Recently CPUT had, as part of its strategic planning, itemised the concept of a Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) as a key part of its future plans. This implies both preparing for, and exploiting, this concept. The question then arose, as part of our own strategic planning exercise at ATS, how we and other departments should react to this. However, to be able to react, one needs to understand what the nature of this beast, called 4IR, really is.

The term is still relatively new and not that well-defined. As with all other industrial revolutions before, the concept is still shaping while science and technology makes progress and industry actors explore what makes economic sense. The basic commodity of the 4IR is data. Data is collected everywhere, on fields, on food production lines or on check-out lines in supermarkets. In the center of the collection activities stand digital sensors that have become very cheap to manufacture. The processing and exchange of the data is made possible by both very cheap computational power and the availability of internet connections even in the most remote parts of the country.

Using agriculture as an example, autonomous drones survey large plantations and collect data based on heat emission or other information patterns. This information is translated into optimal patterns of irrigation and fertilization, which is immediately modulated into commands for fully-automated systems installed on the ground. Together with meteorological data, the right time for harvesting can be easily established. Self-driving harvesters will stand ready to respond accordingly.

This continues with food processing, where different monitoring technologies are in use or still need to be installed.  An example of such monitoring technology is near-infrared spectroscopic analysis¹ which can continuously provide data at different points in the food processing value chain.  Fermentation¹ is another field where continuous monitoring of different parameters may be used to predict, warn or prepare in terms of such data emerging for analysis.

The data generated may be shared among the different actors on a digital platform. Hence, the word digitalization has emerged for this new form of information exchange. While in the early days of the internet only major institutions were connected, and later on individuals, now a greater multitude of devices are individually connected to the internet to send and receive data (the internet of things). Previously, collecting data was mainly a manual process (resulting in questionable data quality), but now data is collected alongside every possible step of the production process. This data is stored and used for decision support (big data).

These developments surely will have a lasting impact on agricultural production and food processing. Yes, it may cost a large number of jobs – but mainly in those geographic regions that don’t respond actively to these changes. At a second glance, especially for South Africa, these technological developments provide a welcome opportunity to make progress in the up-skilling of the labor force.

Engineering skills on different levels will be in high demand – much in contrast to unskilled labor. Also, to be economically efficient, these data flows need to be integrated into internationally operating value chains, which requires a great deal of IT-skills and managerial talent. There is little doubt that the drive towards Industry 4.0 is effectively taking shape! A literature search on the Scopus database shows how the topic is trending in the academic community. We wish to assist in bringing these developments to the many agri-processing firms, clusters and cooperatives in the Western Cape and South Africa generally.

Do you or your company want to engage in an exercise as part of your own preparation toward meeting the challenges of the Industry 4.0? Speak to us. We can assist you in applying for funding if your project proves worthwhile. We may even be able to assist you in defining a project and then applying for funding with you.

Finally, to summarize some of the effects on, and activities of, the food industry, see this as encapsulated in an article entitled “How the industry must adapt to survive”:

• All stages of value chain of production will be affected;
• Businesses will need to create a roadmap to plan for new technologies, data and training needs;
• Jobs will be created, but a new skills set will be needed;
• To survive, companies will have to re-skill and retain such staff;
• Costs of down-time will increase exponentially as efficiencies increase, impressing the need for staff who can manage electrical faults immediately;
• Electrical (and other) skills training costs would be negligible in terms of costs based on down-time.

Larry Dolley

 ¹ATS and the Department of Food Science & Technology have access to, and expertise in, near infrared analysis and inspection which may be used as a tool for quantitation as well as for comparison of samples .e.g. identifying fish species purely from a spectral fingerprint.

 In addition, the group also has a niche research area in food fermentations, including non-alcoholic and alcoholic fermentations. The brewing of beer is an example that is just developing in the unit. Parameters being constantly measured during production include pH, O₂ and CO₂ levels, antioxidants, humulones / isohumulones, color, etc.

 We wish to partner with small and medium companies wishing to use such, and other, technologies in their processing environments. Call us on 021 95338615 or e-mail dolleyl@cput.ac.za for more information.

I had recently placed a post on the CPUT Food Technology Facebook page (for Alumni, feel free to join it since it is a page since it is a valuable tool for networking). The post itself dealt with grey knowledge (or retirees in the industry to be more precise) but there is a bigger picture to this request.

