Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Lecturer in Engineering Management | Developing Open Engineering | Researching Innovation Process, Strategic Management, Systems Design and Futures Literacy
Having completed my PhD via an on-line final defence (due to Covid-19), I have been asked by various colleagues to share my experience in order to help anyone preparing for a similar examination.
This summary is written with some internal references pertaining to the University of Edinburgh, but I am sure similar information regarding the use of virtual communication tools is readily available with respect to other universities.
If you have any questions, please, feel free to get in touch with me via e-mail or social media.
There is also a wealth of peer knowledge available about viva preparation at the brilliant Viva Survivors website.
Good luck!
PS: Big thanks go to many who advised me before viva, especially my supervisors (Niki Vermeulen, Alessandro Rosiello, Robin Williams), peers who have already done it, other (senior) colleagues, friends and family. I would like to also thank my really kind and helpful examiners (Marina Candi and Andrew Webster) and the amazing non-examining chair (Lawrence Dritsas)
Matjaz Vidmar, Convention Edinburgh Ambassador, is a postgraduate research student at The Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation at The University of Edinburgh. Based at The Royal Observatory Edinburgh, Matjaz’s work is closely linked to projects run by The Institute for Astronomy and STFC – Science and Technology Facilities Council’s UK Astronomy Technology Centre (ATC).
Edinburgh’s rich history of scientific and technological development is a great stepping stone to unlock future potential. From famous centres of research, such as the now re-opened City Observatory on Calton Hill, to locations connected to leading people, like the office of Nobel-prize winner Peter Higgs, and even famous attractions, such as Camera Obscura – Edinburgh is filled to the brim with historical spaces and cultural reference points. In fact, you can do several tours around the city centre to explore sites of historical significance to (to help you along, you can download the free Curious Edinburgh app).
Are there any notable historical figures in particular from Edinburgh?
Astronomy, in particular, is responsible for a rich tapestry of scientists, inventions and inspiration! In 2019, we are in an especially celebratory moon, since we mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Piazzi Smyth, a famous (and perhaps somewhat misunderstood) Victorian astronomer. A special exhibition about his life and work is currently on display at Nelson Monument, an “upturned telescope”-shaped tower designed by the architect Robert Burn, where to this day, as Piazzi Smyth set-up in 1853, every day at 1 pm exact a time ball drops from the pole at the top. An interesting curiosity these days, the time ball was of vital importance to ships in the port of Leith to adjust their clocks for navigation. Unfortunately, with the Scottish weather, the ball was not always seen, so a blast from the 1 o’clock gun from Edinburgh Castle was added in 1861 – an unmissable event if you anywhere are near Princes Street at 1 pm!
What are the major Astronomical Institutions in the city?
Home to the (Royal) Astronomical Institution since 1811, Edinburgh had its fair share in the most critical developments over the past 200 years. Now called Royal Observatory Edinburghand located on Blackford Hill, its successor is still a major site for scientific research in all areas of Astronomy and Space Science and technological development of largest ground- and space-based telescopes. For instance, scientist and engineers here are leading the design of one of the main instruments, called MIRI, on the path-breaking James Webb Space Telescope. With the recently-opened Higgs Centre for Innovation, a joint European and UK Space Agencies’ certified entrepreneurial incubator, Edinburgh Astronomy is not only a feature of the past – it is also open to the businesses of the future.
Are there any upcoming space related events to look out for?
The inaugural Space Enlightenment Festival, amongst other things marking another 2019 anniversary – 50 years since first humans landed on the Moon. Bringing together a varied set of people and activities, we are discussing the human perspectives on these advances, for instance in our upcoming Scotland on Space science fiction and essays publication, the Visions of Scotland’s Space Exploration seminar series and Space has Landed in Scotland mini-exhibition. Not just this Summer, walking though the city at any time you are met with our rich astronomical past, present and (no doubt!) future at every step and whether you are in Edinburgh for a day or have lived here all your life – we invite you to join us on a journey to explore it!
With more satellites being built in Scotland than pretty much any other place outside the USA, our so-called “Space Glen” is part of a new commercial space race with plenty of opportunities for scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs. The satellites built here might be the pocket versions of their more famous counterparts providing you with the GPS signal, satellite TV or that Google Earth image, but they are mightily capable and leading a “New Space” revolution across the industry. Cheaper (consumer) electronics and a wider than ever (on-line) pool of expertise and funding is enabling these 10cmx10cmx30cm (CubeSat) and 5cmx5cmx15cm (PocketCube) boxes, once they are orbiting the Earth, to collect pieces of information about atmospheric and land features as well as human activity such as agriculture, shipping and built environment.
However, the hardware is not the only thing that makes these developments possible – the trick is what you do with the data received! Here, Edinburgh’s world-leading Earth Observation cluster comes to play. Combining the unparalleled expertise in monitoring the Earth from the School of Geosciences and the globally recognised data analytics capability around the School of Informatics, Edinburgh University’s scientists are helping develop several dozen applications to enable smarter urban living and more sustainable and future-resilient management of our ecosystem. Connected together with SMEs through innovative networks, the fruits of this work are shared with governments, companies and public users, to make better decisions about policy, investment and every-day life choices. These range from the tree growth and rates of deforestation to how much heat is “leaking” from our tenements, often using openly accessible data from flagship international efforts, such as the European Union and European Space Agency’s Copernicus programme.
