OverviewLessons learnt

Steven CleerenSmart@Fire Coordinator

Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen

Infosessie Innovatieve Overheidsopdrachten, 28 april 2017

2

Project in a nutshell

European FP7 project

52 months: November 2012 – February 2017

6 countries: Belgium, Netherlands, France, Germany, United Kingdomand Hungary

Co-funded by the European Commission (FP7), VLAIO (ex-IWT), IBZ andSDIS 13

3

5 Potential Purchasers

2 Innovation Agencies

1 University

1 Confederation 1 Certifier

1 Innovation Consultancy

11 partners

Implications of PCP from a legal, methodological and European perspective (and in terms of innovation support) (pilot project)

To address a very real need: increase the safety of fire fighters and first responders by making their protective equipment “smarter”

Using a concrete case allowed us to get down to the nitty-gritty of using PCP: what works, and what doesn’t?

4

Twofold objective

Main objectives

Objectives Smart@Fire?

Commercially viableDecrease risks

PCP methodology Raise PCP awareness

Integrated workingPPS Solution

Why Smart@Fire?

Situation 2012…

Firefighting risky job 100 deaths per year Lots of wearable technology

Not Integrated / Expensive Stimulate the market Smart@Fire - PCP

Smart@Fire Timeline

2012 20142013 20162015

WP1 Preliminary Study

WP2 Innovation Platform

WP3Joint Pre-commercial procurement

WP4Preparation of the joint final procurement

2017

Smart@Fire Timeline

2012 20142013 20162015

WP1 Preliminary Study

WP2 Innovation Platform

WP3Joint Pre-commercial procurement

WP4Preparation of the joint final procurement

2017

WP 1: Preliminary Study - Objective

How can we increase the safety of firefighters by

making use of wearable technology?

WP 1: Preliminary Study - Tools

1. Needs Assessment

In depth analysis (Planning Poker)

Survey (961 respondents)

Projects logged in EU

2. State of the Art Study

IP scan Web Search

User-driven innovation technology-driven innovation

Why user-centric and user-driven? To match demand (i.e. real needs of end-users) withsupply (i.e. relevant and effective solution) from the get-go

Mapping existing demand beforehand increases market potential of innovation helps to cross the “Valley of Death”, where innovation goes to die before reachingcommercialization

11

Needs Assessment:User-Driven Innovation

End-Users= Market

Top-down development

12

Technology

Competition

Producer

Product

Market AMarket C

Market B

Bottom-up development

ProducerSample

Product

User-Driven Innovation

Limits to co-creation and user involvement in PCP?

Thorough needs analysis gives direction to and speeds up theFuzzy Front End phase in New Product Development (i.e. identifying opportunities and generating ideas)

13

Up to 50% of totaldevelopment time!

Needs Assessment:Accelerating the Fuzzy Front End

WP 1: Preliminary Study –Result: Priority Use Cases

Localisation• Determining the

position of thefirefighter

Visualisation& data

transfer

• Better assessing thesituation by providingdata to coordinatingofficer

Sensors• Measuring

environmental andbiometric parameters

15

WP 1: Preliminary Study - Results

Integration in a smart, durable andaffordable suit

Timeline

2012 20142013 20162015

WP1 Preliminary Study

WP2 Innovation Platform

WP3Joint Pre-commercial procurement

WP4Preparation of the joint final procurement

2017

WP2: Innovation Platform

1. Identify and inform network of suppliers

Planning Poker

2. Market Consultation

Networking

Official Tender channels Cascading Media

18

Market consultation: Objectives

Bring together demand and supply

Check state-of-the-art assumptions

Identify the technological innovation potential

Check feasibility

Assess technological risks

Opportunity for suppliers to form consortia

Engage stakeholders

19

Prototype priorities

Prototype Scope: value vs. risk

H

orities on

Innovative for end-user oadmap +

Added Value

Innovation potential

from end-user perspective

cant technological risk

L

L H

Risk Innovation potential from technological perspective

DO

Pri pro r

DERISK

totype

= Signifi

Off-the-shelf

Avoid if possible

Market consultation: Objective

Belgium (Brussel, 10 & 11 September 2013)Localisation systemsIntegration of ICT-solutions in PPE

France (Marseille, 17 & 18 September 2013)Datatransfer & visualisation systemsIntegration of ICT-solutions in PPE