This bigger picture relates to elements of the food innovation chasm as it exists in South Africa toward identifying products, processes and stakeholders for the design of, and implementation plan towards, the utilization of existing, under-utilized or un-utilized solutions to problems in industry. The actual identification of some elements that constitute this chasm may be explored by:

• Researching the literature and using retired industry experts (grey knowledge) to assist in specifying innovation gaps;
• Matching unused solutions to existing problems;
• Identifying not-yet-explored problems and possible solutions to these.

In terms of a number of national policy-based statements as well as rhetoric in the public domain, the term “innovation chasm” has cropped up regularly over the past few years. This is true for the Department of Science & Technology (DST) via the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Department of Higher Education and Training and also the Provincial Government Western Cape (PGWC) as well as numerous other state, public/private and private organizations.

In the second draft of the Industrial Policy Action Plan (February 2011) of the DTI, this particular issue of the chasm is addressed. On page 76, three levels of intervention are suggested regarding commercialization, one of which is exactly something which this blog addresses viz.:

Consolidation of existing commercial opportunities from research work previously carried out but which has not been fully commercialized and with respect to technologies that can be acquired in order to upscale production capabilities in defined sectors where opportunities exist.

These references or statements about the “innovation chasm” have different connotations, including those related to very broad issues and also, at the other end of the spectrum, very narrow ones e.g. international, continental, national and local. This is further narrowed per economic and industry sector. This is so for the food industry.

For the purposes of this blog, the term “innovation chasm” will be deemed to include the following general concepts:

• The gap between the fields of academic study versus the needs of the industry itself;
• The existing body of knowledge with respect to these fields that had not yet been applied and
• The existing body of un-expressed needs and potential solutions vested in experts (retired or otherwise) in the field.

As mentioned in the previous Facebook post, my own observations when talking to highly experienced and/or retired experts, they usually tend to expand on a range of problems (old and new) that have not yet been properly remedied in their respective industry sectors for whatever reason. As a University of Technology, these practical problems are just what we need to conduct research on and also supply solutions for.

To actually conduct such research and also to assess the viability of setting up a database of retired experts will require that personnel involved, individually or collectively, must themselves have an extensive general knowledge of the national food product development game, processing and packaging experience (preferably from primary agriculture upstream), including appropriate networks and also the gravitas associated with the nature of interrogation required by such an endeavor. This includes an appropriate scientific and technical background to identify potential gaps to be further investigated by specialists in the field.

ATS will attempt to investigate both these solutions i.e. a database of experts and also identification of innovation chasm gaps. Mind the gap and watch this space.

Larry Dolley
p.s. Alumni, please feel free to contribute your thoughts on this!

This topic is on everyone’s tongue due to the extent, impact and uncertainties of such a one in a hundred year drought. Ways to save water, and new sources of water, are the order of the day on all media platforms and from all agencies. The most recent thrust deals with your water usage at your place of work since. You control your home consumption but, when at work, you approach this with a different mindset.

It got me thinking about how to manage and possibly control such usage. However, since it is the silly season, I approached it with a silly mindset, using technology already in the building. Here are some of my solutions

1. Install an automated refractometer which can measure soluble solids in the loo. Under a certain solids limit the loo would not flush, thus taking the desire to flush away from the user. This is the cheaper route. It could be done via a spectrophotometric sensor to comply with the “mellow yellow” concept. An even more expensive concept would be a sipper cell in which a colourimetric reaction could be initiated occasionally to determine flushability.
2. It could also be suggested that no solid waste disposal is to take place in all the loos. Much knyping would be encouraged. Any liquid waste should be encouraged to be done behind a tree.
3. A sniffer detector attached to a GC-MS could be used to monitor people approaching a tap/urn for coffee. Based on the identification of tea or coffee aroma, hot water would only be released (330ml). For cold drinking water, limit the release to 330ml only without any option of a repeat in under 60 minutes. However, the latter will require some form of identification of the user. This could be done via near infrared spectroscopy of the skin using appropriate software. We have this capacity in the department.
4. Copious sweating of all staff will be encouraged to push up the humidity in the hope of the increased load of water in the air, together with the updraft due to increased temperature, may cause air to rise, with consequent adiabatic cooling followed by precipitation. This “rain” however must be trapped and stored and would thus require a “dam” of sorts, possibly in the foyer. It could possibly also be pumped to the relevant cisterns to assist with flushing.
5. All grey water could be funnelled toward a new “soak away” or natural sump behind the Pilot Plant where it could be cleaned by natural processes and pumped back to be re-used. This could also act as a natural lake around which we could build a golf course for putting and chipping practice. This could then generate funds to assist with any capital expenditure related to points above.
6. On a serious note, some of the equipment in the Pilot Plant needs a lot of water periodically e.g. boiler and retorts, especially the water curtain retort. A holding tank fed by municipal water should be installed (1000 litres) to ensure water needed for processing is on hand, even if the water supply is cut. This is not a solution but is merely a stop-gap if water is cut during a production run. Funding will be sought for this.
7. As a group, we should also look to doing some research into dehydrated water. This would allow us to store large quantities in small containers for use as need.
8. Finally, no staff will be allowed to use water as a chaser in their alcoholic drinks at work.

