Review of [The Economic Management of Research and Engineering] by P. C. Sandretto.
ResearchPublished 1969
ResearchPublished 1969
Review of a recently published book on research and engineering management, aimed at those who are urged to beat the competition to technological breakthroughs but to keep the budget down. As a practical guide to profit-motivated technical activity, this book has few peers. It addresses five major questions: (1) Where have your technical dollars been going? (2) How much should you be spending? (3) How can you direct spending for the best results? (4) How may your technical operations be judged? (5) What actions can be taken to improve your technical operations? Sandretto's answers are clear, concrete and, despite their brevity, often contain detailed checklists and suggested forms. Some sections repeat standard management and control techniques that have been treated better elsewhere, but most contain experiential insights and methods that have not previously been assembled in one book. 3 pp.
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.