Developing Systematic Innovation Tools for the Food Industry

	Bookmark This Page Email This Page Format for Printing

University College Cork, Ireland on November 26-28, 2000

Jorge C. Oliveira
Department of Food Science, Food Technology and Nutrition
University College Cork
Ireland
j.oliveira@ucc.ie

This document proposes a strategy to develop systematic innovation tools for the Food Industry and to promote its active use in the industrial innovation environment.

The drive for this initiative came from the emerging systematic innovation tools that originated in TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving), which have given excellent results in other industrial sectors to promote trans-sectorial technology transfer, cut down R&D costs and time, and improve the quality of design solutions. What was in it for the Food Industry? How could the Food Industry take the best advantage of these new concepts and working methods?

With the financial support of the European Union 5th Framework Programme, through Accompanying Measure QLAM 2000 - 00093 of key action 1 (Food, Nutrition & Health, Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources), a workshop was organised in Cork, Ireland, in November 2000, bringing together experts on systematic innovation and on food research from academia, R&D institutes, consultancy companies and the Food Industry. As a result of this workshop, it was possible to design a strategy and outline a plan of action to implement it. The dissemination materials of this Accompanying Measure consist of the Proceedings of the Workshop and this strategy report.

This document was written with food industry researchers/developers and food scientists in mind, and therefore devotes more attention to the issues that would be more novel in this environment. It does not discuss problem definition methods (crucial for consumer-oriented innovation) nor innovation management techniques in depth - it is assumed that they are known, and excellent material on these issues, specific of the Food Industry, can be found elsewhere.

This report initially discusses the fundamental aspects of systematic innovation seen from a problem solving perspective. This leads to the understanding of how the development of technical intelligence systems to manage scientific/technological knowledge finds an excellent starting point in TRIZ and emerging spin-off tools.

A brief analysis of the development needs of both scientific research and industrial innovation suffices to visualise the importance of effective tools and of their efficient use in food industry innovation.

The type of initiatives needed to move forward are then outlined and an action plan to materialise them is proposed. It becomes evident that a concerted effort of an international network involving industry, trainers and R&D performers needs to be set up to achieve the strategic objectives to be pursued.

It is expected that this report could constitute a vehicle to harness expressions of interest from interested parties on the activities proposed for this network, and contacts are most welcome.

The lines of action proposed are summarised in the following tables.

• Starting from the Workshop participants, assemble a team per initiative and establish a steering committee;

• From the dissemination of this Accompanying Measure, collect additional expressions of interest and complement the teams;

• Establish contacts with ETRIA and EFFoST (other associations if needed) to anchor the network;

• Canvass EU and national agencies to explore opportunities for support to co-ordination activities, starting from virtual networking, and promote regular meetings;

• Promote the various initiatives described below with appropriate partners, as opportunities arise.

• Contact the Leonardo programme to check for best way to submit a proposal for designing and running pilot programme;

• Gather interest from the network (trainers and industrial companies) and prepare proposal;

• Through network partners, contact national training agencies to ascertain support at national level to complement, or replace, EU-level project;

• Through network partners, contact professional associations (engineers, food scientists & technologists) to try to gather support for international and national proposals, as part of professional advancement schemes;

• Contact large industrial R&D structures of major companies to ascertain willingness to move independently with their own staff, at their own costs, if international/national public agency support fails, or to complement it.

• Through network partners, assess willingness of companies and trainers in different countries to put together R&D projects to be performed by deploying systematic innovation tools by a small collaborative working team involving the industry, systematic innovation experts, and possibly food researchers from university and/or R&D institutes;

• Through network partners, evaluate funding opportunities at national level for these innovation projects;

• Establish contacts with the EU R&D agro-food division and/or innovation/SME programme to ascertain opportunities for concerted action to co-ordinate all national initiatives of this type (this may need to be running in parallel with the previous action).

• Through network partners, identify universities willing to participate in a systematic innovation orientation of all, or part, of student project/process development projects;

• In each case, identify industrial companies willing to be involved as mentors/champions of student projects in areas/products of interest to them;

• Organise a virtual network of project-workers and project-advisers (focusing on support on deploying systematic innovation tools);

• Organise training on systematic innovation for the students, with particular attention to how these programmes will be funded;

• Organise competitions and awards from the network (possibly through its anchor associations); · Canvass the Socrates programme of the EU to assess opportunities for funding co-ordination activities of the network, and possibly the students training requirements.

