Taking useful short courses and workshops can be a major factor in career success. While taking full semester courses is often helpful, many times this isn't possible due to time constraints of job responsibilities or family duties. Often full semester courses contain a lot of material that isn't focused enough to be of substantial help in meeting one's career goals. Short courses offer a useful alternative to longer courses and can be more focused with less demanding time requirements.

When one uses the term "short course," one typically thinks of intensive courses one to five days long and running six to eight hours per day. These are live presentations and may be held in a hotel meeting room or, if an internal corporate course, in a company meeting room. Instructors may be outside consultants, current employees or retirees. Workshops are more narrowly focused and shorter - sometimes as little as three hours in length.

Consultants may offer their own courses and workshops or teach onees offered by professional societies. Many conferences such as national American Chemical Society meetings and Pittcon offer short courses on both technical subjects and soft skills. Courses in soft skills, sometimes called people skills, may seem easier when sitting in a meeting room than are more technical courses. However, they are harder to put into practice. It is the failure of many attendees to do so that can result in a poor reputation for some short courses.

Other types of short courses

So far we've been talking about the traditional model of a short course or workshop: a live presentation in a meeting room. However, technology has made possible other types of short courses. One is the webinar. This may be a one-way presentation broadcast to your personal computer or, by using a telephone or online software, allow for two-way communication in which course attendees can ask questions.

Another alternative is the videoconference in which the instructor's presentation is broadcast to attendees in one or more distant locations. These locations are typically meeting rooms designed for videoconferences and having one or more large-screen video monitors. Two-way communication between the presenter and the attendees is possible. Some courses are available on DVD. Students may watch them at their leisure in their own homes. Several months ago I took a 12-hour DVD course, "The Art of Critical Decision Making" and recently watched the tapes again. This course has been useful in my own work and helped me better understood how things went wrong in the recent Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Example

When I started working for Shell Chemical Company all new employees took three-day short courses in listening skills (in the context of conversations) and oral presentation skills. These have been among the most valuable courses I have ever taken helping me in my R&D, technical service and lab management positions. Outside the laboratory, effective listening skills have helped me as a volunteer American Chemical Society career consultant working with job hunters. It also helps when working with employed ACS members is dealing with on-the-job issues. (As a writer, learning how to listen effectively and actively has helped me when interviewing people for articles I am writing.) The presentation skills course has helped me in preparing and making in-house presentations, conference presentations, presentations to customers and job-hunting and career management presentations. It also prompted me to develop a workshop on preparing oral presentations when English is your second language.

Writing in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/managingrisk-managing"), veteran business journalist Russ Banham notes, "In this era of globalization, few strategic initiatives are more global than a company's supply chain."

The "lean manufacturing" concept pioneered by Toyota and others emphasizes just-in-time delivery of raw materials and mechanical parts with minimal amounts kept in inventory. I recall reading that a one-day delay in delivery of Toyota parts from Japan can force shutting down the firm's Tennessee auto plant. However, the recession has forced many firms to reduce their internal costs. One way to do so is to minimize inventories of raw materials and parts and instead rely on suppliers to deliver them just-in-time.

There are other factors to worry about other than delays in delivery. What if the delivered parts or materials do not meet your firm's quality specifications? This is where the laboratory can play a major role in assuring on-time delivery of on-specification raw materials and parts.

The Production Plant Laboratory

The plant laboratory has long been the site where raw materials and parts were tested to assure they met specifications. However, this testing often took place after the materials in question arrived at the plant. Today it is more efficient to require that a representative sample be sent by overnight delivery for lab test testing. This testing must be carried out in a very expeditious way so that shipment can occur quickly enough to assure on-time delivery with no interruption or delay to the production schedule.

This requires that the plant laboratory have sufficient staff and the testing equipment needed for rapid and efficient testing. It also means that lab personnel have an efficient sample submission and tracking system that assures that samples are logged in as soon as possible after arrival and sent to the proper analyst or analysts for testing. In some cases, rather than wait for one analyst to perform a test and then pass the sample onto another analyst for a different test, these tests should be performed in parallel so the entire test series is completed more quickly.

