1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Study of Work Climate in R&D Organizations: A System Dynamics
Approach
Santanu Roy Pratap K J Mohapatra
National Institute of Science Technology and De of Industrial Engineering and
Development Studies Management
New Delhi 110 012, India Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur 721 302, India
Abstract
R h ding the ination and evaluation of work climate in understanding organizational
functioning has enabled us to formulate strategies that not only improve the behavioural aspects in
institutional functioning but also result in more effective organizational performance. While
sufficient studies exist on the examination of work climate for industrial, service and allied sectors,
ively few have i d g funded R h and Di (R&D)
institutions as their unit of study. Further, most of the studies reported have been conducted for
scientists working in R&D units in developed countries.
System Dynami hodol as i to studying organizational behaviour have found
limited ack led, in li A , most of these studies are based upon theoretical
understanding of the subject with little empirical support. The present study is an offshoot of a series
of studies which were undertaken in the National Institute of Science Technology and Development
Studies on different aspects of R&D Management with primary emphasis on organizational
behaviour. An attempt is made here to model the work climate of an R&D laboratory using the
System Dynamics methodology with support from the studies carried out earlier as mentioned above.
The motivational conditions prevailing in an R&D laboratory was studied in order to understand the
factors and forces which are necessary to provide a climate which will motivate the scientists.
Likewise, factors and forces that contribute significantly to the overall satisfaction with the work
group were also studied. The question whether operating within an environment as is prevailing
within the R&D laboratory had a stimulating or a debilitating effect on the work enthusiasm of the
scientists were addressed to them. The aspect of R&D effectiveness of the research groups was also
probed into and the factors and forces contributing to the same identified. A detailed flow diagram
was then developed relating to above factors to the project flow dynamics. Trial runs of the model
using the DYMOSIM package have been carried out and project-related data collection are currently
in progress to evaluate the and iplier factors and for validation of the model structure.
Production and Operations Management, page 61
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Study of Work Climate in R&D Organizations:
A System Dynamics Approach
I. INTRODUCTION
While managing Research and Devel (R&D) izati lation of ies which
improve the behavioural aspects and institutional functioning and result in more effective organizational
performance has been a key thrust area. Study of work climate is a critical component of this thrust area.
Sufficient evidence exists in the literature to indicate that examination of work climate in a R&D set-up
is as important as in any other type of organizations (Gaddis, 1959; Goodman, 1967; Steward, 1965; Avots,
1969; Cleland, 1967). Barndt et al. (1977) for example, while writing about the role of R&D managers,
suggested | that one of the major tasks before them is the establishment of a work climate that allows
ise and bargaining necessary for satisfactory job completion
among people. Some studies have taken the view that better work climate in an organization will minimize
the conflicting situations that arise as a result of say lack of team participation in decision-making, lack of
team spirit, job insecurity, etc. (Murphy, Baker and Fisher, 1974). Wilemon's study (1971) also revealed
that greater the diversity of expertise among the team members, greater would be the potential for conflict to
develop which in turn can affect the overall climate in an organization. Sherman (1986) probed into the
relationship between factors in the work environment and turnover propensities among engineering
and found that approxi ly 30 per cent of variable (R) in turnover propensities is explained by
factors in the immediate work environment. Factors such as autonomy and goal congruence (with one's
superior) were found to have a great influence. Another i interesting study by Tuttle et al. (1987) focussed on
ing the job satisfaction of research sci
Examining how work climate has been defined by researchers in literature. we find that some theorists
have argued in favour of splitting "Organization Climate" into individual focused and organization-focused
separately (James and Jones, 1974). They defined climate in terms of organizational attributes,
"psychological climate" and individual attributes. Heltetge! and Slocum (1974), by contrast, treated
climate as a more unitary phenomenon, defining it as "....a set of attributes which can be perceived about a
i and/or its sut and that may be induced from the way that organization and/or
its subsystems deal with their members of environment" However, one thing common to both the
definitions is that climate must be divided into two parts : firstly, related to the members or groups and
secondly, related to overall organizational system. Schneider and Snyder (1975) defined climate as "a
global (multidimensional) impression of what the organization is ". However, as it is defined, "climate"
refers to ia systematic phenomenon that pervades an organization and its parts. In addition, climate is a
ledge of which is usually gained by administering and scoring a
questionnaire.
