Read:

What measures can we put in place now to ensure we can adapt effectively and efficiently in the aftermath of the pandemic?

Well, first thing is understanding you’ve had a dislocation. People who thought they were going in to the office without questioning it for the next 20 years are now suddenly sitting there and thinking: how’s this going to work? How are we going to do this? What should we do? And that is a period of great change, and the important thing about a period of great change is that you have to react to it. You have to grab the opportunity. It’s one of those moments you know, when you see these things in the stock market and people analyse what has gone one, and they say well it was actually four days last year that made all of the returns. Well we’re doing that at a historical level here. So, this is the moment when we actually have to realise that we’ve got to get on with it, make some brave decisions, some of them will be wrong, that’s ok, more important in this kind of situation to make some decisions and do things.

That’s not just going to affect tech though. Because if we have the right decisions it affects all the other businesses that are going to be using technology to do things differently. So, the crucial thing is sitting down and working out what matters in a forward-looking way. For example, if you take something like the UK research councils, they spend a very large amount of tax-payer’s money. And there is a system where if you have a little research lab in a university, every year you send in your grant application and hopefully you get some money. The problem with that is that no one goes around killing these things. The little bit of research that has been going on for the past 20 years because it is there to fill in the form, keeps doing that. But we need to be brave. We need to say sorry, cyber security - everyone is working from home; we are under continual attack as part of this new cold cyber war, let’s make sure that we make the changes there. We’re already number one in this area – that’s the GCHQ legacy and other things. Let’s make sure that we are doing what it takes to make that happen. Why would a big company trust a small company to do their cyber security? So, it is very hard for the little guys who have amazing ideas to get started. Well, hard work though it is, why don’t we use our assets there, why don’t we get the GCHQs of the world to help say "yes that’s good, and we’re happy it’s safe, why don’t you try it?" That’s not happening anywhere else in the world, but that would be a real advantage to Cyber Security in the UK.

That’s a very specific example but it is one that we are realising – the cross-over between a government asset, which is second-to-none in the world, and of course the stronger the UK Cyber Security sector is, not only can we get a great business out of it, but we can also protect our other businesses. So, it’s a time for going around from first principles and thinking about what really matters. And you have to rank things. Some things are about here-and-now. Cyber Security, here-and-now, we are under threat, every day. Other things are about a bet; quantum computing – I have no idea if that will ever work, but my god if it does! So, we need to make sure we have some chips on that table.

The other thing we need to appreciate is the cultural issue in the UK. So, for many years there was an idea that engineering was a trade, and trade was different to more important things, and this has been well covered in culture – you know C. P Snow’s book "The New Men" going back all the way to the fifties in that debate. J.J Thomson – an incredible scientist, but he was a gentleman, whereas you know engineering: "different." Well you know those two are merged these days, there is not a lot of difference. So, what we need to do is be prepared to understand that we are very happy to do Blue Skies research, but there is nothing wrong with saying to these people "ok, that is an amazing piece of science. Now, what’s it going to be useful for?" We’re squeamish about saying that. As long as we still allow it to be done, there’s no problem in asking the question at the end of the form because when those people think about it: "well I guess we could use it for this" Great – then we’ve started the chain. One of the things about the research councils is that they’re doing a great job, but they need to kill some things. We’re in awe of some historic technology successes but there are new things happening; let’s move on.

Similarly, Innovate UK – it’s a great goal to give grants to companies to innovate, but you mustn’t create a culture where the companies are relying on that. So, a very simple change would be – you can have two grants in a row, for the third one show me what you have sold. And the initial reaction in the UK would be slight horror. But actually, what it means is that we don’t get this gentleman’s science thing going on in the UK anymore. We have someone who sits there and goes "well I’d better make a product, because I get two grants and then I’ve got to show that I’ve done something with it." Whereas at the moment you get companies that are a bit like zombies and just keep on taking grants. Well, I’m sorry but there are very few fields where within a few years you shouldn’t be able to get some kind of product out the door. So, we need to be a little bit more sophisticated, and a little bit less timid about saying: if the tax payer is funding scientific research in the company, then the tax payer is entitled to say, "what do I get back for it?"