Once testing is complete, either the analyst or a supervisor must approve the sample for shipment and so inform the supplier. This should be part of the sample shipment and tracking system.

It may be advisable to make the sample submission and tracking system accessible to the supplier. This enables anxious suppliers to track the progress of their sample towards approval.

The Central Laboratory

Should a central corporate laboratory play a role in this analysis and approval process? It depends. It may be that the testing instruments are very expensive. This equipment may be used only occasionally in a plant lab but frequently in a larger, central laboratory. Should this be the case, it may be more cost-effective to purchase only one unit of each piece of testing equipment and position them in a central laboratory. (Sometimes the reverse is true and equipment used only occasionally in a central lab will be used more frequently in a plant lab.)

Having two laboratories testing and approving a raw material or mechanical part can complicate sample tracking and approval. Systems must be designed so no ambiguity creeps into the approval process and the supplier is informed of approval – or non-approval – in a timely manner.

One factor that could make it advantageous to schedule as much testing as possible in the plant lab is that its personnel may feel a greater sense of urgency in performing the required tests than analysts in a central lab devoted in large part to R&D.

The pharmaceutical industry appears to be in the process of switching over to a different R&D model involving more outsourcing and less internal R&D than in the past. Perhaps a decade ago, pharmaceutical companies were outsourcing drug manufacturing stating that their core strength was new drug development. The current trend towards more outsourcing and less internal R&D is seen as a response to a major industry problem: big pharmaceutical companies have commercialized relatively few new drugs in the past decade.

Some blame this problem on extremely large research staffs formed as a result of the drug industry mega-mergers of the past ten to fifteen years. They suggest that large staffs have resulted in innovation-stifling bureaucracy. Another contributing factor may be changes in U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations for permitting of new drugs. Whatever the cause, the result has been what Chris Viehbacher, CEO of Sanofi-Aventis SA, has called a "lost decade" in terms of new drug development.

The big pharmaceutical companies, so-called "big pharma," have been reacting to the problem by reducing R&D staffing levels. According to Russell Reynolds healthcare recruited Jacques Bouwens, the ten largest drug companies have eliminated approximately 27,000 R&D jobs since the beginning of 2009. R&D staffing levels may continue to decline due in part to work force reductions and in part due to reduced hiring of young researchers. At one point in the 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry hired more than half of new Ph.D. chemistry graduates according to American Chemical Society surveys of new graduates.

Restructuring

R&D restructuring has includes more than just laboratory staff downsizing. Some companies have ended development of some types of drugs and dissolved entire research groups.

Entire large laboratories (chemical industry labs as well as drug industry labs) have been closed and sold or converted to other uses. An article scheduled for publication in the September issue of "Laboratory Management Magazine" will discuss some of these once shuttered large laboratories and the uses to which they are now being put.

GlaxoSmithKine provides a representative example. Since 2006, the firm has cut its global R&D staff by 20%. At the same time it has substantially increased funding of outside projects performed by small biotech firms and academic research groups About 30% of its drug discovery research is now contracted out to other firms (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i06/8806notw4.html).

As a result of extensive outsourcing, overall drug industry R&D spending has declined relatively little. New laboratory management and staff jobs are increasingly in contract research organizations and in biotechnology firms and small pharmaceutical companies rather than the major pharmaceutical firms.

Another approach being evaluated by some big pharmaceutical companies was discussed at length in a recent "Wall Street Journal" article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569204575328580921136768.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEFifthNews). Basically it involves carrying out new drug development in small teams of about a dozen people with support functions such as clinical testing, formulation development and manufacturing development being outsourced.

However, entrenched corporate cultures often are hard to change. For example, according to some reports, despite a change in 2006 – 2007 to a more safety oriented culture, many BP managers and staff members are still taking safety-related risks in order to minimize spending and meet deadlines. Even if excessive lab bureaucracy and its time-consuming requirements are eliminated or greatly reduced, some lab managers and staff members behave as if it is still there.

