Written evidence submitted by the Plastic
Electronics Leadership Group (PELG) (TIC 74)
PLASTIC ELECTRONICS
- A BRIEF INTRODUCTION
This submission has been prepared by members of the
UK National Plastic Electronics Leadership Group as an input to
the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry
into Technology Innovation Centres.
Plastic Electronics is an emerging new industry where
the combination of its forecast global value ($120 billion by
2020) and UK competitive position secured by substantial university,
company and government investment makes it a very attractive high
growth sector in which the UK must seek to extract maximum return.
The combination of technologies within Plastic Electronics enables
the deposition of electronic materials onto any surface, whether
rigid or flexible, via low temperature (low energy), high throughput
manufacturing processes, including printing. This in turn facilitates
the creation of a range of new product categories illustrated
by conformable and rollable electronic displays, energy-efficient
solid state lighting and low cost solar cells. The UK National
Strategy for Plastic Electronics published in December 2009 identified
the key elements of this opportunity and described the key action
areas required.
SELECT COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS
1. What is the Fraunhofer model and would
it be applicable to the UK?
The Fraunhofer model takes fundamental and applied
research to a point where technology can be derisked and assessed
for both its commercial and technical readiness. This allows companies
to take informed decisions regarding the commercial viability
of technology and in this sense the Fraunhofers operate in the
TRL 4-7 "valley of death" which was the focus of the
original Hauser report into TICs. It is important to recognise
what Fraunhofer are not - they are not universities nor are they
research institutions (though R&D is done within them). While
it would not be appropriate to use the Fraunhofer model "as
is", there are elements of the model which would address
the UK's strategic gaps in technology commercialisation. The more
important elements that could be adopted are:
- (i) They provide a critical interface between
research (both academic and company) and the target market(s).
- (ii) They provide a valuable technology incubation
environment especially in disruptive technology areas where both
risk and reward are at their highest levels.
- (iii) They are provided with a funding mechanism
(supported both nationally and regionally) which allows for continuity
of mission over a medium term (5-10 year) period. Remembering
that the commercialisation of new technology platforms, certainly
in the electronics and displays industries, can be a 20 year journey
then this is especially important.
- (iv) They typically focus in rather well-defined
technology areas, additionally providing valuable training for
engineers and scientists in technology development and therefore
becoming a suitable recruiting target for Industry. Whilst Universities
and Research Institutes are better at training research engineers
and scientists.
- (v) They operate external to but are well
connected to relevant universities.
It is worth remembering that these characteristics
are not restricted to just the German Fraunhofer model. Equivalent
centres in Taiwan (ITRI), Japan (AIST) and Korea (ETRI) share
many of the same attributes. While drawing these international
comparisons it is interesting to consider annual budgets in these
institutes, for example:
TRI (Taiwan) : $500 Million (50% Government, 50%
Industry), 6,000 employees.
AIST (Japan) : £830 Million (94% Government,
6% Industry), 5,000 employees plus 4,000 secondees from industry/university.
2. Are there existing Fraunhofer-type research
centres within the UK, and if so, are they effective?
In the UK there are a number of centres which exhibit
Fraunhofer-type models but in every case there are differences.
The Centre for Process Innovation's Printable Electronics Technology
Centre is a good example of a Fraunhofer-like organisation in
the UK though it is not equipped with the structure or funding
model to provide medium term commitment. The UK's Plastic Electronics
sector enjoys the existence of other Centres of Excellence - Imperial
College's Centre for Plastic Electronics, the Cambridge Integrated
Knowledge Centre, Manchester University's Organic Materials Innovation
Centre and Swansea University's Welsh Centre for Printing and
Coating. Each of these centres incorporates elements of the Fraunhofer
model but it is the PETEC facility whose role most clearly mirrors
that of a Fraunhofer Centre. In the absence of a Plastic Electronics
Fraunhofer type facility, the UK community have sought to create
a collaborative structure to address the key "valley of death"
commercialisation challenge but this is hampered considerably
by the investment required for these efforts to be internationally
competitive versus ITRI/ETRI etc.
What is clear when considering all of these models
is the need to identify a small number of areas where the UK should
seek to be world-class in establishing the industries of the future.
At all costs we must avoid the "keep everyone happy"
pitfall in which relatively large sums of money are distributed
across many institutions leading to the establishment of a number
of sub-critical mass facilities.
3. What other models are there for research centres
oriented toward applications and results?
Mention has already been made of the ITRI, AIST and
ETRI centres in this submission. These centres tend to be centrally
located and co-ordinated which brings benefits of scale in relation
to services/management and also makes changes of direction/emphasis
and consequent staff redeployment within the organisation straightforward
as it doesn't require any relocation of staff or facilities. The
US Flexible Displays Centre benefits from the provision of central
US Army funding to provide the medium term infrastructure and
revenue funding to drive the commercialisation of disruptive flexible
display technology. This is further supported by significant SME
support via DARPA and SBRI schemes and by the FlexTech organisation
(again largely US Army funded) which farm out priority projects
collectively identified and funded by industry consortia.
4. Whose role should it be to coordinate research
in a UK-wide network of innovation centres?
Characteristics of the coordinating organisation
should be:
- (i) Must have a national accountability across
all sectors and all TICs.
- (ii) Must define a consistent governance
process that will operate across all TICs.
- (iii) Must be the "gateway" to
funding models.
- (iv) Must provide "ownership" of
over-arching TIC strategy and as part of this appoint and approve
steering boards for each TIC.
These criteria define a relatively small number of
coordinating organisations - as already has been suggested the
Technology Strategy Board would be a suitable group especlly with
the TRL 4-7 focus for TICs which mirrors directly TSB's existing
collaborative R&D role.
5. What effect would the introduction of Fraunhofer-type
institutes have on the work of Public Sector Research Establishments
and other existing research centres that undertake Government
sponsored research?
It is essential that while allocating resources to
a network of Fraunhofer-type establishments that the excellence
of the UK's academic research is protected. TICs are not a substitute
for university groups, they should be considered as a key exploitation
route - one which will allow the UK to continue to be world-leading
in academic excellence and critically also world-leading
in the industrial exploitation of this excellence resulting in
the generation of economic activity, jobs and wealth. TICs should
therefore focus in areas where UK has key research credibility,
IP, people and where there is potential for the creation of new
businesses. Once the focus on TICs has been decided then supporting
funding for existing Public Sector Research Establishments should
be allocated on a priority basis to those sectors where TIC investment
decisions have been taken. Only in this way can the UK continue
on the journey to strength via reinvestment in the Public Sector
Research base while accelerating the rate at which this base is
exploited in its target markets. Therefore TICs should be industry
focused taking new technologies to a point where there is sufficient
proof of principle demonstrated to allow companies to take confident,
well-informed decisions on exploitation strategies.
Dr Keith Rollins
DuPont Teijin Films and Chairman Plastic
Electronics Leadership Group
Professor Donal Bradley
Imperial College, London
Dr Jeremy Burroughes
Cambridge Display Technology
Dr Tom Taylor
Printable Electronics Technology Centre
Dr Ric Allott
Electronics, Sensors and Photonics KTN
Plastic Electronics Leadership Group (PELG)
2 December 2010
| 
