success factors and dynamics of the uk space cluster at ... · a dissertation submitted in...
TRANSCRIPT
Success factors and dynamics of the UK Space Cluster at Harwell
A Dissertation Submitted in Part-fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration of the University of Warwick
“This is to certify that the work I am submitting is my own. All external references and sources are clearly acknowledged and identified within the contents. I am aware of the University of Warwick regulation concerning plagiarism and collusion. No substantial part(s) of the work submitted here has also been submitted by me in other assessments for accredited courses of study, and I acknowledge that if this has been done an appropriate reduction in the mark I might otherwise have received will be made.”
Student Name: Adrian Cassidy
ID Number: 1367731
Date: 5th March 2017
Word Count: 14,826
Number of pages: 87
u1367731
1
Table of contents
1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 2
2 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 The UK Space Cluster at Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire ............................. 4
2.1.1 Harwell Campus .............................................................................................. 4
2.1.2 UK Space Cluster at Harwell ............................................................................ 7
3 UK Space performance and growth targets ............................................................... 9
3.1 Reported UK Space sector performance ................................................................. 9
3.2 UK Space Sector and cluster growth targets ......................................................... 12
4 Literature review ........................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Cluster definition ................................................................................................... 14
4.2 The proximity paradox .......................................................................................... 15
4.3 Towards an analysis framework ............................................................................ 16
4.4 The Technology Innovation System (TIS) analysis framework .............................. 25
4.5 Intrinsic Motivation (extension to TIS model) ......................................................... 32
4.6 Informal interactions and shared spaces (extension to TIS model) ....................... 36
5 Data acquisition methodology .................................................................................. 40
5.1 UK Space Cluster online survey ............................................................................ 41
6 UK Space Cluster survey results .............................................................................. 43
6.1 Core functions survey results ................................................................................ 44
6.2 Second tier functions survey results ...................................................................... 45
6.3 Core functions survey results – Rating comparisons ............................................. 46
6.4 UK Space Cluster – rating interpretation ............................................................... 47
6.5 Innovation System core function feedback loops .................................................. 70
6.6 Core function organisational reliance .................................................................... 72
7 Conclusion & recommendations .............................................................................. 73
7.1 The analysis framework ........................................................................................ 73
7.1.1 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 73
7.1.2 Future research ............................................................................................. 74
7.2 UK Space Cluster analysis .................................................................................... 74
7.2.1 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 75
8 References ................................................................................................................. 76
9 Appendices ................................................................................................................ 79
u1367731
2
1 Executive Summary
The UK Space Cluster based at Harwell is designated by the UK government as the UK
Space sector’s focus for innovation and growth.
Key stakeholders and policymakers require a framework to analyse the performance of the
cluster and provide guidance on the formation, growth and performance optimisation of
innovation clusters.
There are no suitable innovation cluster models designed to provide guidance for
policymakers. This paper explores how the widely adopted sector level model for
Technology Innovation Systems (TIS) can be adapted to provide cluster specific analysis.
The adapted model is based on the seven core functions of the TIS framework with the
addition of four cluster specific second tier functions.
This model is used to analyse the UK Space Cluster and identify the key system constraints
which are currently degrading performance and growth potential. Structured performance
data was acquired from cluster members through an online survey.
The key constraints are:
Delays in campus infrastructure development
Sub-optimal transport links
Lack of suitable informal shared spaces
Under resourced market development initiatives
Poor growth in global space markets
The cluster is compared to the wider UK Space sector and shows significantly higher
performance in all seven core functions.
The cluster’s functional dynamics are mapped as a series of flows. These flows form closed
feedback loops which illustrate how a change in one core function will lead to changes
throughout the system.
The importance of intrinsic motivation and informal interactions to the core functions
“Resource Mobilisation” and “Knowledge diffusion” are explored in depth.
u1367731
3
2 Introduction
The UK Space Cluster (also known as the UK Space Gateway) at Harwell, which currently
consists of over seventy organisations and supporting agencies, is continuing to expand.
New world class research facilities such the RAL Space test facility and the ESA ECSAT
building have recently come online. The numerous collaboration and networking events on
campus are well attended by enthusiastic cluster members.
The cluster key stakeholders and development partners wish to gain a better understanding
of the performance dynamics of the cluster; what is enabling performance and growth and
conversely which issues are acting as constraints.
A framework is required to analyse the performance of the cluster that is accessible to
managers and can be updated to track progress and developing performance trends.
u1367731
4
2.1 The UK Space Cluster at Harwell Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire
2.1.1 Harwell Campus
The UK Space Cluster is located at the Harwell Campus in Oxfordshire. The campus has a
unique and distinguished history in the development of science and technology dating back
to the early 1940s. The key scientific and technology events relevant to the UK Space
Cluster at Harwell are listed in
Table 1 (below). These are important not only in terms of infrastructure development but also
in terms of the cluster’s legitimacy and culture.
Figure 1. Aerial view of the Harwell Campus
Table 1. Historic science and technology events of relevance to UK Space at the Harwell
campus. Source: Harwell (2017). * Indicates events of greatest significance to the cluster.
1940s
1945 RAF hands over site to Ministry of Supply
1950s
1957 Rutherford Laboratory (now Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, RAL) is
established to handle high energy physics work
1960s
1962 * Launch of the Allouette Satellite marked the start establishment of RAL Space
u1367731
5
2000s
2000 Harwell Innovation Centre opens with support from the UK Atomic Energy
Authority
2004 * RAL Space engineers the Ptolemy instrument for the Philae lander on the
European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosetta expedition
2005 ISIS Neutron Source conducts the first experiment to develop glass to replace
bone transplants
2006 £26 million Government investment in construction of a new Research
Complex at Harwell (RCaH)
2006 * UK Government designated Harwell a “science & innovation campus”
2007 * Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) is founded, taking control
of RAL at Harwell
2007 The £260 million Diamond Light Source Synchrotron produces its first user
beam and is officially opened by Queen Elizabeth II
2009 * First Space Innovation & Growth Strategy published – recommends
developing Harwell as a focal point for new national space facilities – including
the International Space Innovation Centre (ISIC). Also recommends that
Harwell should be a hub for wider UK growth
2009 * ESA Harwell office opens
2010s
2010 * Government response to the IGS approves funding for ISIC. Development of
ISIC begins at Harwell
2010 * UK Space Agency (exec agency of UK Government) established with Harwell
as the focal point for growth
2011 * Harwell ESA Business Incubation Centre (BIC) opens
2012 * ESA & UK Government sign MoU focused on the development of the ESA
Harwell Centre into a full ESA Facility
2013 The University of Oxford and Harwell formalise a partnership for discovery and
innovation
2013 * Inauguration of ESA’s first UK facility – the European Centre for Space
Applications and Telecommunications (ECSAT)
2013 * The Satellite Applications Catapult is established at Harwell by Innovate UK;
subsumes ISIC
2014 * ESA’s Rosetta mission is first to rendezvous with a comet and lands Philae
probe on its surface
2015 * ESA ECSAT building is opened by Jo Johnson, Minister of State for
Universities, Science, Research and Innovation
2015 * R100’s Space Test and Integration Facility opens, the largest vacuum test
chambers in UK and Europe
2015 * British ESA astronaut Major Tim Peake launched to the International Space
Station (ISS) for expeditions 46 and 47 (Dec 15)
2016 * The Advanced Manufacturing Lab opens, a partnership between ESA and
RAL that adapts 3D printing technologies to be used for application in space
2016
* RAL Space form part of the international LIGO gravitational waves project,
proving that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity was correct
u1367731
6
Harwell campus is currently home to over 225 organisations employing over five thousand
people from over 60 nations in the following sectors:
Aerospace
Automotive
Big data
Biotech
Chemicals
Consumer products
Cryogenics
Electronics
Energy
Engineering
Environment
Food
Healthcare
Life sciences
Materials
Medical science
Molecular research
Nano and micro science
Pharmaceuticals
Satellite applications
Sensors
Space
Supercomputing
The campus area is over 700 acres and contains over £2bn of world class research
infrastructure.
u1367731
7
2.1.2 UK Space Cluster at Harwell
Whilst RAL space began its involvement in space projects over fifty years ago it’s been the
period since the publication of the space Innovation & Growth Strategy (IGS, 2009) in 2009
that the UK Space Cluster has taken shape. The IGS brought together analysis from
industry, academia and government agencies and highlighted the UK Space sector as an
important growth industry for the UK economy. It also recommended developing Harwell as
a focal point for new national space facilities.
The UK Space Cluster is a significant part of the Harwell campus with over 70 organisations
and agencies on site. Figure 1 shows the wide range of organisations which form the cluster.
Figure 2. Organisations and agencies which together form the UK Space Cluster
The agencies have their own, often convoluted, interdependences; the major links are
shown in Figure 3.
u1367731
8
The Harwell Campus Joint Venture is particularly significant in terms of the development of
the campus physical infrastructure. The Joint Venture is 50% private (Harwell Oxford
Management which manages the development program and has access to private
investment funding) and public (STFC and UK AEA who own the land). Figure 3 links the JV
to the Vale of White Horse district council planning department via a dashed line. This link
should be considered a system constraint and is explored in more depth later in the report.
The government department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) provides
funding lines to Innovate UK (which in turn provides funds for the Satellite Catapult), the UK
Space Agency and the STFC. Of the circa £360m annual budget the UK Space Agency
receives 80% goes to ESA. ESA then commit this amount to UK based space sector
contracts. In this way the funding provided by the UK tax payer to ESA makes its way back
in to the UK economy.
Figure 3. UK Space Cluster agency and infrastructure interdependences
Representatives from the key cluster agencies meet three to four times a year for a cluster
board meeting. Members present include: UK Space Agency (chairs), STFC, RAL Space,
AEA, Harwell Oxford Management, ESA, Satellite Applications Catapult, Innovate UK, UK
Space (trade body). This board is not a legal entity and therefore its decisions are not legally
binding. It does however provide a forum to discuss cluster strategy.
u1367731
9
3 UK Space performance and growth targets
The current era of government support for the sector was spearheaded in 2009 by Lord
Drayson whilst minister of state for science and innovation with the creation of the UK Space
Agency and the first Space Innovation and Growth Strategy (IGS) report.
3.1 Reported UK Space sector performance
Every two years The UK Space Agency publishes a report into the size and health of the UK
Space sector (UK Space Agency, 2016). Key findings from the December 2016 report
include:
The UK Space sector is commercially focused, generating just 13.9% of its income
from the public sector
Total income of the UK space industry for the two years up to FY 2014/15 grew by an
average of 6.5% to £13.7bn
The Upstream1 segment was worth £1.7bn whilst the Downstream remained
dominant at £12bn
Broadcasting dominates (56% of total UK space industry income) followed by
Communications (20%) and Position, Navigation and Timing (12%).
There is positive evidence of diversification, as the income share of Broadcasting is
down from 63% in 2012/13
UK space industry directly contributed $5.1bn Gross Value-Added (GVA) to UK
economic output (0.27% of total UK GDP)
Direct employment in the sector increased by 6% to 38,522 in 2014/15.
Sector’s labour productivity equates to £133k (GVA per employee), 2.7 times the UK
average
Three out of every four employees in the sector hold at least one primary degree –
higher than any other sector in the UK
8.1% of GVA reinvested in R&D; 6.5 times higher than UK industrial average
1 Upstream work is focused on sending satellites into space and space exploration, while downstream
utilises the data, research and technology from upstream in a range of different applications.
u1367731
10
At around a quarter of one percent of total UK GDP, the UK Space sector is relatively small
compared to say the financial sector. It does however punch well above its financial weight
in terms of overall importance. As highlighted in the report the sector is the most highly
skilled in the UK and many of the scientific and technology advances spill over into other
sectors fuelling secondary waves of innovation. The high levels of media coverage achieved
by Major Tim Peake and the Rosetta mission helps raise the scientific and technical
legitimacy of the UK.
A closer look at the data underlying the UK Space Agency report (2016) does however bring
into question the recent growth figures. The 2013/2014 figure coincides with a change in the
criteria for sector inclusion. The report does caveat that the growth figure between 2012/13
and 2013/14 is likely to be overstated and is mainly driven by the change in this
classification. As such the spike in growth for 2013/14 is unreliable and is likely to be closer
to the extrapolated dotted line shown in Figure 3.
Removing the 2013/14 growth figure from the analysis provides a revised growth figure for
the two years up to FY 2014/15 of only 2.0%; indicating a significant slowing in sector growth
over the last three years. In particular the 2014/15 growth figure of 1.7% was the first year
that the sector had a lower growth than the wider UK economy (2.2%) (ONS, 2016). This
should be put in the context of a difficult year for the global space industry which post
currency fluctuations experienced a small decline in income between 2014 and 2015 (The
Space Foundation, 2016).
u1367731
11
Figure 4. UK Space sector income
Source: UK Space Agency, 2016. *2015/16 London Economics forecast
Similarly restating the 2013/14 growth figure for direct UK Space sector employment as
illustrated by the dotted line in Figure 5 decreases the 6% growth figure for the two years up
to FY 2014/15 to a more modest 3.7%.
Both the sector income and direct employment figures show a significant slowdown in
growth reflecting the recent slower growth of the global market.
Figure 5. UK Space sector direct employment
Source: UK Space Agency, 2016. *2015/16 London Economics forecast
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
£ B
illio
ns
Income Headline Growth Adjusted Growth
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Tho
usa
nd
s
Direct employment Headline Growth Adjusted Growth
u1367731
12
3.2 UK Space Sector and cluster growth targets
The Innovation and Growth Strategy sets out the following targets for the UK Space Sector:
10% market share of the global space economy by 2030
Income of £19bn by 2019
Income of £40bn by 2030
Measuring progress towards these targets is complicated by exchange rate (FX)
fluctuations. Figure 6 shows the global market share using the true variable USD/GDP
exchange rate whilst Figure 7 shows the same market share with the exchange rate held
fixed at the 2007 value.
Using a variable exchange rate implies that global market share has fallen over the last few
years, whilst the fixed rate chart shows steady progress towards the 10% target. Whist the
fixed rate market share figure is encouraging the variable exchange rate market share and
the income charts indicate that over the last three years the growth strategy has been
underperforming.
