|
By Luís Guardão*
I have been in this institution since 1992, after some
time in another company in Aveiro, for which I worked for
two years after my degree in Electronics and
Telecommunications in the University of Aveiro.
The reason why I left this company and embraced the
possibility of entering the INESC Centre for Technology
Transfer (CTT A&C) for SMEs, seated in Rua José Falcão was
because I had the chance to get continuously updated, to be
granted some value and to give my contribution to the
success of projects in the industry area in which I was
involved.
My expectations were met and I have been through every
function, from administrating operating systems to taking
part in small projects to, later, evolve to management and
coordination of bigger and more challenging projects.
However, I can’t really say this was an easy trajectory
as I’ve had my share of difficulties. Working in companies
is enriching but sometimes hard; on the other hand, the
reality from ten years ago where we had many financing from
companies (matching the easiness in getting work for INESC),
has changed radically, increasing the difficulty in selling
INESC Porto’s know-how to industrial companies.
Aware of this reality and of what it might mean to the
future of our institution and consequently to my own, I took
the job - to which I was alerted/challenged/invited in 2001
by José Caldeira and Luís Carneiro - of dedicating a
substantial percentage of my time building up projects, in
which INESC Porto would be hired, to a full extent, by its
services.
I faced this endeavor with dedication but especially with
perseverance, a lot of patience and sometimes the lack of it
because, for example, a great project started being
negotiated at that time and only four years later, after
many changes of contact persons and a lot of “backstage”
work, was the contract signed, in 2005.
The point of this already very long description is: the
fact that I managed to achieve my goals and raise projects
for INESC Porto does wonders to my ego, it is potentially
good for my evolution in the Manufacturing Systems
Engineering Unit and in INESC Porto and it is good for INESC
Porto but…I don’t think it is enough.
We have to find a way to stimulate all of INESC Porto’s
collaborators so that they promote the name and competence
of this institution, raise projects and commit to them so
that they are successful and accomplished on time and with
quality, capable of generating real added value.
I suggest the following: a percentage of the profit
achieved in the end of the project, for example, 50% should
be distributed by the person raising it and by the team in
charge of its execution. This way, we would have real
incentives to the raising of work as well as to the
fulfillment on time and with quality of the goals of the
project.
THE READER’S ADVISER COMMENTS
Dear Luis,
The adequate management of the incentives is a way of
inducing behaviours and rewarding attitudes that, benefiting
the people involved, act in favour of the group.
I suggest we reconsider the real impact of the incentives
on behaviour. I don’t know if the formula you suggest is the
correct one. For example, I believe that when you speak of
“profit” you wish to refer to the margin released by the
activity. Well, that is a complex calculation because we
have to consider not only direct costs but also other book
values per share, including amortisation of the investment
of the equipment used and other overheads.
And after that, I don’t think the pure and simple
indexation to the invoicing value is a fair procedure. It is
a “liberal” technique, that’s for sure, but it doesn’t
recognise or reward efforts in strategic activities that can
release margins which are smaller than a contract in a less
relevant area.
Our coordinated and collective effort is not oriented
towards pure invoicing, otherwise we would all be here just
bidding our time – there are long and medium term goals as
well as a mission underlying our existence which we must
respect.
Considering this, we have to find more explicit and
immediate processes to reward those who develop efforts
associated to the raising of contracts. I don’t understand
why you relate that with the effort of enforcement of
contracts – do you think the systems of topping-up payments
and bonuses we have are not enough and unfair?
We would all like to earn more, but that depends on the
margins the institution releases. But the only activities we
have that release an effective margin are the direct R&D
contracts with the industry or the administration. European
projects are financed in 50%, FCT projects only pay a few
direct costs (they don’t pay for the administrative service
in your unit, for example). What supports our model are the
financial R&D service contracts, not the financed activity.
And the direct activity has to release enough margins.
Our problem, as well as many organisations, is detecting
and promoting leadership and making use of the people who
gain status so that they negotiate more daring activities.
That status is achieved slowly and by a breakthrough in the
market as a person of undeniable competence, maturity and
authority in the affairs.
To gain this status, a strong personal investment must be
made. This includes technical skills, but it focuses mainly
on credibility in the eyes of external actors, and on a very
personal effort that multiplies contacts and develops an
action of identification of opportunities and initiative of
its production.
I repeat: I have recorded your opinion that it is
necessary to go through the incentive scheme again as well
as its opportunity. And you? What are you investing in? Why
don’t you pick a theme of your acknowledged competence and
research on your opportunities in Spain?
* Collaborator of the Manufacturing
Systems Engineering Unit (UESP)
<< Previous
| Next >>
|
