本文中Electronic News和Electronic Business與的CEO Bill Sullivan討論了公司當前的重點、最近的分拆以及科學世界多門學科的融合。以下是摘要：
Q: 促使Agilent公司剝離半導體和半導體業務的內因是什麼，目前公司發展如何？
Sullivan: 2005年8月我們決定將公司重心完全放在400億的測試市場。除此之外，我們相信與測試行業相關的附加機會也會有幾十個億。
Q: 所以這也就變成了你們唯一的核心競爭力？
Sullivan: 是的。這是HP公司的基石，也因此我們回到了我們做的最好的領域。做出剝離半導體相關生意的決定是因為半導體有著不同的商業模型，它的市場更加多變。如果回望過去十年，核心測試生意的增長速度是高於半導體生意的，而且它的波動性隻有公司波動的三分之一。我們成立了Avago，它是一家很有競爭力的半導體公司，Verigy是一家很有競爭力的半導體測試公司。
Q: 從研究的角度看，這些剝離有效果了嗎？
Sullivan: 作為一個專一的組織這很難說。我們的核心競爭力一直是測試技術，半導體超出 了HP的需求。目前，我們前行的方向是全心投入測試技術。我們重組了中央研究實驗室，側重於電子測量，測量以及諸如納米技術領域和家庭安全等新的測試技術。
Q: 很多新的技術發展都用埃（Angstroms）為測試單位了，這會增加研發成本嗎？
Sullivan: 我們將總開支的12%用於研發。除了在日本、美國以及歐洲外我們還將研發擴展到東南亞、中國和印度。很明顯，這是個需要在前沿投入研發的行業。
Q: 但是在科技的前沿有很多未知因素，你怎麼為研發投入選擇正確的方向呢？
Sullivan: 中央實驗室的一個重要作用是觀察不同市場的大趨勢並且預見且隨同這些趨勢前進。我們需要考慮的就是使得科學家創新並商業化的最佳測量技術。在Agilent實驗室有一組人與商業、產業界以及學術界通力合作來找到這些需求，也就是說通過與頂級的高校和政府研究合作來為Agilent做出最佳的選擇。
Q: 對於可測的和不可測的都有那些障礙呢？
Sullivan: 我們是否麵臨不可跨越的障礙呢，我想沒有。就說生命科學，我們僅僅開始理解細胞生物。有人講到分子計算。我的觀點是我們有很多的選擇。Agilent實驗室剛剛推出了對微RNA的測試，它是五年前才發明的。
Q: 有多少生意是來自生命科學呢？
Sullivan:基本上，去年公司70%來自於電子測量，30%是生命科學和化學分析。但是，生命科學和化學分析生意是增長最快的。我們排名第一的投資和機會增加就在生命科學領域。當你想到測量，通常傾向於觀察物理世界，測量光子、電子或者分子，我們的任務是將它轉換到數字領域，通過數字化使得工程師、科學家和研究者有一個不同的洞察。所以我們有70%的工程師是軟件工程師。
Q: 這個不是建模嗎？
Sullivan: 建模往往對已有規範起作用，比如測試一個雷達係統或者對一個無線城市進行仿真建模。如何讓大家看到在以往模型中無法恒定觀察的數據呢？這就需要建立新的模型，但是這必須通過舊模型的理念並且直觀化這些數據才可以實現。這就是生命科學令人激動的地方。它目前還處於初級階段，是一個有很多相關的學科。
Q: 你認為Agilent在未來扮演一個不同角色嗎？它架起了電子學、光譜學和海量數據研究的橋梁。
Sullivan: 這是Agilent的賭注，看我們能否將公司的財務能力與科技的廣度完美結合，使得我們在400億的測試市場鶴立雞群。
Q: 目前在電子領域我們主要集中在原子級，開始考慮亞原子級了嗎？
Sullivan: 我們內部對此有爭論。它最大的可能用處在於對細胞生物更深的理解以及細胞內部繁雜的構造為何會導致生病。我們的機會在於測試、可視化並對之建模，使人們可以繼續前進。
Q: 這會涉及到多門學科，你是如何組建和訓練這些多功能的隊伍？
Sullivan: 這取決與團隊的領導，他必須要建立一個共同的中心並集合不同輸入使之運轉。看待一個問題有不同的方式，所以我們以人為本。同時我們與一些物理學家在組織間進行交互，以此來推動我們的理念。
Q: 對待一個問題不同學科間有那些不同呢？
Sullivan: 簡單的說，物理世界可以通過明確的公式去預見，所以物理學家傾向於找尋基於方程的方案。而生物界很複雜難解，所以生物學家傾向於找尋關聯。
Q: 在做這些測試時，你是否在尋找模式的畸變？
Sullivan:有些時候畸變並不導致疾病。檢查100個人，你會發現有14個人的染色體有問題會導致癌症，但是實際上隻有一半的人會得癌。為什麼會這樣呢？
Q: 讓我們回到多學科的團隊上。這些團隊的領導者有那些特質呢？
Sullivan: 的領導模型很簡單。我們希望團隊的領導者對我們前進的方向以及實現途徑等戰略意圖有清晰的認識。二是可以通過團隊組織的力量去實現目標。這些領導者需要有很強的能力去取得信任，然後他們就要去吸引最優秀的人才，並領導他們實現目標。
Q: 你在哪裏找到這些人才呢？
Sullivan: 今年我們要雇傭2000人。我們加強在高校的人才吸引，同時也在業界挖掘人才。
Q: 在研發中有那些國家也開始發揮作用了呢？
Sullivan: 我認為中國和印度的閃現是對世界經濟的最大衝擊。因此，我們在這些國家也開始積極建立團隊。
附英文原文：
Bill Sullivan, president and CEO of Agilent, sat down with Electronic News/Electronic Business to talk about the company’s new focus, the recent divestitures, and the convergence of multiple d isciplines in science. What follows are excerpts of that interview.
