Meeting #2 14 July 2022

Meeting notes

Welcome 

• DfT Centre for Smart Shipping – BM will cover later as this may influence this group 
• BM – Reported back to SEG and broad feedback from SEG was to ensure group was focused in terms of work prioritisation and not to take too wide a scope. The Next steps note BM and RP produced was a summary presented to the SEG (incorporating feedback).

Discussion: Feedback from SEG – “A centre of excellence (COE) is a team, a shared facility or an entity focused on delivery by providing leadership, best practice, research, support and/or training for a focus area”

• BM – summarised outcome from SEG (as in note circulated ahead of meeting)
• GW – Fully agree with BM summary and to highlight 'don’t run off' a lot of expertise in the sector to draw on / Highlight what we mean by CoE / discussion around scope creep and clear about what we create 
• ML – Good summary – not just highlight the good but the gaps in capability 
• AM – What does it mean if you are a CoE – not sure we have nailed this yet in the framework 
• RC – Reiterate about scope creep and pick up on definition from the MEWG paper but is more than just about efficiency  
• RP – Reinforce RCs point – MEWG paper limits and does not capture breadth – SQEP and CoE have a role to play in this process that you can share collectively. Secondly sounds very physical so there needs to be a virtual element otherwise we are not changing anything. 
• GW – Automation for factory upgrades and skills short term but longer term / tomorrow is critical part of CoE
• BM – Need to work / develop on definition of CoE
• AM – CADMID lifecycle / TEPIDOIL looks at all elements – CoE could go across any of these elements – This may help frame the requirement
• BM – replied to use the last slide of the SEG slides for a matrix along the lines above – does this cover the point above? PMN – Will ensure that I use this along with CADMID / TEPIDOIL matrix
• RP – Define the matrix
• GW – Mar-UK did some mapping so could help to support going forward. GW can see the benefit and happy to put some resource to support / TRLs??
• SB – Good idea and other idea we are not operating in a bubble here so is it worth a desk based review of what competitors have – SB could pick this /international competitors – does not have to be war and peace. GW – iteration – let’s get framework and then review what we currently have and then look wider in the field.
• BM – Look at ambition / Framework and baseline
• AdM – what is the point / focus. BM  referred to NSbS strategy and link enabler for Industry to improve sector / RS supported BMs update and about empowerment and Industry leading
• GW – Increase bias is increasing towards industry supporting this. Us helping industry partners raising money to help this. Lot to learn from other countries (but lets focus on UK first).

BM Summary

• Scope – high level definition. We will circulate this again and will be a living definition / Comments back to Richard Powell.
• Matrix development – Looking at area of focus and align with NSBS. AM sent version and will ensure includes last SEG slide that BM flashed to incorporate – TC to update. The matrix would not necessarily result in an individual CoE but helps frame the thinking.
• Using this to populate with CoE that exist within the UK and then look wider and then for GW to support the development of the work.
• Follow on from this is SB to look at rest of world best practice.

The framework 

• BM – Once baselined we want a criteria for standard and terms of engagement; a CoE would need to be endorsed by ‘us’ and talked about accessibility. If there is already a CoE what is the benefit for existing CoE (raised previously by RC). This is the offer that we propose to existing CoE and these are the terms of engagement that we would ask them to operate under – RC highlighted that we need to be conscious that CoE do not becomes too complicated to run them
• RP – What good looks like is really important / baselining and not one set of CoE that is exemplar as you look across the UK there will be good set and bad characteristics and the baseline is really important.
• ML – Commercial aspects – how would you write the entry criteria and encourage companies to open up without detriment to competitive market. There is a commercial advantage this approach.
• BM – Framework needs to differentiate
• AM – do we want CoE for skills / do we want CoE for a number of reasons / need to understand why we need them. Reply from BM – inherent value in understanding what is out there.
• GW – Home work is NSbS / developing a structure and how you create other CoEs and testing what is needed and finally testing form mapping to gaps and does it meet criteria on SMEs
• RS – Intent from NSbS and purpose to look at CoE – included because we wanted to get after productivity issue however this is only 1 facet but needs to demonstrate competitiveness for UK / Collaboration and idea of how sector can come together for benefits of enterprise and agree with RCs point must have benefits across wider enterprise and not just a single entity.
• SB – Parallels Aviation and Automotive as they are probably more advanced around a commonly agreed CoE. May be worth bringing in for future T&FGs
• RP – Competitiveness from RS point but also capability
• AdM – From Chat - How do CoE fit in within the wider landscape ie Clusters, innovation hubs etc
• PC – From Chat - Again, also worth engaging with the Institute for Collaborative Working to get advice on how to get moving
• BM - A lot of value in getting a clear understanding of Framework to include – Terms of Engagement / Collaboration – working together / Being open and collaborative /  If we set a criteria that is good for country and strategy and country as a whole
• PC – Collaboration is important / From BM - Matrix gets to this point.
• AdM – Centre for Smart Shipping (DfT) update – developing the concept is taking a bit of time and aiming to book workshop to work out what really works and making sure use what is already there and what does that mean in practice – is there something already in place but need to discuss with MUK first to start the – This sounds like a CoE from Ben and sounds like it is similar what this group is trying to achieve.
• AM – Why (NSbS) / How (where we are competitive) / What (create a CoE) / May end up with 2 CoE definitions.
• RS – Funding – small resource from NSO underspend this FY by end of March and could be used to support / keen for Match funding – are there any initial studies to support initial activity of T&FGs.
• PC – talked about 2 / 3 mechanisms but what is Shipbuilding Industry is willing to put into CoE? Save to spend – example used - 5 yards doing pipe bending / why don’t we just have 1 yard for pipe bending but this only working with collaboration
• GW – PC point is good one – if you persuade partners to collaborate these are not new tensions – a lot of this has already been explored and so we should use that learning

BM – to summarise

• Models of CoE (and needs to be sustainable) / Terms of Engagement – for use to endorse / work on the proposition vs behaviours – what is the benefit that is derived from this / Need to start thinking about ATI
• PC – Happy to run with Behaviours
• GW – Support to Models
• RP – T&FG members not represented here need to take on some of the actions
• Areas needing someone to lead: Models/Terms of Engagement / Network umbrella – to be sent to the rest of the group

AOB

• SB – Do we want to invite ATI rep to next meeting – yes ASAP (next 2 – 3 weeks). Agreed. 
• PC – happy to offer Rosyth for in-person (Sep meeting) / If we are getting briefings from ATI the sooner the better so take out of committee. 

Date next meeting

• 5 August meeting to review progress by action owners. 
• 16 September full meeting of group. 

Actions vs group owner