Reader encourages involvement in market research.

DEAR EDITOR:

I am writing to support the thought that technical people should become more involved in market research, as described in the article by Thurau and Challener ("Market Research by Technologists Can Be Key to Success of Product Development Programs,") in JCT COATINGSTECH, January, 2005, p. 44.

Some time ago, several of my colleagues and I conducted a number of internal studies in an attempt to become better (i.e., more commercially successful) researchers. A brief summary of our findings can be found in "Factors Enhancing the Commercial Success of Industrial R & D," F.L. Floyd, L.A. Nelson, I. Pratt, and R.F. Golownia, Coatings & Plastics Preprints, 46 (1), March, 1983.

Our first conclusion (which our VP had always supported) was that we must become reasonably adept at what I will broadly call market research Otherwise, we were simply inventing things with the blind hope that someone would salute them. In the ensuing years, as we all became more cognizant of marketplace realities, our batting average started increasing significantly.

But there were other important issues uncovered. An abundance of literature at that time was describing the necessity for various informal roles to arise in organization to foster commercialization of R & D results. We asked why? We were surprised to learn that those roles served to bypass normal channels, because research (whose goal was change) was typically at odds with the rest of the organization, which was focused on standardization and efficiency.

Few organizations anywhere seemed to have integrated research into their business model, even though they readily funded it over long periods of time. In such organizations, the projects that succeeded were the ones that attracted attention at the highest levels of the organization. The rest simply languished, and were ultimately shelved. This was because there was little time available for most managers and executives to deal with the disruptions inherent in innovation.

Some other findings:

A product will be more (rapidly) successful if it can be applied with existing equipment, and much slower to be adopted if co-dependent on the development of other technologies (e.g., electrostatic spray; high energy cure modules).

A market that is already undergoing other major changes is far more susceptible to new innovations than one that is not.

If a product requires significant capital equipment change, its broad acceptance will commonly slow to a timeline consistent with the cycle of capital turnover for that business/industry.

Success is fragile! All successful programs verged on failure many times during their lives. So, persistence becomes a vital attribute of success.

My view is that it is absolutely crucial for technical people to develop a competency in marketing and market research, and to participate in that process within their companies. That's the best way to improve one's commercial batting average.

Thanks for the article. Perhaps others have similar stories to share.

--F. LOUIS FLOYD

Consultant Cleveland Society

We invite all readers to express their views in response to the above letter--or on any topic of interest to the coatings community. Send "Letters" to JCT COATINGSTECH c/o Editor, FSCT, 492 Norristown Rd., Blue Bell, PA 19422-2350, or email: [e-mail].