Create

46
to be brought to a point of understanding
and rational description that will allow it
to be fairly and properly judged on its own
merits. If successfully incubated, an idea will
have enough substance for a research plan
to be placed in the mainstream for funding.
It has been identified by the CREATE project
as a ‘missing link’ in the stream of research
processes that are in operation today.
The development and execution of an
incubation process is the principal focus within
the CREATE recommendation with supporting
processes as steps towards it. Without an
incubation stage the element presently missing
to stimulate successful innovation would still
be missing. At the end of the incubation phase,
a result will be delivered, which will either
allow the idea to be prepared for mainstream
research or will show that the idea can never
be feasible – either outcome is useful.
The CREATE team places great emphasis
on the incubation phase being a period of
protected financial support. It is clear from
experience that all innovative proposals face
substantial opposition. It is always open to
this opposition to apply pressure for the
removal of funding because “nothing has
been achieved” or similar expressions. In
making recommendations about incubation
the CREATE team believes that the process
should be insulated from having to conform to
development milestone achievements during
what is essentially a structured exploration.
Against this it has to be recognised that the
incubation process may uncover unexpected
features of the technology, the physics or
other matters that destroy any expectation
that the idea will succeed. Clearly in such a
circumstance the project should be wound up.
The context in which the CREATE consortium
thinks that incubation is best suited is in the
area of innovative ideas with high risk (see
Fig. 1, p.15). Incubation will allow these to be
developed to such a level that the ideas can
compete for funding with more incremental
technology developments. The big difference
between innovative systems and evolutionary
progress is their TRL (Technology Readiness
Level) difference. Invariably the innovative
idea initially has a low TRL (in the 0-1 area)
whereas the evolutionary project has a
higher TRL. Usually the obstacles perceived
to challenge the innovative ideas relate to
a relatively small number of major issues.
Incubation should be tightly focused on
these issues and on substantially eroding the
uncertainties that would otherwise be a focus
for opposition (if this is possible).
6.7.2. Objectives
The objectives of the Work Package dealing
with incubation were to explore and to make
recommendations for:
(a) The approaches used for early stage
innovative development across the world
and the particular needs of innovation in
aviation.
(b) The mechanisms that could be applied to
screen a range of ideas before submitting
some of them to incubation.
(c) Possible mechanisms for funding incubation.
(d) Possible mechanisms for executing the
incubation activity.
6.7.3. Funding the Incubation System
A survey of other early stage innovation
mechanisms around the world yielded a
number that sought to overcome some of the
same issues that CREATE has identified. None
of these were a good match for the particular
circumstances that CREATE addresses. They
were either very costly or specifically for
defence (DARPA defence related mechanisms),
were pitched at early stage scientific work
(ERC) or were limited in their funding ratio
(FET-Open). No mechanisms were discovered
that addressed together the particular issues of:
a) The probability of multi-disciplinary solutions.
b) The certainty of multi-sector engagement
in the emergent solution.
c) A likely into service date more than 30
years ahead.
d) An overall funding regime that supported
the concept of incubation.
It is the combination of these issues, identified
in section 3. above, that makes innovation in
this field necessary but impossible to achieve
with existing mechanisms.
The mechanism that is needed would have the
following attributes:
a) A funding ratio (the proportion of public
funds involved) of close to 100% but
limited to the duration of the exploratory
research of the incubation period.
b) A short life (up to 2-years) to emphasise the
need to address specified key issues only. It
is likely that the key challenges to a concept
could be explored and examined within this
period if they are going to be convincing.
c) A modest budget – the CREATE team