All posts by Althea Taylor-Salmon

SMFs (Members)

From MBA to DNA

110
Chris Martin, Chief Executive of Sciona, a company at the cutting edge of business innovation and the revolution in genetics.

SMF Chris Martin is a highly qualified chemical engineer. His MBA demystified the workings of corporate finance and enabled him to pursue his ambitions for commercialising technology. Chris, who started his career as a chemical engineer, has harnessed the knowledge he gained from an MBA at leading Swiss business school IMD (formerly IMI) to combine his natural commercial flair with his scientific know-how. His sector is one of the freshest business areas to have opened up in the last decade – taking technology developed in academic institutions to mainstream markets.

Sciona, the latest in a string of spin-out ventures Chris has presided over, is leading the push to bring the benefits of major breakthroughs in mapping the human genome, to consumers.

His company offers a service to customers that reveals if they are genetically predisposed to illnesses affected by lifestyle factors like stress, diet and exercise. It offers consumers the opportunity to tailor their lifestyles to ensure prolonged health and well-being. Customers simply take a swab from inside their mouths that is then analysed by the company’s expert team of leading scientists to produce each individual’s unique genetic make-up. Combined with a brief lifestyle questionnaire, Sciona can advise its customers how best to make lifestyle changes to enhance their well-being.

Chris’ career started with a degree in Chemical Engineering at Aston University. He followed it with a DPhil in Engineering Science at Oxford University. It was during 18 months of post-doctoral work at the University and the Atomic Energy Research Establishment that he first started to develop his commercial instincts, starting a computer software company with his flatmates. Chris recalls, “I got a real taste for the commercial world and realised I enjoyed that side of the industry as much as the technical elements.”

He joined a small consultancy working in the offshore oil industry that then diversified into the pharmaceutical sector and other process engineering industries. “I took a diploma in management studies to try to understand more about business. From my work I thought I could see situations where large companies were making poor technology investment decisions.”

His interest in this subject grew and in 1988 he applied to Sainsbury Management Fellows for a place on the International MBA programme, opting for a one-year course at the leading Swiss business school IMI, now IMD.

Chris says, “Mine was a classic MBA, very strong on international finance and organisational development. The key thing was that the course demystified a lot of aspects of business. One of the biggest advantages my MBA gave me was a thorough understanding of corporate finance.”

After completing the course Chris used his new skills to tackle the trend of poor technology decision-making he had spotted over the previous years. He and a partner set up the consultancy as part of Marex in late 1989.

Early success, including a series of contracts from Courtaulds, was followed by Chris leading a management buy-out of the consultancy to form Paras Ltd. Growth over the ensuing years created a team of 40 professionals at offices in the UK, Holland and South Africa.

In the early 90s Chris’ attention turned to the growing trend of companies formed around technologies from leading universities and industrial research. He joined a fellow engineer to set up an early stage feed capital company after recognising that embryonic companies founded on campus research required expert outside help.

Chris and a growing number of expert colleagues created a string of successful technology companies including Solcom, which develops web-enabled systems monitoring and management systems, Despatch Box, a data encryption and security company, and SpiroGen, a biotech spin-out developing the technology to stop cancer cells replicating by binding specific DNA strands.

But it was Sciona and its potential for putting a truly groundbreaking health product in the hands of ordinary people that really fired Chris’ imagination. “It’s a really fascinating area to be working in, with some tremendously talented people.

“I’ve never been a traditional chemical engineer but the scientific foundation combined with the skills and knowledge I gained through my MBA have enabled me to take my career forward in challenging and, I hope, innovative ways.”

He concludes, “Every day I see that there is a significant change in the UK climate for entrepreneurial innovation. There are now a lot of well-educated, ambitious young people using their technical education to launch themselves into business. When the SMF scheme started more than dozen years ago, this was almost unheard of.”

You may also be interested in reading interviews with the winners of the SMF MBA Scholarship.

Press Releases

Can Engineer Add Value In the Boardroom?

David-FalzaniDavid Falzani, President, Sainsbury Management Fellows

A company’s board of directors is like the bridge of a ship. It’s the forum where overall direction is set, major gauges are monitored, and risks assessed. The title director is often misused today, particularly in industries such as investment banking, where graduates appear to start as vice presidents and titles such as director, managing director, executive, and principal are compounded and interwoven to dazzling effect.

However, for clarification, a de jure director is an appointed officer of a company, holds a primary fiduciary duty to the company itself, and sits on the board of directors. Such directors can also, in certain circumstances, be personally liable for potential financial and criminal penalties related to the conduct of their roles.

Engineers have a unique mix of process and technical knowledge that can be applied in the boardroom to tackle many business challenges. This mix includes a suite of analytical skills combined with a pragmatic, structured and realistic approach. They are often trained risk assessors, trained decision-makers and project management experts. Additionally, they have hands-on experience, working with real people and real-time issues to bring together theory and practice. These attributes form uniquely strong foundations for senior corporate positions.

