Needs must ...

You wouldn't put the engineers in charge of the marketing department, now would you? Or is your view more in keeping with those who see colleagues from the marketing department as "12 year-olds with attitude"

I heard both these comments over the past month: one at a conference on new product development and the other at a conference on food processing research (no prizes for guessing which was heard at which). Alas, it is a sign of the huge chasm that persists between different disciplines in the business.

How do you get people with different skill sets talking to each other in a language that each understands? It is a problem facing organisations such as the Food Processing Faraday Partnership (FPFP), the government-supported body which aims to bring the best in academic research together with those in industry that would benefit from it.

Big food and drink manufacturers such as Unilever, Cadbury and Nestlé understand the importance of R&D and invest large sums each year investigating new production techniques and new technologies.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the industry. The small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) appear more concerned with their day-to-day survival than putting money into what could prove to be quite speculative research.

The complaint is often made by small firms that they can't afford the huge costs that go alongside R&D. However, in reality there are a variety of government schemes to help provide financial support for such innovation. The trouble is that, to date, take-up has not been as good as it might be.

Funding ranges from the Link schemes, which provide up to 50% of the cost of approved projects involving industry and academia, to the more modest 'Fast track' programme, which provides £2,000 at a time to fund equipment in university departments to carry out smaller research projects. Then there are the Knowledge Transfer Networks (previously known as the Teaching Company Scheme), which are designed to put small companies with problems in touch with the appropriate expertise to help solve them.

In between there are schemes such as the industrial co-operative awards in science and engineering (Case). Case is one of the most important Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) collaborative training schemes. Through industrial Case a number of studentships are allocated to companies, mainly related to the level of collaboration on other EPSRC research or training projects. However, some industrial Case awards are also allocated through Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and Faraday Partnerships, which can be a useful route for smaller companies to obtain awards without substantial existing collaboration, claims the EPSRC.

Engineering Doctorates

In addition, few people will probably be aware of the EPSRC's Engineering Doctorate (EngD) scheme, despite it having been around for 12 years. Simply put, it is an industry-biased (80%) PhD research scheme lasting four years. It effectively provides companies with a dedicated post-graduate researcher for, in some cases, just £7,500 a year (£3,500 for the student and £4,000 to the university department). While it is worth millions to participating universities it also provides essential expertise to industry.

Cadbury is one such company that has been involved in the scheme for some time. It currently funds an EngD student from Birmingham University under the supervision of Professor Peter Fryer. The student is investigating the science behind chocolate crumb -- co-dried milk, sugar and cocoa liquor -- production. As a direct result of this work Cadbury has increased crumb throughput by 5%, claims Cadbury scientist Dr Beccy Handy.

Currently EPSRC is supporting 125 projects to a total value of £18m that have some relevance to the food and drink sector. "There is probably scope to expand this a bit if we get the right proposals," says EPSRC's Paul Tomsen. Of the 125, 47 have some industrial engagement, with 82 companies involved and contributing around £3.6m.

And while there are many big food and drink names among them, "most are small specialist companies", says Tomsen. "Our tactic is to try to ensure we get the best possible return on R&D rather than increase the amount of it. We are mapping research in academe and matching that with a map of the requirements of industry."

Food processing equipment manufacturer Giusti, part of Briggs of Burton, has also benefited from collaborative Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)-supported Link research projects. The latest, involving Birmingham University and Campden & Chorleywood Food Research Association (CCFRA), is using time-temperature indicators (TTIs) to understand better what happens inside process vessels. Through its involvement Giusti has gained greater knowledge about the mixing effectiveness and heat transfer within its equipment. And it is just about to start some particle tracking work using using specialist equipment at the University of Birmingham. "We can check where discrete particulate is moving in a batch," says Giusti's David George. "We have never been able to do this before."

However, the Link scheme, which supports precompetitive research, has had its critics since being launched 15 years ago.

LINk to be relaunched

But, next year things are set to change. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is withdrawing its backing for Link, and the other sponsor in the food sector, DEFRA, plans to relaunch the scheme under a new name, with new criteria for the approval of projects. In particular, the requirement for projects to have at least one academic partner will be removed, although funding provided for such projects will be reduced.

There will be a New Technologies Programme with two calls a year for projects, according to Dr Christina Goodacre from DEFRA's Food Technology Unit. "We need to be up front earlier with you; to be able to say 'we don't think this will fly as a Link project'," she says.

The emphasis of existing schemes such as the Advanced Food Manufacturing Link scheme and the Food Quality and Safety link scheme are also likely to change, recognising the "need to create greater business demand", highlighted in the Treasury-commissioned Lambert review published last year. There will, for example, be greater emphasis on nutrition in the revised Food Quality & Safety scheme to get more buy-in from industry.

Across the board, the aim is to get more smaller companies involved in R&D. The FPFP is increasingly working through RDAs in an effort to make contact with many more SMEs that could benefit from what it has to offer.

Part of the FPFP's work is to support new prototype equipment that will stimulate engineers in companies to come up with new ideas to improve manufacturing efficiency. It has backed a number of prototypes in conjunction with ideas company Crafty Tech and its director Adrian Marshall. "There is a plan to licence up to 12 of these each year," says FPFP md Bob Marsh.

bioremediation

FPFP has also supported work that grease and odour expert company Environmental Biotech has been doing. It has since carried out projects with food companies such as Roach Foods and Ferndale Foods on bio-remediation -- basically using bacteria to help cure drain line clogging and odour problems.

Another DTI-sponsored ICT project, called Ezee maintenance for food processors, involving Leatherhead Food International and several industrial partners looked at adapting condition-based monitoring (CBM) tools for the food industry to raise overall equipment efficiency.

However, as a Link-supported project on 'pigging with pumpable ice', led by professor Joe Quarini from the University of Bristol and involving industrial partners Birds Eye, Geest, RHM and Tetra Pak, proves: having a good idea is not enough. Trials with pilot kit at Geest carried out earlier this year on a pasta salad production line were reasonably successful in showing that the technology can simplify the cleaning of process lines between batches. However, the adoption of such new technology requires some risk to be taken. And at the moment, nobody appears sufficiently convinced enough to take that risk. "It's time to get to the development stage," says Quarini.

As EPSRC's Paul Tomsen says: "The industry in this sector seems to be less prepared to pick up technology than other sectors."

Another DEFRA Food Link AFM project on 'Automated food placement for sandwich and pizza production', led by Silsoe Research and involving CKF Systems, Hazlewood Foods and Data Translation, may have more success. According to Silsoe's John Reed a test programme handling sliced cucumber, tomato and meats is about to start.

Ultimately, the success of any of the funding schemes will depend on matching the needs of industry with the skills and expertise available to them. One of the major obstacles at present is that many in the food and drink manufacturing sector appear reluctant to share the problems they are experiencing.

The situation is summed up by Peter Jarman, facilitator for DEFRA's Food Technology Unit: "If we had a better knowledge of what the problems were we could identify the emerging technologies more quickly."FM