Q: What was behind Agilent’s decision to spin off your semiconductor and semiconductor test businesses, and how has the company done since then?
Sullivan: We made the decision in August 2005 to focus the company 100 percent on the $40 billion measurement market. In addition to that, we believe there are billions of dollars of additional opportunities associated with the measurement industry.
Q: So that became your single core competency?
Sullivan: Yes. That was what Hewlett-Packard was founded on, and we have since gone back to what we did the best. We made the decision to divest the semiconductor-related businesses because it’s a different business model. It’s a more volatile market, and the company was being valued on how we did in the semiconductor business, not our core measurement business. That’s what drove the decision. If you look at the last 10 years up until now, the growth rate of the core measurement business was higher than the growth rate of the semiconductor business, and the volatility was one-third of what the company had been over the past 10 years. We created Avago, which is a very competitive semiconductor company, and Verigy is a very competitive semiconductor test business. In the process, we’ve returned $5 billion in cash to our stockholders.
Q: From a research standpoint, have those divestitures had any effect?
Sullivan: It’s hard to argue with being a focused organization. Our core competency is measurement science. It always has been. Our semiconductor component effort was driven out of the needs of Hewlett-Packard. Now, moving forward, we are focusing 100 percent of our efforts on measurement science. We have reorganized our central research lab, focusing on electronic measurement, life sciences measurement, and new measurement technologies such as in the nanotechnology area and homeland security.
Q: Many of the new technology developments are being measured in Angstroms. Does that raise the cost of research?
Sullivan: We’re spending about 12 percent of our overall expenses on research and development. This is competitive in the industry. We also have a worldwide footprint for our research, so we are developing research in Southeast Asia, China and India to supplement our activity in Japan, the United States and Europe. Clearly, this is an industry that requires high R&D at the leading edge to remain a supplier of choice.
Q: But there are lots of unknowns at the leading edge of technology. How do you choose the right direction for your R&D investment?
Sullivan: One of the key roles of our central lab is to look at macro trends in various markets and to anticipate and be there with these trends moving forward. It’s well documented that with Moore’s Law physics and biology are coming together. What we need to figure out are the best measurement techniques to allow scientists to innovate and commercialize. We have a whole team of people inside of Labs working with businesses, industry and academia to try to identify those needs―we’re very attuned to the top universities and government research in the world―and then we make our best bets for Agilent.
Q: Are there any roadblocks to what you can measure and what you can’t?
Sullivan: Will there be laws and technical hurdles to face? Yes. Are we even close to insurmountable barriers? I think the answer is no. When you go into life science, we’re only beginning to understand cell biology. Some people talk about molecular computing. From my perspective, we just have infinite choices. Agilent Labs just introduced the first measurement of micro-RNA, which was only invented five years ago. These structures are in the 10- to 15-nanometer range. I think you’re going to see discovery in the chemical, physical and life science worlds.
Q: How much of your business is coming from life sciences?
Sullivan: The company last year was essentially 70 percent electronic measurement (40 percent of that business was semiconductors before the divestitures) and 30 percent life sciences and chemical analysis.. However, our life sciences/chemical analysis business is the fastest growing part of our business. This year, you’re going to see life sciences becoming a larger percentage of our company. We just completed the acquisition of Strategene, which is a re-agent company that uses chemicals to react with a specimen to try to get better measurement results. Our number one investment and growth opportunity is in the life sciences area. This is a great example of where we can take some of the best analog and digital converters from our electronics expertise and apply it to this market to improve the resolution of the mass spec measurements of, for example, the detection of proteins. How do we take these measurement technologies and move them into these new opportunities? When you think about measurement, we always tend to look at the physical world―measuring a photon, electron or molecule. Our job is to turn it into the digital domain and digitalize it so that engineers, scientists and researchers have a different insight. That’s really where it’s going. About 70 percent of our engineers are software engineers. How do you digitalize it in such a way that they can seen nuances that help them in their discovery?