In order to examine scientific productivity i in relation to stratification or organizational variables, a
variety of app to the co of 1 of per have been used in the
literature. Fairly consistent evidence has come up in the literature for a high or moderate correlation
between the sheer volume of a scientist's published papers and the quality of his or her work, as measured
by ratings of competence by peers or citation counts (Pelz and Andrews, 1966; Cole and Cole, 1971; and
Blume and Sinclair, 1973). The conclusion seems to be that where citation counts are not readily available -
Production and Operations Management, page 62
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
as in the case of a study including countries not ly or not at all in the science citation
index - publication counts are roughly adequate indicators of the significance of a scientist's work.
and his ¢ et al, 1973) ii ‘igated the i ip between the size of
research teams and the performance of their members. Blume and Sinclair (1973) investigated the
relationship between group size and effectiveness using a large sample of British university chemists.
One of the major thrusts in recent organizational behaviour literature has been the contingency
approach, not only for leadership, but also for climate. Thus, climate and performance and their
relationship to each other are probably affected by certain other variables - technology, process
development, or structure of the organization. There are no clear contingency factors related to climate in a
universal way. Of interest is Tecklenberg's (1981) argument that to achieve this end, R&D managers must
understand, influence, and assess their organizations, and among the aspects to be assessed are perception of
time and resource constraints, orientation towards goals of a discipline and goals of the organization,
perception about how the organization's reward system works and beliefs about the importance of the
idual's work to the ization. Fiedler showed that the climate of a group had a substantial impact
upon the effectiveness of leadership styles, and Lawler and Porter (1967) - after examining over 30 studies
of performance - reached the conclusion that satisfaction and climate might result from high performance
rather than being a cause of it.
Strength of motivation is a factor influencing the performance of research teams. Some teams seem
dedicated to the work they are doing. For them, the research or development in which they are engaged
presents high challenge. They are heavily involved in what they are doing and committed to making the
maximum possible progress on the task before them. Pelz and Andrews (1966) in their study of American
had i Pp d in their qi ires a set of five items that they used to measure dedication.
The items asked scientists to indicate their feelings of involvement and identification with their work, and to
say how challenging. important, and i ing they found it. Using data from more than 1300 scientists,
they found that these items showed significant positive relationships to both ratings of performance and
actual outputs of scientific products for scientists of widely different types and widely different types of
laboratories. They have also shown that the performance of the scientists increase when decision making
and goal setting are shared by members of various echelons in the research organization. Newson (1990)
highlighted that to increase employees’ productivity, managers must know what factors motivate them. He
advocated the use of the Expectancy theory which can improve motivation if nine aspects are met: capacity,
confidence. challenge. criteria. credibility. Ys ion, cost, and i These
aspects should be properly exercised for better results from the members of an organization. A number of
other studies on motivation have revealed that employees look for many other incentives in the job, other
than material rewards. Narain (1973), Sinha. (1973) and Ganguly, (1974) argued that they are unable to test
their skills and make use of their experiences. Further, they perceive that their jobs do not allow them
sufficient freedom to take decisions. Menon & Shamanna (1990) have indicated that the inter-personal
relationships that prevail within an organization are influenced by the nature of the work flow in that
organization: Other studies on socio-technical system have indicated that the technical system can affect
inter-personal factors such as coop and i in a work situation. Inter-personal
relationships can affect productivity and this can modify the satisfaction an employee derives from his job.
Production and Operations Management, page 63
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Il. PREVIOUS R&D MANAGEMENT STUDIES
The present study is an offshoot of a series of studies which were undertaken in the National Institute
of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi on different aspects of R&D Management
with primary emp on
@ The first study was undertaken by Dhawan and Roy (1989, 1991, 1993) as a part of a research
programme of the institute "Scientific Culture and Laboratory Functioning: Case of an R&D Organization".
