Table 1: SWOT.





Do Nothing.
Teams operate as currently with limited joint projects progressed

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.


Do minimum.
Co-locate R&D Core and Clinical Engineering. No additional staff.

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.



Preferred Option.
Co-locate R&D Core and Clinical Engineering. Small jointly appointed team established (further detail below)

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.



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.