COMMENT
innovation Business-focused innovation
We asked Clarke how much the bidders were expected to be clear on the real-life application and potential market or customer for their innovation, or whether some were concentrating more on radical and disruptive technologies but without a specifi c end use in mind.
He told us: “It’s a balance. We don’t want innovation for the sake of innovation. We don’t want a bunch of solutions in search of a problem.
“Having said that, with the Radical Train, we deliberately set a very wide challenge. Part of the appraisal criteria is what the proposition will do for the whole railway system.
“We’ll be looking at the benefi ts versus the challenge of implementation. So we’ll take forward a portfolio, some with a modest benefi t but that are easier to implement, but we’ll also want to encourage things with dramatic benefi ts but that are challenging to implement.
“Radical Train is an example of the approach we envisage adopting generally. We’re not looking to own the intellectual property or designs of the innovator, we’re looking to encourage them so they can create a new market opportunity for themselves. We’re trying to make sure we can see a very clear route to market.
“If we can’t see the possibility at the end of the line that there is a customer to pick up that idea, and possibly also an investor who’d take it to the stage beyond where we can take it, then that’s probably a proposition we’d have to think twice about.
“We’re very focused on trying to make sure we’re helping the innovators to create a product they can sell, and therefore they must have a customer or at least a prospective customer.”
Not the only game in town
The EIT is not the only part of the industry looking at innovation – others include the Technology Strategy Board, RRUKA, and Network Rail’s and London Underground’s own internal teams, for example.
We asked Clarke whether there may be a case for some rationalisation. He admitted that while “it can look confusing from afar”, the different groups and agencies actually co- operate closely to avoid overlap or duplicating each other’s work.
He said: “I regularly meet with people from all of those organisations, and we have a number of forums through which we make sure we’re not duplicating effort. For example, TSB have recently run the Digital Railway competition, which we’re delighted with. We’re
quite
closely related to that, because TSLG are co- funding that with Richard [Kemp-Harper, lead technologist for transport and energy at the TSB], and of course TSLG is my parent group. We specifi cally worked with Richard to make sure he was picking up some of the challenges we saw and we weren’t doing anything that would confuse the landscape around his particular competition.”
Clarke said the EIT has been trialling a new interactive tool for its website that companies can use to work out which competition or funding scheme could be best for their own particular needs, which gives out a specifi c person’s name and contact details.
Widespread support and engagement
Clarke empahsised the high-level support the EIT has, with the Government very keen to push UK innovation. Its own initial funding came from the Government, and transport minister Simon Burns namechecked the organisation in his speech at Railtex. “He really
emphasised the importance of innovation to the Government,” Clarke said.
The EIT is also keen to ensure its next round of investment and funding is well-targeted, so has been undertaking a supply chain capability study and engagement project.
“We’re trying to make sure we as an industry have a much better knowledge of the supply chain and its strengths, and we’ll use that to help prioritise our next round of investment. If we understand what the UK is really good at – or could be really good at – and we support that, then we’re hopefully building a virtuous circle.
“So if they’re already good at it, they stay really good at it and keep ahead of the competition, and if they could be really good at it, they become so and start to create new employment opportunities, new economic growth. That’s a very important part of what we’re doing.
“We have two fundamental objectives: one is to improve the railway, the other is to support economic growth.
“That fi ts very well into what Simon Burns was saying [at Railtex]. Once we’re armed with this knowledge of what the supply chain is good at, and what UK railways are good at, then as an industry we can have a much more grown-up conversation with the Government about how they can help us be even better.
“This is exactly the sort of approach that other industries, like automotive and aerospace, have very successfully followed.”
There is more from David Clarke in our coverage of ATOC’s ‘Future Train’ event, where he was a guest speaker, on page 56.
www.futurerailway.org FOR MORE INFORMATION
rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 13 | 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100