Furthermore, through the Data Driven Innovation programme, designed to make Edinburgh the data capital of Europe, a new generation of collaborative research is being developed through the pioneering Living Laboratory approach. Supported by innovation intermediaries, such as the Space Network Scotland and Higgs Centre for Innovation, a dedicated team is planning to bring together science and engineering, businesses and local residents, in order to co-design solutions to most difficult challenges facing 21st century, from green mobility and energy efficiency to smarter urban design and better living spaces.
However, proving that is actually all rocket science, Edinburgh’s own rocket company, Skyrora, is leading the design and manufacturing of the dedicated launch systems to take the aforementioned small satellites into low-Earth orbit, and do it cheaper and more ecologically friendly than their competitors! With the exciting developments of UK spaceports in the North of Scotland, these rockets (if you look hard enough, you can even see some of the prototypes and models in a shop-window on Princess Street) may soon be taking off Scottish satellites “to the stars”!
A schema of the Scottish New Space Industry value chain/cycle, covering all aspects of economic activities – from upstream satellite manufacture to downstream data applications – making Scotland a “one-stop-shop” for space solutions.
My exciting journey with the Innovation Caucus started one rainy morning in Spring 2017, when by chance I spotted an advertisement for internship applicants doing the rounds over email. This was followed by an email from my supervisor, asking all of his PhD students if we have seen the call and whether we were interested. Not being someone who declines any opportunity, my reply was immediate – yes!
Having found out about the Innovation Caucus and its work some months previously, when putting together a notice for the departmental newsletter about our engagement with policy, I was really excited by the opportunity to further translate my research interest into useful knowledge for policy-making. Having applied and made it through to the interview, I was ecstatic! Speaking to Tim and his team was interesting and inspiring, and once I was offered the internship, it took even less time than before to say “yes” and accept it.
As I am really passionate about my PhD research topic (social aspects of technology development and innovation) and my subject matter (Space Industry – yes, the stuff “up there”) I took quite some convincing to take on new challenges within the Innovation Caucus brief. In part, this was because I really wanted to create a new space of shared knowledge and sense-making, i.e. to challenge the theoretical concepts with empirical findings and policy realities – and I could only envisage doing so within the topics about which I was already somewhat knowledgeable.
However, in discussion with Innovate UK and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), I did eventually reshape my interest into developing a broader framework and typology of innovation intermediation in any geographically bound sectoral system of innovation. This was of value to Innovate UK, since it supported the ongoing development of their portfolio of Catapults and Knowledge Transform Networks, as well as other projects and policies.
This experience was a great lesson for me, not only in working with and delivering for a policy-making system, but also in expanding my own research interests into domains I did initially find uncomfortable. Presenting the headline findings of this work at one of the most prestigious innovation conferences in the world, DRUID (2018), helped me appreciate the power of broader generalisation of academic knowledge, in order to achieve more substantial societal impact.
The lessons learned and experiences from this project also enabled me to engage better with new concepts, unfamiliar settings and unknown stakeholders in my subsequent work. For instance, these skills have proved critical in working on a consultancy project for the OECD and as a Research Assistant in academia.
I have to express my big thanks to Tim and his team for their support and mentorship and to all involved with the Innovation Caucus, particularly Innovate UK and the ESRC teams involved with my internship. It was your determination and generosity that turned this project from a 3-month desk-job into a transformational professional journey.
I was delighted to contribute to the Edinburgh University’s Teaching Matters blog again, writing about using research as a tool for teaching and learning co-creation.
I have been invited to deliver a series of knowledge exchange and outreach events for Orkney International Science Festival (OISF) between 6th-12th September 2018. This is my third appearance at OISF, having visited the 2015 and 2017 editions of the festival.
I am particularly excited that though some of the events I will deliver will be held on Orkney mainland I will yet again also visit some of the more remote islands in the archipelago.
Hence, on 8th and 9th September I will be visiting the islands of North Ronalsday and Sanday, where I will speak to the local community about going From Standing Stones to Blasting Rockets: Scotland is Off to Space!
The talk is based on my extensive ESRC-funded doctoral research of the development of (“New”) Space Industry in Scotland, in particular examining emerging networks, innovation intermediaries and changes to new product development processes. With the recent announcement of UK Government investment into the creation of vertical launch capability in the North of Scotland, this is a particularly topical contribution to the discussion in many communities.
Furthermore, I have also been invited to present some thoughts on the deep connections between scientific research, arts and society as explored through my participation in the recent Social Dimensions of Outer Space network’s Edinburgh Futures Institute project. I will outline the main points from my essay on the topic in a talk entitled Universe: The Love Story, as part of the skyranMoon exhibition in Stromness on 11th September (7pm).
Finally, in partnership with a young team of rocket engineers from Spacelink Institute, we will have a plenary discussion about the future of small-scale spaceflight in an event called Make it, Fire it Into Orbit! in King Street Halls in Kirkwall (Wednesday, 12th September, 11.30am). Details and tickets here.
As is my practice with such visits, I will also speak to pupils of local schools, both on Sanday as well as at Kirkwall Grammar School, to discuss a variety of opportunities to engage in science, technology and innovation, including studying it form a social-scientific perspective.
As such, I am delighted to be yet again complementing a variety of colleagues form the College of Science and Engineering, including Prof Peter Higgs, who will support the festival with a host of other events and activities.