Figure 6. UK Space sector global market share (variable USD/GBP FX)
Source: UK Space Agency, 2016. *2015/16 London Economics forecast FX rates www.xe.com
Figure 7. UK Space sector global market share (fixed 06/07 USD/GBP FX)
Source: UK Space Agency, 2016. *2015/16 London Economics forecast
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
UK global market share
USD/GBP FX (RHS)
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
UK global market share
USD/GBP FX (RHS)
u1367731
13
In order to meet the 2019 £19bn income target, starting at the 2015/16 forecast, will require
an average annual growth (CAGR) of 8.2%. To reach £40bn by 2030 will require 7.3%. The
recent income growth rates of circa 2% clearly fall short of these requirements. In addition
the dominant subsectors, broadcasting (56% of sector income) and communications (20%),
are mature industries and are unlikely to be able to deliver the required growth rates. This
places additional reliance on innovation to allow the sector to expand into new markets and
applications. The UK Space cluster is the focus for innovation and therefore a key element of
the growth strategy for the sector.
If it becomes clear that the sector is failing to meet its aggressive IGS growth targets then
the industry’s overall guidance and political legitimacy will be damaged, putting further
pressure on the sector’s performance.
The Harwell Space Cluster has its own direct employment target of 5,000 by 2030. Figure 8
illustrates the recent growth in direct employment at the cluster. The CAGR of 28% (Q2 2015
to Q2 2016) currently exceeds the average rate of 16% required to achieve the 2030 target
but is based off small numbers so is limited as a performance indicator.
Figure 8. UK Space Cluster direct employment
Source: STFC, UK Space Cluster Development
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016
u1367731
14
4 Literature review
Whilst much has been written on the firm level competitive advantage associated with
colocation it is more challenging to find a framework suitable to analyse the performance and
dynamics of the cluster as an entity in its own right.
4.1 Cluster definition
The concept of a cluster in academic literature dates back to Marshall’s Principles of
Economics first published in 1890:
“When an industry has chosen a locality for itself, it is likely to stay there a long time;
so great are the advantages which people following the same trade get from near
neighbourhood to one another.” (Marshall 1920, Ch. 10, Section 3)
Marshall called such locations industrial districts but the elements he describes are typical of
what is termed today as clusters. Porter (2000) notes that clusters have been part of the
economic landscape for many centuries and defines a cluster as:
“A geographical proximate group of interconnected companies and associated
institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and complementarities”.
(Porter 2000, p. 16)
He goes on to define the geographic scope of a cluster as the range over which
informational, transactional, incentive, and other efficiencies occur. A cluster consists of
organisations that cooperate vertically and compete horizontally at each stage of the value
chain. Additionally this can include institutions such as trade associations, research institutes
and government agencies.
A review of the academic literature on clusters reveals many different definitions of what is
considered a cluster. For instance Bergman and Feser (1999) provide a non-geographical
interpretation:
“An industry cluster may be defined very generally as a group of business enterprises
and non-business organisations for whom membership within the group is an
important element of each member firm’s individual competitiveness”. (Berman and
Fesser 1999, Ch. 2, Section 2)
Bergman and Feser are utilising competitive advantage to define the cluster rather than
geographical proximity. In the OECD proceedings “Boosting Innovation the Cluster
approach” Roelandt and Hertog (1999) use cluster definitions based on networks of
u1367731
15
production and value chains. Later in the same OECD proceedings DeBresson and Hu
(1999) further widens the cluster definition by stating that clustering has to be determined in
relation to specified spatial dimensions. Examples of possible spatial dimensions or
attributes are then listed as:
“size, internal organisation, etc.; physical transport, communication, cultural,
technological, functional distances, etc.” (DeBresson an Hu 1999, p. 28)
Such a vague OECD approach to defining a cluster adds an additional level of complexity to
judging the relevance of the resulting research.
In contrast the UK Space Cluster is a well-defined localised group of interconnected
companies and institutions in the Space sector; as such it is a close match for Porter’s
geographical cluster definition. It is worth noting that the benefits of a cluster can follow
along dimensions other than geography and blurring the boundaries of even spatially
localised clusters.
4.2 The proximity paradox
When looking at the subject of geographic clusters we are faced with a paradox. In a world
of increasing global competition why are localised clusters not only relevant but becoming
increasing important to innovation and economic growth? Porter states the apparent
contradiction in the introduction to his paper ‘Location, Competition, and Economic
Development: Local in a Global Economy’ (Porter, 2000):
“It is widely recognised that changes in technology and competition have diminished
many of the traditional roles of location. Yet clusters, or geographic concentrations of
inter-connected companies, are a striking feature of virtually every national, regional,
state, and even metropolitan economy, especially in more advanced nations.” (Porter
2000, p. 15)
Porter goes on to add:
“Even as old reasons for clustering have diminished in importance with globalisation,
new influences of clusters on competition have taken on growing importance in an
increasingly complex, knowledge-based, and dynamic economy.”
Cairncross (1997) in the ‘The Death of Distance’ details how the internet is reducing the
significance of location; how this new role of geography is freeing companies to locate
across the globe and time zones. Whilst it is true that many of the traditional roles of location
u1367731
16
have become less relevant, Cairncross’s analysis seems at odds with the growing weight of
research (see, for example, Porter 1990; Porter 1998; Kaufmann, Lehner and Todtling 2003;
Lever 2002; Preissl and Solimene 2003; Malerba and Vonortas 2009) that shows that the
demands of knowledge-based innovation have created new forms of locational competitive
advantage.
So why would knowledge-based innovation benefit from locational advantages? At first
glance this seems to be a contradiction; after all the internet is fundamentally an information
sharing network. An answer lies in the type and quality of the information exchange possible
at distance. Kaufmann, Lehner and Todtling (2003) address this question specifically:
“Highly complex and uncertain situations—like innovation projects, especially those
of a more radical nature—usually require substantial knowledge inputs and the
change of cognitive frames. This can hardly be done without informal and frequent
face-to-face communication, which requires geographical proximity.” (Kaufmann et al
2003, p. 405)
Kaufmann et al conclude that distance independent communications such as email are
limited to the transmission of codified or explicit knowledge (2003). In contrast the transfer of
tacit knowledge, such as experience, insights, intuition, internalized information, requires
interactive learning and consequently frequent face-to-face interactions.
The innovation process is often too diverse to be managed by a single individual, requiring
many different overlapping fields of expertise (Grant, 1996). A shared language and
common cognitive frames need to be developed and evolve alongside the project. This level
of complexity is heavily reliant on tacit knowledge exchange through face-to-face
communication and as such benefit from close physical proximity or clustering. As
globalisation increases competition, and therefore the importance of differentiation through
innovation, there is some irony that the innovation process itself is increasing the
advantages of localising market sectors.
4.3 Towards an analysis framework
“Organisations and their strategies do not operate in a vacuum. They are open
systems that take resources and information from their environment and transform
them into products and services that are fed back into the environment.” (Angwin,
2011, p4)
u1367731
17
This open system perspective illustrates the interconnected relationship between
organisations and their environment. Figure 9 illustrates the multiple levels of an
organisations environment. In this figure the Macro level is conceptualised using the
ESTEMPLE analysis (Angwin, 2011). ESTEMPLE is a process technique which identifies
forces for change in the wider environment. The question facing an organisation is which of
these forces are relevant, how they will change and what effect they will have in a business
context.
Figure 9. The multiple levels of a firm environment
Source: Macro Angwin (2000), Meso Porter (1979)
Porter’s Five Forces model (Porter 1979) is used to represent the level of the Meso
environment. In this model five interacting forces are used to analysis the intensity of
competition and hence the degree of attractiveness or profitability of the industry. An industry
with low barriers to entry, strong supplier bargaining power, strong buyers bargaining power,
many substitute products and intense competition will face low levels of profitability and
u1367731
18
hence be less attractive. The reverse is also true, leading to attractive and profitable
industries.
The organisation or firm constitutes the Micro level which sits within the Meso and ultimately
the Macro level.
Whilst this three tier approach is commonly used by academics and managers when
analysing an organisations environment it does so from the perspective of the organisation
looking out. A different perspective for analysing the performance of the UK Space cluster is
required which focuses specifically on the functional performance of the cluster. Whilst there
is a degree of overlap there is also redundancy with the inclusion of forces over which the
policy makers and stakeholders of the cluster can have no direct influence. A more selective
analysis framework is required.
The competitive advantage of clusters is a focus in much of the academic literature; it is
these economic advantages that explain the existence of clusters (Preissl and Solimene,
2003). The main benefits can be categorised into the following three groups:
Table 2. Competitive advantages associated with clusters
Source: Preissl and Solimene (2003, p. 43)
Benefits related to
Agglomeration Knowledge spillover
Transaction cost economies
Shared infrastructure
Level of activity Economies of scale
Externalities
Specialisation
Interaction Tacit knowledge and trust
Competition and cooperation
The first of these groups, agglomeration, lists benefits directly derived from the proximity of
organisations. Knowledge spillovers assume that R&D results and new concepts are
transferred between organisations through formal and informal interactions at an increased
rate. Examples of potential savings in transaction costs include: transportation, information
and search, contract, enforcement and trust building. Shared infrastructure refers to both the
u1367731
19
sharing of resources and the aggregation of demand. This concentration of demand benefits
the cluster by encouraging government institutions to act and shape its policies to further
enhance the local infrastructure (Preissl and Solimene, 2003).
The second group, level of activity, considers benefits derived from a large number of
organisations with similar characteristics within one region. Economies of scale are created
when concentration of customers allow suppliers to operate at a higher level of production
and reduce transport costs by bundling demand. External economies are gained through
networking and access to potential partners. Specialist skills are more readily available
either through an enhanced education supply or through employees switching between
organisations. Specialisation benefits derive from concentration of demand raising overall
quality and productivity.
The third group, interaction, concerns the benefits from linkages between members in the
cluster. Tacit knowledge and trust increases the circulation of information and spread of
knowledge and experience. Cooperation and competition help shape the dynamics of the
cluster. Organisations not only compete for customers and resources but also gain
confidence and experience through joint projects. Early experimental development phases
can be organised informally with local partners which would require more formal
arrangements with non-cluster members.
Whilst listing the common benefits is useful to identify the key advantages associated with
clusters, it does not, on its own, provide a coherent framework to analyse the performance
dynamics within a cluster.
Porter (2000) provides a framework for the sources of competitive advantage specifically
associated with geographical clusters graphically depicted as a diamond of interrelated
influences. This framework is shown in Figure 10.
u1367731
20
Figure 10. Sources of Locational Competitive Advantage
Source Porter (2000)
This model is more than an expansion of the groups of benefits provided by Preissl and
Solimene (2003). It introduces the concept of interrelated influences forming a dynamic
system. Changes in one influence directly affect the functioning of the others as well as the
overall system performance.
Whilst Porter’s diamond is a step forward it is does not capture the level of relevant detail
required nor does it lend itself easily to a practical analysis or guidance for policy makers.
The field of System Dynamics developed by Jay W. Forrester (1961) takes the concept of
interrelated influences a stage further. It utilises internal feedback loops to provide models of
organisational structures. Roberts (1978) defines System Dynamics as the application of
control system principles and techniques to managerial, organizational, and socioeconomic
problems. This approach has been directly applied to geographic clusters by Chin-Huang Lin
et al (2006) to produce a performance analysis model for clusters. Lin et al consider
organisations or structures in terms of their common underlying flows. These flows create what
u1367731
21
are termed as “causal loops”. Lin et al define four sets of flows which they use to explore the
factors affecting the competitive advantage of clusters. The four flows, or dimensions, are
defined as follows:
Manpower flows: factors include professional demand, channel and speed of
personnel training, number of high quality human resources.
Technology flows: factors include technology spill over, knowledge resources,
entrepreneurial technological level and entrepreneurial competitive strength.
Money flows: factors include substantial investment fund, loan desire of banking
institution, funds raising ability and entrepreneurial usable fund.
Market flows: factors include the attractiveness of regional concentration, the
completeness of related and supporting Industries, the specialized ability of
suppliers, market potential capacity and industrial scale.
Figure 11. The four sets of flows each create a positive feedback loop which are constrained
from runaway expansion by restriction factors which are indicated by red arrows and –ve
symbols.
Whilst conceptualising the performance of the cluster as a series of flows is a powerful tool,
this model has significant drawbacks. Specifically defining a small number of factors as
restricting the expansion of the flow is potentially misleading; a reduction in the relative
performance of any of the factors in the system dynamics diagram would negatively affect
flow. Also arranging the links between factors in static casual loops is a simplification which
makes the model inflexible, limiting its ability to reflect real world events where links are likely
to be more dynamic.
The most significant drawback is that it is simply too complex to form the basis of a
meaningful management tool. The principals of feedback loops and flow are useful concepts
but require a framework which is easier to visualise and provides clear and concise
information for cluster policy makers and stakeholders.
u1367731
22
Figure 11. System dynamics diagram for an industrial cluster
Source Chin-Huang Lin et al (2006)
A model is required which provides the relevant level of detail whilst simplifying or omitting the
irrelevant complexities. Coyle’s (2004) approach to strategic modelling states that a model has
the following three components:
u1367731
23
It has a purpose which is best expressed as a question (or a set of questions) which it
is designed to answer - the model is a tool for thought about those questions.
It is a simplification of reality because reality is too difficult to think about.
Much of reality is irrelevant to the problem - a model therefore embodies assumptions
about what needs to be included and what can be excluded.
Coyle adds several corollaries to these points including:
Simplifying a real problem requires some intellectual courage and the temptation to
add more and more detail in an illusory search for accuracy must be resisted.
Because it simplifies a problem, a model can never be 'right' - the art is to be just wrong
enough to be useful.
A framework is required which is able to analysis the dynamics of the UK Space Cluster,
highlighting the factors which has led to its current level of success whilst drawing attention to
issues that could be improved. Due to the operational complexity of the cluster and its
constituent organisations this model needs to be a greatly simplified version of reality providing
information and guidance that can be easily interpreted by key actors within the cluster.
The literature review found no framework that combined the required level of granularity with
the perspective of the policy maker designed specifically for the analysis of Clusters. The
framework which stood out as having the most useful attributes was a model for analysing
Technology Innovation Systems. In this case the Technology Innovation System (TIS)
corresponds to the wider UK Space industry and the UK Space Cluster is embedded within
and forms an integral part of this TIS.
Figure 12 shows the positioning of the UK Space Cluster within this environment. The formal
definition of a TIS is the set of actors and rules that influence the speed and direction of
technological change in a specific technological sector (Hekkert et al., 2007, Bergek et al.,
2008).
u1367731
24
Figure 12. Positioning of the UK Space Cluster within its TIS environment
Before this TIS model various researchers and policy analysts have used empirical studies
of innovation systems to try to understand their structure and dynamics. However policy
makers often experience difficulties in extracting practical guidance from this type of study
(Bergek et al., 2008). This was previously noted as a significant drawback of the System
Dynamics approach proposed by Chin-Huang Lin et al (2006). The TIS model was
specifically developed to address this issue and has since been adopted by numerous
regional and national public organisations including the OECD and European Commission
(Albert and Laberge 2007, OECD 1997, OECD 1999, OECD 1999b, E. Commission 1996, E.