Cloud computing is not just for large laboratories. Data processing and storage requirements are increasing substantially for small laboratories as well. We talked about cloud computing in the April 21 edition of this blog. As noted then, cloud computing enables remote users to connect to massive, warehouse-scale data centers comprising hundreds or even thousands of servers with a huge capacity for crunching numbers and storing data. These offer economy of scale, freeing laboratories from purchasing large numbers of servers, most of which they use only intermittently and the hassles of backing up their data and maintaining the servers.

Cloud services to grow rapidly

According to International Data Corporation (IDC), a global information technology services firm, information technology (IT) will grow at five times the rate of traditional IT products. Sales will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 27.4% to$16 billion in 2009 to $55.5 billion in 2014. These 2014 sales will equal saleas of traditional software.

Small laboratories

Cloud computing is about to get a lot simpler for many small laboratories. Microsoft has launched a new version of Microsoft Office called Office Web Apps. It allows users to store WORD, Excel. PowerPoint and other Office documents on Microsoft's data center servers. This places Microsoft in direct competition with Google's online Docs suite of programs.

These online software packages can enable employees to work more productively at home or while on road. Cloud computing benefits can be particularly valuable to small companies, which more often have limited IT expertise and cash for servers. Many small laboratories do not have a dedicated IT staff and setting up servers and worrying about data security and backup offer a major challenge according to Rajen Sheth, senior product manager for Google Apps.

Other companies offering cloud computing services include familiar names such as Amazon, Yahoo and Facebook.

Currently few small laboratories have yet to switch to cloud computing. This is in large part due to the popularity of Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office is used by 97% of all organizations according to the IDC. Cloud-based analogs of Microsoft Office software tend to have fewer features than the traditional Microsoft Office programs However, according to Google Docs, more than 2 million businesses now work entirely on Docs, and 3,000 more are switching every day. Google claims millions more use it on an ad-hoc basis to share individual files online, including Microsoft Office documents.

Faster Internet connections, improvements in browser technology and competition resulting in improved cloud computing software packages are overcoming the limits of cloud computing.

Other cloud computing advantages

Cloud computing offers the capability of overcoming the limits of firms storing documents on their own servers and offers them advantages in accessing documents from the cloud. For example, some trade and trade magazines now delete articles once available online from their servers in order to free storage space for more in recent documents. I don't know about you but I have already found this a very frustrating inconvenience several times. Cloud computing makes it possible for laboratories to save PDF versions of these articles in their own cloud and avoid this information loss."

Cloud computing makes it possible for your laboratory to share data with your firm's customers and suppliers located hundreds or thousands of miles away without granting them access to your corporate computer system and intranet. Using the cloud can accelerate work on joint projects on which your lab staff is working with supplier or customer personnel.

If your laboratory or your company is considering making a large investment in servers, cloud computing may offer a more cost-effective alternative.

Last May BP promised to spend $500 million on oil spill research relating to its big Gulf of Mexico oil spill. "We must make every effort to understand (the) impact" of the spill "on the people and environment of the Gulf Coast," said BP CEO Tony Hayward in a press release. There is an urgent need to ensure that the scientific community has access to the samples and the raw data it needs to begin this work." Hopefully, this means BP will provide data to researchers.

In BP's press release it promised to pay for R&D to answer important questions including: 1. Where are the oil, the dispersed oil and the dispersant going under the action of ocean currents? 2. How do oil, the dispersed oil and the dispersant behave on the seabed, in the water column, on the surface and on the shoreline? 3. What are the impacts of the oil, the dispersed oil and the dispersant on the seabed, the water column, the surface and the shoreline? 4. How do accidental releases of oil compare to natural seepage from the seabed? 5. What is the impact of dispersant on the oil? 6. How will the oil, the dispersed oil, and the dispersant interact with tropical storms, and will this interaction impact the seabed, the water column and the shoreline?