• Prepare accompanying measure proposal and submit to the EU 5th F. P. (done);

• Set-up working group (done);

• Training workshop of working group on WOIS and draft work outline (to take place in Brussels in January 2002 - pending contract negotiations);

• First workshop (open to outside participants) to present and discuss work outline (to be held in Brussels in January 2002);

• Missions of the working group to US and Japan to gather expertise on TRIZ in forecasting, benchmark industrial food innovation, and explore novel consumer-oriented tools (such as Kansei engineering) (January/February 2002);

• Second workshop (open to outside participants) to present and discuss first draft of the foresight exercise (to be held in Wageningen in February 2002); · Exercise to be completed by May 2002.

• Set up working group;

• Propose examples of the inventive principles in food industry problems;

• Exchange information and review by the network;

• Publication of the results (the TRIZ Journal would be the most appropriate).

• Maintain the idea of systematically processing patents to extract food principles simmering (specially for biochemical and biological dimensions), pending opportune developments if and when appropriate.

• Initially, address this issue in conjunction with line of action 4 (section 3.3.3.);

• In conjunction with the network anchors, promote discussions on strategic issues concerning education to the Food Industry, and eventually generate recommendations and suggestions for university programmes;

• Publish these recommendations and disseminate them in the academic environment, with special attention to Universities with industrial advisory boards.

1. Background and rationale

1.1. What is systematic innovation?

1.1.1. A brief history of TRIZ

1.1.2. A conceptual framework

1.2. Does the Food Industry need the concepts and tools of systematic innovation?

1.2.1. Systematic innovation and food research

1.2.2. Issues for academia

1.2.3. Issues for industry

1.3. How can we deploy systematic innovation tools in the Food Industry?

2. Methodology

3. Proposed strategy

3.1. Needs

3.2. Initiatives to meet the needs

3.2.1. Design and delivery of a comprehensive training programme on systematic innovation tools for industry developers

3.2.2. Development of case studies on the use of systematic innovation tools in the Food Industry for concurrent product and process development

3.2.3. Development of a technology foresight exercise concerning the European Food Industry

3.2.4. Development of “food inventive principles”

3.2.5. Incorporation of systematic innovation tools and problem-solving orientation in university programmes

3.3. Action plan to promote the initiatives

3.3.1. General needs: creation of an international network

3.3.2. Design and delivery of a comprehensive training programme on systematic innovation tools for industry developers

3.3.3. Development of case studies on the use of systematic innovation tools in the Food Industry for concurrent product and process development

3.3.4. Development of a technology foresight exercise concerning the European Food Industry

3.3.5. Development of “food inventive principles”

3.3.6. Incorporation of systematic innovation tools and problem-solving orientation in university programmes 27

4. Conclusion 28

• What is systematic innovation?
• Does the Food Industry need its concepts and tools?
• If so, how can they be deployed?

There will be a need for strategic research if the answer to this last question identifies requirements for systems, concepts or tools that are not yet developed, or that still require adaptation to the specific needs of the Food Industry, and these can only be met by a concerted effort. Henceforth, the definition of a research strategy should be straightforward, by addressing the actions that are needed to fulfill these requirements.

In this report we will consider systematic innovation as the application of tools and working methods that enable a systematic and objective approach to the specification and resolution of design problems in product and process development.

• patterns of technological evolution were repeated across industries and sciences. The type of problems that were solved in each given sector followed a similar pattern over time, which indicated that the evolution of scientific and technical knowledge trailed a similar path of development regardless of the specific area in question.

• solutions to problems could be described as the application of a limited number of general principles to specific situations. Once you raised yourself above the detailed specificity of a problem and expressed it in general terms, you started to see that solutions to problems were repeated across industries and sectors.

• many problems basically involve a contradiction between conflicting factors (for instance, something needs to be bigger to be more productive but smaller to be cheaper; something needs to be heavier to include more functionality but lighter to be more efficient, etc.). Conventional solutions were compromises between the conflicting factors: a true innovation resulted from solving the conflict completely, and this was done by applying an appropriate scientific effect that allowed us to get rid of the conflict. Innovations usually resulted from applying an effect that had proven its success in other fields of science/technology time and time again.