Germany (Dortmund, 1 & 2 October 2013)SensorsIntegration of ICT-solutions in PPE

Wrap-up session (Brussels, 10 October 2013)Final conclusion and netwerk event

20

Market consultation: Practical

21

Switzerland UK USA 1% Slovenia

Norway 2% 1%

Netherlands 7%

2% 4% Spain 3%

Belgium 37%

Lithuania 3%

Greece 1% Total number of

participants: 470/210 different/18 countries

Germany 13%

Australia 1%

Austria Czech Republic

1% 2%

Estonia 1%

France 21%

Denmark 2% Finland

2%

Market consultation: Practical

Market consultation: Outcome

Timeline

2012 20142013 20162015

WP1 Preliminary Study

WP2 Innovation Platform

WP3Joint Pre-commercial procurement

WP4Preparation of the joint final procurement

2017

PCP: Phased trajectory

Fourconsortia

Stap 1: Solution Design

Three consortia

Stap 2: Prototyping

Max. twoconsortia

Stap 3: First Batch

Tender Evaluation

Tender Evaluation

Tender Evaluation

End of phaseevaluation

End of phaseevaluation

End of phaseevaluation

PCP: ‘knock-out’ competition& evaluation

PCP: Deliverables

Step 1: Solution Design

• Detailed Solution Design• Report

Step 2: Development and demonstration prototype• Functional specification of prototype • Prototype demonstration• Report

Step 3: First Batch & Field Testing

• First batch of 10 products• Functional specification of prototype • Description of commercialisation approach• Report

8, 9 November 2016

Centre de Formation Départementale des Sapeurs-Pompiers des Bouches-du-Rhône

Test scenarioso Functionalo Ergonomico As realistic as possibleo Full use cycle, including e.g. washing & drying

PCP: Phase 3: Testing

PCP: Batch production

Timeline

2012 20142013 20162015

WP1 Preliminary Study

WP2 Innovation Platform

WP3Joint Pre-commercial procurement

WP4Preparation of the joint final procurement

2017

Need for solid project management skills.

Need for solid legal expertise (thorough understanding of rationale and logic behind public procurement).

Need for solid technological expertise.

If knowledge or skills are lacking in-house find the right partners!

30

Lessons learnt (1)

Need to strike a difficult balance between radical innovation and a feasible solution within given constraints, or: between creating value and capturing value, or: between optimal solution and suboptimal yet attainable solution.

Constraints?• Resources (time, budget, people)• Legal framework• State-of-the-art of technology• Market conditions (speed of development, sector characteristics, etc.)

E.g. feasible in defense industry ≠ feasible in emergency services sector

Development process in PCP is shared between suppliers and procurer. This requires both rigidity and flexibility from both parties.

Private companies/researchers often have difficulty with rigid frameworksPublic organizations often have difficulty with uncertainty, inherent risk and “adjusting for reality”

31

Lessons learnt (2)

Map, manage, engage and use your stakeholders!

Make clear what is “at stake” for them. (E.g. certification bodies)Use “tools” such as needs assessment, market consultation, steering group, etc.Over the years, lots of people have contributed to the project (need for social skills!)

In cooperation projects, keep in mind that everyone brings their own agenda to the table! (not necessarily a problem)

End goal of governments ≠ end goal of private companies ≠ end goal of research institutes.

Spend sufficient time on large-scale needs assessment. There’s little use in procuring an innovative solution that doesn’t meet the needs of end-users.

32

Lessons learnt (3)

Do not underestimate the complexity of these kinds of projects!

E.g. does “psychology” play a role? Yes! Resistance to new technology, difference between measurable data and user experience, subjective notion of “safety”, getting stakeholders on board, etc.

Limit the scope of the challenge to what is manageable within a “project” (dedicated resources, limited timeframe, etc.).

“Wicked problems” are called that for a reason.

Watch out for “hidden pitfalls”! E.g. life-threatening situations such as firefighting: need for technology to guarantee 100% reliability?E.g. resistance to new technology, even when solution brings obvious benefitsE.g. lack of certification framework

33

Lessons learnt (4)

As procurer you’re also the customer/beneficiary, so don’t lose sight of the end-goal.

Define exact and precise requirements and performance criteria. When will you consider the project a success?

Timing of the subsequent PCP phases is crucial. State of the art analysis at the start of the project > valid for how long?Leave sufficient time for product development!

Limited budgets can prevent you from reaching the “heavy hitters” in an industry.

Has both upsides and downsides.

34

Lessons learnt (5)

PCP reflects traditional view on innovation as a stage-gate process (“innovation funnel”).

co-creative development, cyclical development, trial and error, living labsHas advantages (more manageable, less resources) and disadvantages (testing only in final stages, limited user involvement, etc.)

35

Lessons learnt (6)

Thank you!

steven.cleeren@vlaio.be

36