I am a newer 3M and can't help but notice that the T6_T7 group are an elite brunch.
Being comparetively new to 3M, I am not able to judge their technical skills or accomplishments. I understand that they made $$$ for 3M to get to that rank, but how good are they really ? Let's say a technology point of view. What is their contribution to their field? Are they well known to the external world ? Just curious.
Congrats to Ming Cheng. He has been hired as CTO of another company.
A. O. Smith Hires Ming Cheng as Chief Technology Officer
July 1, 2025
in my experience (which is not insignificant), the attorney writes the claims. Hence, hard to skew things in someone's favor. Maybe your experience is different, but I haven't seen an inventor write the claims.
True that patent attorney writes the claims, not the inventor. Usually determining the primary inventor is not the issue, since it is quite obvious. According to US patent laws anybody who is a contributer to a claim in a US patent (typically 20 claims per patent) will be considered a co inventor on a US patent. When big names (some T6, T7s, sometimes managers even) are involved, they usually find a way to get their name on a particular claim or two and thus work their way into patent inventorship. This happens all the time. That's how you will find some managers, who in many cases have not worked at the bench for many decades, find their way into patent inventorship and boast of dozens of patents even though their contribution was dubious or miniscule at the best.
@33w well said. That has been my experience with patents too. Credit not given where it is due. But worse, credit given where it is not due. That is a start R&D fall. One trick ponies… absolutely. They would have very narrow knowledge with no broad business or technology knowledge. 3M seems to like it.
Sounds like sour grapes from H Simpson
As far as how good are the people that get to the T6 or 7 level - much has to do with actual ability of the individual, support behind the person/program, having a boss that likes you, bootlicking, work on an important, well funded program or simply being in the right place at the right time. I've worked with T6/7 folks that I respected and also those I would not give a nickel for.
As far as patents I have had ideas taken from me (or others) and made their own by the hall conversation or conference room thieves. Can't tell you how many times my phone rang by random people asking how to do something. I always helped as I could but frequently never go the credit for providing help. Over time I stopped helping the parasites. 3M has a major issue with appraising people as individuals but expecting teams to play well with each other. Having worked for other companies before I joined 3M there is a stark comparison of how 3M employees rise to senior levels with one trick pony inventions/commercialized products. One of the most disgusting situations for easy promotions was the myriad number of people promoted for Optical Systems film commercializations (think Rocky I, II, III, IV etc) versions of the film. I'll stop here.....
in my experience (which is not insignificant), the attorney writes the claims. Hence, hard to skew things in someone's favor. Maybe your experience is different, but I haven't seen an inventor write the claims.
It’s more about claim language. Somebody who is well versed in playing with words can write great claims and make sure they are included.
There are specific criteria for inclusion on a patent. Before filing, the attorney will review the claims with the team and identify who contributed to each claim. Sometimes, an individual will be a key contributor to most if not all claims. Some other times, someone is responsible for just one claim out of many. They are still inventors, therefore. And often that contribution arises late in the process. So, one really can't make assumptions about someone's contributions to a patent without being intimately involved with the actual patent prep process for that invention.
@204 I agree. Attorneys make the decision. Sometimes get flown by those who speak well. Sometimes the first author is super nice to be inclusive of all people whom he or she had discussion.
There are many people involved in the development of new technology or products. Hence the patents will have the names of a number of people who contributed to it. The good inventors who pull many people together to achieve what initially was seen as difficult or impossible, tend to get the name of every team member who contributed to solving the problem listed in the patent.
I was in Tech Service many many years ago and got my name into 2 patents. I know I contributed a small but important part to those projects but I did not expect to get my name listed as an inventor.
Some are really good people, i have contacts even after retiring. They are deep souls. Its lucky to have their relationship
@1tg if it wasn’t her invention how did she end up as inventor on the patents?
I didn't say she did. I said it was a US invention.
Varys, Sorry , there is more to this. But definitely not invented by Chief Science Advocate.
Oil wipe was originally a US invention, commercialized in Japan using US jumbo manufacturing. (If you want to call the line in building 218 manufacturing.) They tried to sell it in the US and a few other places, but it never took off. It is one of those 'Japan is just different' sort of products.
As for the root question from OP:
I agree with most of the other posters here. The T6s and T7s are on the whole, quite good at what they do. They tend to be very good mentors and really have a passion for their technical areas. Are there exceptions, yes, but there are exceptions with any group of people.
