PACs stakeholders can also be categorised with regards to their role in the overall innovation process, and can be defined across four main groups:
• “Innovators”: individuals or companies that are looking to bring ideas in the PACs domain to market. Sub-categories include researchers, vendors, service providers, integrators and infrastructure providers;
• “Enablers”: individuals or entities who are responsible for supporting individuals or companies in being more innovative and in commercialising technology;
• “Influencers”: individuals whose professional mandates influence or impact on the ability of PACs Innovators or Enablers to bring technologies to market;
• “End-Users”: individuals or organisations leveraging PACs technologies and services to improve resilience of their own infrastructures, or technologies they provide to others.
Table 2.3 – PACs Innovation stakeholder categories and main pain points
|Stakeholder Type||Sub-Categories||Key innovation needs/pain points|
By Organisation Size/Maturity
Micro start-up (1-3 persons)
Small SME (<10 persons)
Established SME seeking new business lines/opportunities
Mid-Sized company (250 employees plus)
Large global blue chip players (ICT, Defence, Telcos)
By Job Title/Persona
By Target PACs Solution Type
By Position in PACs/ICT value chain (e.g.)
Understanding the steps, procedures, activities involved in bringing new PACs product/service innovations to market – difficulty in getting PACs solution to market successfully.
Have experienced several past failures at start-ups and would like to learn how to avoid those failures.
Have difficulty understanding where to prioritise and focus efforts around innovation.
Difficulty in bridging the “valley of death” between R&D and commercialisation.
Don’t know how to conduct and validate market research, and integrate it with product/solution development.
Have difficulty in knowing how to access finance, both for R&D and NPD activities.
Have difficulty combining service aspects of PACs innovation with product elements in a commercially viable and efficient manner.
Typically managers or consultants working in an in-house or external support role. Can be:
Managers with background in PACs domain, without expertise in general innovation techniques.
General innovation consultants with no expert knowledge of PACs domain.
Could exist within organisation categories profiled above, from independent consultancies, VCs or similar investment agencies, PACs cluster support groups, and so on.
Existing PACs stakeholders will understand their domain (and often market) very well but have difficulty around building better innovation/process in the organisation.
Difficulty in doing radical innovation well (i.e. bringing new technology to a new market).
Want to understand how to empower other individuals and groups in organisations (i.e. innovators) – including defining roles and responsibilities for innovation activities.
May come from broad range of industry specific backgrounds including:
Or a broad range of non industry-specific backgrounds including:
Understand how to build/integrate specific agenda into PACs marketplace – ensure that necessary standards/mandate are achieved.
Understand PACs trends more clearly from research and commercial perspectives (political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental).
Understand how role in PACs domain impacts Innovator ability to commercialise PACs technology
Understand specific market challenges, the in-depth domain specific relations and expectations.
Individuals and organisations looking to protect their business, data and operations.
General ICT vendors integrating PACs technology.
Can be further segmented by target PACs buyer segment, e.g.
Can be segmented by PACs verticals, such as insurance, banking and finance, energy, ICT and so on.
Difficulty in making products, services, infrastructures secure – need security “best practice” solutions. Particularly understanding domain-specific needs and requirements.
How to design-in security/privacy functionality into products, services and infrastructures.
Verifying cost and risk balance around PACs. How much should be spent on PACs? How much security is enough? What is enough to keep customers/regulators happy? How might they be incentivised to adopt higher PACs standards?
Verification of quality/effectiveness of PACs solutions they use.
Different organisations and individuals may fall into multiple stakeholder categories under this scheme, depending on factors, particularly their relationship with the PACs product or service development lifecycle. For example in relation to development of a specific PACs product/service the individual may be deeply in “Innovator” mode, whereas in terms of a strategic review their role may shift towards “Enabler” mode. Product managers in particular may have to juggle between both roles. Clusters combine different entities and contribute through their constituency in the different roles, but also by themselves can act from different perspectives, integrating different non-PACs specific insights (e.g. including microprocessing expertise) or combining other industry-specific clusters on future challenges and requirements of the specific domain (e.g. by including Energy clusters). In line with the typically non-linear nature of innovation processes, different innovation materials and guidance will apply to different stages of the innovation lifecycle, so identifying stakeholder roles at any given time is important.