Commission 2002).
The aim of the framework is to identify key performance issues and give policy guidance
through the identification and assessment of the key functions that influence innovation
performance (Bergek et al., 2008).
The UK Space industry is reliant on technology innovation to fuel its growth and viewing the
sector as an Innovation System is the natural choice for the analysis of its performance and
growth potential. As a subset of the space sector the cluster relies on the same core TIS
functions, with a direct comparison between sector and cluster giving additional insight into
the competitive advantages provided by the cluster.
Adapting the model to analyse technology innovation at the level of a cluster is a logical
evolution of the TIS model and provides clear and accessible guidance for policy makers.
Consequently an adapted version of the TIS analysis model has been adopted for the
analysis of both the UK Space Sector (TIS) and the UK Space Cluster.
u1367731
25
4.4 The Technology Innovation System (TIS) analysis framework
Hekkert et al. (2011) state the purpose of analysing a TIS is to evaluate the development of
the technological field in terms of the structures and processes that support or hamper it.
Three basic steps to analysing the performance of a system are then defined:
Analyse the structure
Evaluate how the system is functioning
Identify system problems that inhibit the functioning of the system
In regards to the first step, the structure is the network of interrelated organisations,
consumers, institutions and technology that make up the UK Space cluster as outlined in
section 2.1.2.
The second step, evaluating how the system is functioning, utilises an analysis framework of
seven core interacting functions (Hekkert et al., 2007, Bergek et al., 2008). These functions
are:
1. Entrepreneurial Activity
2. Knowledge Creation
3. Knowledge Diffusion
4. Guidance
5. Market Formation
6. Resource mobilisation
7. Legitimisation
Whilst there are some minor differences in the titles given to these TIS functions there is
broad agreement in the academic literature as to their scope.
The faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University, of which Professor Hekkert as a staff
member, describes the important difference between the structure of the system and its
functions in a dedicated TIS website.
“The important difference with the structure of the innovation system is that these
system functions are much more evaluative in character. Focusing on functions
allows us to address the performance of an innovation system. In other words: the
structure presents insight in who is active in the system, the system functions
u1367731
26
present insight in what they are doing and whether this is sufficient to develop
successful innovations.” Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University (2011).
It is the core functions as related to the UK Space Cluster that are the focus of the analysis.
It is these functions that the policymakers can monitor; adapting their policies to enhance the
overall system performance.
The following description of the seven core functions along with examples of functional
performance indicators are based on the definitions outlined by Hekkert et al. (2007) and
Bergek et al (2008).
Core Functions of Innovation System Example Function Indicators
Function 1: Entrepreneurial Activity
The role of the entrepreneur within an
established organisation or start up is to
turn the potential of new knowledge and
ideas into business opportunities by taking
action. Innovation based sectors such as
the UK Space Industry evolve under
considerable uncertainty in terms of
technologies, applications and markets.
Entrepreneurial experimentation is key to
overcoming these risks and bringing new
technologies and applications into the wider
domain
Number of new entrants and
diversifying existing firms
Number of new types of
applications
The breath of technologies
used and the character of
complementary technologies
employed
Support structures for
entrepreneurial activity
A culture not adverse to risk
taking and prepared to learn
from failure
Function 2: Knowledge Creation
The knowledge creation function is
associated with learning through R&D,
academic research and patenting activities
that create variety in the knowledge base
The number, size and degree
of variety in R&D projects
The competitive advantage of
the knowledge base
The rate of patent applications
u1367731
27
The gradient of the learning
curve
The rate and quality of
academic publications
Function 3: Knowledge Diffusion
This function captures how knowledge is
diffused and combined within the cluster
and the wider UK space sector. When the
development of knowledge is diffused
throughout the network, learning on a sector
or cluster level takes place, enhancing
technology, applications and market
development. Knowledge diffusion can also
promote the positive aspects of rivalry and
increase personal motivation
The amount and type of
collaboration within the sector
or cluster
The kind of knowledge that is
shared between organisations
The frequency, type and
'weight' of official gatherings
The frequency and strength of
informal interactions between
individuals from different
organisations
Availability of shared spaces
to facilitate informal
interactions
The frequency and type of
virtual interactions between
individuals and organisations
Function 4: Guidance
Guidance can take the institutional form of
policy targets, but is often realised through
expectations of the lead technology users.
It enhances legitimacy and can stimulate
the mobilisation of resources. Guidance can
also take the form of information regarding
likely future regulatory or legal changes
Certainty regarding specific targets or regulations set by government or industry
Clear communication of lead users’ needs and demands
Belief in growth potential
Articulation of vision or expectations in regards to the core technologies
u1367731
28
Function 5: Market Formation
Emerging technologies often face difficulties
when accessing new markets. Support
for innovation can be provided by
governments but also by other
organisations in the wider innovation
system. Public policy can be used to create
temporary protected spaces through
favourable tax regimes, minimum
consumption quotas or other activities
Existing market growth
potential
Unrestricted access to
potential markets
Institutional stimuli for market
formation
Level of market uncertainties
faced by potential developers
Function 6: Resource mobilisation
The availability and allocation of resources,
human, financial, and infrastructure is a
necessary input to all activities in the
innovation process. Whilst education is a
key driver for the provision and quality of
human resources, financial resources can
take many forms: internal budgets, external
Venture Capital or Equity, government
grants or subsidies. The availability of
complementary specialist equipment or
services through the sector's network also
plays an important role as does the intrinsic
(non-financial) motivation of those working
within the industry. Not only can intrinsic
motivation boost productivity but studies
have shown its important role in enhancing
creativity and innovation
The rate of capital deployment
The availability of capital
across the innovation life cycle
The rate of deployment of
human resources
Matching of education policies
to the sector requirements
Availability of specialist
complementary assets or
services
Availability of infrastructure for
expansion, i.e. office space,
accommodation
u1367731
29
Function 7: Legitimisation
Legitimacy is a measure of social
acceptance and compliance with relevant
institutions. Innovation and its proponents
need to be considered appropriate and
desirable for resources to be mobilised, for
demand to form and for the sector to
acquire political strength. The frequency
and quality of coverage in the media is an
important factor shaping society's
perceptions and helps drive a sector's
political visibility. Legitimacy also influences
expectations amongst managers and by
implication their strategy
Public opinion towards the
sector
How it is depicted in the media
Activity and strength of lobby
groups
Level of institutional and
governmental support
The core functions detailed above are relevant at both the sector and the cluster level. The
cluster has additional functions which reflect the specific benefits of a geographical cluster.
These additional functions work to enhance the core seven functions and are consequently
termed second tier functions in this analysis.
Whilst it is possible to derive many second tier functions from the cluster benefits listed in
Table 2 (page 18) it is important to limit the number considered. The original seven core
functions provide a relatively simple, clear and management friendly analysis; each
additional second tier function diminishes this clarity.
The second tier functions which have been included in the analysis are as follows:
Informal interactions (linked to core function Knowledge Diffusion)
The frequency and quality of unplanned interactions with colleagues
and members of other cluster organisations.
See section 4.6 (page 36)
Availability of informal shared spaces (linked to core function
Knowledge Diffusion)
The physical infrastructure and layout design of buildings that facilitate
informal interactions. This includes shared spaces such as coffee
shops, bars, restaurants and recreational facilities.
u1367731
30
Intrinsic (non-financial) motivation (linked to core functions
Resource Mobilisation)
The drive to work for internal rewards; a sense of purpose, mastery,
new challenges. See section 4.5 (page 32)
Physical infrastructure (linked to core function Resource
Mobilisation)
Operational infrastructure; office and laboratory space, transport links.
This extended TIS analysis framework purely addresses the functional dynamics of the
cluster and the wider innovation system, the UK Space sector. Optimising the performance
of the core functions creates an environment which maximises the potential for innovation
and growth of the system. The framework is focused at the cluster and wider innovation
system level rather than that of the firm. Often these performance dynamics overlap, but not
always. For instance a high level of entrepreneurial activity, whilst performance enhancing
for the system, may introduce disruptive innovations which effect the profitability of individual
firms and their existing products.
The reduction of the innovation system’s complex dynamics to seven core functions provides
enough granularity to capture the key performance drivers whilst achieving clarity and
accessibility as a management tool.
u1367731
31
Figure 13. The TIS model expanded to include cluster related second tier functions
u1367731
32
4.5 Intrinsic Motivation (extension to TIS model)
A key component of the core function Resource Mobilisation is the availability of human
capital. The Space sector is an extreme example of a knowledge based industry requiring
highly skilled and technical personnel. The sector is reliant on innovation to fuel its growth
and as such the technical skills need to be complimented with creative talent.
Hunter, Cushenbery and Freidrich (2012) address the challenging task of identifying and
hiring an innovative workforce. Figure 14 illustrates that there is no single measure of
creative potential, rather it is an aggregate of traits categorised into Knowledge, Skills,
Abilities and “Other” (KSAO). The listed required KSAOs describe an educated high quality
individual with a broad set of abilities. Such an individual will be highly saught after by a wide
range of sectors, some of which will be able to offer significantly greater financial reward
than the space sector.
Figure 14. Interactionist model of an individual’s innovative potential
Source: Hunter, Cushenbery and Freidrich (2012)
In order to analyse the mobilisation of innovative human capital within the Space sector and
the cluster an understanding of personal motivation is required; that which motivates an
individual whilst within the sector and to originally select the UK Space sector for a career.
u1367731
33
One of the longest standing and influential models of Motivation at work was developed by
Abraham Maslow (1954). Maslow’s theory, based on a hierarchy of needs, is often
represented as a pyramid with the most fundamental level “Physiological” at the bottom and
“Self-Actualisation” at the top. In Maslow’s theory basic low level physical and safety needs
have to be satisfied first. Once these “pre-potent” levels are fulfilled then individuals are free
to move up through the remaining levels in sequence.
Figure 15. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Source: Conley, 2007
Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs shown in Figure 15 contains the following levels:
Self-fulfilment needs:
Self-Actualisation: morality, creativity, problem solving, acceptance of facts
Psychological needs:
Esteem: prestige, feeling of accomplishment, confidence, respect of others
Social/belonging: intimate relationships, friends, interaction with peers
Basic needs:
Safety: physical safety, security of employment, health, security of property
Physiological: breathing, water, food, sleep, warmth
u1367731
34
A deficiency in a basic need, such as a lack of water, will dominate the lives of those
affected. Only once lower level needs are satisfied can individuals move on to higher level
needs and so on up the pyramid. Empirical attempts to validate Maslow’s theory have
achieved mixed results (Latham and Pinder, 2005); many theories of motivation developed
since cast some doubt on whether people have the needs Maslow posited or that the
satisfaction of one leads to the activation of another (Bolman and Deal, 2003).
Whilst the empirical veracity of Maslow’s theory may be in question it does provide a level of
insight that is helpful in understanding why motivation in the workforce is changing over time.
Society in developed countries has largely developed to a point where it meets the basic
needs (Physiological and Safety) of its population. The result is a work force that is
increasingly motivated by Psychological and Self-fulfilment needs.
This change in work force motivation is the focus of a book by Daniel H. Pink (2011). Pink
outlines how society has largely relied on what he terms Motivation 2.0 to encourage
employees to improve performance. Motivation 2.0 is a system based on extrinsic drivers;
managers reward the good and punish the bad. It supersedes the earlier operating system
which dominated in pre-history, Motivation 1.0, which is little more than biological urges; the
will to survive.
Pink perceives Motivation 2.0 as too simplistic and unenlightened; that it suggests
“human beings aren’t much different from horses – that the way to get us moving in
the right direction is by dangling a crunchier carrot or wielding a sharper stick” (Pink
2011, p.19).
He does go on to concede that what it lacked in subtlety it made up for in effectiveness
stating “It worked well – extremely well. Until it didn’t” (Pink 2011, p. 20).
This reflects the earlier observation that society is meeting Maslow’s base needs and work
place motivation is moving towards satisfying higher level drives.
Pink groups Motivation 2.0’s defects or incompatibilities into three categories:
How we Organise What we do
The rise of open source. Unpaid work effectively competing with more traditional
business models; examples include Wikipedia, Linux, and the Firefox browser.
u1367731
35
How we think about what we do
Traditional economics and Motivation 2.0 assumes that individuals are rational
calculators of our own self-interest; that we are wealth-maximisers. Frey (1998)
states, “Human motivation is not restricted to monetary incentives” (p. ix),
adding “People do things by intrinsic motivation when they just enjoy doing
them”.
Pink gives the example of working to master the clarinet on weekends when it won’t
provide any income (Motivation 2.0) or assist in acquiring a mate (Motivation 1.0).
How we Do what we do
The majority of work in the last century was repetitive and followed a set of
prescribed instructions. More recently in developed countries work has become more
creative, interesting and self-directed. This is at odds with Motivation 2.0 that
assumes work is not enjoyable, which is why external rewards and punishments are
required.
It is by considering these incompatibilities that lead Pink to develop what he terms Motivation
3.0. This model is based on three main components:
Autonomy
Individuals desire autonomy over what they do, when they do it, who they do it with
and how they do it.
Mastery
Individuals desire to keep improving themselves and strive for mastery over tasks.
Purpose
In motivation 3.0 Pink doesn’t reject the concept of profits but places equal emphasis
on purpose maximisation. Individuals no longer only work for personal gain, they
desire to work towards a meaningful goal which is larger than themselves; to
motivate employees with the greater vision to which their work contributes.
These three components are intrinsic motivations and as such align themselves with the
higher levels of needs outlined by Maslow.
u1367731
36
It is by considering intrinsic motivation that an explanation can be found as to how the UK
Space sector can attract high quality innovative individuals. Policy makers and key
stakeholders within the sector can have an influence over the sense of purpose associated
with Space. This will have a motivational effect on existing members and in attracting new
talent to the industry. It is for this reason that intrinsic motivation is included as a relevant
second tier function in the cluster analysis framework.
4.6 Informal interactions and shared spaces (extension to TIS
model)
Of the seven core functions the benefits of knowledge diffusion and its associated second
tier functions, informal interactions and informal shared spaces, are perhaps the least
transparent. As such it is worth looking into these functions in more depth.
