Harry Spiegelberg is a retired Kimberly-Clark Corp. executive. He was head of research for tissue and personal care products.

(c) 1999, The Post-Crescent, Appleton, Wis. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. Reprinted by permission.

R&D: Where’s the payoff?

Fundamental research for the paper industry examines why fibers bond to form paper; how fluid flow (air and/or water) affects the uniformity of the paper sheet; how various components of the fiber affect its various properties, and its ability to form a sheet of paper. It sounds great, doesn’t it, and unquestionably essential. However, generation of information which could lead to new and improved products may not do so, and often, if successful, takes many years of work before the practical applications become apparent. Then, of course, a market need must be there for all this work to eventually pay out. In spite of those risks, however, those companies that have sponsored such research usually reap the benefit of superior technology in their future business.

Examples of fundamental paper-forming research include the work of Joe Parker of Beloit Corp. and that of David Appel of Kimberly-Clark Corp. on fluid flow, and its effect on paper sheet forming. In the latter case, Appel’s work led to the development within Kimberly-Clark of the crescent former, a forming machine concept that doubled existing commercial speeds for lightweight tissue forming, with improved sheet properties and operating conditions as well.

The payback to these companies of this kind of work, properly patented, can be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars. Cost benefits also accrue to the consumer. Because of the work of Appel, and of Bill Kellett before him, speeds at which consumer tissue products could be formed increased tenfold from the earliest years of production to current times. Bill, in the early 1930s, conducted research that led to his invention of the pressure former, more than doubling existing machine speeds.

Other engineering developments allowed tissue-making machines to be much wider. These developments resulted in tissue products on the grocery shelf that, more than 50 years after originally introduced, not only dropped in real dollars, but in spite of significant inflation, were less expensive in current dollars.

One of the challenges of funding fundamental research is knowing where to do the work. How can you predict years in advance what information could lead to new products and processes? These answers are not usually available, and it helps to have visionaries in the organization.

An option available to paper companies is to sponsor fundamental research at universities and other research organizations. An example in this area is the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. The Institute of Paper Science and Technology in Atlanta and the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada in Montreal conduct research programs supported by membership dues and other funding. The predecessor to the Atlanta organization, the Institute of Paper Chemistry, in Appleton, was the site of much fundamental research in the paper industry from 1929 to 1989.

At that institution, work on what affects fiber strength properties and the bonding of fibers was carried out by Johannes Van den Akker and coworkers, which included graduate students privileged to work with “Van,” such as me. Such work and the understanding obtained led to greatly reduced paper sheet weight and increased sheet capabilities, making those companies applying these fundamental results much more competitive.

With such a payback, how could management not support fundamental research? Well, the decision is not that easy. The following (from an unknown author) somewhat humorously states the problem, extending the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Physics to managing fundamental research and development. Heisenberg said in 1927 that one cannot determine simultaneously both the speed and the momentum of a subatomic particle. Our source notes that the parameters of any project are task, time and money, and says that for fundamental research:

1. If one knows what the task is and there is a time limit allowed for the completion of the task, then one cannot guess how much it will cost.

2. If the time and resources (money) are clearly defined, then it is impossible to know what part of the research task will be performed.

3. If one is given a clearly defined research goal and a defined amount of money which has been calculated to be necessary for the completion of the task, one cannot predict if and when the goal will be reached.

If one can accurately define all three parameters, then the project is not fundamental research. Recognizing that there is truth in this tongue-in-cheek characterization, one can see the reluctance of some senior management to fund fundamental research. However, if the company has in its ranks individuals the likes of Kellett or Appel or Parker, then the investment is a very worthwhile gamble.