I'm not sure this guy's lead is entirely to the point--it appears that spending more in gross terms (not as a percentage of sales) is good. But this analysis takes an excellent short-term approach. In the short term, close linking of product development and marketing will bring products to the market faster and will provide sellable products (if the marketing department is any good-sometimes an oxymoron). However, I think a long term view should also have been provided. There are many industries where much research must be done to provide the foundation for final product development. Hmmm, think I just redefined R&D into a couple of components. Anyway, iteresting item in the NYT.
What's Offline: R.& D. Under the Microscope. THE idea that the more you spend on research and development the more breakthroughs result is accepted in boardrooms and executive suites, heralded in Washington - and wrong. By PAUL B. BROWN. [NYT > Business]
7:30:56 AM 
|
|