Tallman et al (2004) look specifically at how knowledge diffusion, or knowledge flows,
establish competitive advantage at both the firm and cluster level. Using a technique created
by Henderson and Clark (1990) and later developed by Matusik and Hill (1998) and, Tallman
et al divide knowledge into two distinct types, component and architectural:
Component knowledge
Specific knowledge resources, skills and technologies that relate to identifiable parts
of the organisation. Subject to discovery through R&D, component knowledge is
potentially transferable to other firms.
Architectural knowledge
Structures, culture and processes for utilising its component knowledge for
productive use. Typically complex, intangible and tacit architectural knowledge is
generally not readily accessible by other firms.
Matusik and Hill (1998) propose that component knowledge can only be kept private for a
limited period of time and as such cannot generate a sustained competitive advantage.
Tallman et al note that firms within a cluster, with frequent informal interactions, personnel
movement and common suppliers will be subject to enhanced inter-cluster component
knowledge transfers.
u1367731
37
This seems to imply that being a member of a cluster would reduce the period during which
component knowledge would provide a competitive advantage. Tallman et al argue that this
is not the case due to the role played by architectural knowledge.
Firms with similar architectural knowledge will have enhanced component knowledge
transfer rates as the similar conditions and activities will improve knowledge absorption. In
addition to architectural knowledge at the firm level Tallman et al propose that a separate
layer of architectural knowledge also exists at the cluster level. This common set of
organisational principles and processes act to increase the transfer of component knowledge
within the cluster whilst inhibiting its movement to non-cluster organisations.
Barney and Hoskisson (1990) have shown that knowledge shared by a limited number of
firms can still generate competitive advantage. Tallman et al propose that cluster-level
architectural knowledge provides sustained competitive advantage to firms in the cluster by
restricting the movement of component knowledge out of the cluster and by providing a
unique common base of know-how for applying such technology.
Informal interactions between individuals within the cluster form the primary channel for
component knowledge transfers and as such form an important part of the cluster analysis.
Another benefit of informal interactions is an increase in intrinsic motivation; cross
organisational conversations spark curiosity and helps enhance the sense of shared
purpose.
Cluster policy makers and infrastructure developers have a significant role in influencing the
frequency and quality of interactions between cluster members. The physical environment
has a significant effect on informal interactions, and therefore component knowledge
diffusion.
An article by Jonah Lehrer (2012) titled “Groupthink” includes a number of case studies
which illustrate the impact of the physical layout of work environments on informal
interactions and knowledge diffusion.
Lehrer notes that the latest generation of architects have tried to increase the occurrence of
informal encounters in research laboratories and that this trend has also spread to the
design of corporate work spaces. Lehrer describes Steve Jobs as a fanatical believer in the
power of building design to enhance the work of groups. Quoting from Walter Isaacson’s
u1367731
38
biography of Jobs (2011) Lehrer describes how Jobs oversaw the planning of the Pixar’s
new headquarters in 1999.
The features that Jobs incorporated into the building included:
Entire building arranged around a central/common atrium
All mailboxes located together in the lobby
All meeting rooms, coffee bar and shop located together at the building’s centre
Only one set of bathrooms located centrally in the atrium
All of these design features where intended to facilitate frequent informal meetings. Whilst
there was initially a degree of scepticism (especially in regards to the single set of toilets) the
staff of Pixar were eventually won over.
“At first, I thought this was the most ridiculous idea”, Dara Anderson, producer at
Pixar films. “I didn’t want to walk all the way to the atrium every time I needed to do
something. That’s just a waste of time. But Steve said, ‘Everybody has to run into
each other.’ He really believed that the best meetings happened by accident, in the
hallway or parking lot. And you know what? He was right. I get more done having a
cup of coffee and striking up a conversation or walking to the bathroom and running
into unexpected people than I do sitting at my desk.” Source Jobs biography, Isaacson
(2011).
Lehrer also considers “Building 20” at MIT. Prior to its demolition in 1998 Building 20 was
widely regarded to as one of the most creative spaces in the world. Built as a temporary
laboratory for radar research during the Second World War, the large two hundred and fifty
thousand square foot building was designed in an afternoon by a local architecture firm. As a
building the structure was unlikely to win any awards. It violated fire codes, ventilation was
poor, and hallways were dim. It was also unbearably hot in summer and freezing in winter.
MIT had promised to demolish the building at the end of the war but an influx of students left
the university short of space. Building 20 became the overflow lab and office space for a
wide range of academic departments. Whilst the majority of these departments were science
or engineering based it was also home to areas of research as diverse as linguistics.
The space forced usually solitary scientists to continually mix and mingle. The largely
horizontal layout encouraged longer encounters whilst walking corridors, rather than brief
interactions in elevators. In addition the counter intuitive room and wing labelling system
u1367731
39
meant that even long-time residents were constantly getting lost, further increasing the
frequency of informal interactions. The urban theorist Jane Jacobs (1969) described these
informal exchanges as “knowledge spillovers”. It was these spillovers, or component
knowledge transfers, that was central to the unparalleled level of innovation and creativity
which lead to the building being referred to as the “magical incubator”.
Whilst Building 20 wasn’t designed to be a world class centre of innovation the lessons
learnt can be applied when designing work spaces and groups of buildings such as clusters.
An environment which enhances innovation requires frequent and high quality informal
interactions; whether through chance meetings moving between locations or through shared
spaces such as coffee shops or recreational facilities.
As for the linguistics department in Building 20, it produced the revolutionary theory of
Chomskyan linguistics; the proposition that every language shares a deep structure which
reflects the cognitive structure of the brain. Chomsky’s work drew not only the discipline of
linguistics but also biology, psychology and computer science. It is not a coincidence that
experts in all these fields where present in Building 20 at the time.
“There was a mixture of people who later became separate departments interacting
informally all the time. You would walk down a corridor and meet people and have a
discussion”. Source interview with Professor Noam Chomsky, Dizikes (2011).
u1367731
40
5 Data acquisition methodology
The process of development of lines of communication, relationship building and data acquisition proceeded through the steps listed in
Table 3.
Table 3. Schedule of key stakeholder meetings
Introductory meeting with Dr Tim Bestwick, Executive Director of Business and
Innovation and Chief Executive of STFC Innovation Ltd. Acquire understanding of
desired management deliverables and access introductions to key cluster
stakeholders
Initial meetings with key stakeholders. Gain insight into the organisations, their
interdependences and cultures. Functional mind map of the cluster. Develop key
line of communication with STFC Cluster development manager
Inter-cluster social media information exchange (Twitter) analysis
Post analysis design follow up meetings with key cluster actors. Feedback on
suitability of model, buy in of key actors into framework. Assistance in marketing
survey. Arrangements for future analysis presentations to cluster members
Online survey publication and marketing. Representation at internal cluster
meetings to encourage survey engagement
Post survey results meeting with Cluster development manager
Appendix A details meetings with Cluster key stakeholders. The formally structured data
acquisition for the cluster analysis was collected through the online survey. The meetings
with key stakeholders were a valuable opportunity to gain insight into the operation of the
cluster from the perspective of different organisations. Their view of recent events proved
valuable for interpreting the survey results. In addition these meetings helped build
relationships and management buy-in for the analysis framework.
u1367731
41
5.1 UK Space Cluster online survey
In order to identify the current system constraints members of the cluster were asked to rate
the relative strength of the seven core system functions plus the four second tier functions
previously outlined via an online survey2. The survey asked for the perception of function
strength using a five level rating scale rather than any asking for specific
performance/financial data. A comment box was included with each of the core functions for
the cluster members to add additional commentary. This high level reflective approach
follows the methods previously employed for TIS systems analysis in the academic literature
(Van Alphen et al 2009, Bergek et al 2008). A benefit of this technique is that the survey can
be kept simple and relatively quick to complete whilst still capturing a wide range of opinions
and performance concerns.
The survey contains a separate page relating to each of the seven core functions. At the top
of the page the function is described and examples of performance indicators listed. This
introduction follows the wording of the functional outline and examples of performance
indicators used previously in section 4.4 (page 25). An example page from the survey is
shown in Appendix B. The Resource Mobilisation and Knowledge Diffusion core function
pages each have two additional second tier function questions and rating requests.
Opinions of the relative performance of each core function and the intrinsic motivation
second tier function were sought with respect to each of the following four reference frames:
UK Space Cluster, Harwell (Recent)
UK Space Cluster, Harwell (Current)
Wider UK Space Sector (Recent)
Wider UK Space Sector (Current)
"Recent" was defined as the three year period prior to June 2016; "Current" from June 2016
to survey completion (Dec 2016). In addition to the direct distribution obtained for each
reference frame, the following comparisons were also analysed:
UK Space Cluster rating (Current) – Wider UK Space Sector (Current)
UK Space Cluster rating (Recent) – Wider UK Space Sector (Recent)
UK Space Cluster rating (Current) - UK Space Cluster rating (Recent)
Wider UK Space Sector (Current) - Wider UK Space Sector (Recent)
2 The online survey was conducted using the Open Source survey application LimeSurvey (www.limesurvey.org) hosted on a local NAS device. Survey link: http://a3c.synology.me:8888/LimeSurvey/index.php?r=survey/index&sid=679136
u1367731
42
The first two comparisons illustrate the performance enhancement of the Cluster over the
wider UK Space Sector, whilst the second two examine the change in perceived
performance over the last six months. A benefit of defining the current as since June 2016 is
that this captures functional strength pre and post the BREXIT vote.
u1367731
43
6 UK Space Cluster survey results
In this section the survey ratings are presented side by side for each of the core and
secondary functions along with the response distribution’s standard deviation (SD), mean
and standard error (SE) on the mean. The standard deviation, shown as a filled bar is a
measure of convergence of opinion.
A total of 28 cluster members and stakeholders finished the survey. It was not compulsory to
give a rating for each section so the number of responses varied between functions.
The results are later interpreted in section 6.4 (starting page 47).
Figure 16. Key to survey results charts (unless otherwise stated)
Mean
Standard Error on the Mean
Standard Deviation of rating (opinion convergence)
Recent
Current
Very Good
Neutral
Very Poor 1
2
3
4
5
Mean
Standard Error on the Mean
Standard Deviation of rating (measure of opinion convergence)
Recent
Current
Very Good
Neutral
Very Poor
Good
Poor
u1367731
44
6.1 Core functions survey results
Table 4. UK Space Cluster Harwell Core functions
Table 5. UK Space Cluster Harwell Core functions
Figure 17. UK Space Cluster Harwell
Figure 18. Wider UK Space Sector
Recent Current
Mean SE SD #Respon Mean SE SD #Respon
Entrepreneurial 3.88 0.16 0.80 26 4.15 0.16 0.82 26
Knowledge Creation 4.13 0.16 0.78 24 4.24 0.16 0.79 25
Knowledge Diffusion 3.58 0.15 0.74 26 3.92 0.13 0.67 26
Guidance 3.76 0.15 0.76 25 3.65 0.14 0.73 26
Market Creation 3.32 0.17 0.84 25 3.46 0.16 0.80 26
Resource Mobilisation 3.25 0.20 0.97 24 3.56 0.17 0.85 25
Legitimisation 3.79 0.19 0.91 24 4.00 0.17 0.85 25
Recent Current
Mean SE SD #Respon Mean SE SD #Respon
Entrepreneurial 3.04 0.17 0.87 25 3.08 0.20 1.02 25
Knowledge Creation 3.13 0.16 0.78 24 3.17 0.15 0.75 24
Knowledge Diffusion 2.75 0.19 0.92 24 2.96 0.19 0.93 24
Guidance 3.18 0.24 1.11 22 3.10 0.21 0.97 21
Market Creation 2.86 0.20 0.92 22 2.91 0.19 0.93 23
Resource Mobilisation 2.76 0.20 0.92 21 2.95 0.21 0.98 22
Legitimisation 3.13 0.22 1.03 23 3.33 0.23 1.11 24
1
2
3
4
5
Entr
epre
neu
rial
Kno
wle
dge
Crea
tio
n
Kno
wle
dge
Dif
fusi
on
Gu
idan
ce
Ma
rke
t C
reat
ion
Re
sou
rce
Mo
bili
sati
on
Legi
tim
isat
ion
1
2
3
4
5
Entr
epre
neu
rial
Kno
wle
dge
Crea
tio
n
Kno
wle
dge
Dif
fusi
on
Gu
idan
ce
Ma
rke
t C
reat
ion
Re
sou
rce
Mo
bili
sati
on
Legi
tim
isat
ion
Current Recent
u1367731
45
6.2 Second tier functions survey results
Table 6. UK Space Cluster Harwell Core functions
Table 7. UK Space Cluster Harwell Core functions
Figure 19. Second tier system function performance
Recent Current
Mean SE SD #Respon Mean SE SD #Respon
Informal interactions 3.96 0.14 0.73 28 4.11 0.13 0.67 28
Informal Shared Spaces 3.44 0.31 1.30 18 3.45 0.28 1.24 20
Operational infrastructure 2.73 0.24 1.23 26 2.92 0.22 1.11 26
Recent Current
Mean SE SD #Respon Mean SE SD #Respon
IM, Cluster 4.08 0.17 0.81 24 4.15 0.15 0.77 26
IM, Wider UK Space Sector 3.40 0.26 1.16 20 3.45 0.25 1.20 22
1
2
3
4
5
Info
rmal
inte
ract
ion
s (C
lust
er)
Info
rmal
sh
ared
spa
ces
(Cl
ust
er)
Ope
rati
onal
infr
astr
uct
ure
(Clu
ster
)
Intr
insi
c m
oti
vati
on
(Cl
ust
er)
Intr
insi
c m
oti
va
tio
n
(Se
cto
r)
Current Recent
u1367731
46
6.3 Core functions survey results – Rating comparisons
Table 8. UK Space Cluster Harwell Core functions
Table 9. UK Space Cluster Harwell Core functions
Figure 20. Cluster minus Wider Sector
Figure 21. Current minus Recent
Recent Current
Mean SE SD #Respon Mean SE SD #Respon
Entrepreneurial 3.88 0.16 0.80 26 4.15 0.16 0.82 26
Knowledge Creation 4.13 0.16 0.78 24 4.24 0.16 0.79 25
Knowledge Diffusion 3.58 0.15 0.74 26 3.92 0.13 0.67 26
Guidance 3.76 0.15 0.76 25 3.65 0.14 0.73 26
Market Creation 3.32 0.17 0.84 25 3.46 0.16 0.80 26
Resource Mobilisation 3.25 0.20 0.97 24 3.56 0.17 0.85 25
Legitimisation 3.79 0.19 0.91 24 4.00 0.17 0.85 25
Recent Current
Mean SE SD #Respon Mean SE SD #Respon
Entrepreneurial 3.04 0.17 0.87 25 3.08 0.20 1.02 25
Knowledge Creation 3.13 0.16 0.78 24 3.17 0.15 0.75 24
Knowledge Diffusion 2.75 0.19 0.92 24 2.96 0.19 0.93 24
Guidance 3.18 0.24 1.11 22 3.10 0.21 0.97 21
Market Creation 2.86 0.20 0.92 22 2.91 0.19 0.93 23
Resource Mobilisation 2.76 0.20 0.92 21 2.95 0.21 0.98 22
Legitimisation 3.13 0.22 1.03 23 3.33 0.23 1.11 24
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
En
tre
pre
ne
uria
l
Kn
ow
ledg
e C
reat
ion
Kno
wle
dge
Dif
fusi
on
Gu
ida
nce
Mar
ket
Cre
atio
n
Res
ou
rce
Mo
bili
sati
on
Legi
tim
isat
ion
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-0.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
En
tre
pre
ne
uria
l
Kn
ow
ledg
e C
reat
ion
Kno
wle
dge
Dif
fusi
on
Gu
ida
nce
Mar
ket
Cre
atio
n
Res
ou
rce
Mo
bili
sati
on
Legi
tim
isat
ion
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
u1367731
47
6.4 UK Space Cluster – rating interpretation
Function 1. Entrepreneurial Activity
How would you best describe the relative performance of
Entrepreneurial activity?
