Advertisement

Quality pp 237-253 | Cite as

Quality in Research and Development

Chapter
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

While the need for quality is ubiquitous and there has been a growing emphasis to expand the scope of quality assurance and quality improvement to a wide array of human activities and outcomes thereof, Research and Development with its diverse network of processes and people with specialized knowledge in varying domains working to achieve different objectives—not all clearly or uniquely understood or stated—justifies an approach to quality which is bound to differ from the approach adopted with success in manufacturing and even in service enterprises.

References

  1. Clarence, M. E. Jr. (1992). Applying quality to R & D means ‘Learn-As-You-Go‘. Research Technology Management, 24–31.Google Scholar
  2. Davidson, J. M., & Pruden, A. L. (1996). Quality deployment in R & D. Rersearch-Technology Management, 39(1), 49–55.Google Scholar
  3. Endres, A. I. C. (1999). Quality in research and development. In Juran, J. M., & Godfrey, A. B. (Eds.), Juran’s quality handbook (pp. 19.1–19.34). New York: Mcgraw Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Francis, P. H. (1992). Putting quality into the R & D process. Research Technology Management, July–August, pp. 16–23.Google Scholar
  5. Hardy, G. H. (1940). A mathematician’s apology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Miller, R. (1995). Applying quality practices to R & D. Research Technology Management, March–April, pp. 47–54.Google Scholar
  7. Rantanen, K., & Domb, E. (2002). Simplified TRIZ. Boca Raton: St. Lucie Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Research Information Network. (2010). Peer review: A guide for researchersGoogle Scholar
  9. Szakonyl, R. (1994a). Measuring R & D effectiveness—I. Research-Technology Management, 37(3), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Szakonyl, R. (1994b). Measuring R & D effectiveness—II. Research-Technology Management, 37(3), 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smolin, L. (2006). The trouble with physics: The rise of string theory, the fall of science, and what comes next. Boston: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
  12. Tenner, A. R. (1991). Quality management beyond manufacturing. Research Technology Management, September–October, pp. 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tegmark, M. (2004). In Barrow, J. D., Davies, P. C. W., & Harper, C. L. Jr. (Eds.), Science and ultimate reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2003). Assessing research: The researchers’ view. Europe, Cambridge, England: RAND.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of StatisticsUniversity of CalcuttaHowrahIndia

Personalised recommendations