After 24 hours, I still believe that the Witty report is welcome and timely, focussing on the
opportunities for growth that would be generated if the academic power of UK
universities were even more effectively coupled to innovation and wealth
creation in the private sector. The report is very
perceptive, recognising I think all of the key issues including the “granularity” of
business and academic activities, the special role of SMEs in driving
innovation, and the challenges faced by government in determining the best
strategies for effective deployment of precious resources to maximise benefits
for the UK. These challenges are
significant, for example the relative immaturity of the LEPs, but they are not
insurmountable and many of these new challenges have arisen precisely because
of steady progress over the past decade.
One area of debate raised by Witty is the potential value of sectoral (and specifically regional sectoral) strengths that are mapped against available academic expertise, i.e. is it a good thing to invest tax payers money where University expertise is co-located with an innovative industrial base? The easy answer is "yes", but I think Sir Andrew is correct to caution against this being seen as the only factor that should determine funding (not least because the greatest added value is often found with wider national or even international partnerships). Does this mean that I think city regions and larger geographical clusters are a distraction? No, I and Sir Andrew I think agree that regional strengths are often very important determinants of future growth potential. One example of this is the tendency of established companies (and their supply chains) to gradually embed skills and knowledge in a region.
My long experience of working with industry in the medical devices and health technologies sector, and the additional experience of coordinating an S&T mission to Texas and Minnesota to investigate the impact of converging technologies on medical devices, together confirm for me the value of geographical clusters. In brief, one key reason for their importance is the creation of a regional community who populate all parts of the supply chain and who frequently interact for mutual benefit (the creation of LEP sectoral groups being a logical evolutionary step). For example, in Minnesota I frequently met entrepreneurs and employees of local companies who had originally worked for - and been professionally developed by - Medtronic. The same is true in Yorkshire, where many talented people in the medical devices and health technologies sector either work for or used to work for our large companies (such as Smith & Nephew and J&J Depuy Synthes). Despite recent structural changes in many of our larger companies, their impact on the region remains significant, and the value of the experienced staff they generate should not be understated. This is particularly true in the medical devices and health technology sector, where the supply chains are sophisticated and the regulatory environment is complex (and rarely fixed). I will say more about this tomorrow, and consider whether or not the Witty Report has underestimated the value of large companies versus SMEs in driving innovation and growth.
One area of debate raised by Witty is the potential value of sectoral (and specifically regional sectoral) strengths that are mapped against available academic expertise, i.e. is it a good thing to invest tax payers money where University expertise is co-located with an innovative industrial base? The easy answer is "yes", but I think Sir Andrew is correct to caution against this being seen as the only factor that should determine funding (not least because the greatest added value is often found with wider national or even international partnerships). Does this mean that I think city regions and larger geographical clusters are a distraction? No, I and Sir Andrew I think agree that regional strengths are often very important determinants of future growth potential. One example of this is the tendency of established companies (and their supply chains) to gradually embed skills and knowledge in a region.
My long experience of working with industry in the medical devices and health technologies sector, and the additional experience of coordinating an S&T mission to Texas and Minnesota to investigate the impact of converging technologies on medical devices, together confirm for me the value of geographical clusters. In brief, one key reason for their importance is the creation of a regional community who populate all parts of the supply chain and who frequently interact for mutual benefit (the creation of LEP sectoral groups being a logical evolutionary step). For example, in Minnesota I frequently met entrepreneurs and employees of local companies who had originally worked for - and been professionally developed by - Medtronic. The same is true in Yorkshire, where many talented people in the medical devices and health technologies sector either work for or used to work for our large companies (such as Smith & Nephew and J&J Depuy Synthes). Despite recent structural changes in many of our larger companies, their impact on the region remains significant, and the value of the experienced staff they generate should not be understated. This is particularly true in the medical devices and health technology sector, where the supply chains are sophisticated and the regulatory environment is complex (and rarely fixed). I will say more about this tomorrow, and consider whether or not the Witty Report has underestimated the value of large companies versus SMEs in driving innovation and growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment