How “Pasteur’s quadrant” enlightens the invention-innovation challenge
- Political scientist Donald E. Stokes outlined distinct dimensions and categories of research in his 1997 publication Pasteur’s Quadrant.
- Stokes created a framework — “Pasteur’s quadrant” — that visualizes the invention-innovation challenge faced by industrial research labs.
- Pasteur’s quadrant did not yet exist when the mission statement for Microsoft Research (MSR) was drafted — but the similarities are remarkable.
We all know the stories. A Kodak researcher invented the first digital camera, but the company decided not to adopt it, fearing it would cannibalize their film business. Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center developed a wide range of technologies that Apple and Microsoft then used to dominate the personal computer market. Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor invented the integrated circuit, only to have Intel, AMD, and other companies commercialize it.
These anecdotes are potent examples of successful inventions that failed to translate into durable innovations—at least for the inventors. In all three cases, a company’s central research organization delivered a groundbreaking invention but did not realize the commercial benefits. Why is this pattern so common, and how can it be avoided?
To answer this question, we turn to the story of Microsoft Research (MSR). To get the story underway, let’s review a framework introduced by Donald Stokes in his 1997 publication Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Stokes defined research in two dimensions: first, the degree to which research seeks deep, foundational understandings of the universe, and second, the extent to which it aims to create practical solutions to real-world problems.
Viewing research through this lens, he defined three categories:
- Pure basic research: Often called curiosity-driven research, pure basic research has the sole mission of deciphering the mysteries of the universe without an immediate agenda to convert that wisdom into practical applications. Theoretical physics and molecular biology fit here.
- Applied research: This stands in stark contrast to pure research. The mission here is crystal clear: apply knowledge to create valuable products and services. This is the realm of applied scientists, engineers, technologists, and others developing solutions to practical problems.
- Use-inspired basic research: Straddling the worlds of pure and applied research, this category aims to advance knowledge to solve real-world problems. While it is rooted in pursuing knowledge, its trajectory is driven by practical needs. The Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is one of the most successful organizations with this focus.
Stokes organized these categories into a two-by-two matrix and named the quadrants after Niels Bohr, Thomas Edison, and Louis Pasteur. He left the lower-left quadrant unnamed, maybe deciding that something with no practical purpose that also does not advance knowledge wasn’t worth the effort. This unnamed quadrant is sometimes referred to as tinkering.
Stokes’s framework visualizes the invention-innovation challenge of industrial research labs: how to balance the effort within the three named quadrants of research. A focus on basic research is necessary for groundbreaking discoveries that fuel future revolutions. But, without follow-through to commercialization, the return on investment will end up in someone else’s pocket (as the researchers at Kodak, Texas Instruments, Fairchild, and Xerox learned). Conversely, too pronounced a preference for applied research might yield short-term victories, but risks boxing the company into a follower position.
Then there’s the allure of use-inspired basic research, which, on the surface, seems like the perfect middle path. Few companies in the private sector have mastered this balance, though. Even with the best intentions, the scale often leans, shifting the focus toward one of the other two quadrants over time. In publicly listed companies, the pull toward more applied research can be particularly strong given the emphasis on delivering near-term profitability.
In 1991, when Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold, then the head of Microsoft Advanced Technologies, invited Rick Rashid, a prominent professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, to be the inaugural lab director of MSR, Stokes’s framework did not yet exist. But the challenge it illustrated did.
To walk the tightrope Stokes would later describe, Rick started by crafting a clear mission statement. He believed it was essential to highlight the lab’s expansive vision and the nuanced challenges, providing clarity to all employees and collaborators about MSR’s purpose. After in-depth reflection and discussions, a three-part, 27-word statement emerged.
The first part, expand the state of art in each of the areas in which we do research, emphasizes the commitment to progress in knowledge, i.e., Bohr’s quadrant. Early on, Rick noted that the essence of this principle was about advancing research, regardless of the immediate utility to Microsoft. This ideal was cemented when MSR adopted an open publication approach, commonly seen in academia but unprecedented in industry due to concerns regarding intellectual property. MSR researchers were given free rein to publish any research findings if no information on products or planning was involved. They were also given the freedom to engage in and decide on seeking relevant IP protection via patents before publication.
The second part, rapidly transfer innovative technologies into Microsoft products, emphasizes the importance of turning scientific developments into real-world applications, i.e., Edison’s quadrant. Dan Ling, an early member of MSR, reflected on this at the lab’s 20th anniversary. He highlighted the significance of MSR’s central location within Microsoft’s campus, fostering collaboration and technology transfer between research and product teams.
The last part, ensure that Microsoft products have a future, underscores the ever-evolving nature of the tech sector. Long before Andy Grove’s book Only the Paranoid Survive was published, MSR embraced the idea that longevity in tech must be continually earned. This principle was implemented through later practices at MSR, like the annual Disruptive Technology Review, where top company executives received a day-long intensive briefing from researchers about potentially game-changing technologies of likely profound importance to the company and the industry.
MSR’s mission statement encapsulated the organization’s ambitions and pointed it squarely at the namesake quadrant of Stokes’s matrix. Remarkably, only a handful of words in this statement have been modified over the last three decades.
