Log in
Research conducted at UCL on innovation and innovation systems in Central and Eastern European countries is rooted in a neo-Schumpeterian perspective rather than in mainstream transition perspectives. This research has impacted policy process and analysis through the lead researcher's extensive participation in high-level advisory activities for international organisations (World Bank, European Commission, UN Economic Commission for Europe, etc.) and national governments in Central and Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Belarus, Ukraine, Slovakia, Slovenia). This led to significant changes in research policy and funding, e.g. a new call within the European Union's FP7 programme and changed innovation strategies in Slovenia and Belarus.
Work undertaken at the University of Manchester (UoM) forms a central plank of the UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) `Economics Paper 15' (EP15), and provides key support to the growth agenda championed by the Coalition Government (2010-date); with the `Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth' (IRSG) published on 8th December 2011. More explicitly, IRSG prioritises business research and development (R&D) in areas where the UK excels, whilst also seeking to develop a wider UK innovation ecosystem that includes universities alongside key knowledge producers. Impact can be observed in recent developments in R&D investment support, and in the strengthening of stronger programmes and policies to support innovation. The research also features strongly in European Union (EU) research, and within the context of shaping the Australian innovation agenda.
Governments and international agencies have traditionally understood innovation to comprise the production and marketing of new products or processes that lead to economic growth and which emerge from corporate research and development (R&D) expenditure. The research underpinning this case has shown that innovation is a more complex process than was previously understood and takes different forms in different sectors. It has led the British Government and the OECD to measure, and to collect data on, innovation in new and more sophisticated ways; and to offer new guidance to firms on the factors that drive innovation and the most appropriate forms of innovation in different sectors.
A Responsible Innovation Framework developed by Prof Owen is transforming how Research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) fund and deliver programmes of science and innovation. The Framework recently became a central element of EPSRC's research policy. It has supported key governance decisions by EPSRC concerning the first, contentious UK field trial of climate engineering technology. It was embedded in EPSRC's Delivery Plan and Doctoral Training Centres, and TSB's Synthetic Biology Roadmap, Industrial Feasibility and Innovation and Knowledge Centre programmes. It has been an important input into a restructuring by the European Commission of the European Research Area, underpinning its Horizon 2020 Strategy and Innovation Union.
Research undertaken at the Centre for Research in Innovation Management (CENTRIM) has demonstrated the company characteristics that contribute to successful innovation. The research provided the core body of knowledge used by the Managing Innovation training programme that has been used by more than 5,000 managers worldwide. The programme presents the findings of research in powerful, accessible and usable ways. It has been adopted by some of the world's most innovative companies, including Medtronic, Cisco Systems and Abbott Laboratories, to stimulate personal development and organisational change. A Managing Innovation train-the-trainer programme has been developed that has provided intensive development for certified trainers and facilitated the roll-out of this programme through Australia, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Poland, Mexico, Tanzania, USA and Venezuela.
Research by SPRU — Science and Technology Policy Research — at the University of Sussex changed the way in which government records and supports innovative activities and led to new policy measures, including the Innovation Index, the Public Services Innovation Laboratory, the Whitehall Innovation Hub and the Government Annual Innovation Report. These policy initiatives address SPRU's research findings that innovation was previously only narrowly conceived in policy, being seen as an activity driven by commercial R&D. The new policies, which generate benefits in both business and the public sector, are underpinned by SPRU research that revealed areas of innovation in the economy previously ignored, for example in innovation in the public sector and in the creative industries.
During a long collaboration with IBM, Professor Gann's Innovation and Entrepreneurship Group's research on organisational structure led to a better strategy for IBM to manage its external networks and open innovation. The group's research established a blueprint to recast IBM senior engineers and technologists as innovation brokers. Convinced by this research, IBM committed to retrain 600 Senior Technologists as Client Technical Advisors and Industry Architects, working with clients to leverage IBM's technical capacity and develop innovations meeting user needs. Gann's group then developed and delivered a bespoke Executive Education programme to train these IBM staff members in Europe, the US and China.
Research at the University of Manchester on the changing dynamics of defence technological innovation led to policy and practice change including: a changed approach to the strategic management of technology in a leading UK based defence and aerospace multinational company contributing to a radical shift in its funding and a new emphasis on open innovation (BAE Systems); the decision by the Swedish government not to pursue the privatisation of its government defence research laboratories (FOI); and contributing to the development of European Commission policy on security industrial policy. The lead researcher advised key stakeholders using the evidence base from his research through commissioned consultancy, high-level advisory meetings and workshops, industry round tables and conferences, via trade journal articles, using the media in evidence and sessions at the European Parliament.
Our research on life-science innovation, its regulation and governance has led to three systematic frameworks with which we conduct `action research' with decision-makers in government and companies: TARGET, which supports regional R&D policy-making; AGIT, which focuses on improving policy and the regulation of life-science innovation; and ALSIS, which allows decision-makers in companies systematically to work through the decisions they will need to make in innovation processes. Users of all three frameworks in both government and companies testify to the way in which they have led to improved decision-making. Our lead researcher, Tait, has applied insights from AGIT in high-level policy roles in areas such as synthetic biology and cell-based therapies, and others involved testify to the impact of her interventions. Other evidence of impact includes companies finding this research valuable enough to partner with us in it.
Research on the environmental safety and toxicity of nanomaterials in fishes has had a global impact across both government and industry contributing to:
(i) Consensus building on biological effects allowing regulatory agencies/governments to make proper decisions on the hazard of nanomaterials to farmed fish and wildlife.
(ii) Critical evaluation of the internationally agreed process of toxicity testing to determine whether the current legislative test methods are fit for purpose and acceptable to the aquaculture industry.
(iii) Identification of national/international research priorities and policies via work with the OECD and the US Government.
(iv) Influencing government policy to support training and information for industry.