provides help when the partner has problems
II. The Floating Boundaries between Design and Manufacturing: Interpretive flexibility regarding Design, Development, R&D, and Engineering
The second theme will further demonstrate the complexities of product development
by exploring the boundaries between design and manufacturing. Since every step prior to
assembly involves different degrees of mental work, it is theoretically possible to call
everything preceding that assembly stage as “design”. On the other hand, although early
design for a product might only involve paperwork, it can be categorized as a step towards
manufacturing since it has a product goal. A senior project manager from Quanta said it was
difficult to distinguish design from manufacturing, as they were in a continuous spectrum. He
considered that “manufacturing is one part of engineering.”102 Another example can be seen
101 The discussion of the CM’s “field knowledge” later in Chapter 3 will involve expanding not only dots into lines (the internal design-manufacturing cooperation), but also lines into planes (co-working with outside partners).
102 Author’s interview with “Taiwanese Laborer” (11/17/2010), p.9. “Taiwanese Laborer” is what the interviewee wants his pseudonym to be.
109 in the C-System, between the lab pilot run phase and the mass production phase-- both
engineering pilot run and production pilot run phases exist separately, but are they
considered as design or manufacturing? Both categories seem to make sense, so the
boundary between design and manufacturing can be ambiguous, and it can fluctuate.
Therefore, to some extent these labels can be arbitrary and involve the ideology of
demarcation and boundary work (Gieryn 1983).
Interpretations of Contract Manufacturers’ R&D
Another pair of concepts that is hard to separate is the so-called R&D (research and
development). These designations were initially used separately, but by the late 1920s, Du
Pont’s research directors had begun to use “research and development” as if they were a
single concept, since it is very difficult to differentiate the two activities.103 The term was later
shortened to “R&D.” Although they raise different questions, many policy makers and
professionals still believe that science is epistemologically more fundamental than technology.
Therefore, it is important for a country to develop R&D (representing science). The origin of
the R&D division in the industry has historical specificity,104 and it can trace back to the
103 See Hounshell (1988). In the book, he mentions the inseparability of the two activities, although
“research is usually seen as literally searching for something, and successful research culminates in an invention which appears in incomplete form, existing more as a promise than a reality. Development consists of adjusting, altering, and adapting this idealized concept into a product that can compete successfully in the outside technological and commercial environment” (p.249).
104 For example, Hounshell & Smith (1988) explores the historical development and changes of R&D in Du Pont.
110 disputable relations between science and technology, or a linear model between basic
research, applied research, and development (Godin 2005 & 2006). However, today R&D in
general is understood as a “basic” component in most large firms. What “R&D” means may in
fact be very vague and unstable.
In this section, I argue that R&D should not be imagined as a decontextualized
category, but can have different local interpretations. Specifically, in Taiwan’s laptop industry,
the term R&D has had its own unique meanings, which are different from those of its major
US partners.
Quanta and several other major laptop CMs in Taiwan tend to divide their product
employees into the “design division” (or the R&D division) and the “factory division” But their
term “R&D” seldom referred to basic research, rather it referred to design, engineering, or
development, depending on contextual differences and the relative positions in which they
were situated.
Although Taiwanese partners had their own so-called R&D teams, in the eyes of US
brands, these R&D teams might not be “true” R&D because Taiwanese companies before
2000 were seldom involved the basic science and advanced technology necessary for their
market goals. 105 From an outside perspective, Taiwanese partners were simply
105 After 2001, as the largest laptop CMs have grown up to have multi-billion (in U.S dollars) annual revenue, and as they began to move factories to China, companies such as Quanta started to invest and extend their R&D to more fundamental research.
111 manufacturers, or even assembly-oriented workers, and most of the exciting and “high-end”
work was conducted by the brand-name firms themselves.