I am very grateful for the generous support of my OISF 2018 visit provided by the festival, as well as Science, Technology and Innovation Studies Group at the University of Edinburgh.
Matjaz Vidmar – research student in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies Space Exploration and Industry in Scotland at The University of Edinburgh; science communicator at the Royal Observatory Edinburgh and elsewhere; occasional blogger and writer; involved in many “out-there” ideas, including a project proposing a geostationary space station.
Pippa Goldschmidt – a “recovering Astronomer” with a PhD from The University of Edinburgh/Royal Observatory Edinburgh; worked on Outer Space policy in the UK Government, including puzzling questions such as “What is Outer Space and where does it start?”; now an acclaimed writer about science in fiction. Winner of 2016 Suffrage Science award (for women in science). Author of novels, short stories, poems and essays.
How does your CoDI show fit in with your research?
The exciting CoDI show we are hatching together fits perfectly with Matjaz’s work in trying to use arts to understand the role and importance of Space Exploration and Industry for society at large and Pippa’s creative work on how science and technology inspires and informs artistic expression.
Why is the topic ‘dangerous’?
The topic dares ask a question about what are we humans doing in and to Outer Space? In the not very distant future, humans will for the first time visit another planet (Mars). Later on we will likely establish some interplanetary outposts.
What does this mean for society down here on Earth? By reaching so far away from our planet, are we taking enough care over the possible harm we might cause to other planetary environment and life, and the possible harm we might do to ourselves?
Are Outer Space resources ours for the taking? Even if they are – who are “we”? Will it be whoever first plants the flag or do we come to a broader agreement on sharing?
How do we make sure we don’t choke our own planet in Space Debris, which is bits of disused space craft and rockets already swarming around the Earth and possibly increasing exponentially in the next few years?
Does it rightly have this label? Is the topic unjustly controversial?
If Space Debris starts raining down on Earth, as outlined in one of Pippa’s stories, it will get pretty dangerous pretty quickly! And that is only one of the topics we will explore in the show! It may also get very dangerous for Space Dodos (whatever they are)!
The severity of danger is really in the eyes of the beholder, but we think we need to have an inspired and inspiring conversation about the scientific, technological and societal implications of exploration of Outer Space and how it touches upon other aspects of the everyday life of us Earthlings (as well as Martians!).
Describe your show in three words
Serious Space Fun
Why should the unenlightened Fringe-goer attend your show? What will they learn?
They will learn a bit about what we are up to in Outer Space and what possible futures await us.
There will be examples of how Scotland is “reaching for the stars” and how it contributes to more space waste. We will discuss whether humans are ready for space travel and if so, where you should buy your ticket!
We will talk about science, technology, ethics, politics, achievements, beliefs and imagination, mix them all together and throw in a big measure of drama and humour.
We will read some short stories and see if we can disentangle facts about Outer Space from Science Fiction.
To sum up, we will have some serious fun with some serious issues – and all in the name of science!
Pippa is a Royal Observatory Edinburgh graduate and has later worked both at Imperial College, London, as well as in civil service, including on outer space policy. She has since been writing fiction about science and scientists, including a novel about an astronomer who discovers the Universe and loses her mind, ‘The Falling Sky’ and a collection of short stories ‘The need for Better Regulation of Outer Space’. Pippa has been writer in residence in several science and social science research centres and is currently Visiting Fellow at the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies Group (my “home” department) at the University of Edinburgh.
In an hour of literary drama, comedy and engaging discussion with the audience, Pippa and I will be exploring big questions such as: Who does outer space belong to, and are humans its only intelligent tenants/owner-occupiers? Will colonising space soon become our business-as-usual, and should we be doing it at all? Can we cause any harm to whoever else might be out there or are we likely to be harmed ourselves?
The event is part of the Cabaret of Dangerous Ideas series, which is a joint Beltane Public Engagement Network and Fair Pley production, successfully taking science to the Fringe for the fifth time in 2017. You might even remember that I have done another Cabaret show last year, called “Let Big Brother Watch!”
Hence, I am delighted to be returning to the Fringe with this show, as we are planning to make it as exciting for the audience as any of the big Fringe productions, but with more discussion and engagement. Pippa is an amazing story-teller and I am so honoured to be working with her to create this very special event.
Though we will intertwine fact with fiction to set the scene, we are looking forward to talking about the scientific and social impact of space exploration, whilst also questioning some of the accepted norms and challenging pre-conceptions. Arts, and especially literature, is great in enabling an open and frank discussion about not only the present, but also the future of scientific and technological development.
This is very well illustrated in this review (by Iain Maloney) of Pippa’s collection of short stories, ‘The Need for Better Regulation of Outer Space’: “Science is a tool for understanding the universe, but in Pippa Goldschmidt’s hands it is also a metaphor through which we can better understand ourselves.”
Outer Space – The Next Empire? is on 5th August, 1.50pm, at the New Town Theatre in George Street.
The UK is well on its way to establishing the first set of spaceports outside the USA. Though the first Government consultation on the issue completed as far back as 2014 and preparations are well underway at several locations, the publication of the draft Spaceflight Bill in February has finally put on paper the future outlook for UK space access capabilities, with first launch activities scheduled for 2020.