The R&D Organization under consideration was the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
New Delhi which has in its fold about forty research laboratories working on different disciplines of science
and technology. The study examined the functioning of the R&D laboratories of CSIR in the context of
cultural values and norms of the scientists. The study focussed upon Indian Scientists and their work
climate, their Value System and the Sources of their Mental Energy.
(ii) The present study also draws upon the factors identifi ied and inferences drawn by Nagpaul and his
colleagues in the institute (1987) as a part of the Comparative Study on Organization and
Performance of Research Units (ICSOPRU) carried out in several countries and in a variety of international
contexts. Though the scope of this study in India went beyond the boundaries of CSIR, only those aspects
have been considered in this present effort which were related to CSIR and whose samples were comparable
to the previously-mentioned study by Dhawan and Roy.
Ill SYSTEMS DYNAMICS METHODOLOGY AND
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR STUDIES
Systems Dynamics dol licable to studying izati iour have found limited
acknowledgement in the literature. Notable among the researchers who have worked i in this field include
Breiter (1990), and Donnadieu et al (1990) who have focussed on employ ion. Other
have focussed on motivation of project managers (Jessen, 1991), organizational change (Frechette et al,
1991), and group behaviour (Sushil et al, 1991). However, most of these studies have concentrated on
industrial and service sectors and R h and Di p ions have not found much favour.
Further, most of these studies are based on theoretical understanding of the subject rather than a solid
empirical foundation. The present study is an attempt to bridge this gap.
IV THESYSTEMS DYNAMICS MODEL
The system dynamics model (figure 2) described here is based upon the the results of the empirical
studies mentioned above. Figure | presents the results of the cluster analysis with motivation as the central
factor (three laboratories separately). Our aim in this analysis was to understand the factors and forces
which are necessary to provide a climate which will motivate the scientists. The three factors found
common in the three laboratories are: human resource primacy, ion flow, and decisi naking
practices.
Production and Operations Management, page 64
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Figure 1: Motivation and Related Factors - Results of Cluster Analysis
Motivation
Lab.1 Lab.2 Lab.3
- Human Resource - Human Resource ~ Human Resource
Primacy — Primacy — Primacy
-C it -C i -C i
Flow Flow Flow
- Decision-making - Decisi king ~ Decisi king
Practices Practices Practices
- Technological - Goal Clarity
Readiness
One may try to generalise that in case the management of R&D institution wishes to activate the efforts
put in by its scientific staff then they must develop a suitable system of decision-making which involve
scientists at all levels. They must also develop a system of proper communication both upward and
downward and parallel across the organization. And finally they must take into consideration the welfare
aspects of the sci ty. Better ion systems can help scientists to update knowledge
in their area(s) of interest and can improve productivity.
Production and Operations Management, page 65
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Aavige hrtac ANSW ENON
uals ios =e ee ee ee ee ee W
aaa F young TOL INIVYLSNOD ants 6 Ae? Laranoyd ayihion BLY
iis seal a Canora 9 soya 193000
oh OS ¢ an aubram A730
saaleshaacs - "OX ~eeooe a /
“au kyrat —_ 1 ad i
| HlowsL]
~ “BIN menumasyad ! J
hie oe TW SEN as] —
spusss WN |
VOINHOBL . cawiL Lina ¥5d
oe aia sineungbiversybiaddy Jo on -wia.~ ~ 1 qurii@ vans -O- |
. mag oR
¥)
O~ > Se, “7
3063 alg\inaiog ~~ q ae iapece! |
we => 4odin ay a itgeaD
a:
yas vive ~~~ D_ / |
At sq —— pi 7 owes |
N —— XENI - 84209
= Savwioasss OY mince Po
Bynssmud BYORI, KW,
inary Meera SSaNBMIINdSE youn, Oo \ | -sounsay_ NV WN
ege2O— ~ / © ! A
ava WY i. ae
~ seen / . Uo, Bex
gNoO ae 8 7 :
Cress
NOUNHYOANI z ayn 4 guid Nast
Production and Operations Management, page 66
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
To understand the factors and forces that contribute significantly to the overall satisfaction with the
group, step-wise regression was carried out and results are presented in Table 1(three laboratories
separately).