Crude oil dispersants

I have been concerned about the fact that the dispersant being used in the Gulf was developed nearly a generation ago. Are there no improved products available? Shouldn't there be R&D on new, more effective, more environmentally friendly crude oil dispersants? In early May I contacted several high-level American Chemical Society officials urging that ACS advocate the need for such research with the appropriate federal government officials. I have received no information on whether such discussions have taken place. So it's nice to know that Congress is taking an interest. This also represents a commercial opportunity for industrial lab managers.

Other industrial R&D opportunities include improved oil well drilling and completion methods and design of improved blowout preventers.

Biological research

BP's program also represents an opportunity for academic researchers. While BP America chairman Lamar McKay was testifying before Congress last week, Rep. Steve Kagen, (D-Wis.) asked him to "commit to funding any and all studies to look at the long-term consequences of the dispersal agents that you're now using within the Gulf."

Last Monday Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) pressed BP to immediately begin a nationwide search for research projects to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and its effects on marine life. He is concerned that delays in awarding the funds BP promised and possibly an overly narrow distribution of funds to a limited number of researchers would impair the value of the research. "Failure to start collecting data and conducting research now on the spills' effects on delicate marshlands and fisheries, the impact of underwater oil plumes, and other critical issues will make it impossible to understand the full effect of this spill 10, 20, or 30 years from now," Capps said. "It's essential that BP get this money out the door as soon as possible so scientists around the country can begin working to understand the catastrophic impacts an oil spill has on the marine environment." He also wrote Tony Hayward directly urging that the company begin distributing research funds as soon as possible after peer-review of the research proposals.

Efficient customer service plays a key role in keeping customers loyal. Effective customer service begins with selecting the right people to provide this service.

The hiring process

When recruiting and hiring laboratory staff, the focus is usually technical competence and knowledge. However, communication and interpersonal skills as well as problem=solving skills. are paramount in providing customer service. So lab managers should not neglect these skills when interviewing candidates for technical service positions.

One traditional screening tool for Ph.D. and M.S. job candidates is the research seminar. Lab managers should also require B.S. job candidates who have not performed research to present an employment interview seminar as well. The topic could be a job-related one chosen by the candidate or by the hiring manager. The logic behind this is that customer service specialists often have to present seminars to customers describing their employer's products, how they work and how they can solve the customer's problems.

Attitude is another very important factor but can be hard to assess since job candidates are normally on their best behavior during employment interviews. Technical service specialists must have a sincere desire to help others. The job candidate's references should be able to provide helpful information in this regard.

Beginning the job

Having hired good people, lab managers must motivate and manage them. In particular, they must coach them in their firm's customer relationship methods while helping them develop their own interpersonal and communication skills. This often requires training programs either taught in-house or by external providers. For example, when I started working for Shell Chemical Company all new employees took three-day short courses in listening skills (in the context of conversations) and oral presentation skills. These have been among the most valuable courses I have ever taken helping me in my R&D, technical service and lab management positions.

Lab managers should work with their technical service specialists to seek out opportunities to promote the firm's products to prospective customers. This often involves working with sales personnel. For example, technical service specialists could present papers at trade association meetings on the performance of new products both in the laboratory and in commercial use by their customers. Technical service customers can work with customers to help them present such papers as well.

Managers should reward performance by a combination of financial rewards and non-monetary recognition. Laboratories often have recognition programs for employees who are outstanding inventors. They should also have formal recognition programs for staff members who have also delivered outstanding customer service.

From the staff's perspective

Technical service positions can provide newly hired employees with a crash course in how their new employer works. Technical service specialists not only deal with customers, they often work with researchers, sales representatives, marketing and business managers and plant personnel. Beyond the organizational borders of their employer, they work with supplier and customer personnel.

This knowledge is a valuable asset should the lab staff member continue in technical service or focus on new product development. With this knowledge, technical service specialists can also make valuable contributions quickly should they move out of the laboratory to work in sales or marketing.