The joined ministerial statement accompanying the launch of the draft Bill noted: “We want to see UK spaceports enabling the launch of small satellites from the UK, as well as sub-orbital spaceflights and scientific experiments. Our new laws will put British businesses at the forefront of these new space services and create jobs in communities that have not previously considered themselves to be part of our space sector.”
Instead of direct targeted government investment, which has been discussed in the past, the draft Bill is making provisions for a licensing scheme, enabling any spaceport operator to acquire permission for multi-phase launch from mainland UK, as long as they are satisfying safety requirements and having a viable business case. To assist the development of spaceports Government grants could be made available to successful applicants.
Though most operators are considering what is called a “horizontal launch”, i.e. a modified aircraft deploying a rocked powered 2-stage vehicle over the Atlantic Ocean after a “normal” runway take-off, the Bill is making provisions for “vertical launchers”, i.e. free-standing rockets, as well.
However, Stuart Macintyre from Orbital Access, who are developing a horizontal launch system to operate from the UK, sees potential for a more networked approach. He told the BBC recently that they “envisage a system of collaborating spaceports and a system of operators whose needs will describe the capabilities that are required at those spaceports.” In particular, as they would “need a diversionary site if for any reason we cannot land back at the runway from which we took off.”
But the Bill is not all about “health and safety”. The science minister, Jo Johnston, noted that “spaceflight offers the UK the opportunity to build on our strengths in science, research and innovation” and that “it provides opportunities to expand into new markets, creating highly-skilled jobs and boosting local economies across the country. That is why it is one of the key pillars of our Industrial Strategy.”
So, while not quite in the lift-off stage yet, the vision of UK spaceports clearly got to “ignition”!
However, in the midst of all of this excitement, little time has been given to understanding the bigger picture – why success and failure have been so abundant recently and whether the individual objectives and the collective vision for Space Exploration are being met. Of particular interest are two related streams of development: the recent almost fictional optimism of both private and governmental Space Sector players and the somewhat obvious shortcomings of their plans. Adding to this is the fact that though the two groups seem to be talking to each other, the messages pass by unreceived.
Hence, let’s take a minute for reflection and take those two issues in turn.
Concept art of a Dragon 2 spaceship landing on Mars (C) SpaceX via Wikimedia
The excitement of this announcement reminded me of the initial excitement surrounding Mars One project, another colonization ambition with a commercial interest. Similar doubts were expressed then as well, though after the initial enthusiasm died down, targets were revisited and though the mission remains nominally on track it no longer occupies the centre-stage in the planning of the future of Space Exploration.
It struck me recently that these projects, often dubbed PR exercises, are perhaps more meaningful than cynical attempts at self-promotion for the individual proponents and their respective companies/organisations. And here I do not mean setting goals and establishing future trajectories as such – after all Mars has been a destination for over a century! What such “news” does, however, is setting the new norms and expectations, and the closer we are getting to actually bridge the famous gap of “Mars landing is 50 years away” the more important the content of these outlandish proposals may be.
In many ways, the success of the “news” was as guaranteed from the start as was the failure of the actual proposal – as space exploration easily catches public imagination, it is no surprise that such “news” is gets discussed in both science as well as media mainstream. But even through failure of the actual mission, the concept of space exploration gets re-defined. Most worryingly, it seems, its risk factors.
The Mars One project is a one way ticket from the onset. No return to Earth means that “survival” becomes a very relative term. If you were to die on Mars anyway, does it matter if you die on descent due to catastrophic failure of the underdeveloped or untested live support systems? If SpaceX are shipping hundreds of people to the Red Planet, does it matter if a few die en route of the radiation sickness? The somewhat cavalier attitude to such questions, recently displayed by Musk and to some extent Mars One creator, Dutch entrepreneur Bas Lansdorp, is perhaps precisely the intended effect.
If the risks of the next stage in the Space Exploration are initially presented as sky-high and brushed off as unproblematic, this could pave a way for a completely different risk perception once a much more realistic proposal from a more “down-to-Earth” consortium comes along. How better to do that than to shock the public with a radical (and unrealistic) proposal, focus on messages of hope, rather than fears or legitimate concerns and so when a still radical re-evaluation of acceptable risk comes along, it will be measured not against past standard of actual precedents, such as NASA’ Shuttle programme, where each of the fatal failures stopped all flights for years; but new benchmarks such as risks posed by some of the other more outlandish visions.
In all, this new fictional reality is far more dangerous that is seems, if accepted it assumes human life is entirely expendable in the achievement of a higher goal; if it is not accepted, then missions planned with revised risk levels might come crushing down (to Earth) if or when there is legitimate public outrage at loss of life in Space.
Jack of All Trades, Master of Luck?
Whilst no one could accuse the European Space Agency (ESA) of lowering the standards for acceptable risk in human spaceflight, the recent ExoMars mission’s Schiaparelli lander failure is perhaps exposing another of the Space Sectors’ vices – its narrow-minded competitiveness. ExoMars’ two part mission was to insert an orbiter to study methane gas in Martian atmosphere and put a lander on the ground.
Yes, engineering played a significant part, too (for instance in reducing the jump by shock absorbers), and yes, most missions go wrong in one aspect or another and luck regularly “saves the day”, and another yes: the dearing of the Philae descent was truly inspirational – the fact remains that ESA’s “new norm” of combined missions (orbiter + lander) often hang on a cliff edge (or land underneath), due to technology problems, which were seemingly overcome by their counterparts.