This hierarchal stereotype popularizes a myth about contract manufacturers, which is
that they have no, or have only very limited “R&D” capabilities, since they focus merely on
“manufacturing”. This results in a “low” value perception in the industry. If this is so, why
would CMs invest money in R&D? However, the annual report of these Taiwanese contract
manufacturers shows that every company has their R&D divisions, and every year they
spend a certain proportion of their revenues on R&D.106 Even though some of them do not
directly associate R&D with their computer system product (a computer is a system, rather
than a component), they do have “R&D capabilities” in some other aspects. For example,
Foxconn is an EMS (electronics manufacturing services) provider, and although it does not
provide product design services, this does not mean that they have no R&D capabilities. On
the contrary, they invest huge resources in R&D or technological capabilities in numerous
aspects such as assembling technology, electroplating technology, punching technology, and
tooling development. In fact, Foxconn has been very aggressive in developing its own patent
rights. The accumulated number of their patents worldwide was 17,250 in 2006,107 which was
106 The percentages usually are between 1% to 2% for Taiwan’s laptop CMs. Top players’ annual revenues were very high in the recent decade, so the investment in R&D was quite high in absolute numbers. In Taiwan’s regulations about public companies, there are definitions for what counts as R&D, which involve a complex framing (e.g., expenses researching a new product, improving the existing production procedures, or developing new materials and components) which I will not elaborate here.
107 In Xu, 2008. Section III. As a component giant who paid special attention to patents and intellectual property rights, Foxconn hired over four hundreds of patent engineers and lawyers to file, buy, and
112 top-ranked among Taiwan’s high-tech companies.
After the lifting of industrial ban on investing in China from the Taiwanese government
in 2001, the Taiwanese headquarters needed to “upgrade” the industry at home. As a result,
the interpretations of R&D in Quanta and other Taiwanese companies shifted accordingly.
Within a few years, almost all laptop production lines in Taiwan were moved to China,
especially to the Greater Shanghai Region. However, not only were all these Chinese
factories Taiwanese subsidiaries, but also most design and engineering jobs remained in
Taiwan.
Facing a “hollowing out” concern due to the large scale of factory exodus, both the
private sectors and the Taiwanese government searched for an “upgrading” solution. In 2002
Quanta announced that it would build a research institute that distinguished it from the regular
design team. The new and advanced research institute would recruit five thousand engineers
within a few years and would focus on researching new ideas and new technologies aiming
for the production of new products.. However, their new aims reproduce the problematic and
stereotyped value system held earlier by their US partners. In the imaginings of Taiwanese
laptop producers, China was only a “manufacturing” base that would not threaten Taiwanese
design capabilities. Within a decade, however, they had hired more than a thousand
manage its related issues, according to a 2004 media report. In 2003, within the approved patent
numbers of Taiwan’s firms in the U.S. Foxconn ranked number one, with a patent number of 483 in that year. Overall, Taiwanese companies was ranked number four in the US patent approval case that year,
next only to the U.S., Japanese, and German firms. See
http://www.gvm.com.tw/Boardcontent_10310.html (Chinese).
113 engineers in China, including a vast “Extended R&D” center and a smaller “R&D” division
there.108
The spectrum from R&D to production can be considered in alternative ways. Usually,
when policy makers and even industrial actors present a general picture of the global value
chain, they tend to divide it in a geographically convenient way, such as R&D in the US, and
manufacturing in China. But this picture is too simplistic. Each local entity strives to gain its
own “R&D” capabilities, regardless of what labels (such as “manufacturing partners”) are
given. There is a desire and a requirement for “R&D” to grow in every locality, especially in
those areas that they think will enhance their expertise and consequently their value. Every
place can develop its own versions of “R&D,” which means the concept of R&D can be
invested with different meanings. In the CMs I studied, part of their R&D functions might
replicate or overlap with those of their foreign brand-name partners, but the CMs’ R&D had its
own unique features, usually an intensification of expertise surrounding CMs’ own core of
services: design, assembly, component supplies and so forth. The value chain picture is more
than a simple and separate distribution of R&D and manufacturing within the global
geography, as it can also expand to include possibilities of different local versions of “R&D.”
Thus the R&D elements evolve distinctly at every node in the entire network of production.