Oil wipe was developed in 3M Japan. After good sales she got involved for name. Why is 3M enamored by just good talk ? No appreciation for people who work hard and deliver.
@1jp the chief science person is an excellent speaker and very good at promoting herself. Check her Linked in posts: all about herself. As for scientific achievements, very little to speak of. The only product she actually developed are those oil wipes for the face and maybe incremental improvements on diaper tape.
I’ve gathered that the Chief Science Officer was approached by higher ups about taking up the newly created position and accepted as a matter of duty.
Not much science or technology or product development in that career. Climbed ladder through talking. On the other hand I have worked with a number of Corp scientist who are great in their field and have served as mentors
What about our Chief Science Officer. I have heard this person talk a few times, energetic and speaks well.
Never heard this person speak about the science or technology that she had developed. Hard to know what was the accomplishment from a technical standpoint.
some are great, awesome. But there is a higher then most will admit who are way past their prime and holding on like a tenured professor. Remember the CRD volunteer package - quite a few took the money and ran!
I found the T6 and T7's really approachable and they had the passion in their field, but they could still make it relatable to someone who was new into the space or wanting to learn about how they managed to be successful as a division/corporate scientist.
They don't have to be the top of the top, the fact that they can combine their technical knowledge and make it appreciable and relatable to the lay person actually makes them very important for 3M's traditional business of developing world evolving technologies.
Today, the company is very different, and seeing them work on simple product updates makes me worry about the long term direction 3M is taking.
@e6 Actually there was groundbreaking science conducted by a T6 in PSD during the H1N1 pandemic and later during the COVID pandemic that led to policy changes (related to antimicrobial respirators and general respiratory protection for healthcare workers). Journal articles co-authored with NIOSH scientists were published in peer reviewed journals and the science was presented at conferences to standing room only audience. This outstanding science, although did not generate $$, was communicated to the public during the pandemic in the form of technical bulletins on the PSD website for the greater good of the community.
Here is my take :
Majority, perhaps 60 to 70% are technically really good, does top notch work and have made a lot of dough for 3M.
Some have made money for 3M, but technically mediocre. As you know shake and bake stuff can also led to new products and $$ for 3M.
A small minority got there because they have friends in the High Castle.
As for how well 3M scientists are known externally, it is possible below 10%. I doubt how many in that group can talk about the science, provided they are allowed to do so, they have done in a plenary session at a scientific conference.....since the science is not that great !
The last time a 3M scientist published a landmark scientific paper was perhaps 2 decades ago.
And some got laid off. Consider that.
I chaired the T6 group few years ago so I know almost all the T6 and T7 well. Majority are brilliant hard working scientists. As a general rule 3M discourages scientists from sharing their discoveries outside the company in the form of conference presentations and journal publications, which prevents those scientists from achieving external visibility. A few have managed to achieve stellar reputations in the scientific circles winning national awards from ACS, APS, SWE and AIChE (national academic organizations) and I am aware of two (one T6A and one T7) who were inducted into the National Academy, the highest academic achievement just below the Nobel Prize. So yes, those senior scientists are mostly outstanding. There are of course a few bad apples who got their promotions by brown nosing, but that happens everywhere.
The vast majority of those senior scientists are passionate about mentoring and helping newer employees. So, I highly encourage the OP to seek one or two T6/T7 scientists and ask them for mentorship, advice, help with project or just to talk. Also, those senior scientists are well connected and networked inside the company so they can help you find other experts throughout the company.
What a boring post!
I've known a bunch of T6 and T7s. It's a mixed crowd in terms of your question. Some have made mega/giga bucks for 3M and have gotten to those levels, but aren't what you might think of as traditional genius types. But what they have done is combined a high degree of technical talent (deep knowledge of their field) with knowing how to get things done - sharing their vision, building teams, championing projects effectively, etc. Without those skills, they wouldn't be as successful.
Many are really, really smart. Some of those folks are at different levels - easily at professor levels. As are many who aren't T6/T7 (yet).
I have been at a number of OC meetings where T6/T7 appointments are evaluated, and the expectations are, to my view, way too stiff. A lot is expected - business results, establishing a technology platform, leadership, mentoring, etc.
Some might wonder why a T6 or T7 here and there got to that level. But overall, they are an impressive bunch.
Each case is or was unique. Some for example earned it in a big way but then found themselves obsolete so they retired early. Some worked on highly proprietary and profitable stuff so always flew under the radar as far as external visibility goes.