On a very serious note, as a group and as CPUT, we need to do a water usage audit and come up with ways to change our behavior toward a smaller water footprint.

All suggestions welcome, tongue in cheek or otherwise.

Larry Dolley

 The Station produced a book for new entrants to the food industry entitled “So, you want to start a food company?”. As luck would have it, the Department of Agriculture (Western Cape) offered to polish, translate and print the document in all three official languages as part of their Project Khulisa. Ms. Helen Heynes of the aforementioned department played a key role in this.

It is highly unlikely that any one single manual can fully advise on the do’s and don’ts for such a large industry and long value chain. Presently, the document, in the interests of being easily usable, only contains the more pertinent and “in your face” issues that you should be aware of to at least enter the industry. This manual is also to be considered a “living document” i.e. if you read it and think something is missing and critical enough to be included, please let us know and we will consider it for inclusion. This document should therefore be considered a micro Foodie-pedia to which you may contribute for the good of the industry.

In the meantime, after its release, the interest shown in it has led to a few ideas and decisions:

• PGWC has asked (and I already had it in our plans) to update the document. Great!
• Students (past and present) have expressed an interest in it – does this mean we have budding entrepreneurs? We need these!!!
• I have dug out a 7-year old document with the outlines of a course in Food Entrepreneurship. It would seem that the booklet is easily matched and integrates with this concept of a workshop on entrepreneurship. It marries entrepreneurship principles with the hard facts of starting a small food business. What do you think of this as a concept?
• I have started discussions with our own Business Faculty on assisting with integrating these two things in the workshop and possibly assist with offering it.

So we are going to dabble in this workshop concept while expanding the booklet and also eventually put it online with the assistance of PGWC. Obviously, it will also be introduced into the mainstream academic programme.

Your comments and constructive criticism are wamkelekile / welkom!

Larry Dolley

I love reading books about cosmology and evolution. Authors such as Neil de Grasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Brian Cox and Richard Feynman are among my favorites. I pretend to understand some of the mathematics and struggle to understand some of the broader concepts. My unfortunate mind is not tuned to the philosophical and cosmological gymnastics required. But I enjoy it nonetheless.

This brings me to the term “reverse technology transfer” (RTT). Einsteinian theory speaks about relativity, general and special. When using the term RTT, and to understand it better, it must be agreed that relativity applies here. Who is transferring to whom? When is it reverse and when is it forward? Traditionally, in the world in which I work, forward technology transfer (FTT) relates to the university (or ATS) transferring skills and knowledge to someone else e.g. a small company. When ATS in turn transfers technology into the university curriculum to benefit students, this is defined as RTT. With ATS as the fixed reference point, this is easy to understand.

But one cannot use these terms indiscriminately and, if we do, we may lose the other forms of transfer happening or available to us. Some of these include transfer from firms to academia (including ATS), from students to ATS and between SMMEs with the involvement of ATS. I suppose one could go on with more permutations such as these. The key point here is that the traditional version in my field is from university to industry. And this is what we have been trying to do most of the time with mixed successes. What we have not fully addressed is transfer from industry to academia.

What stops or inhibits this from happening? A recent chat with Shawn Cunningham brought this out i.e. why do we not establish working projects where industry comes into academia in a bigger way? Why not place industry staff in academia more often for two way exchanges? Usually, when industry does come in, it is for a short period e.g. 1 hour to 1 day, but seldom more. At ATS we always profess to not being experts at everything (or maybe anything at all) but we have not fully exploited the idea of more concerted transfer into academia from industry.

There have been two successes of this nature to date:

1. The Blue Karoo project involving catfish product development. The aquacultured fish was transported from Graaff Reinet to be processed and trialed at Food Science & Technology. This was part of a project funded by the DTI via their Technology and Human Resource for Industry (THRIP) programme. As part of the project, equipment was installed temporarily at CPUT to expedite project work.
2. The CMD Industries project regarding kelp beneficiation from a number of different research angles. After the completion of a Technology Innovation Agency seed fund project, this has now grown to include a quadripartite arrangement involving the company, CPUT, University of Stellenbosch (Process Engineering) and the DTI (THRIP). Technology transfer in all directions!

