The R&D University Task Force
HR assembled a broad-based task force to complete the process of creating the R&D Colleges (Table 2). An HR leader was assigned to lead the task force and R&D Leadership volunteered experienced people to be members. The R&D professionals represented various business units and scientific disciplines. The 15-member team came together for a two-day off-site kick-off meeting in August 2002. Meetings continued on a regular basis, usually every other week, for a year until the first pilot was completed.
The HR Director and R&D VP/Sponsor were still involved, though they took more of an advisory role as the HR task force leader took the reins and moved the project forward.
Table 2: Composition of the R&D University Task Force
| RDU Team Composition | Expertise/Role | Number of Professionals |
|---|---|---|
| HR | Director, Band 3 Manger (Task Force Leader), Administrator | 3 |
| R&D Middle Managers | Each represented a different business unit and technology area | 4 |
| External Consultants |
|
2 |
| Corporate Training Expertise |
|
3 |
| Graphics Designers | Creative experts who could deliver graphics and slide shows, posters, etc. | 2 |
| R&D VP Sponser | Link to R&D Leadership Team, budget & resource strategy | 1 |
| Total Number of Professionals on the Task Force | 15 | |
The task force faced a myriad of decisions, some of which are shown in Table 3. Their choices led to the successful formation of the R&D University. In a future article, the authors will describe the factors impacting each decision and the choices made.
Table 3: Decisions faced by R&D University Task Force
- Should the managerial and technical career track people have separate colleges to meet their very different needs or should they be exposed to the same materials?
- Will the program be held in a standard classroom or at a residential facility?
- If R&D managers are going to be trainers, how are they supported in delivering professional-grade programs? Are they paired with professional trainers, have professional training writers or sent through train-the-trainer programs? (Owens, 2005)
- How will the success of each program be evaluated?
- Can each College be balanced for diversity of participants, and can the deans effectively manage the cultural differences?
- How can we assure that the content is accepted by all R&D leaders, and not seen as just the personal perspective of the one or two teaching the materials? What is the process for approving content or assigning time allotments for each topic within the course, while minimizing competitive tendencies?
- How will the entire week of programming be integrated for the participants so that it doesn’t feel like a set of back-to-back small courses?
- Can trainers function as a training team?
- Is the training environment structured to focus on the positive or is a tone set which encourages discussion of touchier issues?
- Is the college truly mandatory? If mandatory, how are disruptive participants and cancellations handled?
Like all decisions, each choice led to additional questions and decisions. The following is an example of the first decision faced by the task force. The question was: “Should the managerial (M-track) and technical (T-track) career track people have separate colleges to meet their very different needs or should they be exposed to the same content?” The following factors were raised and discusses at length.
Put M and T Tracks together,
- This would reduce silos between T- and M-track people.
- This would provide T-track people with leadership training which their peers on the M-track receive regularly. T-track people requested this in focus groups.
- Putting them together could resolve some common issues that arise between the two groups. In focus groups, T-track people often felt misunderstood by their technical M-track managers, while the M-track people felt that the T-track professionals often ignored hierarchy and subverted their managerial authority, yet both needed to work together.
BUT...
- The M-track people had a bigger need for development because these technical managers were not taught managerial skills as part of their technical degrees. Further, the M-track appeared to be overloaded, with too many demands, and not enough time to provide quality coaching for all their people.
- The interests of the two are so different that it’s too hard to find common content.
- The environment that both are comfortable in is so different that it is difficult to meet the needs of both in one setting.
- Mixing them is too complex for the designers due to content and psychological differences.
After much discussion, the task force agreed to put the M- and T-tracks together in a single College for their level/band. The Leadership Team supported the task force in their decision, though this step, too, required significant discussion.