send via emailIndustry discusses keys to innovation and the European Research Area
Making good connections and hiring the right people are vital to industrial innovation, according to speakers at a conference on the knowledge economy held earlier this year
Knowledge for Growth - European Strategies in a Global Economy was held in Toulouse in July. It was organised by France’s Ministry of Higher Education and Research during the French presidency of the Council of the European Union, and the Toulouse School of Economics.
Andrew Dearing, secretary general of EIRMA, chaired a session on innovation practices and global networks in industry. The conference’s opening day had shown that achieving an effective, meaningful European Research Area (ERA) involves a sophisticated mix of initiatives aimed at people, resources and infrastructure.
“We heard several economic perspectives on the best ways forward. At one level, there was much in common between these analyses – the recognition of new patterns of innovation in increasingly open, globally-connected economies; the key role of the local environment within that global perspective; the need to go beyond research and technology-oriented views of innovation,” said Dearing.
“But there were disagreements,” he added. “It was not clear that the economic perspectives agreed on the approach to specialisation. The belated recognition of the need for company growth in areas of new technology was gratifying, but the speakers did not have a shared view of the roles of start-ups, growing SMEs and multinationals, nor recognise the part of players other than companies and universities in innovation.”
He opened his session by suggesting that the key question all the speakers would address was how to be good at innovation in today’s environment, and the vital role of finding the right kind of innovators.
“I suspect that you are going to hear our speakers talk about speed and organisation; effective connections; people; portfolios of activities and skills; and factors determining investment decisions,” he said.
Dearing began by describing his experiences at Shell, the oil and energy company. He said the nature of its business hadn’t changed over the past 30 years, yet the challenges it faces, and how it addresses them, have.
Only connect
“Connections between people and organisations played a huge role in determining what worked and what did not,” he said.
“Thirty years ago, when I worked at Shell headquarters, few people there seemed to know it was a major investor in R&D.
“We made breakthroughs in new gas-to-liquid fuels technology, now in use around the world, and with an engineering polymer, which failed to achieve a major impact. One of the reasons came from the different quality of connections between research and the businesses responsible for implementation.
“Twenty years ago, one of the challenges that faced Shell’s R&D was achieving synergies between the skills and resources available in 15 laboratories world-wide.
“Fifteen years ago, Shell tried to reinvent its localised organisational structure, which was insufficiently responsive to the demands of a global business. The re-organisation created major shifts in the balance of power within Shell. Basic research effectively disappeared, and the emphasis shifted to value creation and radical innovation. Social and environmental changes became important too.
The underlying question has always been how to connect effectively
“These changes have continued, and the underlying question has always been - how to connect effectively.”
Best practices
Leopold Demiddeleer, corporate R&D and new business development director at Solvay, and president-elect of EIRMA, highlighted the importance of vision and valuing knowledge. He reminded the audience that things take time, and that companies have to build on their existing roots. Many factors have to be managed well for the overall outcome to be as intended. He added that the way a company develops is a consequence of its ability to maintain its strengths.
Ellen de Brabander, global head of R&D at Merial, said that companies must learn to systematise open innovation. She discussed the mobility of staff, which may be restricted by geography, sector or discipline, and how this contributes to a company’s strengths and weaknesses. She described the importance of speed, with the example of the emergence of the Blue Tongue virus among animals, where only those companies that were adequately prepared could expect to gain from developing a vaccine.
Abhi Abhiriman, recently retired from Hindustan Lever, Unilever’s R&D facility in India, gave examples of how global companies should manage facilities and people around the world. He argued that deciding on where to place R&D facilities on the basis of cost was unlikely to be effective, as was the idea that a company’s Western laboratories would always lead and the rest follow. He emphasised the importance of high quality management, based on a view of high quality partnerships involving people you would be happy to employ at home; of developing multiple skills at once; and of understanding what you are trying to achieve and how progress can be tested.
Erick Lansard, director of R&D for Thales Alenia Space, spoke of the shift from closed patterns of innovation towards increasingly open models. He emphasised the management’s responsibility to handle open innovation well, and mentioned the use of tools to filter, shape and refine the inputs through the Stage-Gate® funnel. He considered the quality of the local innovation ecosystem fundamental to a company’s ability to operate in a global network.
People
Understanding how to achieve ‘T-shaped’ educational profiles will be key to using human resources well
Many participants in the session also felt that Europe faces a major problem with the supply of capable and motivated people.
One speaker said that success in modern industrial innovation comes from combining specialities, yet the education system trains people to be specialists. Understanding how to achieve the ‘T-shaped’ educational profiles that combine personal depth with the ability to work across boundaries will be key to using human resources well.
Delegates agreed that European companies needed to find people who are motivated to contribute across the research and innovation system, yet younger people are increasingly choosing not to follow traditional research and technological development career pathways. Making good connections with good people is key.
The session also covered the work of Luke Georghiou, professor of science and technology policy and management in the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, on the rationale for the ERA. It argues that the best way to build a successful ERA is to promote it to as a way to ensure that Europe remains successful, tackles the major challenges it faces, such as global warming and an ageing population, and makes the best use of the talents of its citizens.
Industrial innovation and the ERA
Delegates considered how the ERA should develop to best support companies’ activities, and what will drive investment decisions.
One speaker said that companies now think globally, without a special focus on Europe, finding the required expertise wherever it is available. But the social environment and the clarity of local priorities do affect the attractiveness of a region for investment.
Others said that the European Technology Platforms were a useful recent initiative to reduce the risk of engaging in increasingly complex projects.
“The issue is not about moving investments but building ambition that allows investments to be combined to best effect,” said Dearing.
For some, the trend to increasing collaboration has gone too far and become too complex. The requirement for reliable partners involves establishing the basis of trust for long-term partnerships that can respond agilely and produce quick results.