For example, in a stark contrast to Beagle 2 and Schiaparelli lander failure, NASA has recently had four successful landings on Mars, the last one, Curiosity rover, being delivered via an automated rocket-powered sky-crane. In light of these developments, has anyone wondered why Space Agencies around the world, who cooperate on many joined projects, still prefer to develop their own parallel technology for practically every element of space exploration missions (ISS notwithstanding)?
The answer is probably – to show they can! And it is perhaps less to do with technology development and scientific advancement as such and more with proving geo-political points. Whilst the International Space Station truly leads the way in multi-faceted international collaboration, even at times when its founding partners are at loggerheads politically on Earth, many “less challenging” programmes still seem to be deeply divisive, which might be precisely the element making them less successful than they could have been.
Perhaps it is time to pause and reflect on what kind of strategy we want for the future of Space Exploration. And perhaps we should look again at the concepts of risk, safety, and international collaboration – let’s face it, in all of the excitement, we might have got them somewhat wrong.
This is a belatedly late post about some of my (early) research findings – and my efforts to disseminate them.
This is build around Phase 1 of my research into the facilitation of technology transfer from basic research into high-tech industry, which is (hopefully) leading to overall economic growth and prosperity.
I am focusing on the Space Sector, the historic development of which is in its 3rd phase, sometimes referred to as the “New Space”, – after the initial state monopoly (1st phase) and the technology being commercialised by large multinational corporations (2nd phase), it is now being democratised through innovation and entrepreneurship as the (previously complex and expensive hardware becomes smaller, more standardised and cheaper (Space IGS, 2010). In the context of this transition and growth of the sector, there is a government target of increasing the UK share of global Space market from 7% to 10% by 2030 (Space IGS, 2010).
For small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) – which are the subject of my research – this is also denoting a transition in SMEs from “technology-push” to “market-pull” new product development (NPD) orientation, based on a shift from “supplying” to larger companies to “selling” to end customers/users, which is also moving from “mass-manufacturing” to developing Complex Products and Services (CoPS) (Hobday, 1998) and vertical value chain integration.
In order to help facilitate technology transfer at this transition point – one of the objective of my research – a key link between the systemic understanding of the sector and the innovation processes and practices in companies must be established. Given the prevalence of network research – which is at the core of Innovation studies both at macro as well as micro level (Freeman, 1991), due the fact that it covers the crucial aspect of knowledge commercialisation, namely interaction – this is an obvious choice to bridge the two.
In particular I am using ego-centric Social Network Analysis (SNA) (Scott, 1988; Giuliani, 2007) to plot the business network for each of the three studied companies (see table above). This is based on a survey-style questionnaire, with multiple-choice answers, but options for other (more expanded) answers as well. This enabled me a comprehensive analysis of the knowledge network, in particular the flows of knowledge and a qualitative analysis of the NPD process, by examining the specific “innovation moments” (i.e. points at which decisions about developing an innovation into a product take place) (Edwards et. al., 2000), the role external partners play in those instances and how the differences in companies’ network make-up affect the creation of new products (and vice-versa).
Presently, the study is in its pilot incarnation, focusing on three case studies, carefully selected to represent key elements of the population of the field (upstream /downstream; hardware/software; start-up/spin-off; “Classical”/”New Space”; products/services), i.e. a set of typical cases (Yin, 2009), as summarised here:
Analysed SMEs and their properties (Vidmar, 2015)
In short, these are the key findings so far:
The networks are larger for the “New Space”, rich with open innovation, and significant knowledge flows across the firm’s boundary are detected (see the network plots below). This dynamics is gradually diminishes as we examine the other two cases, with the “classical” Space company having a very one-directional flow (and retain all of their IP within the company) and a relatively small core network.
The more “New Space” a company is, the more it relies on knowledge flow from public institutions for R&D, BD and commercial transactions, and the more such partners it has. In contrast a more “classical” Space company has more private sector partners, mainly engaged in purely commercial activities, such as distributors and suppliers, through which it is sourcing components and maximising the reach of its supply.
Interestingly, when analysed through the framework of Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2006), we again find a very clear divide between hardware and software; upstream and downstream; and “classical” and “New Space”, with hardware upstream (“classical Space”) companies tend to exhibit more “closed” innovation models than software and downstream (“New Space”) ones.
Analysis of the companies participating in the pilot suggests that the more the innovation process is “open” the less hierarchical it is, but also the more structured/standardised and formalised. This is in line with anecdotal experience from most successful high-tech areas, where more formalised, yet less restrictive, NPD protocols are being to be established in order to capitalise on as much innovation as possible (Neapole, -2015).
The network plot for Classical (left); Transitional (centre) and New Space (right) SMEs. (Vidmar, 2015)
Of course, these are only preliminary observations and substantial further research is being planned to further this work, including expanding the study to analyse all Scottish Space Sector companies.
If you are interested in a more full account of my research click through for the full paper presented at Reinventing Space 2015 conference (Oxford, 9th-13th November 2015)
The Global Space Innovation Conference (GLIC) 2015, which was held in Munich between 23rd and 25th June 2015, was preceded by an “unconference” based on the Space Up template – Space UP GLIC.