(5)Very Strong (4)Strong (3)Neutral (2)Weak (1)Very Weak
Summary of Entrepreneurial Activity results
Current cluster level function strength 4.15 ± 0.16; cf. cluster average function
strength 3.86 (1.86 SE above average).
Cluster absolute functional strength ranking #2 (out of 7)
Current cluster enhancement relative to sector 1.07 ± 0.22; cf. cluster average
enhancement 0.78 (1.32 SE above average).
Cluster relative to sector enhancement ranking #1 (out of 7)
Change (Current - Recent) of cluster function strength 0.27 ± 0.1; cf. cluster average
change 0.18 (0.84 SE above average).
Cluster function recent change ranking #3 (out of 7)
Figure 22. Entrpreneurial Activity summary
1
2
3
4
5
Clu
ste
r
Sect
or
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Clu
ste
r -
Sect
or
Cu
rre
nt
- R
ece
nt
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Sect
or
Clu
ste
r
u1367731
48
The core function of Entrepreneurial Activity at the cluster rates highly, providing the greatest
cluster enhancement relative to the wider UK Space Sector of all the core functions.
There is significant UK government and ESA support for entrepreneurial activity at the
cluster which is primarily channelled through the Satellite Applications Catapult and the ESA
Business Incubation Centre (ESA BIC); the STFC manages the ESA BIC on behalf of ESA.
More specifics are given in the Resource Mobilisation core function section.
The Catapult and BIC initiatives help reinforce the strong entrepreneurial and innovation
culture on campus. In addition to start-ups existing firms are eager to have a presence on
campus and be connected to this innovation rich environment; although as stated in the
second respondent comment, they are likely to be more risk adverse and less responsive to
potential opportunities.
Selection of Entrepreneurial survey comments (full comments listed in Appendix. C).
“Recent commitment to investment from UK PLC has increased the level of activity
in the sector, although the developments with Brexit and US administration change
are not helping new growth.” [Respondent ID 18]
“Genuine new start-ups at Harwell show excellent entrepreneurial activity, e.g.
personal risk on behalf of the founder(s) to explore new opportunities and ideas.
'Beach head' offices from the likes of Airbus Defence and Space, Thales Alenia
Space, Lockheed Martin et al, have a more business as usual approach; risk
aversion, preference for proven technologies and dithering over decision making.”
[Respondent ID 26]
“The presence of the ESA Business Incubation Centre and the Satellite Applications
Catapult at Harwell continues to be an important enabler of and support for
entrepreneurial activity on campus.” [Respondent ID 36]
u1367731
49
Function 2. Knowledge Creation
How would you best describe the relative performance of Knowledge
Creation?
(5)Very Strong (4)Strong (3)Neutral (2)Weak (1)Very Weak
Summary of Knowledge Creation results
Current cluster level function strength 4.24 ± 0.16; cf. cluster average function
strength 3.86 (2.36 SE above average).
Cluster absolute functional strength ranking #1 (out of 7)
Current cluster enhancement relative to sector 1.07 ± 0.17; cf. cluster average
enhancement 0.78 (1.74 SE above average).
Cluster relative to sector enhancement ranking #2 (out of 7)
Change (Current - Recent) of cluster function strength 0.12 ± 0.12; cf. cluster
average change 0.18 (-0.56 SE above average).
Cluster function recent change ranking #6 (out of 7)
Figure 23. Knowledge Creation summary
1
2
3
4
5
Clu
ste
r
Sect
or
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Clu
ste
r -
Sect
or
Cu
rre
nt
- R
ece
nt
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Sect
or
Clu
ste
r
u1367731
50
Knowledge creation is rated by the survey as the strongest function of the cluster and
represents the second highest cluster enhancement over the wider sector. This core function
at the campus benefits from the following:
Over 50 Universities have a physical presence on campus. These links will continue
to strengthen and grow when the planned Universities Quarter is developed on site
by the Harwell Campus JV.
RAL Space (an integral part of the STFC) and the development of the R100 building
a new space integration and test facility. RAL Space is a world class space research,
technology development and data facility.
ESA and ESA ECSAT helping to drive R&D projects especially in the fields of
telecommunications and climate change.
The Satellite Applications Catapult; primarily intended to enable innovation and
entrepreneurship in satellite applications and technology, the associated continuing
R&D is also contributing to the Knowledge creation core function.
The strength of this function is in strong contrast to the weakness of the core function Market
Creation (function 5). This is reflected by the first of the survey comments which suggests
that the role taken on by the Satellite Applications Catapult and the ESA BIC of turning ideas
into commercial sales would benefit from further expansion.
Selection of Knowledge Creation survey comments (full comments listed in Appendix C).
“The UK is great at basic TRL knowledge creation, and appalling at taking it beyond
that. We see little activity mid TRL, but significant activities below TRL53,
consequently much of the knowhow is either reinvested back into the system (grant
factories), or dissipates overseas.” [Respondent ID 18]
3 Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). Level 5 refers to Technology Demonstration level (Component and/or bench configuration subsystem validation in relevant environment). Source NASA 2012.
u1367731
51
“The establishment of the SA Catapult and ESA ECSAT facility and related rise of
companies has undoubtedly increased knowledge creation / R&D on campus cf. the
wider U.K.” [Respondent ID 28]
“In addition to the government and industrial R&D capabilities at Harwell, I have
heard that more than 50 UK and overseas universities have some kind or presence
or collaboration.” [Respondent ID 36]
u1367731
52
Function 3. Knowledge Diffusion
How would you best describe the relative strength of Knowledge
Diffusion?
(5)Very Strong (4)Strong (3)Neutral (2)Weak (1)Very Weak
Summary of Knowledge Diffusion results
Current cluster level function strength 3.92 ± 0.13; cf. cluster average function
strength 3.86 (0.51 SE above average).
Cluster absolute functional strength ranking #4 (out of 7)
Current cluster enhancement relative to sector 0.96 ± 0.24; cf. cluster average
enhancement 0.78 (0.76 SE above average).
Cluster relative to sector enhancement ranking #3 (out of 7)
Change (Current - Recent) of cluster function strength 0.35 ± 0.12; cf. cluster
average change 0.18 (1.35 SE above average).
Cluster function recent change ranking #1 (out of 7)
Figure 24. Knowledge Diffusion summary
1
2
3
4
5
Clu
ste
r
Sect
or
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Clu
ste
r -
Sect
or
Cu
rre
nt
- R
ece
nt
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Sect
or
Clu
ste
r
u1367731
53
Knowledge Diffusion is mid-rated relative to the other core functions for both absolute
strength and enhancement relative to the wider space sector. Knowledge diffusion or
“knowledge spillover” is central to the competitive advantage of the cluster and has two
associated second tier functions, informal interactions and availability of informal shared
spaces in this analysis.
As previously discussed the main channels for knowledge diffusion are formal and informal
meetings. Whilst codified or explicit knowledge can be exchanged with distance independent
communications such as email, tacit knowledge, such as experience, insights, internalized
information, requires interactive learning and consequently frequent face-to-face interactions
(Kaufmann et al 2003). In addition cluster level architectural knowledge acts to accelerate
the diffusion of component knowledge within the geographical boundaries of the cluster
(Tallman et al, 2004).
Formally arranged cluster wide meetings/networking events are regularly arranged on site
including:
Satuccino - Monthly at the Satellite Applications Catapult. Coffee, cluster members
presentations and networking. Well attended with an informal atmosphere.
SpaceCakes - monthly ESA BIC (STFC managed) networking and collaboration
event similar to “Satuccino”.
Connect Harwell – campus wide bi-monthly networking and event promoting
collaboration.
These formally arranged events not only provide a direct opportunity for collaboration and
knowledge diffusion but also provide introductions which later lead to enhanced informal
interactions.
“Most of my networking is done by bumping into people around campus... but that
requires that I know them first, which comes from personal introductions and
networking events.” [Survey Respondent ID 43]
u1367731
54
Function 3. Knowledge Diffusion Second Tier functions:
Informal interactions
Specifically, how would you describe the frequency and quality of
informal interactions at the Harwell campus between individuals from
different organisations or departments?
(5)Very Good (4)Good (3)Neutral (2)Poor (1)Very Poor
Availability of informal shared spaces
How would you describe the availability of shared spaces at Harwell
which encourage informal interactions: cafes, bars, sport and
recreational facilities?
(5)Excellent (4)Good (3)Adequate (2)Poor (1)Very Poor
Figure 25. Knowledge diffusion Second tier functions
Whilst informal interactions achieve a high rating the availability of informal shared spaces in
significantly weaker. These informal interactions are largely the result of the strong schedule
of networking events. As the Pixar and MIT Building 20 case studies illustrated in order for
an environment to truly drive innovation it also requires a high frequency of unplanned
informal interactions that are so important to the core function of knowledge diffusion.
1
2
3
4
5
Info
rma
l in
tera
ctio
ns
(C
lust
er)
Info
rma
l sh
are
d s
pa
ces
(C
lust
er)
u1367731
55
The poor provision of informal spaces (as described in the survey comments) should be
considered a constraint to the overall performance of the cluster as an Innovation System.
Selection of Knowledge Diffusion survey comments (full comments listed in Appen. D).
“From a sector perspective, collaborations are increasing - yet more needs to be
done. On campus there has been a welcome increase in opportunities for in-sector
and cross-sector informal networking through organised events (Harwell Connect,
Space Cakes, Sattuccino). However, the quality of infrastructure for informal
meetings has deteriorated - in particular the reduced offering in the Electron cafe.”
[Respondent ID 28]
“Formally organised networking events are a strong feature of the campus. The
provision of shared space for informal interactions is somewhere between poor and
adequate and more is needed.” [Respondent ID 36]
“More formal than informal interactions” [Respondent ID 53]
“Re informal interactions: Good, but could be better. We need more shared space
coffee bars etc.” [Respondent ID 55]
Homogeneity of knowledge diffusion within the cluster
The academic literature on knowledge diffusion treats clusters as a homogenous entity. But
do cluster members interact in this way or do knowledge diffusion and informal interaction
sub-clusters form? Whilst the restricted depth of questions in the survey provide no real
insight in to this question another source of information is publically available which can act
as a proxy; social media.
By creating a Twitter account linked only to cluster members it is possible to trace which
members are following which twitter feeds within the cluster. The resulting relationship matrix
can be analysed using the Wolfram Mathematica4 functions “CommunityGraphPlot” and
“EigenvectorCentrality”. The first function looks to the links to ascertain if there are sub-
4 Mathematica application information available at https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/
u1367731
56
clusters whilst the second identifies the twitter feeds which are most central to virtual
knowledge diffusion (those that are followed by those that are themselves highly followed).
The 60 most central cluster twitter accounts are listed in Appendix D.
The “CommunityGraphPlot” function produced the plot shown in Figure 26 and shows that
the cluster, at least on a social media basis, is formed of four sub-clusters. Further analysis
shows that members are on average 2.5 times more likely to follow a feed from within their
own sub-cluster than the cluster average. Similar patterns of sub-clustering are also likely to
be present in the physical interactions within the cluster.
Whilst the analysis of the cluster continues to assume homogeneity there is value in
understanding the simplifications and therefore limitations that the model contains.
Figure 26. UK Space Cluster social media (Twitter) sub-clusters Size of data labels signifies the number of followers
u1367731
57
Function 4. Guidance
How would you describe your satisfaction with the level of Guidance
provided by government or industry?
(5)Very high (4)High (3)Neutral (2)Low (1)Very Low
Summary of Guidance results
Current cluster level function strength 3.65 ± 0.14; cf. cluster average function
strength 3.86 (-1.41 SE above average).
Cluster absolute functional strength ranking #5 (out of 7)
Current cluster enhancement relative to sector 0.56 ± 0.27; cf. cluster average
enhancement 0.78 (-0.83 SE above average).
Cluster relative to sector enhancement ranking #6 (out of 7)
Change (Current - Recent) of cluster function strength -0.11 ± 0.09; cf. cluster
average change 0.18 (-3.36 SE above average).
Cluster function recent change ranking #7 (out of 7)
Figure 27. Guidance summary
1
2
3
4
5
Clu
ste
r
Sect
or
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Clu
ste
r -
Sect
or
Cu
rre
nt
- R
ece
nt
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Sect
or
Clu
ste
r
u1367731
58
The performance of the Guidance function is relatively weak ranking fifth out of the seven
core functions. It also shows below average cluster enhancement and most importantly is
the only function to have degraded over the previous six months.
The UK Space Agency does provide a good deal of official sector guidance. With bi-annual
updates to its “The Size & Health of the UK Space Industry” report, the Space Innovation
and Growth Strategy (IGS) report and the Government’s response to the IGS – the Space
Growth Action Plan. Specific sector income targets have been set for 2020 and 2030 which
have recently been reaffirmed. Government is also backing the growth strategy with
corresponding funding initiatives.
At a cluster level there is additional guidance offered by agencies on campus which include
the UK Space agency, Satellite Applications Catapult, ESA, STFC Space Cluster
Development, and ESA BIC.
So why is the Guidance showing relatively weak performance and recently degraded?
Possible reasons include:
BREXIT has created uncertainty as to access to skilled European employees,
markets and involvement in European projects.