Q: Isn’t that modeling?
Sullivan: Modeling tends to be a very defined role, such as measuring a radar system or modeling a simulation of a wireless city. This goes further. How do you map out data so that people can see something they wouldn’t have seen consistently with their past models? The future is creating new models, but to do that you have to have the ideas and the concepts from the old models and visualize data so you can create new associations looking forward. That’s what so exciting about life sciences. It’s in its infancy, and it’s an associative science. People are making associations because they don’t have ab solute models about how it works.
Q: Do you see moving into a different role in the future? You are bridging electronics, spectroscopy and massive data searches.
Sullivan: That is the bet of Agilent. Having the breadth of technology, can we bring this technology synergy with our financial strength to differentiate ourselves in this $40 billion measurement market? The market is highly fragmented with lots of different applications. Through an acquisition and through our technical support we’ve entered into the top atomic force microscope market. How do we bring sophisticated, complicated tools to the desk of the scientist at a competitive price to accelerate learning?
Q: We’ve largely been focused in the electronics industry on the atomic level. Is the subatomic level in your sights yet?
Sullivan: We’ve had a big debate about that internally. Nobody has seen it yet, and I don’t know when that will happen. But people are really smart. They will figure it out. The biggest potential is the continued understanding of cell biology and the very sophisticated mechanism of what goes on inside of a cell that results in disease. There’s a tremendous opportunity for us to measure that, visualize it and model it so people can continue making advancements. It’s basically how do you prevent chronic disease earlier in life.
Q: Much of this involves multiple disciplines. How do you bring together and train cross-functional teams?
Sullivan: It goes back to the leadership of the team, to be able to create a common focus and integrate the input moving forward. There’s been a lot of work on how a biologist thinks versus a physicist. We’ve spent a lot of time understanding where people come from and how they look at problems. There is a different way of looking at a problem. That lays on top of the core values of Agilent. If you look it from the legacy of HP―uncompromising integrity, teamwork, respect for the individual technical contribution―that’s the foundation. We put an enormous value on people working together for common purposes. If you put in a good leader built on a culture of understanding about how people think, it’s amazing what we can do. We’ve also cross-pollinated with some of the physicists moving across organizations to bring that discipline. But it’s the ecosystem you create. As I visit universities around the world, they’re the process of creating their own ecosystems to get these disciplines to work together and get the best out of them and advance the problem solving on very difficult problems.
Q: What sorts of issues are you seeing between different disciplines approaching a problem?
Sullivan: In the very simplest terms, the world of physics―in the physical world, not the atomic world―is very predictive. There are very clear equations of predictability. They tend to look for equation-based solutions. Biology is so complicated they tend to look at associations. If you look at a DNA array, does it turn green, does it express? You do mappings of DNA. The physicist says, ‘Where’s the equation?’ The biologist says, ‘We don’t have one.’ If you’ve ever seen the mapping of a protein that has mutated and is going to cause cancer and all the pathways, it’s very, very complicated. You tend to see more imaging and association and data to extract information and decisions moving forward.
Q: When you’re doing these measurements, are you looking for aberrations in a pattern?
Sullivan: Sometimes an aberration does not result in disease. You can go through 100 people and say chromosome 14 is bad and may cause cancer, but in fact only half the people get cancer. Why is that?
Q: Let’s go back a second and talk about the cross-discipline teams. What are the characteristics of the leaders of these teams?
Sullivan: The leadership model in is very simple. We expect the leaders of these teams to have absolute clarity of what we call strategic intent of where we’re going and how do we get there. The second elem ent is how these individuals build the organizational capability to get there. At the end of the day, every company can have the same aspirations and goals. It’s the organizational capability that gets results. These leaders need an enormous amount of domain content to get credibility. They then have to attract the brightest and the best, and lead them to results. I personally believe the core of leadership is the ability to take personal risk. You have to integrate all these inputs and you have to make a decision. They also need to have passion―passion to win, passion to want to make a contribution―and they have to couple that with strong technical skills. It’s amazing what people can do when they’re bright and aligned there is the right capability on the team.
Q: Where are you finding these people?
Sullivan: We will be hiring close to 2,000 people this year. We have a concentrated effort in the universities to try to attract the brightest and the best. We also look out into the industry to bring in talent. We have brought in quite a few new business managers. Right now, our ability to attract people is very high.
Q: What other countries are starting to play a role in research?
Sullivan: The emergence of China and India are, in my opinion, the biggest economic disruption in the world. As a result, we have been aggressively building strong teams in these countries. That’s part of our heritage. Hewlett-Packard moved into Germany in the ’50s, Japan in the ’60s and South east Asia in the ’70s. David Packard had the first joint high-tech venture in China in the ’80s. So we have a long history of building strong teams in other countries.
