Managing and recovering from the coronavirus crisis could be the catalyst for a long-term digitally driven partnership between academia, industry and government. Ian Risk, CTO of the Centre for Modelling & Simulation (CFMS), outlines the importance of innovation and joined up thinking now and in the future.
In recent weeks we have experienced seismic changes within our working and home lives, changes which it’s hard to imagine could have be realised in such a short time. The phrase ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ has never been more true – but, to some degree it is not invention that has occurred, it is innovation.
Everyone from the top levels of government, industry and education have ‘gone digital’ overnight, at a scale many thought would not be possible
Innovation in how the industrial, technology and engineering communities have come together to produce much needed ventilators for the NHS. But also invention with, for example, University College London engineers and clinicians working with the Mercedes Formula One team to develop a breathing aid to help Covid-19 patients.
Digital transformation has been at the heart of this change. Everyone from the top levels of government, industry and education have ‘gone digital’ overnight, at a scale many thought would not be possible. The strange times we find ourselves in are demonstrating the maturity of these technologies and, hopefully, will pave the way for more widespread adoption across industry. This may be the catalyst for change as the old working paradigms are cast aside through commercial necessity.
In discussions with industry, there is a real appetite to work together, to push forward digital technology development and implementation as a collective. But all too often this collaborative effort is hampered by rules and regulations. For many large OEMs there is a real dichotomy in the desire to be more agile and adaptive whilst they become heavily constrained by large scale information technology solutions in an effort to reduce risk.
The need for safety and security remains paramount in the face of cybercrime. However, if we are to bring about change and realise the potential of digitalisation at an industrial scale, there is a need to be far more open. Building walls of any form, physical or virtual, hampers the exchange of data, information and knowledge. These are the building blocks of the digital world and it is the speed at which we can convert that knowledge into product that matters. If we are to achieve change, trust must be established not only in the data itself (especially if critical decisions are based upon it) but also that those using the data are doing so for the right reasons. Scandals such as Cambridge Analytica have done much to reduce our confidence in such things. Ultimately, this brings about the need for behavioural change within industry and policy makers. It is a cultural shift of epic proportions, but if we are to realise the potential of the digital era, it must happen.
Whilst the UK Government has been a true advocate of the move to digital technology and provided funding for initiatives such as Made Smarter to help bring about that change, the impact is hampered by speed of implementation and imposed operational constraints. Programmes often take months of consultation, evaluation and contract preparation before collaborations can be initiated, whilst the digital community itself does not stand still. The skills required to bring about such change are in short supply and we must empower them. Most exist in academia, research organisations and the start up community who are far less constrained by large scale infrastructure investment and yet limitations on the levels of participation in funded collaborations are generally imposed. This creates silos of activity, , in academia, for example, and restricts exchange between those that are moving at pace, reducing the impact they can have on industry and the effectiveness of the whole ecosystem.
To build a new, sustainable world we will need science and engineering more than ever, with a workforce that is fit for the digital era
To achieve the sought after innovation, you need invention, education and implementation. Unfortunately these elements are all managed by different government departments with different budgets that rarely align to achieve a collective goal. In the new world that will emerge from the current crisis, we need to ensure that joined up thinking and action exists within all stakeholders. Without this the opportunity to rebuild engineering and our economy, runs the risk of being lost in bureaucracy.
Recent events have highlighted the fragility of our modern world, powerful nations being moved to the brink of recession in the blink of an eye. To build a new, sustainable world we will need science and engineering more than ever, with a workforce that is fit for the digital era. As has been said so often in dealing with the current challenge, we are only going to achieve this together – just as we have seen with the drive to provide the NHS with more ventilators – in a true, agile partnership between academia, industry and government.
Ian Risk is Chief Technology Officer (CTO) at the not for profit digital engineering specialist CFMS (Centre for modelling and simulation)
Good point about innovation. The technologies have been around (and used, to some extent) for many years.
What is important is that, now, the barriers are reduced – and some politicians and lobbying groups may gain some understanding of the benefits, opportunities and needs (well they MAY…).
Obviously remote working and collaboration technologies (synchronous and asynchronous) exist but they are not well appreciated – possibly because managers and politicians often have a limited understanding or perhaps appreciation of the technology issues – much like when the web became available and there was the boom (and bust) of Dot-com.
Using Skype , for example would be very limited for remote (and distributed) teaching classes, lectures and examination – or for other forms of meetings. Some technologies are simple broadcast – but others enable duplex (both ways) broadcast- more suited for interactive meetings. Compatibility and easy (& affordable -such as bandwidth costs) availability of technologies reduces the barriers to implementation and use (much like the freely available browsers for the internet).
I believe that issues do need to be addressed as to what technologies (shared desktop or shared video, including images of desktop) are used (eg on the shop floor as well as the corporate meeting).
I have used multiple cameras, cheap stereo cameras and thermal cameras to facilitate augmented meetings – which, without the technology , gave added value to the shared view or diagnostics.
I believe this us a people oriented view – considering how people can work better and easier through technologies; reducing costs of meetings (and arrangement costs) and making them better meetings; it is somewhat different from the “madesmarter” idea; not oriented with people using technology but with people using technology to assist themselves.
The costs of commuting (wasted life & time, travel costs – and sharing diseases) can be reduced (though if this reduces travel to London – what value HS2??) – and significant advantages may accrue (running, for example, a virtual lecture or training course or workshop, with participants all around the country – just could be a lot cheaper in lectures and students).
We have all seen webinars, for example, and they are a shadow of the real thing.
We have all had those emails which soon bloat as people add comments and reply.
Appropriate technologies are available for collaboration and remote working but will the workers/teachers/students be able to persuade managers of the advantages – both to the business and the workers (though schools are all closed – so they might well miss out on this) – of working better and more profitably. There’s the rub.