What do you think of these conclusions? Do you think that you can solve problems using the same scientific effects that others used in very different industrial processes? Or does it look to you that each area of science and technology has a totally different environment to any other, and knowledge is sector-specific?

Altschuller initially proposed 40 inventive principles. According to him, hundreds of thousands of patents that addressed engineering design problems could be summarised in the application of one (or more) of 40 basic effects. He went further than this, and proposed a contradiction matrix, listing 39 factors that could be in conflict (for instance, weight of moving object, weight of stationary object, power, ease of operation, etc.). In this matrix, you can find for each intersection of two factors which general principles out of the 40 can be used to solve this conflict. Do you have a problem between, say, the length of a moving object and the duration of the action? Does the object need to be short for some reason, but that causes the duration of the action to be insufficient? Look at the contradiction matrix and you find that problems of this nature have been inventively solved by applying principle number 19, which is: “Periodic Action”. This may mean something like: a) instead of continuous action, use periodic or pulsating actions; b) if an action is periodic, change the periodic magnitude or frequency; c) use pauses between impulses to perform a different action.

The key to combining thousands of patents in such a concise way was the ability to interpret the problem in the “general terms” which give us access to the underlying scientific principles / effects, and then the ability to translate the solution back to the specific level of our problem.

Altschuller realised that he had found something that could have enormous impact on technological development, and not only on problem solving. As patterns of technological evolution repeat, you can foresee the direction of evolution of technologies by visualising where you are in this pattern. Foresight becomes less speculative and more solidly based on reality. As patterns of solutions repeat across industries and sectors, you can, and indeed you should, benefit from solutions developed in other sectors of science and industry, and here was the tool

The figure above sketches this concept. It is inevitable that sooner or later knowledge will increase to such an extent that we move from the convex to the concave shape. If you believe that in terms of food products we have not arrived there yet, systematic innovation is not yet crucial to you: one problem = one research project; if you think that such a time has passed, than you might need to start deploying systematic innovation tools to facilitate your work.

While generating new knowledge is as important as ever, being able to find and apply existing knowledge is increasingly becoming the most crucial hurdle in industry-oriented problems. The development of the knowledge economy sounds great for universities and researchers - we have the raw materials, so the future should be bright for us. However, the fact that everybody has to eat does not mean that farmers are very wealthy. Having raw materials does not imply profits - it does not even imply being able to sell. Academics and researchers have been very competent at generating new knowledge, but need to improve substantially the capacity to manage it and to work with existing knowledge across areas of science and technology in order to keep being competitive partners of industrial development. We should be moving from a knowledge-generating perspective to a knowledge-management perspective. Management includes raw materials, and they are a crucial part, but are not the full equation.

With the average life cycle of a food product shrinking drastically, requiring an ever growing capacity to renew product portfolios, the interest of enabling tools that can facilitate product and process development, cut down development time, decrease R&D costs and improve the quality of the final result, needs no defence. Food companies do not look at R&D as an end in itself, but as a means to achieve an end, which is to innovate products and processes and to solve problems. Laboratory research in some core areas underpinning food products and food constituents has spiralling costs. However, the role of industry is not to generate research output, but to exploit it for commercial value. Exponentially increasing experimental research costs do not necessarily imply exponentially increasing industrial R&D costs. Furthermore, according to the Commission Innovation Survey of 1998, only about 50% of industrial innovation costs in European companies are R&D. If we manage knowledge better, we can be a lot more efficient in the innovation costs department, and really do more for less.

• Can the problem solving tools (e.g. TRIZ, semantic knowledge processing) that have been developed and applied largely in other industrial sectors be deployed in the Food Industry immediately, without any particular adaptation?
• Do we need new tools, specific for biologically-based problems, which do not exist yet?
• If we need these new tools, how can we develop them?
• If we need to adapt existing tools, how are we going to address this?
• What are the training needs for deploying systematic innovation tools?
• Can we develop novel problem-solving tools/methods independently of problem-definition ones? if we need to develop them jointly, what is the best way to do it?

As we answer these questions, we will start to visualise the type of initiatives that we must organise to achieve our objective. How did we go about answering them?

This Accompanying Measure brought together over 50 systematic innovation experts and academic & industrial researchers to address these issues in a workshop (the Proceedings can be consulted in another document).

The underlying concepts were first presented and explored with a set of keynote lectures in the specific context of the Food Industry. Experts in systematic innovation clarified the issues to alert food researchers and industrialists to the potential of this methodology, and food-related case studies were reviewed.