This template means, that the “participants decide the topics, schedule, and structure of the event”, which in this instance was themed around Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Space Sector. We aimed quite high; for instance, one of the (preparatory) questions from Twitter reads:
What do you think #Innovation is? The #SpaceUPGLIC participants will debate about it on Tuesday- let us know your thoughts using the hashtag
The day was mainly filled with short presentations from a variety of speakers presenting on topics ranging from protection against Near Earth objects (NEOs):
I also added my ramblings to the mix; I ended up wrapping up the presentations section with my talk “It IS Rocket Science!” about studying innovation, New Product Development (NPD) and networks in the Space Industry:
The outcomes of this discussion and a summary of our contributions was also presented at the close of the “main” conference, including a video vlog of the day:
For my part, on top of being introduced to a variety of interesting ideas and projects, I was also introduced to so many exciting and very talented people, all passionate about space and ready to actively participate in the future of Space exploration. That in itself made this event the place to be for any budding Space enthusiast and I am looking forward to meet my new friends again, as soon as might be.
“On top of Munich!”
Perhaps, we might even get SpaceUp to Scotland some time soon…
Few and far in-between are times when an interdisciplinary researcher working across different fields, such as myself, find themselves at a conference comfortably covering nearly the entire theme of their work. Most often, I myself sit with two crowds – innovation studies researchers’ meetings cater for participating in academic discussions and I attend the gatherings of the space community to keep up to speed in the trends in my research area, the Space sector.
However, the importance of bringing together of these two crowds has recently been noted within the international Space community and from 23rd to 25th June 2015, I have found myself in Munich attending the “conference of my dreams” – the Global Space Innovation Conference.
GLIC conference banner, (c) IAF
For me, the event was two part, as the “main” conference was preceded by the SpaceUp GLIC “unconference”, which provides an alternative platform for facilitating networking and discussions amongst (younger/young at heart!) Space enthusiasts. Little snippets from this event are published separately in the post “Space is Up!”.
The theme of the conference was “From Government Programmes to Entrepreneurial Actions” and was based on two main premises:
1. There is significant appetite, both from the government as well as industry point of view for more private-public partnerships or direct private enterprise to get involved in the (national and international) Space exploration efforts, including but not limited to benefiting from the (civil/non-space) applications of technology originally developed for Space exploration.
2. There are important (negotiated?) roles for all stakeholders (public, private, academic, non-profit, etc.) in the entrepreneurial system the industry is embedded in. This system was defined along the lines of (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994):
Socioeconomic Environment,
Entrepreneurial and Business Skills,
Non-financial Support,
Financial Support, and
Government Policies and Procedures
These five elements were also the themes of the GLIC’s five key discursive panels (2-6):
Panel 1. The View from Entrepreneurs
Panel 2. Socioeconomic Environment for Entrepreneurs
Panel 3. Entrepreneurial Education and Training
Panel 4. Non-Financial Assistance for Venture Creation
Panel 5. Financial Support for Venture Creation
Panel 6: Policies and Laws for Entrepreneurship
The key findings, in my view, are that stakeholders have to work to reduce the burdens on the entrepreneurs by, on one hand, (public and private) funders increasing investment in early-stage technology development and on the other, providing clever institutional support (mainly in business development) to the entrepreneurs. In theory, this should also lead to a (more) competitive and dynamic Space economy, including breaking corporate monopolies currently supported by targeted government procurement.
However, the appreciation of the complexity of the products in the Space sector is necessary and my own research here is in many ways an embodiment of the above programme and an expression of the anxiety associated with it in particular with respect to the need for a more detailed understanding of the product development processes (NPD) and the role the different stakeholders play in it. In particular, the entrepreneurial networks through which expertise and action are channelled play a crucial role here as, the project complexity requires an increased knowledge flow into the NPD or innovation process.
In fact, this was the main part of my contribution to the event, made in the context of the SpaceUp GLIC, where I outlined these important concerns and my plans to address them in the context of my research in Scotland/UK.
Presenting the talk: “It IS Rocket Science!” at SpaceUp GLIC, Munich, 23rd June 2015
More of those plans to follow in a white paper draft to be published later this year…
To start building a (more) coherent picture of impact evaluation in science and technology programmes, we need to look for a constellation of many different methods to provide a meaningful insight into the need for, and success of, an intervention. Consequently, evaluation research is/should be organisational modus operandi, rather than a set of separate top-level exercises.
I propose a new paradigm in impact evaluation of investment and development in science, technology and innovation, namely Quantified Correlated Impacts (QCI). This approach is based on both quantitative as well as qualitative data collection, as bibliometric and econometric figures are correlated with ethnographic methods – interviews, focus groups and surveys – to determine the perceived causal contribution of the different factors, with particular focus on those pertaining from the intervention.
At it’s core, QCI are underpinned by a logic model; which is connecting the intervention with the evidence justifying the planned outputs; and leads form the inputs through action towards short-, mid- and long- term outcomes.
Logic model for the proposed networking strategy in UK/Scottish Space Sector
As part my research project, for example, I am involved in an intervention driving economic growth in the UK/Scotland through stimulating the collaboration across the UK/Scottish Space industry by increasing sectoral networking. This is a particularly important part of my research in business incubation in the Scottish space sector and the related (sectoral) systemic properties, such as institutional framework, networks of actors, and knowledge creation and dissemination (following Malerba’s Sectoral Systems of Innovation approach (Malerba, 2005)). Also, there is a wealth of evidence about the importance of networking for the success (and growth) of small businesses (Brüderl and Preisendörfer, 1998; Ostgaard and Birley, 1996).