The recent downturn in the global space market has cast doubt over the rigid growth
targets in the IGS.
The IGS focus on the needs of lead users doesn’t always resonate with cluster
members who can see this to be in conflict with the process of disruptive innovation.
Guidance as to the development of necessary campus infrastructure is weakened by
the often slow moving local planning process.
Recent leadership changes within the UK Space Agency.
Selection of Guidance survey comments (full comments listed in Appendix C).
“The UK Government's policy targets for the growth of the UK space industry are
clearly defined in the Space Innovation and Growth Strategy. However I question
the strategy of focusing on "Clear communication of lead users’ needs and
demands". Many sectors and markets have shown repeatedly that listening to lead
user needs does not bring about disruptive innovation.” [Respondent ID 26]
u1367731
59
“Government has adopted industry growth targets and increased investment. From a
Harwell perspective (as focal point for U.K. Sector), government has delivered on
commitments to establish R100, ECSAT, SA Catapult and specific support schemes
(e.g. Launch pads). Government has also invested the EU; in Copernicus and Galileo
as data / service drivers for future products / services.” [Respondent ID 26]
“We have reasonable guidance at Harwell (largely of our own making) but the Space
IGS process for UK space sector as a whole has faltered” [Respondent ID 53]
u1367731
60
Function 5. Market Creation
How would you best describe the relative strength of Market
Formation?
(5)Very Strong (4)Strong (3)Neutral (2)Weak (1)Very Weak
Summary of Market Creation results
Current cluster level function strength 3.46 ± 0.16; cf. cluster average function
strength 3.86 (-2.53 SE above average).
Cluster absolute functional strength ranking #7 (out of 7)
Current cluster enhancement relative to sector 0.55 ± 0.2; cf. cluster average
enhancement 0.78 (-1.17 SE above average).
Cluster relative to sector enhancement ranking #7 (out of 7)
Change (Current - Recent) of cluster function strength 0.14 ± 0.09; cf. cluster
average change 0.18 (-0.45 SE above average).
Cluster function recent change ranking #5 (out of 7)
Figure 28. Market Creation summary
1
2
3
4
5
Clu
ste
r
Sect
or
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Clu
ste
r -
Sect
or
Curr
ent
- R
ecen
t
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Sect
or
Clu
ste
r
u1367731
61
The performance of the Market Creation function is the weakest of all the core functions,
ranking seven out of the seven. It also shows the lowest cluster enhancement and the
performance (within statistical error) is not showing any recent improvement.
The poor rating of this function is a reflection of the Market creation function’s performance
and of the recently tough global space market (The Space Foundation, 2016).
The contrast between Knowledge Creation and Market Creation ratings is significant and
indicates that the performance of the process of taking ideas through to income generating
sales is a constraint on the overall innovation system performance. Whilst specialist staff are
assigned by agencies and firms within the cluster to gain access to new and grow existing
markets more resources are needed.
The poor performance of the Market Creation function mirrors the classic perception of
British industry; great at creative ideas, poor at commercialisation. A characteristic which
needs to change if the IGS targets are to be achieved.
Selection of Market Creation survey comments (full comments listed in Appendix C).
“Key constraint is resources - that many key technical players are often working hard
on projects that have little slack and find it hard to provide vital inputs to support BD
[Business Development] colleagues working to develop markets.” [Respondent ID
10]
“No specific difference between Harwell and UK Industry has identified growth
markets and have been tasked to develop reports on each market - this work has
been delayed but is now being reinvigorated. Governments can be anchor customers
for services - the UKSA's SSGP programme is doing work in this area but more could
be done with additional resource.” [Respondent ID 28]
“The uncertainty caused by Brexit may be damaging.” [Respondent ID 36]
“The market is limited at present but is growing.” [Respondent ID 55]
u1367731
62
Function 6. Resource Mobilisation
How would you describe the Resource Mobilisation?
(5)Very Strong (4)Strong (3)Neutral (2)Weak (1)Very Weak
Summary of Resource Mobilisation results
Current cluster level function strength 3.56 ± 0.17; cf. cluster average function
strength 3.86 (-1.74 SE above average).
Cluster absolute functional strength ranking #6 (out of 7)
Current cluster enhancement relative to sector 0.61 ± 0.24; cf. cluster average
enhancement 0.78 (-0.76 SE above average).
Cluster relative to sector enhancement ranking #5 (out of 7)
Change (Current - Recent) of cluster function strength 0.31 ± 0.12; cf. cluster
average change 0.18 (1.01 SE above average).
Cluster function recent change ranking #2 (out of 7)
Figure 29. Resource Mobilisation summary
1
2
3
4
5
Clu
ste
r
Sect
or
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Clu
ste
r -
Sect
or
Cu
rre
nt
- R
ece
nt
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Sect
or
Clu
ste
r
u1367731
63
The perceived poor performance of the Resource Mobilisation core function is dominated by
concerns over physical infrastructure and transportation links. Survey comments illustrate
this trend as do conversations with key stakeholders at the cluster. Infrastructure concerns
ranked more highly than the provision of funding or the availability of skilled human
resources. The shortage of infrastructure is the key constraint on the performance and
growth of the cluster. Once this constraint is eased then other resource issues will become
more critical as they in turn become system growth constraints.
Identified areas of key infrastructure weakness:
Shortage of office space and laboratories
Shortage of affordable local housing
Shortage of on-site affordable hotel rooms
Transport links, specifically congestion related to the A34
Shortage of informal shared spaces
Suitability of ESA BIC office space for start-ups
Selection of Resource Mobilisation survey comments (full comments listed in Appenix D).
“Transport is key factor. The campus is located at a site with road infrastructure that
has poor resilience against all manner of problems including bad weather, accidents,
and the generally poor management of roadworks.” [Respondent ID 10]
“Availability of quality infrastructure remains a huge challenge - especially for start-
ups:
1. Hot desking / co-shared space (in Sat Apps) is OK for an individual working alone
but is not suitable for a confidential meeting - more easy access meeting pods are
needed.
2. ESA-BIC space is unsuitable for start-ups. The "1950's" style rabbit-hutch offices
prevent dynamic interaction between other tenants and lead to feelings of isolation.
Investment in a well-lit, open plan style environment (with private meeting spaces)
will return on the investment by being a location that start-ups actually wish to be and
invariably sparking innovation & success. Getting out of the ESA-BIC at Harwell was
one of the best moves my business made.
u1367731
64
3. The need by the JV to seek long term lease agreements is a barrier for SMEs. A
start-up / SME has little idea where its business will be in 3yrs time, let alone in 5 to
10yrs - the typical lease agreement period being sought. Truly innovate and
disruptive tenants will either go bust (the idea simply didn't work) or need different
accommodation arrangements than that they agreed to when little was known about
the future. The only certainly in the first few years of a business's life is that their
business plan and accommodation/infrastructure needs are wrong!
4. Commercial broadband costs on campus are an order of magnitude higher than
domestic services of same quality. The STFC ought to be offer a much better deal.
5. Campus needs a decent budget hotel for visiting guests, staff and customers.
6. Staff and customers routinely report the A34 as a significant reason for disruption
when trying to get to campus.” [Respondent ID 26]
“Infrastructure at Harwell has improved but is still sub-optimal. The PERCEPTION of
Harwell as inaccessible will be difficult to shift, despite some improvements to buses
etc. Office space of the right kind is seen as a real issue.” [Respondent ID 28]
“There is a lack of appropriate accommodation on campus. As we expand we're
likely to end up on Milton Park or similar, which would not be as good as staying
here. Public transport links aren't great. Cycling is OK” [Respondent ID 43]
“Got better recently (finance, buildings, but still more to do).” [Respondent ID 53]
“Needs more space; office buildings and labs” [Respondent ID 55]
The provision of physical infrastructure along with intrinsic motivation were rated separately
in the survey as second tier functions. As shown in Figure 30 (page 66) the cluster
infrastructure rating was the lowest rating of the entire survey although there was a
perception of recent improvement.
Local transport issues aside there is a structure in place which is in the process of delivering
significant new campus infrastructure; the Harwell Campus JV. The JV is a 50/50 Public
Private partnership involving the Atomic Energy Authority which owns the land, the STFC
and Harwell Oxford Management which represents the Private sector shareholding and
provides access to private investment capital.
u1367731
65
The Harwell Campus JV master plan (Appendix E) shows significant development of new
infrastructure which includes residential, office, laboratory, Space cluster specific office and
lab space and a degree of informal shared spaces. As the knowledge diffusion function is
particularly dependent on the quality and quantity of informal interactions the importance of
planning informal spaces should be considered of primary rather than secondary
importance. Traditionally informal spaces have been a concern of providing the required
services rather than the interactions they facilitate; this perspective is ineffective when
designing infrastructure for an innovation cluster.
Whilst there is a plan to develop the campus’s physical infrastructure it is the rate of delivery
that is creating the functional constraint. This constraint is due in part to the time taken to
achieve planning approvals from the local district council. Despite the campus being
designated an enterprise zone planning applications go through a process not designed to
facilitate the rapid development of centres of innovation. Unexpected approval delays can
last years, resulting in deterioration of the Resource Mobilisation function. In addition the
uncertainty inherent in the process is damaging to the Guidance core function.
It should also be noted that the local district council has potentially conflicting priorities to
those of the campus. As previously noted the local transport links are already under
considerable pressure and continued development of the campus will only increase the
strain. Local residents, who the district council ultimately answer to, may not be in favour of
continuing rapid development; a pressure which may surface during the planning approval
process.
u1367731
66
Function 6. Resource Mobilisation Second Tier functions:
Physical infrastructure
How would you describe the availability of physical infrastructure
(office space, accommodation, transport links) to support Cluster
expansion?
(5)Very Strong (4)Strong (3)Neutral (2)Weak (1)Very Weak
Intrinsic (non-financial) motivation
How would you describe your sense of the intrinsic (non-financial)
motivation of individuals?
(5)Very Strong (4)Strong (3)Neutral (2)Weak (1)Very Weak
The second tier function Intrinsic Motivation was
also rated in the Resource Mobilisation section.
Intrinsic Motivation is important to attract the
highly skilled work force required by the cluster to
the sector. This non-financial form of motivation is
strong at the cluster and is enhanced by the
shared sense of purpose experienced on campus.
Whilst attracting skilled employees and
entrepreneurs may not currently be the key
constraint on the Resource Mobilisation function,
as the infrastructure continues to develop it is
likely to become so.
Figure 30. Resource Modilisation
Second tier functions
The potential of a career in the sector and the promise of working towards the meaningful
shared goal of space enabled exploration is something that should be communicated to the
younger generations more effectively. Achieving the IGS 2030 target will require that many
of the brightest current students choose a career path in the space sector.
1
2
3
4
5
Op
era
tio
na
l in
fra
stru
ctu
re (
Clu
ste
r)
Intr
insi
c m
oti
vati
on
(Cl
ust
er)
Intr
insi
c m
oti
vat
ion
(Se
ctor
)
u1367731
67
Function 7. Legitimisation
How would you describe your perception of the Legitimacy?
(5)Very Strong (4)Strong (3)Neutral (2)Weak (1)Very Weak
Summary of Legitimisation results
Current cluster level function strength 4.00 ± 0.17; cf. cluster average function
strength 3.86 (0.85 SE above average).
Cluster absolute functional strength ranking #3 (out of 7)
Current cluster enhancement relative to sector 0.67 ± 0.23; cf. cluster average
enhancement 0.78 (-0.51 SE above average).
Cluster relative to sector enhancement ranking #4 (out of 7)
Change (Current - Recent) of cluster function strength 0.21 ± 0.11; cf. cluster
average change 0.18 (0.23 SE above average).
Cluster function recent change ranking #4 (out of 7)
Figure 31. Legitimisation summary
1
2
3
4
5
Clu
ste
r
Sect
or
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
Clu
ste
r -
Sect
or
Cu
rre
nt
- R
ece
nt
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Sect
or
Clu
ste
r
u1367731
68
The Legitimisation core function is relatively strong; ranked third out of the seven functions.
The function benefits from the high profile media coverage of Major Tim Peake’s mission to
the ISS and high profile missions such as Rosetta. The UK Space Agency has achieved a
high degree of success in maximising media coverage for recent space related programs.
Whilst such coverage helps promote interest in Space more could be done to promote the
success of the UK Space sector as an important growth sector for the UK economy and as
an attractive career option.
The current governmental support of the sector is in part a response to the Guidance offered
by the Space IGS report. This strategy paper has rigid and aggressive growth targets for the
sector. If growth is slowed by a continued downturn in the global space market then despite
strong system performance within the UK then these targets could be missed. Whilst rigid
targets can gain initial political support and funding, if it becomes clear that they will be
missed then there is a risk is of damaging this support and the Legitimisation core function.
The increased perceived Legitimisation of the cluster relative to the wider sector is a
consequence of the highly visible agency and governmental support on campus and the
long history of world class science and technology innovation at the campus.
As a high technology and innovative sector UK Space is well placed to take advantage of
new communication channels to engage the public. One such development is the wider
adoption of Virtual Reality (VR) technology. VR experiences from the ISS or created from the
Mars rover are an opportunity to not only engage but immerse the public in the experience of
Space. The recently announced SpaceX moon shot planned for 2018 will generate further
interest in the sector and perhaps provide a unique opportunity for a broadcast VR Space
experience.
Selection of Legitimisation survey comments (full comments listed in Appendix C).
“The UK space sector spends a very small % of revenue on promoting its activities to
the public / wider society. Other industries, specifically the motoring sector, invest
considerably more. I doubt anyone outside the space sector could name a single UK
satellite builder. Plenty of people - who don't actually drive - can name 3 motor car
companies. The sector needs to invest more to increase ‘Legitimacy’.” [Respondent
ID 26]
u1367731
69
“Coverage is strong and positive - in particular the sector has capitalised upon Tim
Peake. Harwell has benefited from this along with the rest of the sector.”
[Respondent ID 28]
“Improved by Tim Peake, Rosetta (Philae & lobbying & work with Gov).” [Respondent
ID 53]
u1367731
70
6.5 Innovation System core function feedback loops
The seven core functions are linked. Events which change the performance of one function
will have a secondary effect on the remaining six (Van Alphen et al 2009, Bergek et al 2008).
The strength of these links vary, depending not only on the functions involved but also on the
specific event. Dominate links can form closed loops where changes in functional
performance can form cyclical flows. The current cluster system dynamic started in 2009
with the publication of the IGS report and is mapped in Figure 32.
