Technology transfer from NASA to targeted industries, volume 2

This volume contains the following materials to support Volume 1: (1) Survey of Metal Fabrication Industry in Alabama; (2) Survey of Electronics Manufacturing/Assembly Industry in Alabama; (3) Apparel Modular Manufacturing Simulators; (4) Synopsis of a Stereolithography Project; (5) Transferring Modular Manufacturing Technology to an Apparel Firm; (6) Letters of Support; (7) Fact Sheets; (8) Publications; and (9) One Stop Access to NASA Technology Brochure

Electroweak Radiative Corrections To Polarized M{\o}ller Scattering Asymmetries

One loop electroweak radiative corrections to left-right parity violating M{\o}ller scattering ($e^-e^-\to e^-e^-$) asymmetries are presented. They reduce the standard model (tree level) prediction by 40$\pm 3$ \% where the main shift and uncertainty stem from hadronic vacuum polarization loops. A similar reduction also occurs for the electron-electron atomic parity violating interaction. That effect can be attributed to an increase of $\sin^2\theta_W(q^2)$ by $3\%$ in running from $q^2=m_Z^2$ to 0. The sensitivity of the asymmetry to ``new physics'' is also discussed.Comment: 14 pages, Revtex, postscript file including figures is available at ftp://ttpux2.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/ttp95-14/ttp95-14.ps or via WWW at http://ttpux2.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de/cgi-bin/preprints/ (129.13.102.139

Achieving Organizational Consensus with Respect to R&D Project Selection Criteria

An impact method for achieving organizational consensus was used in specifying R&D project selection criteria at four different organizations. The method consists of the repeated use of a paired comparison instrument, with group discussions and member interactions. High levels of shared values, consensus and member satisfactions were achieved at two of the four organizations. Legitimized leadership, a willingness to engage in confrontations and a high awareness of the larger needs of the total organization existed at these two. By contrast, in the other two organizations the absence of a single strong leader and a clear unity of purpose inhibited consensus. It was concluded that the impact method may be generally useful for disclosing hidden value conflicts. However, the achievement of high levels of shared values and decision consensus may be inhibited where either a strong central leader is lacking or where individuals are unclear about the nature of the larger goals of the total organization.

Effectiveness of Nominal and Interacting Group Decision Processes for Integrating R&D and Marketing

Because R&D and marketing are dependent upon each other for new product development, it is imperative that they achieve consensus and organizational integration (a team spirit of collaboration and joint commitment). But, consensus and integration are often inhibited by the differing viewpoints of R&D and marketing, which are a natural consequence of their specialized organizational roles and cultures. There is a need for a process that will bridge these dissonant viewpoints and cultures, while otherwise preserving the specialized orientations of the two parties. The bridging properties of three group decision making processes--nominal, interacting, and combined nominal-interacting--were tested by nine strategic planning teams, each composed of R&D and marketing personnel. The combined nominal-interacting process yielded very high levels of statistical consensus and group integration. The nominal process produced statistical consensus but it did not yield high levels of integration. The interacting process did not produce either consensus or integration. The results here and elsewhere indicate that consensus and collaboration problems between R&D and marketing may be alleviated by replacing the interacting decision making process, which is typically used by many organizations, with a combined nominal-interacting process.

Utility and Perceived Acceptability of R&D Project Selection Models

The analytical utility and managerial acceptability of three expected value maximizing (EV) project selection model forms were assessed within five different development R&D performing organizations. Utility was assessed in terms of the capabilities of the models for prescribing higher value portfolios than those actually implemented by the R&D managers. Value was expressed in terms of profit, return on investment, expenditures on unsuccessful efforts and funds unexpended. Acceptability was measured in terms of the manager's willingness to adopt the models on the bases of their assessed utilities, their general performances and their perceived attributes. Although one of the EV model forms was found to have high utility with regard to all five organizations studied, it was acceptable in only two of these organizations. In general, high utility was not found to be either an inherent characteristic of these EV model forms or an important consideration for their adoption by the R&D managers. Overall, the models were largely irrelevant and managerially unacceptable with respect to the development projects and the selection/allocation processes studied here.

Analytical Effectiveness of Mathematical Models for R&D Project Selection

Four mathematical programming models for R&D project selection and funding are developed, based on similar models and results in the literature. Project selection and funding decision planning data for thirty actual R&D projects are collected and the models are used with these data to ascertain which of the available projects to select and how much to spend on them. The portfolios prescribed by each model are compared with a prorata benchmark allocation, an ex post optimum allocation based on the success/fail project outcomes and the allocations actually used by management. The results indicate that these models may be effective decision aids when used at appropriate project life cycle periods, with the choice of the particular model form being influenced by the manager's objectives and viewpoints of the project selection problem.

Autonomy, Gratification and R & D Outputs: A Small-Sample Field Study

Thirty-two research and development scientists working under high and low autonomy conditions were studied for differences in attitudes and behavior, and their (thirty-two) one-man projects were studied for differences in output levels. High autonomy development scientists were found to have higher levels of work gratification and interpersonal compatibility than their low autonomy counterparts. For research scientists, no such attitudinal and behavioral differences were found between high and low autonomy conditions. Development projects were found to have generally higher levels of outputs than research projects, where outputs were measured in terms of the percent technical problems solved and the project degree of achievement. However, for both research and development projects, the output levels did not vary with the degree of autonomy. Taken together, the detailed results indicate that the work orientation of a project, research or development, can have a significant influence on project outputs. By contrast, the degree of autonomy may only influence certain attitudinal and behavioral dimensions, which may be unrelated to output levels. These results are consistent with the conventional wisdoms, and their implications for management are largely in accord with modern management practices.