108 Author’s interview with “Christopher” (7/19/2012).
114 The Gray Area: Design, Engineering, and Development
Any fixed boundary between design and manufacturing can be highly problematic.
This is not, however, to say that design engineers will regard themselves as assembly
operators, nor vice versa. Their respective job responsibilities have a core that distinguishes
it from others, especially those that are distant from it in the chain. But, if we imagine
enlarging the spectrum between design and assembly and focus on the middle part of the
spectrum, we can find overlapping boundaries and gray areas. These are especially evident
in the frequently-mixed references to design, R&D, and engineering from my interviewees.
Furthermore, this gray area and ambiguity will influence actors’ ways of acting or thinking,
and can be used to classify people’s work and lives.
As I mentioned earlier, when Taiwanese CMs divide workers into two groups in their
companies, the most common expression they use for the upper stream is “R&D.” Yet very
often, they also replace “R&D” with “design”, “development,” or “engineering.” In their usage,
they seem to infuse the label “D” with several meanings --- “D” can be for design, for
development, or for engineering. In fact, laptop engineering is often called “design” in Taiwan,
because in the context of Taiwanese laptop manufacturing, the major design work is related
with engineering efforts. Furthermore, different employees and different companies, in
different historical periods, seem to have different interpretations of design, development, and
engineering. I received complex versions of them from interviewees:
115 A retired HP head manager of the PC division Ed Yang said that, for him,
“Design is about innovation… Taiwan was once only strong in development, but their design also becomes strong now… Design can refer to system design, product specs, or industrial design, software design, and interface design etcetera.
Only when design is completed, then development is initiated. Development is not so much about innovation, but more about discipline.”
109Thus, according to Yang’s interpretation, design is a matter of engaging with
innovation, while development is not.
Barry Lam, the founder of Quanta offers another view in an oral history interview. He
said that research aims for things to be made three years later; development defines products
according to the market needs, in relation to possible technological capabilities, and
considerations of cost. Usually for technology it takes from eighteen months to two years.
According to Lam, engineering is the making of a product after its product specs have been
established, and it usually refers to molding, layout of motherboards, and testing. He
explained,
”In Taiwan, engineering is also considered as the R&D capability because products have already been defined by Microsoft and Intel, so there is nothing else to add to the design, the rest of it is only engineering.”
110The later part of his comment indicates that there is a conditioning force on the R&D
in the PC industry, which makes the R&D in Taiwan a special sort of it -- engineering.
109 Author’s interview with Ed Yang (9/30/2011, Santa Clara, California).
110 Taiwan IT Pioneers: Barry Lam, The Oral History collections in the Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA. The oral history was conducted on March 2nd, 2011. CHM reference number:
X6260.2012.
116
”Harrison,” a retired R&D head of Quanta has a different interpretation:
“Design is a word that can be applied to much broader range. Basically when you come up with some realistic idea it can be called a design. It can be generated in a purely concept stage, in a development stage, in an
implementation stage, or whenever. Development is after you have a target or a goal, and you then start to think about more details. Engineering is to use knowledge in various engineering fields to get things done.”
111Another idea is from “Yao,” a retired factory head in Quanta:
“Design is just an implement for a well defined product, say, [when one] makes a design specification to realize a workable unit. Development includes more advance[d] [work] and gets an idea to be a specified marketing spec, or product spec, then it results in an engineering spec. Development can be more
creativity-orientated, more from ground zero; [it] can be a brand new idea, a new working method or a kind of work force. Engineering involves a wide range of works, say a process improvement. ... Basically, just do something to make things better, or make it happen. This is why a re-engineering is so important for industries.”
112In his interpretation, design seems less relevant to innovation, but more relevant to
development and engineering.
