Log in
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.
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.
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.
Knowledge Intensive Business Services are a sub-set of business service firms that are now recognised as being especially innovative and dynamic and, more importantly, act as intermediaries and catalysers of innovation within wider `systems of innovation. As such, they largely complement the knowledge development and diffusion roles of universities and the public science base. Professor Ian Miles at the University of Manchester was the first to research Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) and their systemic roles, which have been recognised and adopted into industrial and innovation policies by the UK Government, the European Commission, the OECD, Tekes in Finland, and others.
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 at the Centre for Business Research (CBR) contributed to the 2010 Hauser report, which advocated the establishment of Technology Innovation Centres (TICs), and played a central part in subsequent discussions and decisions about the realisation of the report into legislation. This led to the UK government announcing a £200m programme to establish these centres, subsequently termed Catapult Centres. To date, seven Catapult Centres have been established (cell therapy, digital economy, future cities, high value manufacturing, renewable energy, satellite applications and transport) and the policy is set to expand in two further areas, energy systems and diagnostics for medicine. In July 2013, a further £185m was committed to the programme. Private sector funds are intended to bring public and private funding together on the programme to over £1 billion in the next few years.
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.
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.
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.
The impact of the research has been to make a substantial contribution to changing the direction of innovation policy at a high level and in some matters of detail in the UK, at EU level and in other OECD countries. This has been done by developing theoretical and empirical underpinnings for demand-side innovation policies, notably in the use of large-scale public procurement budgets to drive innovation. The team's work is heavily cited and quoted in high level policy documents and has led to the design and application of several new types of policy instrument.