TRIZ can be used to solve equipment design problems in the food industry, as some examples given at the Workshop show. When the process design issue can be solved by the general engineering principles, it does not really matter whether the product is a food or something else. Handling the physical dimension of product attributes is also possible (see the Workshop Proceedings for examples). However, it must be noted that food processing sometimes involves contradictory results between processing targets and safety targets - improving processability cannot jeopardise safety margins. Applications are not necessarily straightforward: the biological dimension must be part of a systematic innovation system even if the problem and/or solution are not biological in themselves.

Some of the general principles can be interpreted in biological terms. Just as TRIZ principles have found applications in business problems (see the Workshop Proceedings and Mann, D. & Domb, E., TRIZ Journal, September 1999) or social problems (see Terninko, J., TRIZ Journal June 2001), they can equally be applied to food problems. Some examples of “food” interpretations of inventive principles can be found in Winkless and Mann, TRIZ Journal May 2001.

It is therefore possible, and highly desirable, to train food product and process developers in the use of systematic innovation techniques and tools and deploy them in food product/process development.

Yes as well!

Albeit the positive note given in the previous answer, the fact is that the ability of TRIZ to impact the food industry in the same way as other industries is far more limited by the lack of systematic information on biochemical and biological aspects. Seeing how neatly the existing inventive principles can be used in engineering design, one cannot fail to desire such a fine system to help us with biological problems. The semantic knowledge processing system of the Invention Machine Corp. does allow the possibility to find relevant patents concerning enzyme technology and biotechnology, which is helpful, but still falls short of what we might need.

Visualising the ideal scenario is not difficult: we would like to be able to solve problems with food products that involve multidimensional factors such as texture, flavour, shelf-life, enzymic activity, microbial activity, consumer attitudes, etc. just like we can do with current TRIZ tools in industries like car manufacturing or aeronautics. For the physical dimensions of the problem we are well served by TRIZ, but we cannot do the same with the biological dimensions. Instead of working from TRIZ to foods and translate the 40 inventive principles to illustrate them in food situations, could we work from the food patents and build “food inventive principles”? There are thousands of patents concerning food products - if they could be systematised, resulting in simple and effective

TRIZ was originally developed by looking into thousands of patents, and so we could envisage going through every food-related patent one by one, with a food scientist eye. This is a difficult job to perform, that would take many years and for which it would be probably difficult to find funding. Academic researchers might not be very interested either, as the effort-publication ratio is not attractive.

There is also an obvious complexity in the system-specific nature of many effects (the same factor may cause different effects in different matrices depending on their characteristics). It would be logical to think that the food inventive principles that we are missing would largely have to be described at molecular level, not at the macro-level of whole food products. Food and nutrition research is moving in that direction, very much as would be predicted by the general laws of evolution of TRIZ (“move into micro-level”). This will help to visualise “food problems” at a level that would allow for a more effective systematisation.

The work involved would require an initial TRIZ training, to strengthen the capabilities of analysing functions of a system at a general level, which is the core of TRIZ.

We could envisage a systematic work of processing food patents one by one, analysing the functions of the systems involved, the contradictions and the factor-effect relations at the heart of each solution. This would lead to a systematisation of food patents in a series of inventive principles. Such work is very time consuming and of uncertain outcome.

Adapting existing tools for “food” use would be faster and perhaps more efficient than working from scratch, albeit not so comprehensive. Using existing tools will inevitably lead to an increasing adaptation to the needs of food design problems. This will likely come more from the working methods than from the tools themselves. Therefore, instead of considering “what else do we need” in abstract, it seems more appropriate to use existing tools to solve real problems in industrial design, and extract from here needs for adaptations and complementation.

Promoting the use of TRIZ tools in food product and process design will lead to adaptations and identify complementary tools that might be needed to deal with the biological nature of foods.

Whether we would be considering some new developments in TRIZ-type tools or limit ourselves to existing ones, training in basic TRIZ is essential. First and foremost, TRIZ is a new thinking model and grasping its concepts will assist developers to think more systematically, orienting towards functional analysis. At the workshop, experts in TRIZ have reported that developers generally find it difficult to learn and incorporate TRIZ tools into their working life when starting from software. The conceptual (theoretical) aspects are very important to ensure an effective uptake of TRIZ tools. The first training need is the concept, the thinking model, the way of working. Tools should come next.