Career paths

Technical service specialists need to have paths available for professional and career advancement. Once they have shown themselves to be responsible and mastered both their job responsibilities and the basics of their customers' technologies, they should be allowed to work independently while being encouraged to consult with others as needed. Some may wish to become managers of laboratory customer service groups. Others may wish to become business managers or move into other business functions. If they do a lot of quality assurance work, they may wish to consider working in a production plant.

Once they are doing well and have gained sufficient experience, lab managers should work with customer service specialist to help them consider these career options.

The human and environmental tragedy that continues to unfold in the Gulf of Mexico has important lessons for lab managers. I'll be writing an article for the December issue of "Lab Manager" on the lessons in crisis management that the situation holds for lab managers. I'd like to talk about another oil spill-related matter here.

Need for continuous product and process improvement

Resting on current laurels and not trying to improve existing products and processes can cause problems later. While the dispersant being used to treat the oil spill has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, there have been serious concerns raised about its environmental safety. At one point the government ordered BP to switch to a different dispersant. This never happened because no other suitable dispersant was available in sufficient quantities. (At the time this blog was written, over one million gallons of this dispersant had been used. Its use continues.)

The dispersant being sued was developed approximately twenty years ago. I don't know if its manufacturer conducted follow-up research to develop improved dispersants. However, much has happened in surfactant science since development of the current dispersant. For example, nanotechnology has resulted in the development of a single-molecular-layered material made by reacting graphite powders with strong oxidizing agents. Recently Northwestern University researchers discovered that graphene oxide behaves like a surfactant. It can be assembled in soft sheets like floating water lily pads. Will these sheets disperse crude oil? Are they durable enough to endure ocean waves and tides? What are the environmental effects? I don't know the answer to these questions. However, it seems worthwhile to determine if these grapheme oxide sheets will disperse crude oil in simulated ocean water. If so, it may be worthwhile to investigate the other questions raised here. Certainly other recently developed surfactants may also be crude oil dispersant candidates having improved environmental properties.

The blowout preventer on the Macondo well, the last line of defense against a well blowout failed to perform as required releasing oil and natural gas to the ocean. This could have been due to insufficiently powerful shear rams. These are designed to cut and seal the pipe connecting the well to the drilling rig. Cameron International, which built this blowout preventer, does offer a recently developed, more powerful one. However, at the time of the blowout, none had been sold to drilling contractors.

Educating customers

This illustrates another requirement. Laboratory managers and their staff members must work with their firm's sales and business personnel to convince prospective customers that new and improved products fill a real need. One of the most commercially successful and innovative products I invented illustrates this point. It substantially reduced a problem that oil companies had been living with for years. They viewed the situation as a fact of life and lived with oil production declines caused by migration of small mineral particles in the microscopic flow channels that carry oil and gas to well bores for production. These particles plug the flow channels reducing hydrocarbon production. The polymer I developed decreased the drag forces exerted by flowing fluids thereby reducing production declines.

My employer's sales effort included technical bulletins, my presenting technical papers at oil industry conferences, visiting oil company laboratories and going out to well sites to supervise the first well treatments.

When were improved, most-cost-effective oil absorbent boom designs last developed? I don't know the answer to this question. However, I am sure there are oil absorbent booms and other products being used in dealing with the oil spill that could be improved by additional R&D.

There is a huge backlog of approximately 750,000 patent applications in various stages of review at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In 2009, it took an average of 34.6 months for patent applications to be reviewed compared to an average 26.7 months five years earlier.

There have long been calls for the USPTO to review applications and issue patents in a timelier manner. Now, if they are willing to pay additional fees, inventors and their employers can receive expedited reviews of their applications.

The proposed new process

Last week U.S. Patent and Trademark Office chief David Kappos proposed an expedited application review process for inventors. The planned expedited process means there will be a three-track system to review U.S. patent applications. The expedited process would allow applicants to pay an unspecified fee in addition to standard $1,090 filing fee. In return for paying this fee, the patent application in question will receive priority in the patent review process. USPTO officials haven't decided yet how much the expedited review process would cost.