Figure 32. UK Space Cluster Innovation System feedback loops
IGS report 2009 (start of cycle)
UK Space Agency sector reports
Government responds to
IGS with Space Growth
Action Plan and funding
for growth initiatives
(2010)
Creation of UK Space
Agency (2010)
ISIC (becomes Sat
Apps Catapult) opens
(2010)
ESA BIC opens (2011)
RAL Space Building
R100 (2015, Harwell)
ESA ECSAT building
(2015, Harwell)
Satuccino, Connect
Harwell, and
SpaceCakes regular
Cluster and wider
campus collaboration
and networking events
Improved links
to Universities
and R&D
organisations
Market
development
by firms and
agencies such
as UK Space
Agency, Sat
Apps
Catapult, ESA
and STFC
u1367731
71
Whilst the rate of growth in the number of member organisations and employees at the
cluster is increasing the overall system dynamic is termed a “virtuous cycle” (Jacobsson and
Bergek, 2004). During periods where the rate of growth decreases or even turns negative
the system dynamic is termed a “vicious cycle”.
Figure 33 illustrates the current key system constraints alongside their respective core
functions. These constraints should be prioritised by the key stakeholders if the cluster
dynamics are to remain “virtuous” and the cluster growth targets are to be achieved.
Figure 33. Current cluster feedback loop constraints
Delays in campus
infrastructure
development
Sub-optimal transport
links
Lack of suitable informal
shared spaces
Under
resourced
Market
development
initiatives
Poor growth
in Global
Space
markets
u1367731
72
6.6 Core function organisational reliance
Figure 34 shows an indicative mapping of the current functional reliance of the cluster on the
key agencies. Whilst this mapping is a simplification it can provide a useful starting point
when considering actions designed to enhance functional performance.
Source: conversations with key UK Space Cluster members
Key: 3 Critical, 2 Strong, 1 Significant
Figure 34 . Indicative core and second tier function reliance on cluster agencies and related organisations
Entrepreneurial
Activity
Knowledge
Creation
Knowledge
Diffusion
Guidance Market
Formation
Resource
Mobilisation
Legitimisation
RAL Space 2 1 1 3 3
UK Space Agency 2 1 2 3
Innovate UK 1 1 2 1
Department for Int Trade 1 2 1
ESA 2 1 2 2 1 3
ESA bic 2 1 2 2
Sat Apps Catapult 3 2 3 2 2 2 2
Harwell Campus (JV) 2 1 3 2
Space Cluster Devlopment 2 1 1
OxLEP 2
Vale of White Horse DC 3
University links 1 3 1
Informal
interactions
Informal
shared space
Intrinsic
motivation
Physical
Infrastructure
RAL Space 1
UK Space Agency 3
Innovate UK
Department for Int Trade
ESA 3
ESA bic
Sat Apps Catapult 3 3
Harwell Campus (JV) 2 3 1 3
Space Cluster Devlopment
OxLEP 1 2
Vale of White Horse DC 3 3
University links 1 2
u1367731
73
7 Conclusion & recommendations
7.1 The analysis framework
The Technology Innovation System (TIS) framework is a close match for this analysis. It
provides the correct level of granularity by simplifying performance to seven core functions. It
is also aims at providing guidance to sector level policy makers rather than individual firms.
The model was adapted to include cluster level considerations through the inclusion of four
second tier functions. These functions directly feed into their corresponding core function but
their importance at cluster level warrants that they are analysed separately. The second tier
functions were limited to the most relevant four to keep the models overall clarity and
accessibility as a management tool.
The power of the model is enhanced by the consideration of performance flows between the
core functions. These flows create feedback loops which illustrate how an improvement in
one function will lead to an enhancement throughout the system. Conversely a functions
decline in performance or a functional constraint will act to degrade or limit the performance
of the entire system.
The TIS framework adapted to include second tier cluster specific functions has the right
balance between complexity and clarity to provide a useful tool for cluster level policy
makers.
The performance of the core functions and their links change over time. Consequently the
functional strength and the mapping of the feedback loops should be regularly updated for
the analysis to remain relevant.
The framework is designed to analyse innovation clusters and is not specific to the UK
Space Cluster. Its use would be equally valid for a health-tech cluster or any other innovation
cluster.
7.1.1 Recommendations
The framework along with the current analysis should be presented to the clusters key policy
makers. Assuming the model is seen as providing valuable insight, a cluster organisation
should take ownership of the framework and provide bi-annual updates at the cluster board
meetings. The wider cluster should continue to provide functional performance feedback
through regular publications of the online survey. Members of the cluster should have
access to the analysis.
u1367731
74
7.1.2 Future research
An excel based model was developed during this analysis which simulated the performance
flows around the system. The model varied the strength and timings of links between
functions and produced the virtuous and vicious cycles predicted by the theory. With only
one set of survey data the scope to develop the simulation is severely limited. Once multiple
historic data sets, correlated to cluster functional events, are available then the simulation
could be developed to provide linkage and timing information between the functions. The
ultimate aim would be to produce a simulation accurate enough to provide meaningful
performance forecasts.
7.2 UK Space Cluster analysis
All seven core functions achieve a higher rating at the UK Space Cluster than for the wider
UK Space sector. The cluster average rating is 3.86 whilst the sector is 3.08 (a rating of 3
being neutral, 4 Good and 5 Very Good). As Harwell is designated the focus for innovation
and growth for the space sector by the UK government, a degree of overall enhancement
would be expected. Overall the cluster’s functional performance is healthy and indicates a
strong growth environment.
Except for Guidance each of the cluster core functions showed a recent improvement; the
Guidance function is particularly affected by uncertainty related to Brexit. The average
increase in rating of 0.18 signifies that the cluster is currently in a virtuous loop facilitating an
increase in its rate of growth. A continuing increase is required if the cluster employment
targets are to be achieved.
The survey data and comments highlights the current cluster functional constraints. As
illustrated in Figure 33 (page 71) the key system constraints are:
Delays in campus infrastructure development
Sub-optimal transport links
Lack of suitable informal shared spaces
Under resourced market development initiatives
Poor growth in global space markets
u1367731
75
7.2.1 Recommendations
The most significant system constraint is infrastructure development. The Harwell Campus
JV is working to deliver a campus master plan which will address the majority of the
infrastructure issues. The local district council planning process is a source of significant
delays and sustains the constraint on the Resource Mobilisation function. Attention should
be given to the planning process and the relationship with planning officials by the Cluster’s
policy makers and government agencies. The campus is important to the development of
technology innovation at a national level and yet is constrained by local politics.
The provision of shared high quality informal spaces should be a primary objective of the
future development of the campus. Opportunities for knowledge diffusion are as important as
the provision of electricity or the internet for a centre of innovation. Left as an afterthought
the campus will always underperform its significant potential.
Additional resources at both agency and firm level should be assigned to the development of
markets. Access to new markets is required to achieve the sector growth targets in the IGS
report.
With the recent decline in the growth of the global space market the IGS income growth
targets are under pressure. Failure to meet these highly visible targets will likely degrade the
guidance and legitimacy functions leading to a decline in system performance. The UK
Space sector should elevate the importance of metrics over which the UK sector has more
control, such as percentage of the global market and direct employment, above income
targets.
Policy makers should recognise the importance of intrinsic motivation in providing the
quantity and quality of human resources required by the sector’s future growth ambitions.
Space exploration is perhaps the most visible and exciting of the science and technology
sectors and much can be done to increase engagement with the next generation of potential
engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs.
u1367731
76
8 References
Albert, M. and Laberge, S., 2007. The legitimation and dissemination processes of the innovation system approach: The case of the Canadian and Québec science and technology policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32(2), pp.221-249.
Angwin, D., Cummings, S. and Smith, C., 2011. The strategy pathfinder: core concepts and live cases. John Wiley & Sons.
Barney, J.B. and Hoskisson, R.E., 1990. Strategic groups: Untested assertions and research proposals. Managerial and decision Economics, 11(3), pp.187-198.
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A., 2008. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research policy, 37(3), pp.407-429.
Bergman, E.M. and Feser, E.J., 1999. Industrial and Regional Clusters: Concepts and Comparative Applications. Web Book in Regional Science. Available at: http://www.rri.wvu.edu/WebBook/Bergman-Feser/contents.htm (Accessed: 3 Jul 2016)
Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E., 2003. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Cairncross, F., 1997. The death of distance. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge.
Conley, C., 2007. Peak: How great companies get their mojo from Maslow (Vol. 263). John Wiley & Sons.
Coyle, G., 2004. Practical strategy: structured tools and techniques. Pearson Education.
DeBresson, C. and Hu, X., 1999. Identifying clusters of innovative activity: a new approach and a toolbox. BOOSTING INNOVATION THE CLUSTER APPROACH, p.27.
Dizikes. P., 2011. The office next door. Technology Review, 114(6), pp.12-15. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425881/the-office-next-door/ (Accessed: 4 February 2017).
E. Commission, 1996. in: E. Commission (Ed.), First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe, European Commission, Luxembourg.
E. Commission, 2002. in: E. Commission (Ed.), Innovation Policy in Europe, European Commission, Luxembourg.
Faculty of Geosciences Utrecht University (2011) Technical innovation systems (TIS). Available at: http://www.innovation-system.net/what-is-tis/ (Accessed: 9 February 2017).
Forrester, J.W., 1961. Industry dynamics. Massachusetts, Cambridge.
Frey, B.S., 1998. Not just for the money. edward elgar.
Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), pp.109-122.
u1367731
77
Harwell (2017). Harwell Campus Brochure. Available at: http://www.harwellcampus.com/uploads/news/01/27/harwell_brochure_2017-002.pdf (Accessed: 1 February 2017).
Hekkert, M.P., Negro, S.O., Heimeriks, G., Harmsen, R., 2011 [online] www.innovation-system.net. Available at: http://www.innovation-system.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/UU_02rapport_Technological_Innovation_System_Analysis.pdf [Accessed 24 Nov. 2016]
Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R.E., 2007. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological forecasting and social change, 74(4), pp.413-432.
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B., 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative science quarterly, pp.9-30.
Hunter, S.T., Cushenbery, L. and Friedrich, T., 2012. Hiring an innovative workforce: A necessary yet uniquely challenging endeavour. Human Resource Management Review, 22(4), pp.303-322.
Isaacson, W., 2011. Steve jobs. JC Lattès.
IGT 2009. Space Innovation & Growth Strategy. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121212135622/http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/ukspaceagency/docs/igs/space-igs-main-report.pdf (Accessed: 3 November 2016).
Jacobsson, S and Bergek A, 2004. Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology, Ind. Corp. Change 13 (5) 815–849.
Jacobs, J., 1969. The Life of Cities. Random House.
Kaufmann, A., Lehner, P. and Tödtling, F., 2003. Effects of the Internet on the spatial structure of innovation networks. Information Economics and Policy, 15(3), pp.402-424.
Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C., 2005. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, pp.485-516.
Lehrer, J., 2012. Groupthink: The brainstorming myth. The New Yorker, 30, p.12.
Lever, W.F., 2002. Correlating the knowledge-base of cities with economic growth. Urban studies, 39(5-6), pp.859-870.
Lin, C.H., Tung, C.M. and Huang, C.T., 2006. Elucidating the industrial cluster effect from a system dynamics perspective. Technovation, 26(4), pp.473-482.
Malerba, F. and Vonortas, N.S. eds., 2009. Innovation networks in industries. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Marshall, A., 1920. Principles of economics: an introductory volume.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Matusik, S.F. and Hill, C.W., 1998. The utilization of contingent work, knowledge creation, and competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), pp.680-697.
u1367731
78
NASA, 2012. Technology Readiness Level. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/txt_accordion1.html (Accessed: 24 Feb 2017)
OECD, 1997. National Innovation Systems, OECD, Paris.
OECD, 1999. O.f.E.C.-o.a.D., in: OECD (Ed.), Managing National Innovation Systems, OECD, Paris.
OECD, 1999b. O.f.E.C.-o.a.D., in: OECD (Ed.), Boosting Innovation: The Cluster Approach, OECD, Paris.
ONS 2016. UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp (Accessed: 3 Jan 2017).
Pink, D.H.. 2011. Drive – The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
Porter, M.E., 1979. How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review. v. 21. no. 38. p. 21 - issn: 0017-8012 .
Porter, M.E., 1990. The competitive advantage of nations.
Porter, M.E., 1998. Clusters and Competition. New Agenda for Companies. Governments and Institutions, in: Ibid., On Competition.
Porter, M.E., 1998. The microeconomic foundations of economic development [parts I and II]. The global competitiveness report. Geneva: WEF.
Porter, M.E., 2000. Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic development quarterly, 14(1), pp.15-34.
Preissl, B. and Solimene, L., 2003. The dynamics of clusters and innovation. Physica-Verlag.
Roberts, E.B. ed., 1978. Managerial applications of system dynamics (Vol. 320). Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
Roelandt, T.J. and Den Hertog, P., 1999. Cluster analysis and cluster-based policy making in OECD countries: an introduction to the theme. Boosting innovation: The cluster approach, pp.9-23.
Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N. and Pinch, S., 2004. Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 29(2), pp.258-271.
The Space Foundation, 2016. Available at: http://www.spacefoundation.org/sites/default/files/downloads/The_Space_Report_2016_OVERVIEW.pdf (Accessed: 7 Feb 2017)
UK Space Agency, 2016. Summary Report: The Size & Health of the UK Space Industry. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/575769/Size_and_Health_summary_report_2016.pdf (Accessed: 3 Jan 2017)
Van Alphen, K., Van Ruijven, J., Kasa, S., Hekkert, M. and Turkenburg, W., 2009. The performance of the Norwegian carbon dioxide, capture and storage innovation system. Energy Policy, 37(1), pp.43-55.
u1367731
79
9 Appendices
Appendix A. Schedule of meetings with key Harwell UK Space Cluster stakeholders at the
Harwell Campus.
11 Feb
2016
Dr Tim
Bestwick
Exe Dir STFC Business
and Innovation and Chief
Executive of STFC
Innovation Ltd. Board
member of Harwell
Campus.
Initial project buy in. Define scope
& email introductions to key cluster
stakeholders
14 Mar
2016
Angus
Horner
Dir Harwell Science &
Innovation Campus LP.
MD Prorsus Ltd.
Key to development of campus
physical infrastructure. Major
discussion points organisational
interdependencies and
development plans.
14 Mar
2016
Dr Barbara
Ghinelli
Campus Business
Development Director,
STFC
Campus organisational
interdependencies, cultures, future
cluster development
14 Mar
2016
Antonia
Jenkinson
Satellite Applications
Catapult CFO
Catapult operational structure,
resources, culture, and knowledge
diffusion. Funding structures.