The type of training courses run by TRIZ consultants seem a very appropriate starting point. The concepts are presented alongside practical sessions where the participants work out examples of their own choice. Organising this type of courses for food companies on a large scale throughout Europe would therefore be very beneficial.

In addition, it is also fundamental to consider the needs for systematic innovation from the point of view of the product design, particularly translating consumer needs and wants into quantifiable product targets. There are similar training programmes available for QFD, but this does not cover all the needs.

Ultimately, the success of innovation is the market success, and this does not depend on how effective or elegant the process design solutions are, except insofar as cost competitiveness is crucial and was improved. Once systematic thinking stirs creative and innovative thinking in process design problems, we wish to have an equally good systematic capacity to use consumer data to design products (manage consumers knowledge). The two dimensions, product design and process design, relate to problem-definition and problem-solving tools. We must develop the two interactively, it is senseless to focus on one side with the other being dealt with trivially. In knowledge management, this approach is called “concurrent product and process development”. Industry is already moving in product design tools, such as QFD (see Costa, Dekker and Jongen, Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2001, pp. 306-314). This could be put in perspective as part of a comprehensive systematic innovation approach.

Once we interiorise TRIZ concepts and excel at analysing the functionality of systems, we must expand our working abilities to integrate problem definition as well as problem solving, and develop our capabilities for product and process design concurrently.

Although it can be argued that existing tools are not perfected for use in food innovation, they really are more than enough to incorporate these methods and concepts straight away. Needs for adaptation and complementarity will be better identified from experience in working with the existing systems, and the eventual success of this type of approach will then make it easier to find support to embark on more comprehensive work. Also, the specific needs will be better understood and such work could be much more focused and targeted.

The same is true about the methodology for working the whole aspects of process and product design jointly, interfacing problem definition and problem solving. The WOIS technique promoted

by the WOIS Institute, Germany, is an example of integration of various of these tools for technology foresight (see the Workshop Proceedings). Other strategies have been suggested: e.g. AFTER (see Kowalik, J., TRIZ Journal, January 1997), Collaborative Innovation (see Zeidner & Wood, TRIZ Journal, May 2000). We must start to put these concepts and tools to work for food industry problems.

• We should put systematic innovation tools to work in food process and product design straight away.

• This will give us experience on how to interface these tools effectively, an answer that will likely depend on the nature of business and corporate culture of specific companies.

• We will certainly feel specific needs for adaptation and complementarity to deal with biological dimensions of food matrices. We will then have a more focused perception of how to achieve this, which may avoid the need to work from scratch with food patents.

• We should develop an objective way to assess the impact of this methodology in the examples used on food innovation to quantify and qualify benefits more clearly and incentive its uptake at a larger scale.

• The starting point should be good TRIZ training with hands-on approach to master the most relevant concepts of the new thinking model. This must be part of a comprehensive training plan on systematic innovation tools, to further incorporate product design capabilities for consumer-oriented innovation. Our research strategy starts with training, which actually incorporates the initial work with case studies already, and is not separated from researching our needs for further developments.

• There are two environments for such training:

-First and foremost, industrial companies: train the process and product developers while helping them to use these tools in their problems for the first time, as part of the training.

-For a wide longer term benefit, University programmes, preferably linked to product and/or process development projects for final year or postgraduate students: strengthen the capacity of Universities to deliver problem-solvers to the industry. It would be highly beneficial if such student projects would be developed in co-operation with industrial companies to provide a strong real-life orientation.

From the needs analysis and the discussions at the workshop, the following strategic initiatives can be outlined:

The most common type of training model for QFD and TRIZ seems excellent: circa 3 days workshops where the concepts are presented in lecture sessions, worked out in examples

selected by the trainees, divided in working groups, in practical sessions, and then the experience is reviewed in wrap-up sessions. The training therefore combines learning with actual R&D consultancy coaching for deploying the concepts to solve problems of interest to each trainee’s company. There are consultancy companies in Europe, US and Japan that already offer a comprehensive range of courses that would allow industrial companies to select a number of different topics, according to their needs: TRIZ, QFD, Taguchi, etc. Therefore, the only thing that seems necessary at first is to incentive companies to hire trainers and move forward individually.