Table 1: Factors Contributing to Variation in Group
ion Level of the
Results of Step-wise Regression
Significant Factors R-SQ_ R-SQ Change
Laboratory-1
Information Sharing 0.62
Group Adaptability 0.76 0.14
Making Group Decisions 0.84 0.08
Laboratory-2
Confidence & Trust 0.49
Group Adaptability 0.61 0.12
Making Group Decisions 0.70 0.09
Laboratory-3
Confidence & Trust 0.62
Coordination 0.79 0.17
Making Group Decisions 0.86 0.07
Scientists of Lab-1 have perceived three key factors - information sharing, group adaptability, and
making group decisions as explaining the variance in overall group satisfaction. Therefore, if any action to
increase the team spirit or group effectiveness among these scientists are being considered, then the
management must develop a system in which the relevant information is shared with the concerned
scientist(s), group decisions are made in a participative style, and some sort of training in group adaptability
be imparted to them. For Lab-2, the significant factors are: confidence & trust, group adaptability, and
making group decisions. A new factor for this laboratory is confidence and trust among the group members.
Thus, the scientists desire that for effective performance of the group a higher degree of trust leading to
high degree of cooperation among them is a must.
Yet another new factor for Lab-3 is coordination among various functions of the group. This is
ble as the multi inary nature of R&D requires an adequate amount of coordination among
scientists of different fields, different divisions or even different institutions.
The question whether operating in an environment as is prevailing within the R&D laboratory had
stimulating effect or a debilitating effect on the work jasm of the scientists was addi dto them. In
case of the first (stimulating effect), it was termed as "Energy Generating" (EG) and in case of the second, it
Production and Operations Management, page 67
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
was designated as “Energy Draining" (ED). The ratio of the value attached to Energy Generating activities
to the value attached to Energy Draining activities is known as the Energy Count which is a measure of the
health of the organization. The energy count also provides a pressure for overall motivational level within
the organization.
Probing into the aspect of R&D Effectiveness of the research groups, an analysis was carried out to
identify the factors and forces contributing to R&D effectiveness. The factors identified were research
planning quality, communication flow, data services, scientific equipments and technical services. To
assess the role of human and organizational resources vis-a-vis material resources affecting R&D
effectiveness, multiple classification analysis was carried out with material resources as the background
variables and human and organizational resources as the intervening variables. It is observed that
are the most imp set of predi followed by human and material resources.
The findings have imp lications for research that the planning and allocation of
financial and material resources to Tesearch activities must go beyond. a simple cost- Denefit approach. It
must entail the determination of op! and PD
for successful conduct of R&D.
The combined R&D effectiveness index provides a pressure affecting the fraction of the total number
of pap or ki hi devel per year which in tum determines R&D
performance 1 Tate. ‘This fraction i is also determined by a pressure from overall coordination - both intra and
It (into which signii contributions are due to integration and interdependence among
the departments/areas), a pressure from overall motivational level within the organization and a multiplier
constant alpha. The R&D performance rate is smoothed or averaged which, coupled with project proposed
rate leads to project selection/rejection rate after a delay. A multiplier depending upon the merit of the
incoming project proposals gives us the project selection rate. Then after a series of first-order delays come
project start rate and project completion/abandonement rate. The level variables are projects in pipeline and
projects in progress respectively. The total number of projects in progress also determines the total number
of papers/reports/patents/know-how under process along with an output multiplier. Both project start delay
time and project completion/abandonment delay time are affected by the respective level variables apart
from a resource constraint factor multiplier (both financial and material) as well as the size of the
organization. A weighted average of these two delay times di ines the overall ivati level in-out
flow rate. The detailed flow diagram may thus be into a set of ions that can be simulated by
using computer packages.
Vv. REFERENCES
1, Avots, I., "Why does Project Management Fail?" California Management Review, Fall, 1969.
2. Barndt, S.E. et al. “Organizational ‘Climate Changes in the Project Life Cycle", Research Management,
XXIII (2) March, 1980.
3. Blume, S.S., and Sinclair, R., "Chemists in British Universities: A Study of the Reward System in
Science, American Sociological Review, 38. 1973.
