Bright spark

Science fiction author Arthur C Clarke famously said: "New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can't be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it's not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!"

The trick for those who are involved in technical, process innovation is to reach the last of these stages. Having a great new product idea is a start, but unless a commercially viable manufacturing method can be found, the product will never reach the shelf.

The most common objections that firms raise against working on technical inventions are lack of time and money, says Chris Brock, head of sector innovation at the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA). "Money both for the people and the sort of investments required."

However, Alan Spreckley, channel partner manager at ABB Robotics UK, thinks lack of time and cash are excuses rather than genuine obstacles. He believes if you are convinced of the benefits of something, you will be prepared to invest money and effort in it. "The initial outlay is what most take into consideration as a major factor, but increased throughput and quality, the cost of rework - there are many other things to take into account."

For Simon Mosey, deputy director of enterprise and innovation at Nottingham University Business School, barriers such as time and money definitely come down to priorities. "We participated in a workshop with high-growth businesses across a range of sectors and they were talking in terms of time and money. What we found was that they were prioritising the 'fire-fighting' stuff, focusing on everything that comes across their desk every day just to keep their heads above water."

In Spreckley's field of robotic solutions, he's convinced that it's more lack of understanding of the benefits that stops people innovating. "The on-cost of a robot is £5 per hour; the on-cost for a human is upwards of £12."

The time to make operational alterations and reach optimum capacity can also be exaggerated, he says. "The time to implement solutions is not as great as people think. As long as the groundwork and planning are done properly (the end user needs to buy in to it and be realistic about expectations and installation), time is kept to a minimum. That doesn't just apply to robotics, but to any form of engineering."

Robot myth busting

Other common misconceptions surrounding robots include the belief that firms must invest considerable work time in training personnel to operate them and that malfunction entails significant cost and downtime.

"An industrial robot is not difficult to operate and programme," says Spreckley. "Any maintenance engineer or semi-skilled worker can be trained to operate it. An operating or programming course for a technician takes four and a half days or for a line operator or supervisor, two days."

In addition, he says the mean time between robot installation and failure is 65,000 working hours, subject to regular maintenance. Mean time to repair major components is 20-48 minutes, especially if there are trained maintenance people on site.

Spreckley's arguments regarding time and money notwithstanding, Ken Johnston, science director, Food Processing Knowledge Transfer Network (FPKTN), says processors and equipment suppliers may struggle with project grants and funding. "Funding is complicated to understand and comes from a host of different sources. Each has a different criteria and it's difficult to see through all that. There are always more applications coming in than ever get funded. I think more funding is always needed."

EMDA has created the Food and Drink iNet website​, offering networking opportunities and funding and strategy advice to address confusion surrounding grants.

There's little doubt that purse strings are currently tight and little sign that the situation will improve soon. Energy and raw material costs for many continue to rise at one end and retailers continue to battle to avoid passing costs on to consumers at the other. Consequently, profit margins, the initial source of capital for investment in new processes and kit, are painfully slim.

Squeezing the suppliers

The power shift from manufacturers to major supermarkets in the past few decades has made things harder for suppliers. "The major retailers have squeezed innovation out of the food industry," says Brock.

Commenting on implementing technical solutions and new kit, one processor says: "The retailers play one supplier off with another, constantly asking for a better deal and cost-saving initiatives. I believe the customer [retailer] wants all its suppliers to have the same equipment then it knows the finished goods will be exactly the same. There is then nothing to stop the customer from having an internet auction to drive out any profit we may make."

Retailers' stranglehold over suppliers, coupled with fierce competition in the market, encourage a hush-hush approach to technical innovation in the food and drink industry. Companies can keep their cards close to their chest and that can hinder innovation, as collaboration between research bodies, kit suppliers and processors could yield quicker and more prolific results.

"People are certainly secretive," says Johnston. "If they are making significant changes, they are putting effort into that and want to profit from it." They don't want to have the rug pulled from under them after they have sweated to create prototypes by, for example, retailers auctioning construction and supply off to the lowest bidder.

Keeping processes confidential safeguards exclusive supply contracts and thereby profits, so it's understandable. But there are areas in which working together would pay dividends, such as making zero fat products, for example. "Nobody's got anywhere and there are opportunities for collaboration, but if you start pulling in money from other sources, there's pressure to publicise and reveal those sources."

Businesses are sometimes reluctant to collaborate with academic outfits, because they fear they may not understand the commercial realities behind implementing ideas. Here again, projects such as the iNet, as well as Championing Innovation in the Engineering and Food Sectors (ChIEFS), aim to facilitate networking. ChIEFS is run on EMDA's behalf by the FPKTN, The Food & Drink Forum - a member-led East Midlands support body - and technology consultant Optimat.

"Some small-to-medium-sized businesses do find universities scary, but once you dip your toe in the water, you very quickly find they are not," says Brock. "We're just trying to break down those barriers."

Aside from the risks involved in collaboration, the risk of failure can also hamper creativity. "Risk is a big barrier," says Johnston. "Helping people feel that the risk is broken down into containable amounts that they feel comfortable about taking means they believe the chances of going wrong are reduced." Ways of doing this include testing equipment on a pilot scale, conducting comprehensive background market research and consulting with outside experts.

Sometimes if there are too many obstacles to innovation in one area, it may be necessary to think more objectively, possibly shifting to a different customer base. Short-sightedness can be a hindrance. "We teach Blue Ocean strategy," says Mosey. "Red Ocean is where everybody is fighting over a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. Blue Ocean introduces new ways of focusing on the problem."

The approach enables manufacturers to move away from areas of diminishing returns to develop business models that can be applied to totally different areas.

This, in turn, enables them to escape competitive pressures and develop unique products and processes. One example of Blue Ocean thinking would be Tyrrells Potato Chips' initial refusal to supply the big supermarkets and selling to smaller retailers instead, says Mosey. Once Tyrrells had established a sufficient customer base, it had more negotiating power with the multiples.

Overcoming barriers

Experts agree that there are ways to overcome the barriers to innovation and encourage food and drink enterprises to find their niche and flourish. Much is being done by regional bodies such as the EMDA and research groups such as the FPKTN and academic institutions such as Nottingham University.

There is no doubt, too, that government plays a part on the political stage. It has published its Innovation Nation White Paper outlining how it can use procurement, regulation, collaboration and funding to stimulate new ideas and growth. It is due to publish the first Annual Innovation Report this autumn, assessing the UK's performance on innovation and the government's effectiveness in supporting it.

The ball is in the court of the processors and equipment suppliers as to whether they will take up this help and guidance at the technical level. FM