To be a truly effective board member a spectrum of skills and a wide perspective on business are required to balance the ‘big picture’ against the dynamics of business. This is particularly important as the unprecedented rate of change continues: globalisation, cross culturism, rising Asian markets, economic flux, and environmentalism.

In preparing for senior and board roles many engineers seek additional qualifications and experience. Some acquire skills organically over time, whilst others pursue an intensive formal qualification such as an MBA. I chose this route and fortunately won an MBA scholarship from the Sainsbury Management Fellowship (SMF) scheme.

In the late 1980s Lord Sainsbury recognised that in comparison with overseas businesses, the UK had fewer boardroom executives with professional engineering and science qualifications. Therefore to increase the UK’s competitiveness more directors should understand how things are innovated, developed and marketed. So far £7m has been awarded to 270 engineers to acquire MBAs from renowned business schools.

SMFs’ recent research of 100 HR directors from leading UK companies* shows 86% reported a willingness to hire directors with non-finance, accounting or legal backgrounds, but only 66% believed that professional engineers have the skills and attributes to be appointed to boards. This figure improves to 80% if the engineer’s qualifications are supplemented with business qualifications such as an MBA.
In my view, the shortfall in the statistics is related to the image of engineering and the misunderstanding of what engineering is.

Assuming engineers do acquire positions to improve UK industry there’s another hurdle: Will these engineers still be called engineers? If not, how do we identify them and measure success? They may be called marketing directors or development managers or finance directors. Qualifications like CEng may make it easier to identify and monitor their contribution to boards but otherwise it’s difficult to recognize, encourage and promote them when no ready-made label exists.

There’s also another possible view. If a greater presence of engineering approaches and pragmatism is what’s needed to improve decision-making and risk assessment at board level, then perhaps it’s the skills we should also be promoting rather than just the profession?

Many engineers do courses on accounting, marketing, and law. Why don’t accountants, marketers and lawyers do courses on engineering?

During my MBA, my non engineering classmates enthusiastically appreciated the new insights that subjects such an operations management provided.

I’m not suggesting that an accountant would be improved by knowing how to minimise the number of transistors in an oscillator. However, engineering concepts such as specification writing, bottleneck theory, operations management, and balancing fitness for purpose with value for money, are just a few examples of engineering topics offering real value to corporate management.
So, rather than just banging on about how engineers should be more appreciated and getting onto company boards, perhaps we should be arguing for other professions to get up to speed on engineering?
*The report ‘Re-engineering the Board to Manage Risk and Maximise Growth’ can be downloaded here.

Press Releases

The UK is in the Top Tier of Manufacturing Nation – Innovation, not Interest Rate Cuts will Keep us There

Not a month goes by without the CBI or a similar organisation putting out a call for a cut in interest rates. Apart from grabbing headlines what long term effect does it have on the health of UK industry? Not as much as investment in innovation I suspect.

Over the last five years UK manufacturing output has had its ups and downs as industry has dealt with high interest rates and overseas competition. According to the Office for National Statistics, manufacturing now accounts for 15% of the UK economy, down from 40% before WWII. The sector is now growing at a similar pace to other developed countries and overall has a record of which I personally feel proud. According to CBI figures there are 150,000 businesses that manufacture in the UK, accounting for 60% of UK exports in 2006.
Within the FTSE 100, 21 companies manufacture goods including pharmaceuticals, machinery and food. Mostly these items are highly sophisticated, bringing added value, high margins and make the UK a more prosperous nation in the process.

Why this helps the UK
Manufacturing jobs are increasingly less labour intensive but rather require higher levels of technical expertise, which is great for Engineers. Engineering is leading the UK into manufacturing in areas like cleantech where it can compete effectively against low-cost economies. All the labour intensive work in textiles and basic manufacturing has moved to the Far East due to the very strong competition in terms of labour costs, however the newer industries are proving surprisingly resilient.

What’s changed?
It has become clear that UK industry and individual companies have to continue to innovate with new processes and products, and invest in their businesses. In this continually changing global environment, some industries like medical devices and space science are growing, while others like clothing and metal bashing continue to decline and move to the developing world. I believe we will find the mix of manufacturing in the UK will be completely different in ten years time from how it looks today. I find this incredibly exciting, engineers will be at the forefront of directing and managing this changing manufacturing mix.

How do we stay in the top tier?
Once we accept that no particular industry inherently deserves to continue in the UK, and that individual industries will be started in the UK, grow, mature, and maybe eventually move onto other countries, we can be more rational about our manufacturing investment decisions as a country. We can operate UK plcs like a conglomerate which is constantly evaluating which business units to create, invest in and divest. We can identify future growth areas and increase education in those sectors, invest to derive maximum added value for a period during their growth phase. Finally we can proactively divest businesses where margins are dropping to lower cost countries and reinvest quickly, retraining those employees for the new hot spot sectors.

