Generally speaking, research in industry is investigate and completed "faster" usually because they have the resources in terms of money and experienced people. It also depends what type of research that the company is conducting. In terms of medical device manufacturing, people in Product Development and R&D ideally want to get it done quick but it takes time for various reasons. Research can't be rushed. Speaking from experience, we tried to change the material of a part for a product. People in marketing wanted the material tested and changed in 2 months. It took 8 months. So the time wasn't enough, but I believe you can't rush these things because it leads to a high risk of being non compliant.

If you want to say academia is slower I would speculate it is because a lot of it is driven by trying to get grants to fund whatever research you are doing. If you aren't bringing in grant money and just relying on school resources, the research will tend to sometimes be stagnant and slow. In addition, inexperienced undergraduates or graduates are sometimes running the labs.

In general,to make sure you were successful with your end product:
-Set measurable objectives for how product adoption will be achieved by customers during and after the product launch and determine your product launch timeline
- Strategy and Tactical Planning, the timeline enables members of the company and client teams to have a clear understanding of the scope, timing, and implementation of the product launch.Also remember to create and follow a documentation Plan
- Finally,execution and implementation,the best strategy and tactical plan in the world will prove useless if the execution and implementation of the product launch fail.

In my experience of working in both academic and industrial laboratories, I believe there is a definite difference in the amount of resources available to each lab which then directly affects the scope, timeframe, and people involved within the project. Regarding an academic laboratory, the work schedule is generally much more lax and research is only done when grant money can be obtained for their unique ideas. In addition, as mentioned by Scott, in my lab there were numerous undergraduate and graduate researchers that have not perfected their GLP skills yet and mistakes were often which slowed progress.

This can be contrasted to industry where, in largest companies, money is generally no object. The scientists and workers are the very best that money can buy and with that comes a level of professionalism that is unparalleled in any other setting. This results smartest minds along with excellent laboratory practices which sped up research in both quality and time hours logged greatly increasing efficiency.

As for deadlines, in my experience, academia generally accepts the delays and if an individual isn’t doing an excellent job, they are reassigned to a different task. This contrasts my company I am at now where they had executed two general options. First, they let go all underperforming employees and then they elected to double their initial workforce to get back on track to ensure the delay does not occur again.

I work in Product Development, and what I would say is that in industry, timing can determine the success or failure of a product, therefore I believe that industrial research is approached in a different way. Taking the example of an animal study, in academic research, if there is a delay, the research group may just have to accept that delay rather than explore alternative options, since they may not have much flexibility in changing around their test parameters, such as sample size, etc., in order to speed up the testing because it may have a direct impact on the research that they are doing and they may not be able to prove something with the test that is very important to their research. However, as Dr. Simon explained in his lecture this week, if something goes wrong with an animal study in industrial research, immediately the group would look at alternative options in order to hit the original deadline without increasing cost while still getting valuable results. However, they would be more open to looking at a trade-off in the results to still be able to maintain timing and cost. Since every decision being made is looked at from a cost perspective in industry, it just naturally follows that the projects are completed more quickly than in academic research.

I think that research in the Industry is much easier than Academia, because usually the time given is according to your ability and skills. Of course, if you are in a higher position the time given would be much less than a starting position's time frame. The most important thing to do is to prepare everything before you start the project. A couple of major steps would be: collect information and ask the right people for help, think about the use of the product with respect to your customers, and think about a way to pack and ship it. Once you have everything figured out, then designing the device/product would run smoothly and based on your skills and after being realistic with the amount of time the device will take to design, then your supervisor/manager gives you the time this project is supposed to take. Honestly it is all about the preparation before starting the design, then everything falls in place. The projects usually come out really successful because they get reviewed by a lot of people after each stage of the project, so every step is monitored and approved before moving forward with the project.

Industry projects are faster and tend to have higher rates of success due to large capital available for research and the quality level of experience team of engineers and scientists put together to work on the product. Also, not to forget high pressure from stakeholders who can't wait to reap financial gains and competitor who are likely in a process of similar project increases need for success of the project.

I've worked in a research and development facility, developing a medical device takes a long process. A project usually take 5-10 years or longer before completion and that is if there is no delay or failure of design and starting over. Time is never enough, that is why there is something called failure analysis. It helps determine the numbers of fixes and new problem found. With this technique, product could be launched to market with very low failures, aware to the company while research continues on resolving them.

Another thing about industry research is that the following factors are put in place during the life time of the project: Product requirement definition and achieving stability of requirements, thorough risk analysis, including FEMA and PFEMA, regulatory requirements and constraints, effective engineering processes and expertise, establishing testing and performance documentation needed and a well thought out transition to production plan. These steps help in accomplishing successful end product.

