So without that change in accounting, would Microsoft
still have ranked above No. 2, Ford Motor Co., on our
list? And, more generally, would companies not currently
on the list have appeared on it if they had counted
stock options granted to researchers? There is simply no
way to know.
We might know a lot more next year, however, if the
new accounting rule takes effect. The rule's proponents
claim that it will make corporate finances more
transparent. Opponents, such as the American Electronics
Association, in Washington, D.C.—whose members include
Advanced Micro Devices, Broadcom, Intel, and Texas
Instruments—say the requirements are difficult to
implement and will make it hard to recruit talented
engineers; they support legislation pending in Congress
that would derail the new standard. But unless the new
rule is adopted, comparing one company's R and D
spending with another's is a difficult, if not spurious,
exercise.
Even With All The
Accounting Uncertainty, it is possible to
divine some macro trends from the list [see table,
IEEE
Spectrum Top 100 R and D Spenders"].
Overall, the Top 100 upped their R and D by 2.2 percent
to $236 billion despite sluggish sales growth of 0.8
percent. Bucking the trend, technology hardware
companies, which account for about 20 percent of the
overall R and D spending, reduced expenditures by 4.9
percent in 2003, even though their sales increased by
2.3 percent. The auto industry had relatively flat
spending for R and D, with an increase of 3.2 percent.
Semiconductor firms increased spending by 5.3 percent,
but that was less than half their increased sales, 12.6
percent, which rebounded from a 10 percent slump the
year before. The software and services sector increased
the most, with an 18.6 percent gain in R and D spending,
mostly because of Microsoft's spending.
Software dominates R and D, and not just in the sense
that, for the first time ever, a software company is the
world's top R and D spender. At most companies, software
is taking up a bigger chunk of the development budget
year after year, and it is at the heart of everything
from drug discovery to automobile telematics. In
Stockholm, Sweden, for instance, Hakan Djuphammar, vice
president of systems management for LM Ericsson, says
that over the last 40 years the telecommunications
equipment sector has shifted from making hardware for
phone networks to developing software. His company today
spends about 85 percent of its R and D money on
software.
"With the continuing standardization of powerful
processors and hardware components, there won't be any
differentiation in hardware 10 years from now," says
Djuphammar, adding that this trend extends through
industries like semiconductors, information technology,
and consumer electronics. "You'll buy extremely powerful
processor boards off the shelf and the only
differentiation will be in software."
So now corporate labs are filled with programmers and
software engineers. Indeed, the romantic image of
monomaniacal scientists toiling for years in a company's
central lab to produce the transistor, polyester, and
the scanning tunneling microscope no longer holds. The
dominant trend in industrial R and D over the last two
decades has been to decentralize research and look
outside the company for innovations. The result: company
labs spread across the globe, populated by researchers
who must fill several roles—investigator, inventor,
technology scout, and, increasingly, consultant to customers.
'We've seen corporate R and D really force the
shift to applied R and
D. that's led to a weakening of the basic research engine'
The change in how companies and their researchers
conduct R and D mirrors shifts in corporate structures
and missions. Henry Chesbrough points out in his 2003
book Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating
and Profiting From Technology that the vertically
integrated enterprise exemplified by Xerox Corp.—which
made everything from the toner to the lasers used in the
copiers it leased and serviced—continues to give way to
horizontally integrated companies that combine
components produced elsewhere. Instead of using R and D
resources to make better, faster, cheaper widgets,
companies like Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and Lucent are
employing researchers to service customers that need
help putting those widgets together into novel systems.