, with no one to appreciate its (imaginative) commerical future, the work was just an expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disruptive technologies are not attractive to big
[ link to this | view in chronology ]