In the traditional process, patent applications are processed in the order they are submitted. The new process will let companies and inventors get patent applications with the greatest commercial potential evaluated before other applications submitted earlier. The result would be for the expedited application review process reduced to one year from submitting the patent application – if everything goes according to plan.The new system would become effective in 2011. Before it does, there will be a public comment period.

This writer's concerns

This writer has several concerns with the system. Will devoting some patent examiners to expedited reviews slow down the process for the remaining patent applicants who do not request expedited reviews? Will the extra revenue brought in by higher fees charged for the expedited process be used to hire additional patent examiners to accelerate the traditional patent application review process? Or will applicants using the current application review process see the time required to receive a patent get longer?

Is there a fairness issue associated with allowing applicants with deep pockets to receive favored treatment compared to independent inventors and small firms with limited financial resources? My guess on this last question is probably not since USPTO fees traditionally have been quite modest compared to fees paid to patent attorneys or agents to draft patent applications.

Another issue is that U.S. patents are awarded to the first to invent (compared to most of the rest of the world where the first to file receives the patent). If a company pays for expedited processing, it could be awarded its patent long before a company that was first to invent but used the conventional patent application process. This second company then would have to pay for the expensive process to get the other firm's patent invalidated and their own issued. This may be beyond the financial means of independent inventors and small firms. To receive anything from their invention, they could be forced to license their technology to the company that received the benefit of expedited patent application processing.

What do you think of all this? Please post your comments.

How can lab managers strengthen the alignment between their staff's activities and projects and the company's business strategy? Often laboratory staff members aren't always working on the right things. This happens for a variety of reasons.

Cascading goals

Make sure your staff members understand the goals of the various divisions or business groups within your company. Implement a system of cascading goals. This means working with your team leaders and staff members to be sure their project goals and other activities relate to the business goals of your employer.

It doesn't hurt to over-communicate frequently reminding staff members how accomplishing their own goals will help the organization achieve larger, broader goals.

Besides communicating with your own staff members, it is important to communicate with business managers so they know how the lab is supporting them in achieving business goals. One excellent way to do so is multidisciplinary project teams whose members include one or more business development managers and sales representatives.

Be sure that all the stakeholders in a project understand how achieving its goals will benefit both the employer and themselves personally. For example, when I managed a paper chemicals development group, at approximately the midpoint of projects teams would discuss how to publicize the new development, normally a new chemical product, though presentations at trade conferences and writing journal articles and technical bulletins. Team members appreciated the opportunities to attend conferences and develop professional recognition through conference presentations and trade journal publications.

Communicate achievements

Communicate achievements that contribute to achieving business goals to both lab staff members and members of concerned business groups within the organization.

To maintain enthusiasm, recognize not only accomplishing final goals but also achieving project milestones. This can be very important in maintaining momentum in working on long-term projects.

Use collaboration tools

Use collaboration tools effectively to promote effective communication among team members both within the same laboratory, different laboratories many miles apart and among members of very large teams. Collaboration tools can range from monthly progress reports compiled from individual team member reports to videoconferencing and online meetings. Don't forget the value of old-fashioned telephoning and hallway conversations.

Building trust

Used effectively these approaches will build trust and a sense of cooperation among team members. This is important in preventing friction between different "interest groups" within the company. For example, without effect communication and development of trust, an adversarial relationship can build up between laboratory staff and the business group they are supporting. If business group members don't appreciate the difficulty of solving a laboratory problem, they can become impatient with the rate of progress on a project and worry that the lab staff isn't focusing sufficiently on business needs.

Trust is like a lubricant reducing this friction. In my experience the best way of building this trust and convincing business personnel that sufficient concern is being paid to their interest is having representatives of the concerned business be members of multidisciplinary project teams, attend team meetings and have input into team decisions. Trust becomes the lubricant that enables future business transactions to go smoothly and team camaraderie and cooperation to flourish.