Table 1: SWOT.
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
1 |
Do Nothing. |
No cost. |
Joint working conducted through COVID-19 unsustainable. |
|
|
Some joint projects would be pursued, as currently is the case but no growth in technology development. |
Missed opportunities with an increasing number of grants relating to new devices and technologies. |
|
|
|
With no uplift in new technology and device research activity, and with an anticipated decline in drug trials, there is a potential risk to core HaCRW funding. |
|
|
|
Insufficient staff to generate income to cost recover. |
|
|
|
Less likely to be able to support local companies with developing new healthcare technologies that could benefit the health system, patients, and the economic prospects of companies. |
|
|
|
Without co-location of teams, the opportunities for chance discussions and the shared use of facilities may limit the number of innovations and technologies supported, including related research and development activity. |
2 |
Do minimum. |
Low cost. Some investment in facilities, offset with R&D core funding. |
The same as option one, minus the absence of co-location disadvantage. The most significant disadvantage would be the ability to identify opportunities but being unable to capitalise upon them due to staff capacity and capability limitations. |
|
|
Through co-location, easier to identify and support joint projects and optimise the use of facilities. |
|
|
|
Creates a visible ‘front door’ for clinical device and new technology innovation within the organisation. |
|
3 |
Preferred Option. |
Equivalent co-location opportunities secured. |
There is a risk that the investment in the core team is not recovered in full, with the consulting, grant and licensing income all subject to market forces. |
|
|
The creation of a dedicated clinical innovation engineering and research team allows the capacity to target the pipeline of new technology grant schemes, and have a dedicated team that can support local businesses on a consultancy basis or through gain share agreements. |
It will take time to develop a device and new technology trial competence within the organisation. |
|
|
Provide a resource to income generate, recovering the investment made in the core team. |
|
|
|
Prudent approach, with virtuous funding cycle that seeks to cover costs and re-invest in generating addition clinical engineering. |
|
|
|
Taps into the interested of several clinical teams that are keen to advance device and technology trials. |
|
|
|
Potential to mitigate risk by a ‘test and grow approach’. |
|
|
|
Opportunity to offer something additive to university and commercial partners, with mutual benefits secured. |
|
4 |
Alternate. Co-locate R&D Core and Clinical Engineering. Larger joint team established. |
As per preferred option, with the ability to go further and faster, with increased ‘hands’ to work up proposals and conduct projects. |
As per option 3, but significant risk associated with cost recovery. |
|
|
Clear signal of intent to competitors |
There will not be limitless demand for new device and technology trials. |
|
|
|
Danger of surplus capacity, if consultancy and grant capture proves less than anticipated. |
|
|
|
Risks associated with overcommitting (by volume) to technology developments where the UHB has limited competence. |