In both cases, ATS assisted with babying the projects into the academic fold. Both fourth year and Masters’ students have become, or are being, involved in the research process. A perfect example of multiple transfer directions.

This type of arrangement perfectly fits one of definitions of the way ATS interacts with academia and industry i.e. ATS shoots first and aims later while academia aims properly and then shoots. ATS takes a high risk approach to research i.e. to make quick wins. This is then used to guide a much more risk averse academic approach i.e. well-planned research.

Putting this together with moving industry staff into the ATS/academic programme can only facilitate this in a mutually beneficial relationship. We will be putting more emphasis on this in the near future to generate more such collaboration. Call us if you see the potential for this in your present situation.

Larry Dolley

To be, or not to be, involved with open innovation? That is the question today!

We all know that South African companies generally spend a tiny fraction of their budgets on R&D compared to international trends and figures. Also, sharing of information is sometimes inhibited (or prohibited) based on whom you work for and with whom you collaborate or with whom you compete. Shrinking budgets in a shrinking economy further drives down R&D-spend and, for young graduate entrants into the practice of food science & technology, you hit a wall with graffiti in the corridors of companies, saying: “Don’t ask for it, we do not have money for it!” And you know what? I think it may become part of your own mantra and understanding (or misunderstanding) of how R&D and innovation is stifled by financial realities. You then become accustomed to the fact that there is no way around this.

Being in the position I am in, I see this also with SMMEs in the industry, although on a different scale and with different outcomes. When potential clients approach us with novel (or sometimes pretty mundane) ideas, they are usually extremely hesitant to divulge information in order for us to help them. It quite amuses me sometime to see how cagey they are with information and it is only after persuading them of our honest intentions that they will, under a standard non-disclosure agreement, share information. I fully understand this and also that it is a function of being a victim of intellectual property theft before or not understanding that, without sharing with us, we cannot help them. In some cases we are under-fed with important information while we are busy helping them, further delaying progress or a satisfactory outcome.

The open innovation concept, which started in the early 19060s, is not something always easily understood by all firms, especially smaller ones. The concept (aptly described in Wikipedia), just from its name, may be scary since the word “open” can be perceived as “reveal”, “show”, “give” or even “lose”. However, for bigger companies with appropriate financial and human capital muscle it does not pose a potential misperception. In a nutshell, it really is all about being open to collaboration, licensing in ideas (or licensing out), sharing of best practice and putting it all together in your company to produce your new product or process.

SMMEs, in particular, stand to make the most out of an open innovation approach to R&D, business management, IP management and protection and also mutually beneficial sharing of ideas. Without wanting to describe the open innovation process in more detail, I would sincerely suggest that you read the latest version of the British Food Journal (2017) where 13 papers on a number of topics and issues related to innovation have been published. This special issue is thus dedicated to open food innovation and its practices. Read it, learn from it and employ it in your own business (or when you start your own business)!

ATS considers itself to be a link in the matrix of open innovation in the South African food industry. We encourage entrepreneurs and innovators to contact us to share in the open innovation process to our mutual benefit. We are constantly on the lookout for projects of this nature and look forward to assisting you in the innovation process.

Larry Dolley

British Food Journal, Volume 119, No. 11.

A delegation of four Technology Stations, headed by ATS, visited Namibian institutions and industries based on the signing of an accord between the National Commission on Research, Science & Technology (NCRST Namibia) and the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) of South Africa, including the decision of TIA to increase its African footprint toward furthering collaboration and exchange in the southern African region. This was conducted in the week of 14th September 2017. The project was funded by TIA under a specific proposal written in this regard. The specific Technology Stations involved were Agrifood, Clothing & Textiles, AMTL Adaptronics and Limpopo Agrofood Technology Station.

The delegation met with four Namibian entities viz. Ministry of Trade & Industry, NCRST, Namibian University of Science & Technology (NUST) and the University of Namibia (UNAM) as well as a number of industries and companies for individual discussions. The SA delegation was thus looking to explain what their present activities were, to learn from Namibian counterparts and to plan work with each other toward mutually beneficial outcomes. This was specifically in the fields of food/agro-processing, clothing & textiles and mechanical engineering.

