Talk:Research and development/Archives/2011

R&D-Rate

"Some very aggressive organizations spend as much as 40%, and are famous for their high technology. Companies in this category include the "big pharma" such as Merck & Co. or Novartis, and the engineering companies like pre-merger Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Pratt & Whitney, or Boeing."

The actual R&d-Rate of these companies are: Merck 14.1% Novartis 15.1% HP 5.0% IBM 5.7% Boing 3.3%

There is only one company among the TOP-100 R&D-Companies of the world that has an R&D Rate of 40% or more: Allergan (Pharma) with 43,4%. anything above 15% is realy high (like the Big Pharmas), Ericcson with 24.9% is really impressive and the most innovative company under the top 50, but still far from 40%.

Figures from the 2004 R&D Scoreboard http://www.innovation.gov.uk/rd_scoreboard/home.asp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schenkeli (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 May 2005 UTC.

I work for a startup that has no revenu and spent 90% of their money on R&D. How do you calculate that rate then? This rate can be above 100% for a startup. 67.69.13.58 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad data - Not NPOV issue

The article, as it stands, is not prejudicial. The facts are wrong and the companies singled may not be helpful examples.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebrenner (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 July 2005 UTC.

Removed section

i removed the following section from the article. I don't see how it really helps to understand the concept of R&D. It doesn't have a strong connection to the main part of the article. If you want to restore it, please make this connection clearer.

Case Studies

The Dam Busters, 1943. During World War II, the British decided to attack Ruhr dams. That was a very difficult task because the dams were massive and well guarded. British engineer Barnes Wallis developed a special type of bomb designed expressly to destroy such dams and the Royal Air Force organized and trained No. 617 Squadron to deliver them. The attacks were known as Operation Chastise. That case was documented by Paul Brickhill in his 1951 book The Dam Busters. A movie with the same name was based on the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ike9898 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 August 2005 UTC.

Disambiguity / sentence fragment

In the sentence, "The phrase research and development (also R and D or R&D) has a special commercial significance apart from its conventional coupling of scientific research and technological development", the "development" link points to a disambiguity page with several different sorts of development listed. What is usually preferable is to use links in such a way as to avoid (bypass) disambiguity pages. I am at a loss, however, to choose among the options presented. It seems that New product development might apply, as might Corporate development, among other choices. Please review the available links on the disambiguity page and see which one(s) might fit best in this context.

Also, the sentence, "It is generally added the innovation (R+D+I)" is a sentence fragment and unclear. I don't know enough about this topic to edit with any confidence, so I'm just pointing things out that could be fixed by someone who knows the topic. Thanks. Chidom 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been awhile with no response; I'll just delete the link for now. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  06:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is generally added the innovation (R+D+I).

What on Earth do you mean "It is generally added the innovation (R+D+I)"? It (R&D) is added to innovation? Or "innovation" added to "R&D"? Added in which sense? Is "R+D+I" really a common term? The whole thing makes no sense. 131.111.8.104 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

R&D&I

It is R&D&I (this is "and innovation"), see the external links . R&D is the out of date name. ---> I experienced that "R&D" is still often used in politics etc., though.

Industrial Research and Development

Many companies can claim tax concessions for carrying out IR&D. Unfortunately this has led to many companies relabelling activites that are not IR&D as IR&D. This in turn has led many government agencies to overestimate the dollar value of IR&D being undertaken. Perhaps it would be best to define IR&D as scientific research and engineering development rather than the more common meaning of producing a product, process or service that is in someway different to the previous version.

Equally many academics live by the paradigm "publish or die" and this has led to an increasing number of articles that have impressive title, introductions and conclusions but remarkedly poor results and discussions. In addition, these same articles seem to reappear every year with little in the way of additional information.

People in the known, can tell that a lot of the "R&D" budget ends up being spent on junkets, fact finding tours, trips to Europe for trade shows and more mundane itemsBold text

OECD citation?

Is this an acceptable URL to cite for the opening definition?

http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2312

Castledirector (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. I removed the following sentence: "Though it is questionable that an organization is needed for this definition, as it is quite obvious that research and development refers to the research and development of something."

The formation of OECD predates the current popular usage of the phrase "research and development" and the organization was not founded to provide a definition for the term, or any term for that matter. I don't quite understand how the editor who added the sentence could have come to believe that was the case. I also removed an unnecessary use of the word "sic," as the sentence that preceded it was grammatically solid. Stormstrike (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Figures don't add up

In the first section of the article, called "R&D", it is stated that of the top four spenders on R&D, China is the highest spender in terms of GDP, with 4.3 percent, above the USA and Japan for example. However, China does not appear in the subsequent top-10 list of spenders on R&D according to GDP, whereas according to the figures given, it should be in second position after Israel and before Sweden, and way ahead of the USA and Japan, which are shown as being in fourth place and eight place respectively. Also, Japan's "percent of GDP" figures are given as 3.2% to begin with, and later as 3.39%. I suggest that these figures are checked and amended accordingly.

I think R&D spending is in being measured in PPP terms while the economy size is being measured in nominal terms. China doesn't really spend 4.3% of GDP on R&D, they spend around 1.5%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.97.81 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, very confusing paragraph. Even if different measurement terms are used, these should be clarified and simplified for clarity. --Pietero (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

need section about the sectors of research and development

Need more details about the operations of the research and development sectors and their ongoing interactions with other sectors e.g. analytical instrumentation sector. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)