The suggested action to generate these positive effects is to support the growth of small to medium sized businesses by integrating them in a wider network across the sector and wider. This will be facilitated by the creation of, and enrolment of actors into, an on-line database/forum/platform to provide easy access to contacts. Having established that, there are also provisions to host networking events (thematic or generalist), to solidify the ties and introduce more actors into the network, particularly from the non-core businesses.
In terms of evaluation, key facilities need to be established prior to the beginning of the evaluation of outputs (database and its uptake, and the networking events). The database growth can be analysed quantitatively (i.e. number of enrolled individuals, organisations, etc), while the networking event qualitatively (i.e. interviews, feedback, ethnography).
The key next step is to tie the intervention with the outcomes/impacts through an advanced cost benefit analysis. In the example given, this can be done by analysing the investment made with respect to the growth and revenue of the companies most interconnected within the newly established network, comparing to the more peripheral ones, or ones outside the network.
The last part is the crucial correlation, which provides tangible benchmarking for the overall success of a programme (within the cost benefit analysis). This is done by comparing the noticed trends in key parameters (in our case job creation, revenue growth, etc.) with corresponding regional, sectoral, national or global trends. The key objective is to trace any significant difference which can then be (in part! – see below) attributed to the intervention.
Crucial information, however, comes from the collected qualitative data which maps the action to its value for the participants, i.e. what was the contribution of a specific intervention to the overall change. For instance, in the example above we investigate the effect/importance of the networking on business success. This data can only be obtained by interviewing the participants in networking events, and running surveys and focus groups with representatives of the companies/individuals on the database. The key questions to ask will be: What made the difference?; How?; and How significant was it? We can then comment on the part the intervention played in the difference found between the participants performance and correlated trends.
Overall, this approach enables the evaluator to marry the desirable clarity of cost benefit analysis, where standards of success/failure can be contested, with a more balanced set of criteria and tangible links. The key features are quantified data (engagement figures, costs, returns, growth, etc) about the intervention, which is qualitatively (interviews, focus groups, etc.) examined as a contribution towards the difference in participants’ performance with respect to correlated background trends (sector growth, national job creation, GDP, etc.) – revealing the impact of the programme.
As said, this new, Quantified Correlated Impacts (QCI), framework is currently under development and I am sincerely opening its tenets to comments and suggestions. (And, please, do have a look at the other posts in the series, too: ER1, ER2, ER3.)
Cost benefit analysis is an attractive evaluation method, as it can provide concrete, often quantified, data about interventions, usually in a form which is easily communicated to the clients, policy makers, funders and the general (lay) public. In its core and at its best, cost benefit analysis is a very direct and straightforward evaluation process, whereby inputs and outcomes are weighted against each other and logical conclusions about the efficacy of a programme can be reached.
However, all three of these elements – inputs or costs, outcomes or benefits, and efficacy or the relationship between the two – are highly contestable. To begin with, defining your parameter space and acknowledging constrains and assumptions is the key element of this approach to evaluation. These decisions, even if very well argued for, are ultimately just decisions; a global cost benefit analysis, if such a thing was ever possible, would need to encompass much of the factors and effects left on the other side of the dividing line for the evaluation to be a true representation of the net impact of the programme.
Secondly, even though the aim is to have a quantified data as possible – best if every input and impact are turned in some sort of monetary measure – both costs as well as benefits are often indirect or intangible. In Cellini and Klee’s most stark example (2010, p. 500): what is “the value of wilderness or an increased sense of community”? Furthermore, even if a measure can be put to notions such as wellbeing, another – perhaps most challenging of all – decision has to be made, namely what ratio between costs and benefits defines effectiveness of even efficiency?
However, in my limited experience, cost to benefit analysis is effective if the intervention being evaluated is narrow and well defined in terms of the available resources, the scope and the intended outcomes, or better still, when all of the above have an intrinsic monetary value attached. The intended outcomes I look for in my research are related to innovation and consequently increased economic activity, contributions to GDP, business growth, job creation, etc., hence quantification of these parameters is not very difficult as they often come as monetary values to begin with.
The most challenging for me is to benchmark the efficacy of this cost to benefit ratio and, to be honest, even though it would be to a degree possible to put a judgment on how significant the benefits have to be to deem a programme a success, I prefer to correlate these ratios to background trends such as global economic activity, comparisons to global GDP growth, global business and job creation, and add qualitative data where possible, as I believe the later provides a broader judgment on how the intervention is impacting those in and close to it.
This advanced cost benefit analysis can then feature prominently in a new paradigm of impact evaluation – the Correlated Quantified Impacts (QCI) – the topic of the next post.
In order to frame this enquiry, let’s begin with a small the exploration of the motivations behind commissioning and performing the evaluations in the first place. Though examples here are from social research, these are easily compared with parallels in any intervention, including investment in the development of the science, technology (and business support facilities and services (for example STFC, 2014:5-7).
