As we enter a new political chapter for the UK, Clive Hudson, CEO of Programify, stands at the forefront of software development, innovation, and design and is advocating for robust governmental support for innovators and entrepreneurs.
The process of innovation is frequently misunderstood and certainly under-supported when it comes to Government backing and financial subsidies. Innovation is rarely linear, measurable or something that can be 
planned. In fact, it is usually quite the opposite. The route to and process of innovation relies on flexibility, trial and error, and prototyping; an ongoing cyclical pattern until a product or solution is born.
Ideas often flow during quiet reflection or at the most unexpected of times. It means the process of ideation can be quite hard to quantify in a day and age when society increasingly expects measurables and hard data. That seemingly ever-present societal desire to ‘pin things down’ hinders the creative process and can stifle innovation.
Making connections
However, the biggest challenge I have found as both an entrepreneur and an innovator is not the process of inventing. For me, that’s the bit I find not only the most exciting, but it comes to me easily. Rather, the difficult part is in connecting to companies that have a need or a problem that they require a pioneering solution for.
The quandary of how to connect innovators and organisations that need innovation support is in my opinion the biggest limiter of innovation in the UK today. Using commercial portals such as Fiverr is one option for those offering problem solving through software development and design. But there is a dangerous line because it all too easily becomes a race to the bottom when it comes to price. And so, this route is incredibly hard to maintain. We need a clearer, more supported path that focuses on stimulating innovation and connecting the right people.
Through Programify we have pioneered critical solutions in the health tech sector. Notably, the anti-ligature sensor for mental health units commissioned by Kingsway and an advanced award-winning patient monitoring software known as Kosmos. These are technologies that are saving lives and have the capability to propel the UK health tech sector to the forefront of the international stage.
Government support
In order for the connections between innovator and business to be forged and solutions progressed, I firmly believe that the new government must prioritise support for innovation that fosters advancements that significantly impact sectors like healthcare.
In recent years I have seen entrepreneurial spirit stifled by process and red tape. Being asked to build five-year plans for a product that has not yet been devised, places innovators into a paradoxical no man’s land, where they are asked to justify their existence rather than embrace the ideation process.
Government support and recognition of the role of innovation in technological advancements, and society, would encourage a boost in the sector and could breathe new life into the UK’s declining manufacturing sector.
Supporting innovation is essential for future growth and development and the new Government is at a precipice where it could lead the charge on regenerating the UK’s reputation for invention, progress and problem solving.
Changing the UK’s approach
The value in government support is not just in funding progress, but access. I would like to see innovation being prioritised and for that to happen, we need to change the mindset and mentality in government. If the government were to change its stance and approach to innovation, that would filter outwards through sectors and organisations.
When it comes to resources, innovators do not often need large amounts of capital; what’s more pressing is access to facilities and equipment. For example, the ability to undertake trials in hospitals for a new tech system enables innovators to access a real-life hospital environment where testing the solution will be more accurate. On the other hand, it provides hospitals with free trials of advanced technologies and exposure to potential future solutions. It is here that government support and facilitation in organising these trials is key.
Innovation is frequently expensive, but at Programify we take a different approach which means the work of innovation is often done at cost. For us, the real value is in moving to the manufacturing stage and securing repeat orders. We do not see innovation as a separate process to manufacturing – rather they should be progressed together. Problems often arise because businesses view the process of innovation as a separate entity to the manufacturing of the product, when in fact that two should be inextricably linked. As already observed, the UK manufacturing sector is in decline but an approach which offers free innovative design could help a resurgence, a resurgence that would boost the UK economy and signify a strong leadership from this new government.
Reforming patents and procurement
When it comes to the patent process, it is inherently flawed. Not only does it cost a lot of money but it also exposes intellectual property.
Those in favour of the patent process argue that by sharing the details of your innovation, you are protecting it from imitation. However, several countries do not recognise patent protection and simply use it as a basis to mimic the technology and begin production themselves.
An example of an organisation who has stood against the patent process is Pepsi. Pepsi has never patented the recipe for its cola; instead, it is protected as a trade secret. I would suggest Pepsi is acutely aware of the risks posed by sharing its secret recipe through the patent process.
With the rise of artificial intelligence, we can expect AI to be used to scan patents and devise slight alterations in order to copy the overall concept. As such, it is understandable that many true innovators are wary of the patenting process.
In my opinion, the patent system stifles innovation, with a focus on making money for those who protect intellectual property – whether truly their own or not. The patenting system is not fit for purpose and should be scrapped. However, it is not just the patenting system that is hindering progress.
Procurement practices exclude many innovators. For example, the Ministry of Defence procurement process rules out smaller innovators and single entities. The process requires large corporations to take on ideation and problem-solving, which in reality is rarely where true innovation takes place.
Should government legislation or guidelines open up procurement for innovation and design to independent innovators and small businesses, they will demonstrate their dedication to nurturing future technology and design, as well as breathing new life into the adjacent manufacturing industry.
What is key to remember is that so often throughout history we have seen that the best ideas do not come from committees; often it is the outliers of society who thrive on unbridled creativity. It is they that bring about innovation that can alter mainstream society forever. However, to do that, more support is needed with the government leading the charge and addressing the critical need for continued investment in entrepreneurial ventures.