Networking events.
14 Mar
2016
Dr Chris
Mutlow
Dir STFC RAL Space RAL Space resources & services,
interdependencies, funding,
culture differences in cluster.
Future R100 building and future
development.
15 Mar
2016
Alan
Brunstrom
ESA Liaison Officer ESA at Harwell, development,
resources, culture. IGS.
Organisational interdependencies.
15 Mar
2016
Colin
Baldwin
UK Space Cluster
programme manager,
UK Space Agency
UK Space Agency resources,
innovation initiatives,
interdependencies. IGS, Sector
performance reports. IGS
performance targets.
15 Mar
2016
Steven
Ringler
Harwell Space Cluster
Development manager,
STFC
Cluster organisational structure,
resource development, growth
strategies. Project buy in. Key
assistance with information
sourcing, data.
u1367731
80
11 Feb
2016
Dr Tim
Bestwick
Exe Dir STFC Business
and Innovation and Chief
Executive of STFC
Innovation Ltd. Board
member of Harwell
Campus.
Follow up meeting to discuss initial
meetings with key stake holders.
5 Dec
2016
Angus
Horner
Dir Harwell Science &
Innovation Campus LP.
MD Prorsus Ltd.
Presentation of analysis
framework. Feedback on core
functions. Promote framework as a
cluster management tool.
5 Dec
2016
Colin
Baldwin
UK Space Cluster
programme manager,
UK Space Agency
Presentation of analysis
framework. Feedback on core
functions. Promote framework as a
cluster management tool
5 Dec
2016
Dr Tim
Bestwick
Exe Dir STFC Business
and Innovation and Chief
Executive of STFC
Innovation Ltd. Board
member of Harwell
Campus.
Presentation of analysis
framework. Feedback on core
functions. Promote framework as a
cluster management tool.
Dates arranged for formal
presentation of Cluster analysis to
wider group of cluster members
5 Dec
2016
Dr Barbara
Ghinelli
Campus Business
Development Director,
STFC
Presentation of analysis
framework. Feedback on core
functions. Promote framework as a
cluster management tool
5 Dec
2016
Alan
Brunstrom
ESA Liaison Officer Presentation of analysis
framework. Feedback on core
functions. Promote framework as a
cluster management tool
5 Dec
2016
Steven
Ringler
Harwell Space Cluster
Development manager,
STFC
Presentation of analysis
framework. Feedback on core
functions. Promote framework as a
cluster management tool. Final
push to lever network to increase
survey response
14 Feb
2016*
Steven
Ringler
Harwell Space Cluster
Development manager,
STFC
Discussion of survey results.
Sense checking of understanding
of cluster structures and
interdependencies. * All day meeting and analysis workshop
u1367731
81
Appendix B. Example online survey page (Knowledge Diffusion)
u1367731
82
Appendix C. Online survey comments
Function 1. Entrepreneurial Activity (Survey respondent’s comments)
“Co-location of key teams is spurring developments (as you would expect - but
nonetheless good to see)” [Respondent ID 10]
“Recent commitment to investment from UK PLC has increased the level of activity in
the sector, although the developments with Brexit and US administration change are
not helping new growth.” [Respondent ID 18]
“Genuine new start-ups at Harwell show excellent entrepreneurial activity, e.g.
personal risk on behalf of the founder(s) to explore new opportunities and ideas.
'Beach head' offices from the likes of Airbus Defence and Space, Thales Alenia
Space, Lockheed Martin et al, have a more business as usual approach; risk
aversion, preference for proven technologies and dithering over decision making.”
[Respondent ID 26]
“Both Harwell and the wider sector are entrepreneurially strong - an issue is in
definitions as it is often innovation in other sectors that lead to novel uses of space
data / tech. UKSA are increasing support for entrepreneurs through our work with
business incubators.” [Respondent ID 28]
“The presence of the ESA Business Incubation Centre and the Satellite Applications
Catapult at Harwell continues to be an important enabler of and support for
entrepreneurial activity on campus.” [Respondent ID 36]
“May have been a degree of entrepreneurial activity in recent years emanating from
Harwell, but potentially the communication of this activity has been suboptimal”
[Respondent ID 54]
Function 2. Knowledge Creation (Survey respondent’s comments)
“Far too much focus on exploiting existing knowledge. We remain very weak at
encouraging creation of new knowledge - funding of creative staff being the key
issue. This is especially the case for younger people who face high costs from living
in Oxfordshire and repayments of student loans.” [Respondent ID 10]
“The UK is great at basic TRL knowledge creation, and appalling at taking it beyond
that. We see little activity mid TRL, but significant activities below TRL55,
consequently much of the knowhow is either reinvested back into the system (grant
factories), or dissipates overseas.” [Respondent ID 18]
“The establishment of the SA Catapult and ESA ECSAT facility and related rise of
companies has undoubtedly increased knowledge creation / R&D on campus cf the
wider U.K.” [Respondent ID 28]
“I have taken part in the workshops/conferences organised at the Catapult as well as
those by the Institute for Environmental Analytics.” [Respondent ID 35]
“In addition to the government and industrial R&D capabilities at Harwell, I have
heard that more than 50 UK and overseas universities have some kind or presence
or collaboration. I think this would be a useful area to explore, firstly to assess the
5 Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). Level 5 refers to Technology Demonstration level (Component and/or bench configuration subsystem validation in relevant environment). Source NASA 2012.
u1367731
83
current status and secondly to investigate whether there might be benefits from
bringing the academic presence together more.” [Respondent ID 36]
Function 3. Knowledge Diffusion (Survey respondent’s comments)
“It's important to focus on shared spaces that encourage daytime interactions. Out of
hours interactions work poorly at Harwell simply because people live far from the
campus and often in different directions.” [Respondent ID 10]
“Good interactions but little collaboration.” [Respondent ID 23]
“Shared spaces could be improved by the provision of free and easy Wi-Fi access. If
coffee chains and airports the world over can offer internet access without the need
to obtain printed security log on details, then there's no reason why this cannot be
provided campus wide. Needing to obtain log in codes can destroy the dynamic of a
spontaneous opportunity.” [Respondent ID 26]
“From a sector perspective, collaborations are increasing - yet more needs to be
done. On campus there has been a welcome increase in opportunities for in- sector
and cross-sector informal networking through organised events (Harwell Connect,
Space Cakes, Sattuccino). However, the quality of infrastructure for informal
meetings has deteriorated - in particular the reduced offering in the Electron cafe.”
[Respondent ID 28]
“Formally organised networking events are a strong feature of the campus. The
provision of shared space for informal interactions is somewhere between poor and
adequate and more is needed.” [Respondent ID 36]
“Most of my networking is done by bumping into people around campus... but that
requires that I know them first, which comes from personal introductions and
networking events.” [Respondent ID 43]
“More formal than informal interactions” [Respondent ID 53]
“Re informal interactions: Good, but could be better. We need more shared space
coffee bars etc.” [Respondent ID 55]
Function 4. Guidance (Survey respondent’s comments)
“The UK Government's policy targets for the growth of the UK space industry are
clearly defined in the Space Innovation and Growth Strategy. However I question
the strategy of focusing on "Clear communication of lead users’ needs and
demands". Many sectors and markets have shown repeatedly that listening to lead
user needs does not bring about disruptive innovation. A policy based on listening to
lead users and large incumbents therefore needs to [be] pursued with eyes open, as
disruptive innovations will - and do - get dismissed.” [Respondent ID 26]
“Government has adopted industry growth targets and increased investment. From a
Harwell perspective (as focal point for U.K. Sector), government has delivered on
commitments to establish R100, ECSAT, SA Catapult and specific support schemes
(e.g. Launch pads). Government has also invested the EU; in Copernicus and Galileo
as data / service drivers for future products / services.” [Respondent ID 26]
“We have reasonable guidance at Harwell (largely of our own making) but the Space
IGS process for UK space sector as a whole has faltered” [Respondent ID 53]
u1367731
84
“Pretty good - we spend a chunk of time providing guidance to SMEs” [Respondent
ID 55]
Function 5. Market creation (Survey respondent’s comments)
“Key constraint is resources - that many key technical players are often working hard
on projects that have little slack and find it hard to provide vital inputs to support BD
[Business Development] colleagues working to develop markets.” [Respondent ID
10]
“No specific difference between Harwell and UK Industry has identified growth
markets and have been tasked to develop reports on each market - this work has
been delayed but is now being reinvigorated. Governments can be anchor customers
for services - the UKSA's SSGP programme is doing work in this area but more could
be done with additional resource.” [Respondent ID 28]
“The uncertainty caused by Brexit may be damaging.” [Respondent ID 36]
“We are doing OK but not as well as we need to.” [Respondent ID 53]
“The market is limited at present but is growing.” [Respondent ID 55]
Function 6. Resource Mobilisation (Survey respondent’s comments)
“Transport is key factor. The campus is located at a site with road infrastructure that
has poor resilience against all manner of problems including bad weather, accidents,
and the generally poor management of roadworks. This is compounded by the
proximity of the A34 and its track record of accidents and the knock-on congestion of
local roads. There is an ironic twist to this in that the advent of satellite navigation has
made the problem worse by encouraging diverted traffic to use minor routes.”
[Respondent ID 10]
“Availability of quality infrastructure remains a huge challenge - especially for start-ups:
1. Hot desking / co-shared space (in Sat Apps) is OK for an individual working alone but is not suitable for a confidential meeting - more easy access meeting pods are needed.
2. ESA-BIC space is unsuitable for start-ups. The "1950's" style rabbit-hutch offices prevent dynamic interaction between other tenants and lead to feelings of isolation. Investment in a well-lit, open plan style environment (with private meeting spaces) will return on the investment by being a location that start-ups actually wish to be and invariably sparking innovation & success. Getting out of the ESA-BIC at Harwell was one of the best moves my business made.
3. The need by the JV to seek long term lease agreements is a barrier for SMEs. A start-up / SME has little idea where its business will be in 3yrs time, let alone in 5 to 10yrs - the typical lease agreement period being sought. Truly innovate and disruptive tenants will either go bust (the idea simply didn't work) or need different accommodation arrangements than that they agreed to when little was know about
u1367731
85
the future. The only certainly in the first few years of a business's life is that their business plan and accommodation/infrastructure needs are wrong!
4. Commercial broadband costs on campus are an order of magnitude higher than domestic services of same quality. The STFC ought to be offer a much better deal.
5. Campus needs a decent budget hotel for visiting guests, staff and customers.
6. Staff and customers routinely report the A34 as a significant reason for disruption when trying to get to campus.”
[Respondent ID 26]
“Infrastructure at Harwell has improved but is still sub-optimal. The PERCEPTION of
Harwell as inaccessible will be difficult to shift, despite some improvements to buses
etc. Office space of the right kind is seen as a real issue.” [Respondent ID 28]
“There is a lack of appropriate accommodation on campus. As we expand we're
likely to end up on Milton Park or similar, which would not be as good as staying
here. Public transport links aren't great. Cycling is OK” [Respondent ID 43]
“Got better recently (finance, buildings, but still more to do).” [Respondent ID 53]
“Needs more space; office buildings and labs” [Respondent ID 55]
“Availability of housing and services close to Harwell and transport links to Harwell
site” [Respondent ID 56]
Function 7. Legitimisation (Survey respondent’s comments)
“The UK space sector spends a very small % of revenue on promoting its activities to
the public / wider society. Other industries, specifically the motoring sector, invest
considerably more. I doubt anyone outside the space sector could name a single UK
satellite builder. Plenty of people - who don't actually drive - can name 3 motor car
companies. The sector needs to invest more to increase ‘Legitimacy’.” [Respondent
ID 26]
“Coverage is strong and positive - in particular the sector has capitalised upon Tim
Peake. Harwell has benefited from this along with the rest of the sector.”
[Respondent ID 28]
“2016 was an important year for public opinion about the space sector, triggered by
Tim Peake” [Respondent ID 36]
“Improved by Tim Peake, Rosetta (Philae & lobbying & work with Gov).” [Respondent
ID 53]
u1367731
86
Appendix D. Top 60 UK Space Cluster social media influencers* (Twitter).
*Ranked by centrality within the cluster (Wolfram Mathematica: EigenvectorCentrality function)
Nine out of the top ten twitter accounts are linked to agencies rather than firms.
1 UKSpaceAgency 16 AirbusDefandSp 31 Eutelsat 46 IPF
2 ESA 17 InnovateUKAndy 32 ComDev 47 EOSphere
3 SACatapult 18 UKSpaceAgencyHuntingdon 33 exactEarth 48 NSCO
4 InnovateUK 19 Planetlabs 34 SterlingGeo 49 Proteus
5 SSTL 20 Geocento 35 GVL 50 Teamsurv
6 InnovateUKTim 21 LockheedMartin 36 MDA 51 Huduma
7 KTN 22 BirdI 37 EnvironmentSys 52 CobhamAeroflex
8 HarwellCampus 23 Thales 38 OpenCosmos 53 Terradue
9 STFCB2B 24 DigitalGlobe 39 MeVitae 54 Viasat
10 RALSpace 25 UKSpaceAgencyOrrlyon 40 SmithIns 55 OxfordNanoSys
11 OxfordSpaceSys 26 UKSpaceAgencyJV 41 Qinetiq 56 EMFComp
12 InnovateUKCraig 27 Geoger 42 MullardSpace 57 Neptec
13 DeimosUK 28 Telespazio 43 Electrospinning 58 Honeywell
14 Rezatec 29 BuzzardCam 44 AutoNaut 59 SkyTec
15 InnovateUKAndyG 30 SatsafeTech 45 GMV 60 Quickbird
u1367731
87
Appendix E. Harwell Campus master development plan
Facility Progress
1 Residential Quarter Submit Application Q3 2017, construction Q2 2018
2 HQ Offices 2017 completing Q2 2017
3 The Quadrangle Completion Q4 2017
4 European Space Agency (ESA) Existing (2015)
5 Genesis Building Existing (2016)
6 Antenna Existing
7 University Quarter Planning application Q3 2017
8 R100 RAL Space Existing (2015)
9 Space Cluster Planning application Q3 2017
10 Diamond Light Source Existing
11 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Existing
12 Public Health England Existing
13 Medical Research Council Existing
14 ISIS Neutron Source Existing
15 Central Laser Facility Existing
16 Research Complex @ Harwell Existing
17 Human Spaceflight Capitalisation Existing
18 Satellite Applications Catapult Existing
19 Scientific Computing Data Existing
Fig E1. Harwell Campus Master Plan. Source: Harwell 2107