Based on what you have read, what do the realities/situations presented in the case imply in terms of:a. Motivating researchersB. Coordinating their work, and;C. Building interdisciplinary teams

To Each His Own At the National Legume Research Institute (NLRI), three research activities on peanut are going on simultaneously -- researches on breeding, food technology and economics. The Director justified the research on peanut by emphasizing the potential of peanut as a cash crop, as processed food and as soil amendment. The Director takes pride in her peanut people. She introduces them as the "P" Team. In the annual research planning cycle of NLRI, the Director asked each member of her "P" Team to develop his or her research activities for the next two years. All three researchers in her "P" Team submitted individual proposals after two weeks. Because of the importance of peanut and due to the exemplary track record of both NLRI and the Director, there was no problem in funding the three researches for the next two years. At the end of the "P" team's final year of work, the Director called her "P" researchers to a meeting. She impressed on them the need to promptly turn in their final reports as she wanted to close this project and subject the NLRI Program on Peanut to an external program review team. She felt another approach should be explored after those initial three years of work. The first to turn in the report was the socio-economist. The Director complimented her on her promptness. As the two ladies were informally comparing notes on the prospects of the peanut industry, the socio-economist suggested that perhaps they ("P" team) needed to meet and share conclusions and possibly find something that was common to them. She thought this would enrich one another's analysis and recommendation. The Director, however, found such meeting unnecessary. She said, "I found all your three drafts satisfactory. Besides our sponsor needs all the three reports by next week already."