There are many differences between doing research in academic and industry. I have had experienced both during my career. Amount of time given to the research in industry may not be as comparable to academics. However, proper structure in industry drives efficiency with the amount of time provided.

There were many factors that insured that I was successful with the end product. One of the factor was the funding for the research in industry. The flow of work is not interrupted in industry to wait for the funding to come by. Whereas in academics, professor's rhythm is interrupted to write grants and visit funding agencies.

I work in a hospital and I do FEA for them for surgical procedures so I don't know if it counts as industrial research but for us, we aim to publish by next year but it can be extended. The thing is that we want to make sure that the results are valid and applicable. Since the research can affect the lives of many patients and surgeons, we want to make sure that the results are repeatable and the simulations do correlate with the events that transpire in real life. With this, I feel that they have given me enough time and they understand what it takes to make a good research. It is also important that you communicate your schedule and timeline clearly to your supervisors because they can give you input on whether some parts of the work can be let go for the mean time and focus on other things.

I work as a researcher in academia I would definitely tell that in academia we learn more thing than in industry because its basically application of what we know but where as in academia we learn new things more frequently at your own pace and even carry experiment at our space there is no hush for deadline to be chased. Even quality of results are better in academia since there is not much cost cutting there is no husling around and you can take time until satisfactory results are achieved so I think academia is better in most of the aspects from research point of view.

Research in the industry is generally faster and tend to be more successful. I would attribute many factors to the difference in performing research in the industry vs. academia. As per the lecture notes, the main reason for research in industry is money, therefore there are more funds being invested to drive research and results. Another difference is that research progress in the industry is measured based on performance which is measured consistently and accurately throughout the project. An industry scientist is expected to deliver accurate results quickly working in a very fast work pace. This is not the case in academia, there is no structure to measure performance and the researcher receives very little feedback, and projects can be dragged for years despite insignificant progress is made just because the project is attached to long-term grants so funds must continue to come in.

Conducting research in academia is very different from industry but both have some striking similarities depending on the circumstances. For example, academia research is heavily supported by contracts and grants. Professors must apply for grants from various places NSF, NIH, DoD, DOE, etc. to obtain funding. Academia research is sometimes laid back depending on the professor you work under. From my experience, professors tend to be very distant from the students also and expect a lot from them similar to industry research. Industry research however, is funded by the company and or collaboration with other companies. Collaborations exist both in industry and academia research but the difference is the personnel and expertise. In industry, it is much easier to obtain top of the line expertise with money and recognition as opposed to academia. It is possible in academia but it takes established reputation to allow one to do so.

Within industry research the main advantage is the resource and workflow that is in place to deliver finished products. For example, currently my role is that of a Process Engineer and the main task of my group is working in Manufacturing Science Technologies which is to translate research of products into a deliverable product through manufacturing processes and tech transfers to various contract manufacturers within the companies network. This process workflow is key in why industry can successfully launch products from the research phase and in bulk. The time for the medical device industry can vary and is dependent on the product classification assigned and the FDA approval phase. For example, if it is a predicate device then the process of approval will be much quicker than a Class 3 device which will need clinical trials. The successful launch of a product also highly relies on a well organized project plan with team members who are effectively communicating critical information with one another so that deadlines are met and risks are avoided.

While working at General Dynamics Electric Boat, I helped design and develop new technology for submarines. I worked with Lockheed Martin, the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), vendors and people who report to congress for money. I was the person who brought everyone together. The way you get industry research done fast (not always the best product) is by having lots of different people with different expertise together working on a project. Lockheed Martin was more about developing the structure. NRL did the core technology. The vendor actually made everything and put it together. To actually develop research from an idea to something that is working on a submarine takes LOTS of skill and experience and to get it done fast, you need all those people working efficiently together.

In my experience in working as an R&D product development engineer in the medical device industry, I would say that projects do generally get pushed to get done quicker due to project deadlines but I do not feel that it generally impacts the success of the product. When working in the medical device industry project deadlines are often driven by the impact that the product will have when the product makes it to the market. The business strategies for companies usually forecast how well the product will do if it is able to make it to the market by a certain time (project deadlines). As far as making a successful product, this is usually defined by whether or not the product meets the desired need / request of the market that is demanding it. Defining the design inputs (market needs / requests) usually happens very early on in the project and in my opinion does not have a major impact to overall time that the project will take to be completed. As long as the design inputs where defined properly from the beginning the product should be successful if it is able to meet all of the intended design inputs. In the medical device there is a process which needs to be followed for product development cycle (Design Controls), which forces you verify that all of the design inputs are met. The speed at which the design control process is completed will not impact the successfulness of the product as long as the process is followed and done correctly.