Fall / Automne 2017 17 Industry is best served by creating products that have a market value, as opposed to laboratory exploration that is the undertaking of basic research. Where academia undertakes applied- oriented research, it could be chan- neled towards “core technology” that is the foundation of any product. Thus, product development and research would both contribute to the develop- ment of the core technology embed- ded in the products. Core technology, expressed through patents, trade- marks, technical secrets and know-how would be valued by the market through its perceived efficacy in creating new products. This market value is further raised by the perceived market impact and penetration of the new products. In this manner, the research becomes relevant to creation of products that in turn may provide sustainment to the research efforts and cover their costs. Academic and research-oriented insti- tutions focus almost unilaterally on the development of basic technology. They are guided by perceived future market needs, competition between research institutions expressed by the publications and citations of each, and shear curiosity of research staff. These related undertakings are usually not linked directly to product development as done by industry. This leads to excessive generation of basic technol- ogy that may — or may not — be use- ful. Granted though, it may be ahead of the state-of-the-art, sometimes by a decade or more; therefore, one cannot fully assess the impact of generating new basic and core technology. The fact is that core technology that is directly related to market-driven prod- ucts is rarely addressed outside those businesses whose main undertaking is to develop the products in the first place. The university-based research could be a significant contributor to the product development if it would allow targeted research to dominate, as opposed to total disengagement from immediate use that loads heavily on the taxpayer money. (b) industry needs to address advanced topics impacting future product developments (c) training and advanced education (d) robotics challenges (e) publishing survey articles Origins of academia-industry divide (a) the control systems research com- munity was the first to address robot- ics research in late ‘70s (b) electromechanical design of robotics was not addressed by the early uni- versity research community con- cerned with robotics – it became the realm of industry. In the ‘90s the research community became interest- ed, however. (c) Computer Numerical Control was the first to address robotics as an industry (d) the computer research community was attracted to knowledge-base and early AI as a bridge to robotics in the ‘80s (e) while current university research meets Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3-4; industry finds it useful only at TRL 7-8 (f) industry does not approach the research community because it sees it as irrelevant to immediate issues (g) no strong evidence of operational links between university research and industry on issues of immediate concern (h) industry prefers to perform critical research internally (an IP matter) (i) embodiment of modern robotics technology requires intensive applied research (j) university research is primarily depend- ent on public or institutional funding Suggested paths to rapprochement between university robotics research and industry (a) industry addresses development of products (b) research community addresses basic research (c) both should aim to generate core tech- nology to be embedded in products (d) product development and research to be performed simultaneously ROBOTICS AS AN INDUSTRY If we look historically at the computer and robotics industries we would note that the latter is older. This may be a surprise if one considers the stage of existence of the computer industry. It is mature and already in its fourth or fifth global business life cycle. The names of Microsoft, Dell, HP, and many others are well known. Why is the robot- ics industry still in diapers? The main reason is that it evolved as a novel aca- demic exercise instead of being under- taken fully by the business community. Nonetheless, nowadays there are well known names in the robotics industry such as Fanuc, Kuka, Adept, and many more suppliers of subsystems and com- ponents. However, as an industry, it still represents a very small number of employees globally, when compared with the computer industry, and is still repeatedly referenced and viewed as an “emerging technology,” although the field is more than 40 years old. It is time to leave out the “wow” of futuristic applications featured in YouTube videos, and get serious with the maturity of the robotics field as a current employment opportunity. The primary aim should be to make the robotics industry create jobs for the masses, and not just for those with a Ph.D. Robotics should benefit the society at large, instead of the few and far between often supported by ill-informed funding decisions. This applies to both private-sector invest- ments that do not reflect market needs and its capacity to adopt the new technology, as well as govern- ment funding that seeks to demon- strate forward-looking economic poli- cies to a public largely ignorant on matters of technology and its impact on the welfare of the society. In either case, too often unsustainable businesses are created, conceived as “advanced” projects but lacking the fundamentals of business growth that could lead to job creation. ROBOTICS START-UPS To grow a technology business there is a need to develop a business plan based on a unique business model, as opposed to relying solely on the uniqueness or advanced nature of the proposed technology. Good busi- ness models succeed in so far as competing at an advantage, whereas good technologies without a suitable business model do not. This issue relates primarily to start-ups; govern- ments and media focus on the rate of start-up formation as a measure of success. They ignore growth and sustainability in relation to the invest- ment made. Capturing a novel and unique busi- ness model has been my primary pre-occupation throughout my entire business journey. It has proven to be successful. I recommend to not adopt a known or existing business model simply because it is used by others. Devise the unique model that suits you and your technology. ■ Theprimaryaim shouldbetomaketherobotics industrycreatejobsforthe masses,andnotjustforthose withaPh.D.Toooften unsustainablebusinessesare created,conceivedashigh-end “advanced”projectsbut lackingafundamentalbusiness basisofgrowththatcould leadtojobcreation. Why University Robotics Researchers Need to Reach Out to Industry Fall / Automne 2017 17