Upload
t
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BREAKING THI3 MOULD MOBILE VCE'S APPROACH TO COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
Tony Warwick
INTRODUCTION The role of collaborative partnership in Research activities is generally accepted without question as positive, yet in
practice such partnerships take a wide variety of forms. To treat all collaboration as if automatically good should is
considered dangerous, in that can lead to complacency, waste and ultimately poor results.
In the field of Mobile and Personal Communications, Mobile VCE has sought to take a fresh approach to collaborative
research tailored specifically to the needs of an industry facing a period of unprecedented growth and fundamental
change. While not offered as a formula appropriate to all industries, this paper outlines the benefits derived tiom the
Mobile VCE approach to collaboration in comparison with other common mechanisms. Some fundamental questions
regarding the purpose and objectives of collaboration are posed, and a number of established practices challenged.
ASSUMPTIONS In preparing this paper, some assumptions relating to the nature of research have necessarily been made. These are:
I .
2.
3.
That technical research is essential for progress, success and survival.
That research resources are finite and always insufficient to meet demand.
That research carries signifcant attendant risk.
In plainer words, like it or not we must carry out research, we can never do as much as we would wish, and much of it
will bear no h i t . All of the comments relate primarily to the Telecommunications industry, though may be applied to
others.
WHY COLLABORATE IN RESEARCH?
Organisations are motivated to collaborate in their research for a wide variety of reasons.
powerful, they are not always good. Here are some common reasons by way of example:
While these are often
Some good reasons to collaborate
For commercial benefit. To pool resources. To advance standards.
To get more research done.
Some poor reasons to collaborate
Because everyone's doing it. To see what others are up to. To chase a source of funding.
To avoid research.
Mobile VCE, Ringway House, Bell Road, Daneshill, Basingstoke, Hants RG24 8FB email: [email protected]
3,1 0 1999 The Institution of Electrii Engineers. Printed and published by the IEE, Savoy Place, London WCPR OBL, UK.
It is worth briefly examining these reasons, good and poor.
Commercial Benejit J
For an industrial concern to gain access to what it lacks in return for something it has is entirely legitimate, and
this is as true for research as it is for products or distribution. Indeed, this principle can equally be applied to
Universities, where recognition of research weaknesses should be seen as a sign of maturity rather than fragility.
Pooling of Resources J
Provided that the common objectives are clearly defined and equally shared, the simple benefits of pooling
resources are clear. The pooled resources must be complementary, however, and the temptation to pool all
resources, just because they exist, must be resisted.
Pursuit of Standards J
Regional and global standards have played such a vital role in recent development of the Communications
industry that no elaboration is necessary. Collaborative research can be a powerful aid to speeding up the
standards process, however. In the long run, joint research effort targetted at deriving the best solutions prove
quicker and more efficient than laborious comparative evaluation of individually derived ideas - getting the
right answer is ultimately more important than whose answer it may be.
To get more research done J
f i s appears a simple point on first consideration, but is in fact rather more complex requiring a balanced
interpretation.
Firstly, there is a simple argument that to avoid duplication of research effort leads directly to efficiency and
speed of results, and this is difficult to dispute in the context of an industry faced with more technical
opportunities and challenges than it is able to address. Purists would then counter by observing that to place all
of the research eggs in one basket is folly. Parallel research teams, active as competitors and rivals, are essential
to make sure that research does not get trapped in blind alleys, they would claim.
The balance of this argument must take account of scale. In practice, research collaborations, however
successhl, are based upon some regional or national premise and are not unique in the world. While the topic
of the research may be global, collaborative organisations will always have rivals from other regions, and this
ultimately provides an important measure of diversity. Healthy global competition among specialist research
collaborations provides far more security against the blind alley than token competition among isolated, sub-
optimum teams.
Because everyone's doing it X
It is always comforting to jump onto a bandwagon, but to embark on collaborative research solely because others
are engaged in it is likely to disappoint. Collaborative research requires a clear definition and understanding of
shared research goals, and to benefit from the results requires positive participative action on the part of all
collaborators. In short, organisations will only reap if they are prepared to sow.
