The Institute for Manufacturing and Automation Research (IMAR) faced significant challenges in its early stages, emblematic of the obstacles typical in underorganized systems. Founded in 1987 in Los Angeles by members of the manufacturing industry, IMAR sought to bridge the gap between university research and industrial application, a problem that had plagued many innovators in the field. Dale Hartman, IMAR’s executive director and former director for manufacturing at Hughes Aircraft Company, was pivotal in identifying and addressing these challenges.
Background and Strategic Objectives
Hartman and his colleagues pinpointed several critical issues hindering manufacturing excellence: duplication of efforts among innovators, difficulties in transferring technological breakthroughs from universities to industry, irrelevance of some university research to industry needs, and the inability of individual industry members to commit necessary time and funds to research projects. These issues necessitated a cohesive and structured approach to organizational development.
Developing the Transition Plan
To tackle these challenges, Hartman and his associates decided to pool funds for research and leverage existing university facilities for this purpose. However, they faced difficulties in formulating a cohesive strategy. Initially, the U.S. Navy showed interest in joint efforts for innovations in artificial intelligence, but its narrow focus did not align with the broader problems identified by Hartman’s group.
The breakthrough came through networking with other industry members such as TRW, Hughes, Northrop, Rockwell, and two universities—USC and UCLA—with which Hughes had ongoing research collaborations. This core group formed a steering committee to investigate the feasibility of a joint research and development consortium.
Formation of IMAR
Each of the six early planners contributed $5,000 as seed money for basic expenses. Recognizing the need for full-time leadership, the steering committee persuaded Hartman to retire early from Hughes and take on the role of IMAR's executive director. Hartman’s extensive knowledge of barriers to innovation, technology transfer, and his reputation in both industry and academia were crucial for forming multiple-sector partnerships.
Implementation and Organizational Mechanisms
Hartman’s leadership involved creating a structured organization with clear communication channels, new leadership positions, and specific plans and policies. His lobbying skills were instrumental in securing funds and legislation that promoted industry innovation. Furthermore, Hartman enlisted talented individuals from Southern California to become IMAR members, enhancing the institute’s collaborative network.
Evaluating and Sustaining Change
The transformation of IMAR demonstrates the effectiveness of planned change in underorganized systems. By establishing a structured approach and fostering university-industry collaboration, IMAR significantly improved the transfer of technological innovations to the industry. This success underscores the importance of structured leadership, clear communication, and sustained efforts in organizational development.
Conclusion
The case of IMAR exemplifies how planned change can transform underorganized systems by addressing structural issues, fostering collaboration, and implementing strategic plans. This approach not only enhances organizational efficiency but also promotes innovation and competitiveness in the industry.
Organizational Development Services
At OrgEvo Consulting, we specialize in managing transitions and implementing planned change in underorganized systems. Our services include stakeholder engagement, developing structured plans, and fostering university-industry collaborations to drive technological innovation. Contact us to learn how we can support your organization in achieving its strategic goals.
Comments