Figure 1. TRD definition and demarcation with system development
A novel workshop on 'The Challenge of Change', in terms of how to conceive and implement technology research and development, took place at ESTEC on 14/15 February. The reason for this initiative on the part of ESA's Technical Directorate was the growing awareness within Europe that current trends in the space market call for a radical change in the way the Agency, industry and other involved parties work together. One of the pillars of a new future is a strong and healthy Technology Research & Development (TRD) Programme, as the new emerging technologies will determine what can be achieved and at what cost. The prime objective of the Workshop was to arrive at a new policy and set of measures to strengthen the impact of the TRD and to increase the benefits accruing to industry and the national agencies from these efforts.
The Workshop attracted more than 250 attendees from industries both large and small, other space agencies, universities, user bodies and delegations, thereby representing the core of the European space community. The presentations mainly addressed the current problems and potential solutions as perceived by industry and by project leaders. An accompanying exhibition included several commercial products resulting from recent space technology R&D developments.
ESA opened the proceedings with a definition of Technology R&D, an analysis of the current situation for TRD in Europe, and the measures being planned and implemented to face the new challenges. The biggest concerns are the lack of adequate funding and the need to involve industry more closely in R&D decision- making.
ESA also reported on the reforms in progress to improve the strength and effectiveness of its TRD programmes, which fall into three categories:
A new rationale for the Agency's forthcoming TRP Plan which was presented turned out to be very similar to the blueprint for a new TRD planning concept being prepared by Aerospatiale.
European industry, as represented by Euro-space, made a strong call upon ESA to refocus on Technology R&D immediately, and to closely involve industry in the definition and preparation of its TRD activities. Other, non-space examples of successful European TRD programmes were presented such as EUREKA, the secret of its success being seen as the bottom-up generation of research proposals and a decentralised organisational approach. Industry also took the opportunity to express its views on partnerships with other companies and with ESA, especially in the context of commercial markets.
Figure 1. TRD definition and demarcation with system development
ESA's Science Directorate underlined the crucial dependency of its projects on the technology programmes and the need to reinforce and speed up TRD efforts, particularly for scientific instruments. Attention was drawn to the fact that, even during their main development phases (Phase-C/D), space projects need access to funding to cover crash TRD actions for the quick solution of the unforeseen technology problems that occasionally emerge at the manufacturing stage.
The representatives of enterprises both large and small emphasised the vital role of TRD for their particular companies, not least for the preservation of critical skills. Many interesting views were presented on how a TRD programme comes about, as an intelligent mixture of technology-push and market- pull. Above all, industry is concerned with market-orientation: TRD must create value, be in line with a business plan, start very early, proceed up to full technology-readiness to enable a short time-to-market, and take the constraints of the final design (e.g. cost-effectiveness) into account from the outset.
The chairman of the Central Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) presented valuable 'lessons learned' from past successes and failures, mainly in the defence area, showing the need for long- term budget stability to enable continuity. He also stressed that not only large aerospace companies, but especially small industries (subcontractors and equipment manufacturers) should be supported by ESA.
Participants from the academic world introduced their latest views on TRD management and strong emphasis was given to the creation of partnerships with complementary TRD organisations. The classical management structures (hierarchy, matrix) were challenged and the application of focused, task-force management was advocated. The need to invest a little in university work and in the next generation of space professionals was stressed as an indispensable element for a healthy future.
Shortage of TRD funds, and implementation
There was unanimous
agreement that the current level of TRD within ESA is largely
insufficient to safeguard the future of Europe's space
activities, and a level of 8% of the ESA overall budget was
judged vital to meet the future challenges. There is a danger of
over-prioritisation, and even of the abandonment of certain core
R&D activities if the current funding shortage cannot be
resolved. Moreover, as far as the actual implementation of these
TRD efforts is concerned, only a small minority of the Workshop
attendees supported the current ESA TRD programme structure, with
a mandatory element (TRP) and many optional Supporting Technology
Programmes (STPs).
Differentiation of TRD activities
Most participants believe that
the innovation effort needed to support industrial
competitiveness in commercial markets differs so much in nature
from innovative TRD for long-term applications that a clear
differentiation must be made, with separate implementing rules.
ESA has in fact already committed itself to categorising all TRD activities into three major classes, as noted earlier.
Involvement of industry in TRD planning
There was a clear
consensus that industry needs to be involved in the process of
defining the TRD activities and priorities. The participants'
preference was for an ESA-defined 'frame programme' for the
innovative TRD and TRD support to programmes. As far as TRD
support to industrial competitiveness is concerned, however, the
'bottom up' alternative (industry makes proposals, ESA screens)
was judged to be the best. A clear, institutional mechanism is
needed to make this happen, as even regular workshops of the
current type would not be sufficient to enable closer involvement
of industry in the day-to-day work.
Figure 2. TRD frame programme rationale
Figure 3. The TRD exhibition
Co-funding by industry This was clearly identified as one of the possibilities for increasing the level of TRD funding, but under very strict conditions. Private funding for space developments can only be raised for existing and very-near-term markets, and agreements must be reached on a case-by-case basis. Public funding is fundamental all along the value chain, and remains the only option for long-term applications, even for those with eventual commercial potential.
Technology readiness, market orientation, speed
The mood of the
Workshop was clearly driven by commercial market considerations,
but even non-commercial applications require these three
characteristics. Fokker Space showed that a great deal of the
emphasis in technology TRD has shifted dramatically in recent
years from one-off design to serial products, from top
performance to price/ performance, from functional requirements
to cost requirements, from non-recurring cost to recurring cost.
Two of the key factors in terms of market success are time-to-
market, and technology-readiness. Both need to be integral parts
of any modern R&D strategy.
Figure 4. The Workshop in progress
All in all, however, the consensus of the Workshop participants on how best to meet 'The Challenge of Change' was a preference for step-by-step, evolutionary innovation, rather than quantum- leap revolution, but based on a coherent European policy.
ESA Bulletin Nr. 86.