“Louis,” an industrial designer who has been working at different famous computer
and Internet companies in the US considered that R&D means when there are several ways
of doing things, you study and decide to choose one of them; engineering is getting into the
details for the selected version, and design is about initiating ideas.113 After I mentioned that
different people seemed to invest different meanings on those terms, he admitted the
111 Author’s email correspondences with “Harrison” (10/07-10/11/2011).
112 From author’s email interview with Yao (10/23/2011).
113 Interview by author (10/01/2011).
117 ambiguity of these terms. He remembered, one time he was sent to work in Taiwan as an
Apple manager in the 1990s, when a Taiwanese employee of that company’s CM partner
asked him “when will the design be done?” “Louis” found this strange, and answered “it’s
done!” In his perspective, design meant “idea”, but the other party was referring to
engineering details. “Louis” added that, depending on the context and who was asking the
question, the interpretations would be different.114
For now, I have presented different interpretations on R&D, design, development,
and engineering from my interviewees to challenge the boundaries imposed upon the
design-manufacturing spectrum. These classifications are evidence of boundary work, and
realizing this is important to understand how actors view themselves and others in different
ways, and how they implicitly give different value judgments to different jobs. In the list of the
above “definitions”, it seems that the former top manager from HP, Yang, regards design as
innovative, but denies this for development. By contrast, the retired factory head of Quanta,
“Yao,” does not view design as “innovative.” Also, although disciplines in general are
regarded as connecting more to factory activities, the retired R&D head of Quanta, “Harrison”
supports imposing more discipline on his fellow designer-engineers.
Concertos, rather than Solos: Entanglement of Design and Manufacturing
114 For example, when his boss asks, “When will the design be done?” he is asking when it can be sold to the carriers. When engineers ask the same question, it can refer, for example, to “When will the mock- up be done?” or “When will the appearance model be done?” depending on whom they are talking to. Interview by author (10/01/2011).
118 The above discussions focus on uncovering nuances in the spectrum of
design-manufacturing, in order to understand CMs’ work in an alternative way to the popular
dichotomous categories of design and manufacturing. Nevertheless, there is yet another way
to look at CMs’ activities: analyzing them from the angle of a time horizon rather than from
that of job functions in a division of labor. Especially, if we consider the tasks they engage
with at any moment, this D-M spectrum image can be quite static. The real laptop CMs’ daily
activities were not just conducted by one group of people at a time, but rather by a
combinationof different simultaneous groups.
Figure 2.6 shows the jobs of design and manufacturing teams in laptop CMs at
different points of time in the process of making products. This diagram is based on a hand
drawing from “Yao.”115 It shows the general and common distribution of overlapping work
from design and from factory employees. At a very early stage, only the design team is
involved, but the factory team joins in the process much earlier than might be expected: they
do not come in merely at the stage of mass production. Just as factory teams attend many
meetings and give ideas and suggestions at the “design” stage, design teams do not remain
outside of factories. They are involved with manufacture at the mass production stage. If we
draw vertical lines to represent different moments, we can see that at most time points, both
groups work together. “Yao” said that the two waves (of design and of factory shown on
115 Author’s interview with “Yao” (10/20/2010).
119 Figure 2.6) have become more proximal in recent years. Thus, the overlapping area occupied
by design and factory teams becomes even larger. As a result, the laptop product
developmental process involves more cross-departmental collaboration rather than finished
tasks being handed from one department to the next.
At Quanta, there is still another group of people who belong to the QA (quality
assurance) department (see Figure 2.6). The set-up of the QA engineers is to enhance and
ensure product quality, but they also bridge and negotiate the design employees and factory
employees in many ways based upon the principle of offering quality productions. In Wistron
or Compal, they have different strategies that aim to bridge design and factory teams. For
example, they have the so-called NPI (new product introduction) phase. NPI is not a fixed
organization like Quanta’s QA division, but rather it is a working procedure involving a
temporary team formed by people from both design and factory divisions to ensure a smooth
transition toward mass production.
120 Figure 2.6
The design-factory "concerto". Recreated based on the hand drawing of “Yao.” (10/20/2010)
In the product developmental process, as time proceeds, the activities at each single
time point will look like D-DM-DM-DM-MD-MD-MD-M (D or M means the design team or the
factory team is active at a given point in the above diagram, when the QA team, which is
specific at Quanta, is not considered. In the general daily practice at a CM, design or factory
specific at Quanta, is not considered. In the general daily practice at a CM, design or factory