# Heilmeier — Licklider — Braben — Elon quadrants of Research Management  The two axes that are relevant here are the amount of “constraints” (this is a bad word — maybe precision? Shot calling?)[^1] that the people working on the projects are subject to and the “opinionation” (or maybe vision) of the manager. “Manager” here is someone who has the ability to start or kill a project. The constraint and opinion axes form a [[2x2s]] where each quadrant could be exemplified by a (relatively) well-known research manager. In the top-left (Opionated+Unconstrainted) was have [[JCR Licklider]]. He had extremely strong opinions about where he wanted the program to go and would only fund people who were on board with that vision. However, he put very few constraints on that funding — “go start a group, do awesome things.” In the bottom-left (Unopinionated+Unconstrainted) we have [[Donald Braben]]. He expressly tried to have very little opinion about the work itself, instead focusing completely on the quality of the person and their relationship to the idea. In the bottom-right (Unopinionated+Constrained) we have [[George Heilmeier]], who famously imposed the [[The Heilmeier Catechism]] on any program he approved. Answering questions like “how long will it take” “how long will it cost” “How do you check for completion” epitomizes putting constraints on a project. However, (in the platonic version of this) as long as a program manager can produce compelling answers to those questions, it will get approved. This stands in contrast to … In the top-right (Opinionated+Constrained) we have [[Elon Musk]], who both has strong opinions about everything from the grand vision to specific engineering decisions *and* puts a lot of time and goal constraints on the people he manages. ### Some observations Each of these quadrants suggests a (justifiable) management style: * Tell people where to row * Build trust * Hold people accountable * Tell people what to do As you go from right to left on the constraint axis, there’s more [[Knightian Uncertainty]] and as a result the research manager needs more trust. [[The two ways to enable action is through legibility and trust]] — you could see constraints as a legibility-increasing strategy. Each end of the constraint axis also suggests a flavor of operation strategy: when you’re operating in a low-constraint regime, it’s much more important to *filter* people a-priori, either based on trust or their alignment with your vision. In the high-constraint regime, you don’t need to filter as much but do end up needing to be more “bossy.” ### Organizational positions on the 2x2 It’s interesting to think where different organizations sit on the constraint/opinion axis. As suggested by the fact that two different quadrants are both named after DARPA people, [[DARPA]] itself is all over the place on an office, PM, and program basis. Some TTO or STO programs are effectively high-risk weapons engineering programs and fall into the Musk quadrant. Some DSO programs tend towards Licklider or even Braben depending on how opinionated the program manager is. Over time though, my sense is that the organization has moved on average towards the right. DARPA programs can only be so far towards unopinionated because at the end of the day they need to justify their military applicability. The [[National Science Foundation - NSF]] is incredibly unopinionated vision-wise, but does constrain how PIs spend money and the scope of the work (at least nominally — there’s of course the strategy to propose work that you’ve already done <[[People proposing work that they have already done is a sign that feedback loops are broken]]>) . The [[National Institute of Health - NIH]] is like the NSF but with more opinion (things need to be related to health). [[Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)]] operates pretty far towards the unconstrained end of the spectrum but is opinionated insofar as the work needs to nominally be related to health/medicine. ### Orthogonal axes These are of course, not the only two relevant axes. Some others include: * Observation frequency * Feedback loop with reality frequency What others? The dream is to create some set of “basis vectors” for researcher management and be able to say which contexts are best served by which locations in management space.[^2] ### Background The 2x2 started off as a spectrum between [[George Heilmeier]] and [[JCR Licklider]] — who are both some of the most storied leaders of [[DARPA]] and also seem to have very different management styles. Heilmeier is the originator of the eponymous [[The Heilmeier Catechism]] which demands very concrete answers and planning from PMs (and presumably the researchers they’re working with). Licklider basically gave people free rein to do whatever they wanted with the money he gave them. [[Two contradicting things that are both true is a strong signal that you need more theory]]. The seemingly contradictory styles suggest that there isn’t actually one good approach but a continuum of control that can be effective (contingent on what though?) But then thinking about where people like [[Donald Braben]] or [[Elon Musk]] would fall on this spectrum didn’t feel quite right. While he didn’t demand specific plans, Licklider was extremely opinionated about the vision that the projects were pursuing and would only give money to people who shared that vision. <see [[Program design is a coordination tool]]>. Contrast this to [[Donald Braben]], who worked hard to have *zero* opinion about what people he funded worked on as long as he built up trust with them. While he *did* demand specific plans, Heilmeier was (as far as I can tell) fairly unopinionated about the vision of the plans as long as it was well justified. Contrast this to Elon, who both demands precise planning and has his own strong vision of where a thing needs to go. These dichotomies suggest something like a 2x2 more than a spectrum. [[Theory gives you the language to make important subtle distinctions between things]] ### Related * [[DARPA does multiple levels of top-down problem generation and bottom-up solution generation]] * [[Programs and Program Managers exist on several different spectra]] * Contrast this 2x2 about research *management* to [[stokesPasteurQuadrantBasic1997]] which is about the research itself. I don’t think there’s a 1-1 mapping between the quadrants (or even a linear mapping?) * [[The more trust an institution has, the less it needs formal process]] * [[Research requires more trust than other disciplines]] * [[2x2s]] * [[Research management matters]] [^1]:Note that constraints are not necessarily the same thing as control. For example, in its platonic form, once you pass through the Heilmeier Catechism you actually have very few reporting requirements. “Control” is some combination of constraints, yes, but with short *observation periods*/high observation frequencies. (This suggests that there are many other axes that we can be looking at here — ideally we could get to a periodic table type ontology. [[Periodic tables are a useful way of categorizing]].) [^2]: See [[Does the nature of the activities to create new technology and science change over time?]], [[Activity Space]] [Web URL for this note](http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Heilmeier+—+Licklider+—+Braben+—+Elon+quadrants+of+Research+Management) [Comment on this note](http://via.hypothes.is/http://notes.benjaminreinhardt.com/Heilmeier+—+Licklider+—+Braben+—+Elon+quadrants+of+Research+Management)