3 ms·
Not really sold on this take. It seems pretty bigco-focused and a bit weak and arbitrary. You could equally divide R&D teams in many other ways, eg. academic v
by contingencies 2y ago
Not really sold on this take. It seems pretty bigco-focused and a bit weak and arbitrary.
You could equally divide R&D teams in many other ways, eg. academic vs. startup vs. bigco, shipping vs. pre-market, targeted vs. wandering, focused vs. scattergun, single domain vs. cross-domain, business focused vs. possibility focused, full time vs. part time, dedicated space and facility vs. shared with production, etc.
- dswalter 2y agoPlease write the post where you analyze R&D through these different lenses! I would love to hear more of your thoughts.
- ghaff 2y agoIn general, unless it's very pre-market and exploratory/academic, research and development almost implies BigCo--and it tends to tilt towards development over time. The obvious exceptions are both pretty rare and last about as long as the company has a bunch of extra money to toss around.
- codingdave 2y agoSeems fairly lightweight to me as well, but I think that is the point - this is a teaser for content the author intends to expand upon in later posts. So as just an intro, it seems fine. I do hope if they continue to write up this content, they focus more on why this categorization matters and what benefit it offers an organization to conceptualize their teams in one of these ways.