An attitude along these lines in the UK would free us to create a policy regime that concentrated on industries with high margins and growth potential, and focussed government policy on investment, education and taxation. It would lavish dedicated support on industries with growth attributes, rather than ‘manufacturing’ in general or a particular industry in decline with which we have an emotional attachment.
This is the ‘creative destruction’ that Joseph Schumpeter talked about all those years ago working on a global industrial scale.

In summary, it is now time for all of us who can influence industrial policy to start thinking about industry lifecycles and not just product life cycles – if we intend to keep the UK in the top six of manufacturing nations.

I work in medical devices and see the continued growth of this sector and the levels of engineering skill required to develop good products. I can also foresee industries like industrial automation and clean technology rising to replace ‘old’ industries which will move to lower cost economies when we can no longer compete. I for one welcome this dynamic environment. We are entering an exciting period when the industrial landscape of the UK will change into a more interesting, more technologically dependent age where Engineers will be leading these businesses from the front, keeping the UK in the first tier of manufacturing nations.

Press Releases

UK Businesses Need to Embrace Innovation to Succeed in Economic Downturn

Sainsbury Management Fellows’ Society (SMF) is pleased to announce that Ernie Poku has been named as its new president. Ernie succeeds Dan Mutadich, who stepped down after two years leading the organisation.

With a downturn in the UK economy, Ernie has laid out his vision for SMF over the next few years:
“Engineers at senior level in businesses can help to lead innovation, change and make companies more resilient in this increasingly changing global environment. During my tenure, I would like to establish better links with UK industry and leading corporate bodies to raise the profile of the outstanding work of SMFs.

“SMF has been developing excellence in engineers for over 20 years now and many of the fellows now have a wealth of experience behind them. They are a knowledgeable source of mentoring and I am keen to create more opportunities in this area. I would like to encourage more SMFs to take on non-executive directorships of both profit and non-profit organisations; leveraging their learning on the IoD’s Chartered Director course which many fellows have recently completed.”

With a successful career and a genuine passion for the engineering industry, Ernie is well qualified to lead SMF in these objectives.

After Ernie completed his BEng in Mechanical Engineering at Bristol, SMF sponsored his MBA at the Rotterdam School of Management in 1999. Since Ernie has gone on to carve out a very distinguished career within the engineering field. He is currently CEO and Founder of Crescent Diagnostics Ltd, a university spin-out developing a novel test for osteoporosis.

Commenting on Ernie’s appointment, former president Dan Mutadich says; “Ernie’s successes in the field of engineering and influence within SMF make him a major asset to the organisation. With the enthusiasm that he brings to the position I have every confidence that he will continue to grow SMF’s influence within the engineering industry and UK business.”

Press Releases

Response to NESTA report calling for ‘Total Innovation’

We welcome NESTA’s call for ‘Total Innovation’, the report recognises that true globally leading innovation requires much broader thinking, encompassing human skills, economic dynamics, political and international factors and most importantly, how technology impacts all of these. We can no longer consider innovation as an incremental or “non-core” activity, hidden away in R&D with the scientists or held at a safe distance in new product incubators rather like some form of communicable disease. This is often justified by the board as a means to minimise risk but is perhaps more an acknowledgement of a lack of information and understanding of how to manage it. The risk of change in the global market is, however, markedly less than the risk of not changing.

New technology and new international markets, even with existing customers, usually require completely different organisational, marketing and business models and yet many companies continue to control and segment their activities and staff in ways that match the market of the 70s. Such boundaries in teams and responsibilities inevitably leads to incremental steps and failure due to an inability to break through an unsustainable compromise to profitability.

Non-incremental thinking requires structures, individuals and teams of people (including the board) with the ability to synthesise and translate all the factors simultaneously into a unified assessment of the risks and rewards, to make the decision and to deliver the plan.

The UK is woefully lacking in these technology and innovation translators; those that can speak the language of both technology and business. The report has highlighted that innovation is not only being impeded by a lack of people with STEM skills, but also because these skills are rarely fused with business knowledge. What’s more, people in technical and creative roles are currently operating in silos, divorced from participating in the marketing, strategic, or financial decisions. These elements of the business model cannot merely be applied like a veneer, hermetically sealing the dangerous change inside, as they all are integral to the success of NESTA’s vision of ‘Total Innovation’.

Technical experts are facing a glass ceiling in UK plcs, through lack of business skills – this is seriously impairing our ability to compete with countries such as China and India where the traditional and specialist skills based – organigram locked – industrial structures have never developed and been institutionalised. As the report highlighted technical experts need to broaden their skill base – firms need to nurture management, marketing, leadership, change and project management skills across technical experts, otherwise the UK will not be able to effectively compete internationally.

SMF was set up over twenty years ago to bridge the gap between technical and business knowledge; we have been campaigning for UK companies to equip their technical experts with the necessary business skills