However, tailor-made training programmes are an option only to companies of sufficient

• If we have a team of systematic innovation experts, food researchers and one industrial company (or more in a complementing, not competitive, role) working one case study, this might work. Why would the company or companies be involved? Would they not prefer to do this on their own and have full protection of the results? There are such situations: for instance the EU collaborative projects. If the idea is still somewhat tentative, is originating somewhere else (a university?) and the outcome a bit uncertain, the fact that someone picks up part of the bill may be attractive. Otherwise, the industrial companies would have to pay the full development costs - something they prefer to do when the cost-risk-benefit ratios are clearly favourable.
• Another similar situation is the “business” of incubation companies seen from the eyes of venture capitalists: start-up companies in incubators are like flowers growing from seed, and when they have matured sufficiently for the colours and aroma to blossom, the venture capitalists pick up those they like.

In the first case, we would envisage collaborative R&D projects submitted to the EU 5th Framework (for instance, a CRAFT-type of project) or to national agencies (like Enterprise Ireland in Eire). An active network will help to facilitate setting up such initiatives. The output of these projects could be a product/process patent. It is also possible to promote an overall project like a concerted action, managing various individual projects. The concertation level provides orientation and support on the deployment of systematic innovation tools, and each individual project generates its own intellectual property, belonging to the specific working group. This would be more effective than a series of loose initiatives running totally independently. We need a good network for this: systematic innovation experts to provide consultancy and orientation, food research performers, and industrial companies, each of which championing one specific project. The concertation level could be the subject of an EU proposal, while each individual project would seek funding in national agencies supporting industrial innovation.

In the second case, we could be working a bit more upstream. Many university food science and cognate programmes have a final year project that consists of a new product or process development. If some of these would be mentored by an industrial company, they could be worked with an industrial orientation, towards industrial goals. A given company could mentor various projects. Each will not necessarily lead to a good case study and relevant intellectual property value, but if we run a network all over Europe, we might end up with a number of good results. This could tie up with a motivating initiative for the students, like awards given by the network, for instance: best QFD analysis, best deployment of scientific effects to solve product design problems, best application of TRIZ concepts, best product optimisation with Taguchi

• Starting from the Workshop participants, assemble a team per initiative and establish a steering committee;

• From the dissemination of this Accompanying Measure, collect additional expressions of interest and complement the teams;

• Establish contacts with ETRIA and EFFoST (other associations if needed) to anchor the network;

• Canvass EU and national agencies to explore opportunities for support to co-ordination activities, starting from virtual networking, and promote regular meetings;

• Promote the various initiatives described below with appropriate partners, as opportunities arise.

The type of work involved is reminiscent of the objectives of EU programmes such as Leonardo and national programmes for improvement of human resources and professional development. A concerted effort at international level to design and run pilot courses would need financial support, and it should be explored whether the Leonardo programme would be a suitable source.

The inclusion of this type of courses in professional development programmes such as those that may soon become mandatory for engineers, or that are voluntary (like the professional development strategy advised by the Institute of Food Science and Technology, U.K.), could help to potentiate the multiplier effect and achieve long term sustainability.

The action plan is the following:

• Contact the Leonardo programme to check for best way to submit a proposal for designing and running pilot programme;

• Gather interest from the network (trainers and industrial companies) and prepare proposal;

• Through network partners, contact national training agencies to ascertain support at national level to complement, or replace, EU-level project;

• Through network partners, contact professional associations (engineers, food scientists & technologists) to try to gather support for international and national proposals, as part of professional advancement schemes;

• Contact large industrial R&D structures of major companies to ascertain willingness to move independently with their own staff, at their own costs, if international/national public agency support fails, or to complement it.

It is worthwhile exploring both avenues described in section 3.2.2: industrial innovation projects developed collaboratively by small working teams, and university students process/product design projects developed with industry orientation.

• Through network partners, assess willingness of companies and trainers in different countries to put together R&D projects to be performed by deploying systematic innovation tools by a small collaborative working team involving the industry, systematic innovation experts, and possibly food researchers from university and/or R&D institutes;

• Through network partners, evaluate funding opportunities at national level for these innovation projects;

• Establish contacts with the EU R&D agro-food division and/or innovation/SME programme to ascertain opportunities for concerted action to co-ordinate all national initiatives of this type (this may need to be running in parallel with the previous action).

