Volume 3

Innovation in manufacturing industry / Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
[1991], ©1991
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Innovation in manufacturing industry / Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    17/292 (page 13)
    In the UK these factors have all tended to work against investment in innovation. For example, the power generation business was affected adversely by the oil crisis, as well as being cyclic in demand. Of necessity this has led to greater priority being given to short-term financial objectives over the longer-term innovation and development of new products. Whilst the position is improving, so is that of the competition, notably in the USA, Europe and Japan who enjoy a more favourable climate for investment and innovation. Personal policies, which are based on professional growth and reward for performance and technical achievement, encourage innovation. The move towards organic or cellular organisational structures rather than the traditional hierarchical structure will also stimulate innovation. These changes are, however, only just emerging in UK industry as a whole. Q2 How active are UK companies in seeking out external technology, especially from overseas? How well do they adapt and apply it? On the whole, UK companies are not active in seeking external technology. The “Not Invented Here” syndrome is very prevalent, except possibly in the small high tech companies. Britain has excelled in science and technology for so long that there is a feeling that we can, and should, do it all ourselves. Hence the will to apply external technology is low in UK industries, and therefore automatically the experience of skill in so doing is low. Unfortunately UK companies often find themselves in the position where they realise that their existing products are no longer attractive because they have not had sufficient resources to carry through innovation. In order to remedy this deficiency they seek to become a licensee of an external company, either within the UK or overseas. As such the licensing process is carried out from a position of weakness rather than strength. The Licencees concerned neither adapt the technology sufficiently, nor apply it to best advantage. Licencing is not an alternative to having sufficient qualified staff in place to carry through innovation. Q3 What are the respective roles played by product development and production engineering in technological innovation? Whilst historically product development and production engineering were largely separate activities, experience has shown that this is very expensive in both product development and production costs. Product development and production engineering are interdependent. Most companies have now integrated these two activities within the product definition process to ensure that the new or improved product meets the market requirements of function, durability and quality at minimum cost. This process should start at the research phase and continue during product development. Product development is, of course, part of technological innovation, but production engineering is essential for technological innovation to be successful. Here Britain does suffer from severe experience and cultural weaknesses. We are not strong in production engineering in the universities; we do not turn out enough production engineers; the status of production engineering in many companies is still too low; project management skills are lacking, they are not specifically taught in universities, they are not sufficiently extolled in industry and experienced project management teams rarely survive in industry because their value is not appreciated. As the product or process with which they have been concerned goes into its commerical phase, the project management team tends to be dispersed into sales, production and marketing, etc., and when the new innovation comes along a fresh project management team has to be assembled. The importance of project management is well recognised within AIRTO, and one of the reasons for the increasing involvement of AIRTO members in industry and the increasing demand for their services, is that AIRTO members do possess skilled project management teams who remain in existence to serve client after client. Q4 How effective are the activities of Government departments in promoting and supporting innovation? Government departments are no longer as effective as they need to be in promoting and supporting innovation, and the attempt to catalyse industry into more direct investment on its own account has not, in AIRTO’s opinion, really succeeded. The recent CBI critique of the R&D Enterprise Initiative shows how inadequate the present resources of the DTI are and also how the motivation has been reduced by the near market philosophies of the present administration. One of the main areas of the Government in promoting innovation has been in defence. This has been the major thrust, and as mentioned earlier. AIRTO members who have had defence contracts have been very effective in transforming the technology so generated into civil application. With the running down of the Establishments, with the proposal to form the Defence Research Agency and especially with the possible lessening of the need for a high defence position due to improving East/West relationships, the ability and willingness of Government to support innovation through defence contracts is itself much less than some ten years ago, and this also is tending to erode the UK technological base. Q5 What are the effects of City attitudes to investment and innovation? City attitudes do not encourage companies to indulge in long-term innovation, especially if this reduces the short-term profit margin. The City has turned away from technology in recent years; there are now fewer