Firstly, an important part of the evaluation research is process evaluation (Rossi, 1972:34), used in order to improve on the delivery of the intervention, or – as beautifully listed in an interview with Waverley Care (a Edinburgh charity) CEO – “what we need to stop doing, what we want to keep doing and what we are not doing that we should be doing”. When working along this strand of evaluation, it is crucial that the researcher provides recommendations that can be acted upon. The best way to carry out such evaluation is often to focus on a specific small area of the intervention, for example how does an organisation collect feedback and implement changes reflecting the concerns raised by internal and external customers. Having said that, conclusions and recommendations can often be very general.
In the process evaluation, there is further check on the identifying emerging needs and (geographical, social, economic) individualisation of the delivery of outputs. This is particularly important for social projects (such as the Waverley Care), where there is significant variation across the different locales in which they work. However, this is also important in terms of social and geographical inclusiveness of science and technology investment. Hence, evaluation research in this context can provide important checks on the “fairness” of the intervention whilst it is underway.
Then there is the often missed – but in my opinion very important objective in evaluation – the inward facing component, i.e. the improvement of morale of the people engaged in the programme/intervention/organisation by celebrating their success. It is very important for the staff to appreciate the whole picture, “take a step back” to frame their work within a wider context. This is both a good motivation for future work as well as a huge morale boost as one can see how they personally and as a team are making a significant difference to people’s lives.
Finally, the primary motivation for impact evaluation is (always?), to understand the impact/difference an intervention/organisation is making. Evaluation is often considered important for funding applications, i.e. both assessing the need for the intervention as well as monitoring the delivery of outcomes (to evaluate the VALUE generated).
My research is similarly linked to the need for accountability when spending public money (Nutley, Walter and Davies, 2007:254) and in particular the effectiveness of the investment in natural sciences research (mainly cost benefit analysis), which is currently epitomised in cost benefit analysis, but that is already the topic of the next post…
To start at the beginning, as you might know my main research is in innovation form (basic) natural sciences and its commercialisation in the form of spin-outs and entrepreneurship. My specific field is Space Technologies here in the UK and in Scotland, so I look at emerging technologies ranging from satellite hardware to the use of the expertise developed in large telescopes for designing medical devices, such as Retinal Densitometer.
My research is tied in with the development of a new Space-related business incubator in Edinburgh, the Higgs Centre for Innovation. The expected growth of this sector is part of a wider UK government’s initiative to grow the UK’s share of the global Space Sector to 10% by 2030.
The design for the Higgs Centre for Innovation building (bottom right) at the Royal Observatory Edinburgh. (C) STFC
As such, a major part of my work will be the evaluation of past and present incubation programmes, to learn about their effectiveness and suggest examples of good practice. This work is done in collaboration with my research partners, the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), who are launching the said new incubator and who run frequent impact evaluation exercises to justify the investment of public funds and bid for further funding allocation.
I have worked on some impact evaluation previously, for example I have recently written a summative report about the impact of CERN (the European Organisation for Nuclear Research) on science in general and on the UK economy and society in particular, spanning the first 60 years of its operation (up to 2014), which is partially included in a chapter of the last STFC Impact Evaluation Report (2014).
However, while impact evaluation frameworks in the context of science and technology policy are well developed (see STFC example), I have come to realise that their methodology is less so and that there is little available literature to easily form a new coherent approach to this topic (Autio, 2014; Zuijdam et.al., 2011; Markman, Siegel and Wright, 2008). Crucially, most methodological discussions included in the impact evaluation exercises that I have been drawing upon, often focus solely on econometric parameters and their calculations, rather than discussing any holistic framework of evaluation or any of the qualitative or comparative methodology.
Hence, I am looking at programme evaluation elsewhere to cross-reference the methods I encountered in my past research with the well developed theories of policy evaluation in social sciences, in particular concerning social policies and to come up with a rounded impact evaluation logic. Even though my past and present impact evaluation is about research in natural sciences and its impact on the socio-economic situation in the UK, many themes emerging from social policy evaluation match directly the ones I encounter(ed) in my research.
In fact, this post may not be so “proper” after all, as it is only marking a start of a short series about impact evaluation, an important part of my research in science, technology and innovation.
The plan is to have four posts (ER1-4): (1) an introduction to my research in (impact) evaluation; (2) an exploration of key themes in evaluation research; (3) an analysis of the cost benefit analysis model, dominant in the policy sphere; and (4) an outline of a new methodology -Quantified Correlated Impacts (QCI).
This is very much work in progress so, perhaps, more posts will appear later on and I would very much like to hear your comments on any of it!
Please, do spare a minute or two and have a look at a host of other contributions at our collective blog and follow our Twitter discussion marked with: #evalres15.
And here is another! Video about my research, that is.
I have now started the Student Research Films (SRF) initiative, a video series of Edinburgh University students briefly (should be under 1min) talking about our different research projects. (If interested to take part, check out the resources page!)
The idea came from all the video work I have done recently and the Research in a Nutshell series, a similar initiative for academics (1min videos about their research). In particular, I found these 60 second introductions very useful when meeting new staff, looking for information about my interests and seeking advice about my research.
As part of the Innovative Learning Week 2015 I got some funding to put together a small workshop to exchange ideas, present the template to other students and challenge us all to make a video each (there were also two prizes for the best entries – congratulations to Nurun and Alastair!). We got five videos in total in this first batch including mine…
We are hoping to grow this initiative over the years, so if anyone seeing this is interested, do have a look at the project page and/or get in touch with me!