B)

• Through network partners, identify universities willing to participate in a systematic innovation orientation of all, or part, of student project/process development projects;

• In each case, identify industrial companies willing to be involved as mentors/champions of student projects in areas/products of interest to them;

• Organise a virtual network of project-workers and project-advisers (focusing on support on deploying systematic innovation tools);

• Organise training on systematic innovation for the students, with particular attention to how these programmes will be funded;

• Organise competitions and awards from the network (possibly through its anchor associations);

• Canvass the Socrates programme of the EU to assess opportunities and strategies for funding co-ordination activities of the network and the students training requirements.

During the preparation of this report, this line of action was already followed. A proposal for an Accompanying Measure called “Food Foresight - a comprehensive view of the development patterns of the Food Industry in Europe” was submitted to the 5th Framework Programme in February 2001 and approved in the meantime (action QLAM 2001 - 00085). Pending contract negotiations, it may be initiated in December 2001. The Project Co-ordinator is Prof. Jorge Oliveira, University College Cork, Ireland, and expressions of interest on this project are welcome.

• Prepare accompanying measure proposal and submit to the EU 5th F. P. (done);

• Set-up working group (done);

• Training workshop of working group on WOIS and draft work outline (to take place in Brussels in January 2002 - pending contract negotiations);

• First workshop (open to outside participants) to present and discuss work outline (to be held in Brussels in January 2002);

• Missions of the working group to US and Japan to gather expertise on TRIZ in forecasting, benchmark industrial food innovation, and explore novel consumer-oriented tools (such as Kansei engineering) (January/February 2002);

• Second workshop (open to outside participants) to present and discuss first draft of the foresight exercise (to be held in Wageningen in February 2002);

• Exercise to be completed by May 2002.

After the workshop, a group initiated work towards translating the general TRIZ inventive principles to food industry situations. In the meantime, B. Winkless has published his first findings (see TRIZ Journal, May 2001) and welcomes expressions of interest.

No work is considered in the immediate horizon on processing food patents. However, if funding opportunities for such a comprehensive work are to materialise, the network could address this issue and ascertain its timeliness.

• Set up working group;

• Propose examples of the inventive principles in food industry problems;

• Exchange information and review by the network;

• Publication of the results (the TRIZ Journal would be the most appropriate).

• Maintain the idea of systematically processing patents to extract food principles simmering (specially for biochemical and biological dimensions), pending opportune developments if and when appropriate.

This is an initiative on which the network can advise, and even establish guidelines and recommendations, but it is up to individual universities/departments to take action.

The action plan is the following:

• Initially, address this issue in conjunction with line of action 4 (section 3.3.3.);

• In conjunction with the network anchors, promote discussions on strategic issues concerning education to the Food Industry, and eventually generate recommendations and suggestions for university programmes;

• Publish these recommendations and disseminate them in the academic environment, with special attention to Universities with industrial advisory boards.

We cannot expect the European Food Industry to dramatically increase innovation output without significant and suitable human resources, who think creatively and innovatively but without increasing cost nor risk with such thoughts. We will never achieve that if everyone works only incrementally in their area of expertise with their own way of thinking.

We cannot expect the European food industry to multiply its innovation activities with the profit margins it works with unless very cost-effective methods and tools are deployed. We will not decrease risk and improve success in innovation if we do not have objective and systematic ways to incorporate the needs and requirements of the consumers in product design, and to solve the manufacturing problems of that design.

There is something in the “innovation equation” that does not add up. We could increase the innovation expenditure in the European food industry exponentially and reap noting but incremental benefits here and there. The basis has to change. We have to improve the working methods and the way that developers work, define, and solve their problems: we need the ability to think integratedly; to link design attributes with process solutions (not with process problems); to be able to “learn from others”; to work multidimensionally in an effective manner - we need better ways to manage and work with our knowledge and that of the consumers.

Unless we change something in how we do things, we will keep doing them in the same way, and keep having the same results. We will have “more of the same”. If we aim at incorporating more science and technology (more knowledge) in food products and keep doing it in the same way, we can only expect the level of success that we have been having so far. And that is not enough.

Let us propose a very basic benchmarking concept. Let us look at those who are highly innovative, at industrial sectors where innovation is the name of the game, at product and process designers who very actively and effectively deliver innovations. How do they do it? How do they work with knowledge and technology? And how can we do that in our own specific context?