312
To see what others are up to X
Successful research collaborators understand and accept the give-and-take nature of the partnership, and derive
benefit from it: While the intellectual contribution of partners must necessarily vary, any organisation
attempting only to take will soon fmd it futile. In research there is no hiding place, as contribution is measured
in the most demanding of all currencies - the judgement of peers.
Because funding is available X
This is at once the most seductive and the least valid reason to embark on a programme of collaborative research.
It is not uncommon for organisations to spend valuable resource - fmancial and human - engaging in joint
research programmes simply because support funding is available, making the research appear less costly and
hence more efficient. It is self-evident that research should be carried out by any organisation in order of its
priority, but how often will the priorities of individual companies correspond precisely with those of a funded
programme?
To avoid research X - - Organisations have been known to join a collaborative research programme and then take no further action, as if
the association of their name with the work automatically enriched their company. Thankfully, this attitude is
not too common in this industry, but cases have arisen where companies have entered into partnerships, yet
neglected to make their own staff aware of the fact. It is easy to dismiss this as plain bad management, but it
should be recognised that, even in the best regulated of organisations, activities of longer duration, where
commitments extend beyond the immediate planning or budget cycle, are very easily lost sight of.
WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT MOBILE VCE? Mobile VCE is a commercial organisation, owned by its Members. Its origin lies in the Government's Foresight
Challenge initiative which identified the need to secure the UK's strong position in Mobile and Personal
Communications by establishing a Virtual Centre of Excellence dedicated to longer-term pre-competitive research, but
its success is a result of its unique approach to the collaborative process.
Because Mobile VCE is an autonomous body, it is able to set its own priorities as agreed by consensus of its Members.
From these defined priorities broadly-based programmes of research are planned, commissioned and managed such that
all Members are able to share a direct interest in them. Intellectual property rights are handled in a uniform manner
under the terms of a single 'light touch' agreement covering all Mobile VCE research. Members' contributory funds, in
the form of annual subscriptions, are pooled into a single large 'Core' research fund which is used to address the research
needs according to the agreed priorities.
This approach can be successful, however, only if three important conditions are met:
1. The number of Members must be fairly large, so that the overall resource is large enough to address a
broad research portfolio which in turn is assured to address all of the top priorities of Industrial Members.
2. The Members must collectively represent a sound balance of the industry.
3. The activities must never extend beyond the bounds of pre-competitive research.
313
In fact, when the formation of Mobile VCE was presented to the industry during 1996, so strong was the response that on
its formation in November 1996 Mobile VCE was already assured of meeting these vital conditions. Table 1 shows the
current Membership of Mobile VCE, and illustrates clearly how the overwhelming majority of the Mobile and Personal
Communications industry is represented.
Table 1. Mobile VCE Members
Industrial Alcatel Members Cellnet/BT
Dolphin Telecommunications Ericsson Fujitsu Lucent Technologies MatsushitalPanasonic Mobile Systems International Motorola NEC Nokia Nortel NTL CableTel One-Zone Orange
Racal Radiocommunications Agency SIMOCO Sony Texas Instruments Toshiba Vodafone
Philips
Academic University of Bradford Members University of Bristol
University of Surrey King's College, University of London Strathclyde University
Associate Academic University of Edinburgh Members University of Southampton
By combining the collective strength of the
Industrial Members with the collective
expertise of the Academic partners an
extremely effective and efficient
organisation has been developed. Set
against several important measures of its
performance, quantitative and qualitative,
Mobile VCE has shown itself to be capable
of providing a simpler, more inclusive, more
transparent and far more efficient approach
to collaborative research.
The paper presented will detail those
specific areas where Mobile VCE's approach
is providing a 'win-win' outcome. In
particular, the financial advantages achieved
will be explained, illustrating how a funds gearing of more than forty times is achieved
for Industrial Members, together with
si&icant improvements over the
customary funding routes for Government.
Academic Members too are shown to benefit
over other schemes as a result of the
commercial nature of the research contracts.
Direct comparison will be made between
Mobile VCE and a number of other research
initiatives, and the advantages and
disadvantages assessed.
CONCLUSION While not applicable to all industries or in all situations, the benefits of Mobile VCE's particular approach to
collaborative partnership have been clearly demonstrated. In concluding question is posed: "Why is t lus approach not
adopted more widely?"
314