The study of the state of the art in research and development projects (Part II)

In this second part (the first part here), the author reflects on two issues: on the importance of the unification of concepts and terms at the beginning of a multidisciplinary project and on how to distribute the work of studying the state of the art among the members of a research team. As in the previous part, he does so from his personal experience in engineering projects.

The issue of terminology used in multidisciplinary projects is of paramount importance, especially in very challenging projects, with several partners coming from different scientific-technological cultures. For example, the collaboration of engineers with doctors, biologists, chemists, etc., is increasingly frequent and collaborative projects can be proposed with a synergistic effect very noticeable for all partners. In this type of project, the holding of meetings during the study of the state of the art is fundamental to facilitate the progress of each partner in their field. In these meetings it is necessary to clarify the meanings of the terms specific to each field, as otherwise it can lead to major misunderstandings. Many times, experienced researchers in their field feel a certain blush for asking for very basic clarifications on terminology and on concepts and methods typical of other fields.

In the phase of the study of the state of the art of each part of the project, information should flow between the partners, even the most basic information, in such a way that the understanding between them is finally assured and the later phases of the project can be dealt with correctly. My experience is that it is very useful (and in the long term saves a lot of time) to organize small seminars, in which the partners present in a very didactic way (descending to a very basic level) the essential scientific-technological questions of their part of the project: what are the challenges, where the problems arise, what possible solutions exist (with their advantages and disadvantages), what techniques can be followed, what costs and deadlines they have, etc... In these seminars, it is very likely that discrepancies will emerge about what, in each scientific-technical field, words commonly used in many of them mean, such as component, equipment, system, experiment, proof of concept, prototype, sensor, actuator, and so on. By way of example, I am going to refer to a real case, which is part of a project that I was fortunate enough to work on.

The project revolved around the design, manufacture and use, in real applications, of new transistors designed to work in commutation, that is to say, as electrical current switches. For an electrical or electronic engineer, it is very clear that a switch allows the passage of the electric current when it is "closed", that is, when there is a way for the circulation of this current without the discontinuity that would suppose an area in which there was air instead of a conductive material (a metal, for example). The drawing of a switch in an electrical scheme leaves no doubt about this interpretation (which is the one used universally). However, for people not accustomed to working with electrical diagrams, and even if they work in very close technologies (this was the case), the reasoning can be just the opposite: a door or a tap allow the passage when they are open and prevent it when they are closed, which leads to conclusions opposite to those mentioned. In the specific case I am referring to, fortunately the lack of terminological coordination was soon detected, avoiding serious subsequent problems.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of how to share the tasks of studying the state of the art at the beginning of a development or research project. Once again, I will turn to subjectivism and refer my opinion, once again the fruit of work in a very specific field.

Normally, the time that a researcher can devote to detailed tasks (such as an exhaustive analysis of published literature on a particular subject) and the experience he has on that subject, operate in the opposite direction. In other words, in times of little experience, more time is available and when more experience is available, less time is available. As time and experience are both necessary ingredients for a good study of the state of the art, I think it is unavoidable to resort to the division of labor among the members of the research team. In my context, the following procedure works well:

 Younger researchers spend a significant part of their time collecting recent information (either on new components in the case of development projects, or on recent publications in texts, conferences and journals in the case of research projects). This information is read and summarized, highlighting its essential points, especially in contrast to what was previously known by the research group. Of course, it is being considered that these young researchers already have enough experience to work directly in a stage of study of the state of the art, knowing and dominating the classic scientific-technical contents managed in the general context of the research group.

- Meetings-seminars are held in which the young researchers present, in a synthetic way, the assimilated information. The most experienced researchers must provide new information in these meetings, since they can have a more general and critical vision, which modulates the information directly obtained by the young researchers in the sources consulted. Let us not forget that both the manufacturers of components and the drafters of the research work are interested in selling their "product" in such a way that they do not always place sufficient emphasis on the limitations of that "product".

- Once the phase of realistic generation of information has been completed (without eluding the critical part), one enters a phase of decision making, which in some cases may still be part of the study of the state of the art, although in others it undoubtedly forms part of the later phase of the project. The factor that delimits whether these decisions are the end (or not) of the study of the state of art is its excluding character (or not). In any case, in engineering it is very useful to establish "tables

to assist in this work. These tables inform with simple concepts (affirmations or negations, estimated values of parameters, probabilities of success, estimated costs in prototypes or series, complexities, etc.) about the pros and cons of each of the solutions contemplated. A very exclusive selection of solutions means the end of the study of the state of the art, while a little exclusive would mean that we are in a phase more in the study of the state of the art, which will help to accentuate the focus on some solutions to the detriment of others. The phases of study would revert to the previous ones (we return to "the exit box"), until we reach the degree of precise selection to conclude the phase of the study of the state of art.

I hope that these reflections, which as I said at the beginning are no more than a subjective vision of a university professor in the field of engineering, can be useful to the readers of the blog.

Author: Francisco Javier Sebastián Zúñiga, is an Industrial Engineer from the Polytechnic University of Madrid and holds a PhD in Industrial Engineering from the University of Oviedo, where he has been Professor of Electronic Technology since 1992. Previously, he was Professor at both universities.

Most of Francisco Javier Sebastián Zúñiga's research curriculum focuses on activities related to the study and design of electronic power systems, including the development of new converter topologies for powering communications systems, avionics, information processing, battery charging and LED-based lighting. He has participated in 65 projects and contracts with companies and has published more than 300 articles in international journals and congresses and more than 130 in national journals and congresses. He has directed 18 doctoral theses. He is the inventor of 3 patents belonging to the company ALCATEL, a consequence of some of the research projects carried out for this firm. He was associate editor of the magazine "IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics" and Coordinator of the Area of Electrical, Electronic and Automatic Engineering at the National Agency of Evaluation and Prospective (ANEP) for four years. Since 2014 he has been director of the Mobility Chair at the University of Oviedo, financed by Thyssenkrupp.

Website: https://www.unioviedo.es/sebas/

Link to academic Google: http://scholar.google.es/citations?user=9OfZ03AAAAAJ&hl=es