While innovation is widely recognized by as a sustainable and competitive enabler; nonetheless understanding of innovation management and practice remains fragmented, misunderstood and untamed by practitioners and researchers alike. Based on the foregoing, developing an understanding of PACS (Privacy and Cyber Security) stakeholders’ innovation requirements represents an integral and anchoring component of the IPACSO project, with reference to informing the development of appropriate and targeted support interventions/solutions. For this reason, this synopsized overview focuses on identifying stakeholders’ innovation practices and requirements to develop an understanding of the following:
• Environment, approaches and requirements in relation to innovation engagement.
• Challenges, barriers and support requirements in relation to PACS innovation.
A detailed report of IPACO’s Stakeholder Requirement findings will be released shortly.
In pursuit of identifying PACS stakeholders’ innovation requirements a mixed method triangulated research design was employed, encompassing an online questionnaire, semi-structured telephone interviews, secondary research, engagement with the Innovation Advisory Board and IPACSO Innovation Award finalists’ innovators (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Triangulated Research Design
• A diverse range of innovation modelling processes, practices and, in turn, requirements proliferate the PACS innovation domain.
• Multiple and integrated innovation models are utilized which draw upon elements of technology push, demand pull, cooperative, networking and open innovation principles. This variance, creates difference scenarios of practice and focus both in terms of the stakeholders involved and the phases/gates deployed and in turn, their requirements.
• The level of innovation practice and requirements of innovators varies depending on their respective maturity level. While market shifts and demands represent a key innovation component and driver in any industry setting, the constantly changing and hard to predict PACS environment exerts a significant challenge.
• At a high level, the research indicates that existing competencies and investment are directed in the early phases of the innovation lifecycle (ideation through to concept development); whereas significant scope and requirements occur in the latter stages (test and implementation).
• A significant finding is that innovation challenges transcend infrastructural, market, knowledge, cost and legal domains. Cost factors ranked first for all the respondents with knowledge and market factors also representing a serious problematic innovation challenge.
• The stakeholders identified a broad scope for innovation supports across the entire innovation value chain and ecosystem (i.e. strategy, business intelligence, ideation, portfolio management, resource management development, and launch).
• A common denominator from the interview findings is the varying levels of disconnect between research and technology development and innovation diffusion/implementation. While the imperative of underpinning innovation development activities with sound commercial business cases was recognized by all, competency and proficiency in this area varies significantly.
PACS Respondent Demographics
Reflecting IPACSO’s multi-stakeholder foci, a broad range of stakeholder categories are represented in the research findings ranging from industry innovators in the PACS domain, research innovators, innovation intermediaries in the form of consultancy and industry support, in addition to funding and policy representatives.
• PACS relevant subdomains of those who participated in the research include but are not limited to: mobile and cloud security, telco, cyber protection, cryptography, malware, privacy enhancing technologies, surveillance and intrusion detection, security intelligence, distributed computing and big data.
• Regarding organisation size, categories ranging from micro to large are represented with small organisations (34.8%) leading the response rate followed by micro (26.1%) and large (26.1%) and medium size organisations (13%) respectively. The data reflects the growing consensus placed upon small firms proliferating the diverse and fragmented PACS landscape, with small and micro firms accounting for over half of all participants in the research.
• Demonstrating a diverse canvas of participation from all areas within organisational structures, respondents included: founders and directors, R&D managers and personnel, CTO’s, commercial directors and business developers, CEO’s, project and product managers, technology transfer managers, professors and researchers from research institutes, policy makers and security evangelists.
• A diverse approach to organizing innovation transcends the domain
While two thirds of respondents indicated that an innovation strategy(s) is in place in their organisation, there are variances in terms of supporting and complementary policies and procedures underpinning such strategies. A broad range of processes for organising innovation were identified - Two thirds adopt a cross functional approach to facilitate innovation; whereas a third utilize specialized organization units (e.g. research centres). Over a quarter of respondents reported an ad-hoc, informal approach to innovation organisation and a further 16.7% identified that their innovation operations are conducted externally through outsourcing arrangements.