4. Breiter, Andres E. "Dynamics of Company Excellence Through Motivation of Employees", 1990
International System Dynamics Conference, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, July 10-13, 1990.
5. Cleland, D.I. "Understanding Project Authority", Business Horizons, Spring, 1967.
6. Cole, S., and Cole, J.R., "Measuring the Quality of Sociological Research: Problems in the Use of the
Science Citation Index", American Sociologist, 6, 1971.
Production and Operations Management, page 68
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
7. Dhawan, S.K. and Roy, Santanu, "Scientists' Perception on Work Climate, Value System and Source of
Mental Energy: Key Findings", National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New
Delhi, 1989.
8. Dhawan, S.K. and Roy, Santanu, "Indian Scientists and their Work Climate" Productivity Vol. 32, No. 2.
July-September, 1991.
9. Dhawan, S.K. and Roy, Santanu, "Scientists & Their Job: A Case Study From India", Productivity,
Vol.33,No.4, Jan-Mar, 1993
10. Donnadieu, Gerald and Karsky, Michel, "The Dynamics of Behaviour and Motivation", 1990
ional System Dynamics C Chestnut Hill, Mi hi July 10-13, 1990.
11, Frechette, Henry and Spital, Frank, A Model of Organizational Change", 1991 i System
Dynamics Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, August 27-30, 1991.
12. Gaddis, P.O., "The Project Manager", Harvard Business Review, May-June 1959.
13. Ganguly, O.N., "Impact of Management Systems on Morale, Productivity and Industrial ions",
Central Labour Institute, Bombay, 1974.
14. Goodman, R.M. "Ambiguous Authority Definition in Project Management", Academy of Management
Journal, December 1967.
15. Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J.W. "Organiza-tional Climate", Oy
Performance, December 1967.
16. James, L. and Jones, A. “Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and Research", Psychological
Bulletin, 81, Dec. 1974.
17. Lawler, E.E., and Porter, L.W., "The Effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction", Industrial Relations,
7(1), 1967.
18. Menon, A.S. & Shamanna, K., “Emerging Challenges in Management", CBH Publication, Trivandrum,
1990.
19, Murphy, D.C., Baker, B.W. and Fisher, D. "Determinants of Project Success", Springfield, Virginia,
22151: National Technical Information Services, 1974.
20. Nagpaul, P.S. (ed), "Organization and Efficiency of Research Groups", National Institute of Science,
Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi, 1987.
21. Narain, L., "Managerial Compensation and Motivation in Public Enterprises", Oxford & IBH, New
Delhi, 1973
22. Newson, W.B., "Motivate Now", Personnel Journal, Feb.,1990.
23. Pelz, D.C. and Andrews, F.M. "Scientists in Organizations", Wiley, New York, 1966.
24. Schneider, B. and Snyder, R.A. "Some Relationships between Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Climate", Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), June 1975.
25. Sherman, J. Daniel, "The Relationships between Factors in the Work Environment and Tumover
Propensities among Engineering and Technical Support Personnel", IEEE Transactions on
Engineering-Management, Vol. EM-33, No. 2, May, 1986.
26. Sinha, J.B.P., "Some Problems of Public Sector Organizations", National, Delhi, 1973.
27. Steward, J.M. "Making Project Management Work", Business He ns, Vol. 8, 1965.
and Human
28. Sushil and John, B. "Systems Dynamics Modelling of Group Behavi AC I F k",
1991 I ional System Dynamics Ci Bangkok, Thailand, August 27-30, 1991.
29. Tecklenberg, H. "Using Social Scientist in R&D", Research Management, Vol. XXIV No. 6, 1981.
30. Tuttle, Waneta C., Pasterna, Derick P., Smith, Howard L. "A ing the Job Sati ion of R h
ientists: A Ce ive Analysis", Journal of the Society of R h_ Admini Vol. XVII No. 4,
Spring, 1987.
31. Wallmark, J.T., et al., "The Increase in Efficiency with the Size of Research Teams", JEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, EM-20(3), 1973.
Production and Operations Management, page 69
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
32. Wilemon, D.L. "Project Management Conflict: A View from Apollo", Annual Proceedings of the
Project Management Institute, 1971.
Production and Operations Management, page 70