The outcomes of this may be summarized as:

• Specific services, exchange possibilities and other forms of interaction were identified for future implementation between entities;
• Specific and immediate, low-hanging fruits for quick wins were identified;
• A working committee was established;
• A return visit by individual Technology Stations will happen;
• Management and recording of future interactions under this collaborative will be coordinated by the NCRST.

The entire delegation as well as all hosts considered this a welcome and positive intervention toward industrial and academic exchange for the future.

If you know of any specific companies in Namibia related to the fields of endeavour mentioned above, please let us know. If not on our database, we will attempt to engage.

Larry Dolley

The Conversation has proven to be a hit….well, in my own academic and private life….and it has nothing to do with shooting an hallucinogenic substance. This digital platform has provided me with sharp and incisive articles on numerous topics, some having direct impact or input on my day job. It’s something akin to subscribing to Popular Mechanics and Foodstuff SA. I personally hold no brief for either of these publications other than that I find them fascinating. Thinks: by the way, are they really called publications (compared to journal articles) or are they correctly called something else? And, if so, what are they called? Suggestions welcome!

The topic related to the half-heart is one related to academic outputs i.e. what they are, who insists on them and how do they influence or affect academic standing in this country? Incidentally, the Mail & Guardian of 2^nd June 2017 also carried an article on the issue. In a nutshell, a narrow definition of the term “academic output” relates to publications in peer reviewed journals i.e. journals which carry standing and are listed on the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) approved list.

This generates funding and stature for the institution and academic concerned. However, as the article points out, this leads to a skewing of the nature of these publications (read it and see for yourself since I cannot re-hash it all here). The bottom line is that some people publish for publication sake viz. to push their own academic standing, keep the institution happy and to feed further research.

But what about other forms of output such as artefacts, products, gizmos, whatchamacallits and other forms of IP? Yes, institutions did not initially recognize this in terms of policy and especially in terms of actual appreciation of this!! Y’know….it almost seems like: “Oh yes, that’s what you do! Great!! Keep it up guys”. Kerry Faul in the M&G titled her article as follows: “Publish or perish”, or “innovate to thrive” – a symbiotic relationship.

Like afterthoughts or step-children (mmmm!!! not good play on words considering the state of our nation regarding the treatment of, and caring for, kids!). For myself as an aging academician and for us as ATS, I did not get the joy of seeing our score added to the chart. Or am I too obsessive and too sensitive about this? This is pretty subjective stuff at this point!

I suppose I could have console myself with the fact that, if you speak to some of our clients whose lives we have touched, they appreciate our interaction more than a publication regarding the cost of kneecaps in a kneecap-less world in a low impact journal! We touch their lives and make a difference. The latter was written with crossed fingers behind my back since we also disappoint some of our clients – no risk of pain, no possibility of gain.

However, the CPUT Policy on Ad Hominem Promotion recognizes that it is more than just “publish or perish”. This means there is recognition but, at the end of the day, this recognition needs to be accompanied by acknowledgement of the value.

I am pleased to say that I’ll go with this and keep on doing the best we can in the background!

Larry

As projects are completed and as new work is taken on, we are often confronted with new technical challenges, some big, some small. This is what makes working with the Station exciting and refreshing. There is always a degree of same old, same old…..but, there are always new challenges to keep us alive and young The most recent outcomes from these challenges is the initiation of our Sensory Analytical Facility.

Our Sensory Facility has been used once or twice (or more) to conduct short interventions for industry. However, in recent weeks we had to plan for and assist with executing a major sensory analysis event. This was done with and for the University of Pretoria who were responding to a client who had approached them. UP in turn employed a well-known sensory analytical company to act as the executing agent.

CPUT was the chosen venue for the event due to our facility being more than up to the task. A few hundred participating members of the public (including CPUT staff) were the panellists for the process. They in turn received a “sweetener” for participating and all went off very well.

The facts that we had upgraded the air-conditioning and fresh air supply to the venue added to the suitability of the venue. Our in-house wi-fi link also assisted with electronic data collection while our spacious preparation area allowed for sample preparation and delivery according to plan.

CPUT is thus open for business in two w exciting ways for companies needing to conduct sensory analysis:
1. You can rent the facility to conduct analyses using a consultant of your choice;
2. We can conduct such sensory analysis for you by agreement as to your needs.

We are also preparing two sensory short courses for offering in 2018. These courses will be registered on the CPUT short course system and will earn you a formal CPUT certificate!!