• Multi-disciplinary internal and external stakeholder involvement
A wide-ranging spectrum of stakeholders are involved in innovation activities, albeit at varying levels. Internal staff represent the highest frequency of stakeholders used, followed by a combination of clients/customers, competitors, consultants are utilised at lower levels of frequency with professional/industry associations, universities and government/research institutes being used as least frequent partners..
• Multiple and integrated innovation models are utilized
Demonstrating that innovation practice is a combination of technology push and demand pull dimensions, both of these categories are strongly represented amongst the respondents. Reflecting the previously reported dominant role of internal cross functional staff integration, a cooperative and parallel approach is also commonly pursued. Underscoring the escalating incidences of collaborations between innovating organisations and external stakeholders, over 50 % positive agreement statements were reported for systems/networking integration and open innovation models.
• Product and service innovation are primary foci
Product and service innovation dominate respondents’ primary innovation focus; whereas process innovation represents the key secondary focus. Conversely, organisational and marketing innovation was not reported as a focus by 50% and 40% of respondents respectively.
• Innovation practice and requirements vary by the maturity levels of organisations
The level of innovation practice and requirements of innovators varies depending on their respective maturity level. For start-ups the emphasis is on finances and growth; whereas more established enterprises encounter bureaucracy, scaling and diversification requirements.
• PACS trends constantly move the goalposts
While the speed of innovation and short product cycles are signature aspects of digital markets which are continuously altered through emerging threat and vulnerabilities “it’s a continuous race between hackers and solution, the target is always moving and so too is the risk”. Equally so, it was cautioned that research, innovation and development priorities cannot be solely based on today’s problem – the world moves on, new waves of technology and threats are emerging, the key is finding windows of opportunity.
• Difficult to retro-fit Privacy and Cyber Security innovation focus
A significant proportion of the interview respondents signalled that in order for innovation outcomes to be successful in the domain, PACS specific guiding principles should be a motivator, as opposed to an afterthought of product/service development - “It is much more difficult to retro-engineer at the end, security is all about how it is used and should be a driving force from concept commencement”.
• Value chain positioning impacts on innovation focus
The majority of observable innovation in cyber-security and privacy markets is best described as incremental. This means that much of the innovation is a product or service improvement, but not a radically new development that forces businesses to re-organization or leads to the emergence of wholly new markets.
• Importance of marrying business, technology and research excellence
A common denominator from the interview findings is the varying levels of disconnect between research and technology development and innovation diffusion/implementation. While the imperative of underpinning innovation development activities with sound commercial business cases was recognized by all, competency and proficiency in this area varies significantly.
• Bureaucratic funding/support mechanisms
The interview respondents who have current and previous experience of participating in both national and European innovation funding initiatives reported frustrations and concerns surrounding such instruments in light of the fast paced, short lifecycle demands of the PACS environment.
Innovation Challenges and Requirements
Respondents rated how typical innovation challenges related to their organisation (infrastructure, cost, knowledge, market and legal/regulatory factors). As presented in Figure 1, all of the challenge factors rated as both moderate and minor challenges for the respondents. Cost factors ranked first as a series problem for all the respondents with a score in the region of 70%. One out of five respondents also identified knowledge and market factors as a serious problematic innovation challenge.
Figure 1 Innovation Challenges
• Innovation competency levels vary across the innovation value chain
Respondents identified high and competent levels of proficiency is the areas of ideation and concept development and design and business analysis. Areas where respondents felt there was scope for improvement included the phases towards the end of the lifecycle including test, implementation and post launch.
• Variance in innovation investment and performance
On average the greatest level of investment is directed in the early phases of the innovation lifecycle (ideation through to concept development); whereas less investment is directed towards the latter stages (test and implementation).
• Diverse scope for innovation support prioritization
Respondents highlighted a range of requirements and scope for prioritising areas/aspects where they consider support, guidance and knowledge would be of benefit (Figure 2). Strong requirements for innovation supports were reported in the areas of portfolio management, post launch, resource and competence management and business intelligence.
Figure 2 Scope for Innovation Supports
Elaborating upon these findings, Table 3 synopsizes a range of related and additional innovation requirement aspects, in terms of areas presenting scope for improvement.
Table 3 Additional Scope for Innovation Supports
|Networking and Collaboration supports||
|Business Development Supports||
|Risk and Awareness Building Supports||