Please make this known to industries with which you work. We welcome any enquiries in this regard. If interested, please e-mail michaelsh@cput.ac.za for more information.

Of course you have seen pictures of those intrepid tight-rope walkers! Well, a Station Manager in the Technology Innovation Agency stable of stations has a very similar job to do i.e. balancing a number of sometimes opposing forces BUT while juggling quite a number of balls in the air as well. Much more difficult, hey? This concept of balance is an interesting analogy in terms of making a Station productive as well as successful. And, before you query it: No, this is not self-praise or braggadocio but rather an, albeit subjective, description of the nuts and bolts of Station life. This will help in terms of understanding how the Station operates, especially for those who see us as a sequestered cash cow or a spoilt brat of a unit 🙂

Let’s look at some of the factors in this management process:

• TIA operational grant – we receive a fixed grant for Opex. Over the years our expenses (including our salary bill for a fixed staff of 8 persons) has slowly grown to match our annual grant. This means we have had to trim our operations to ensure that we remain “solvent, keeping in mind that we operate on a “not for profit basis”. If our opex overshadows our grant (which often happens to me at the ATM), we would be heading for trouble.
• Costs for services – these costs are divided into two broad categories viz. “full cost” and “discounted/subsidised cost”. Full cost is based on properly costing a service (using a Cost Accountant?) and this is used to charge all large companies. SMMES, as defined by the Entrepreneur’s Toolkit (which in turn is based on that of the Department of Trade & Industry), may be charged a discounted rate based on a formula (this implies a “loss” for ATS). This discount does not last indefinitely but does end after a number of interventions with a client.
• Discounts/Subsidies – As alluded to above, the discount only lasts for up to 5 interventions with a client. As also mentioned, this then becomes a “loss” to ATS but it is an acknowledged part of our expenditure (rather than income) since this is part of our mandate i.e. assist SMMEs with lower costs up to a point. ATS keeps track of this “loss” to ensure the balance sheet is always understood to have this loss (or potential income) and to put a quantity to it. It is very seldom (and actually discouraged) that 100% discount is allowed.
• Balanced scorecard targets – this is an agreed set of targets expressed numerically in terms of our annual Service Level Agreement which forms part of the business plan. This contract is signed by TIA and CPUT management to acknowledge that failure to meet these target’s means either a reduction of the Opex grant or even a cessation thereof. Now, one thing you do not do to a Tech Station is touch it on its Opex!!! It is thus critical that the targets are met (more on this later).
• TIA Monitoring & Evaluation – On a quarterly basis the Stations report to TIA on performance against the targets together with an unaudited financial statement. This includes evidence of performance which TIAs auditors then verify and moderate. Together with this TIA further conducts two M&E exercises per year by means of personal visits to Stations against a set agenda. This agenda interrogates a wide range of performance objectives, data and requirements outside the Service Level Agreement itself. This report is also used to gauge the health of the Station against the annual grant.
• Advisory Board & Management Committee – These are two bodies that the Grant Agreement with TIA stipulates. The first is just that: an advisory body made up of industry and other external interested parties and meets twice a year. The Management Committee is an internal Committee which meets quarterly to approve any reports to TIA including the annual report, audited financial statement and other items needing discussion and decisions.
• Reporting – The types of reports required by TIA have been mentioned in previous bullets and are compulsory and critical to assessing Station health. However, beside this, there has been an increase in the demand by the funder to provide more and more information for audit purposes, this in itself creating a lot more “work” in order to maintain compliance with changing requirements.

Now, after just showing you the bare bones of the management and reporting system, this is where the proverbial hits the fan. Keep in mind that the Station is a fully fledged Unit of CPUT funded by TIA and is not a TIA unit in itself only. This means that we operate under the CPUT brand and comply with all its policies and procedures. These in itself change over time and create its own pressures on capacity in the Station. An example is an increasing compliance requirement with financial processes which are being tightened continuously. This is a common frustration for the whole University community. However, we do understand this in terms of ethical use of funds and ensuring unqualified audits for the institution and for the Station itself.

And therefore the balancing act: in a rushed world where clients want things yesterday, TIA wanting us to meet deadlines and reporting requirements, CPUT wanting its own internal compliance, including ensuring that we run in the black and ultimately that we meet our TIA targets. We are happy to say that we balance and juggle simultaneously without having fallen yet. And if truth be told, we do not intend to fall but to grow the Station and its services as well as its outputs. We do need you to wish us luck though and also to understand the pressures we face when trying to serve the industry and academia simultaneously:-)

Larry Dolley