http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/index.cfm?forumid=24 en-US FuseTalk Standard Edition 3.2 Build 80405 Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=45079 2012-02-08T11:04:21 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=45079#comments 0 But with trains becoming faster and more frequent, simulation training is a crucial part of the railway system across the UK and Ireland. Portillo is seen experiencing state of the art, immersive software at Belfast's Rail Operation Training Academy (ROTA), that prepares train-operators for seasonal track conditions including sleet and snow and provides realistic track-line hazards such as shopping trollies and fridges.
Translink NI Railways uses simulation software as a training tool for drivers as they believe it improves driver competence and confidence in a risk free environment. Simulation software is also used during employee briefing events to demonstrate specific areas of driving such as low adhesion, safety critical communications and other emergency operations. I spoke to Steven Leeman, Drivers Assessor, Translink NI Railways to find out why they think train simulation software is integral to the operation of the national rail network.

What are the challenges when creating train simulation software that is as realistic as possible?

The major challenge in using simulation software lies in keeping imagery up to date following changes in our rail infrastructure. The close working relationship we share with our simulation software provider however, allows us to keep as up to date as possible with including these changes.

How has railway simulation training evolved from earlier training aids?

Prior to the introduction of simulators into training, it consisted of theory and drivers could only demonstrate their understanding of this when they were actually driving. Now our training has a much more practical basis while simultaneously omitting the risk element.
It is also much easier to identify training issues with an individual early in the process with the use of simulation, allowing the trainer to structure the programme to suit the needs of the individual

How important is it to develop simulations that give a coherent overview of the network as a whole?

Translink's simulation software replicates 50 kilometres of track from Templepatrick, North of Belfast, to Moira near Portadown in Co Armagh. The features and characteristics of our entire rail network are covered in this area, hence trainee drivers can be exposed to every geographic eventuality when using the software.

How do you see simulation tools developing in the future from where they currently stand?

Translink is in the process of appointing a simulation software supplier to develop higher spec graphics for its training package, similar to those used on gaming consoles. The new/upgraded software will include additional features such as cracked windscreens, falling rain and night time driving.
Translink also uses a signalling simulator to train signalling staff which is the first of its type in the UK.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=43733 2011-11-10T15:54:30 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=43733#comments 0
"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world!
That has such people in it!"

Huxley's novel, banned in several countries on its release, depicts a dystopian world not unlike Orwell's 1984. Civilians are monitored at all times to ensure they stay healthy and that children are reproduced at the correct rate, keeping the population in check. Huxley explores the fear of losing ones individual identity in the fast paced world of the future, an issue touched on in Hawking's latest episode by physicist and broadcaster Kathy Sykes. She visits US firm Reality Mining, a data research company dedicated to "using the digital breadcrumbs we leave in every day life to help understand our own behaviour."

Director Sandy Pentland does this by monitoring the day to day behaviour of volunteers, through their mobile phone signal. The study is fascinating; he can pinpoint the exact location of any volunteer at any given time, tracking their step-by-step journey before focusing in on a close-up photographic image of their whereabouts.

All interesting stuff, albeit a little intrusive, but what is even more fascinating is what he does with this information. Volunteers are split into habitual groups or 'tribes' depending on the regularity of their socialising in particular places at particular times. Each group is colour-coded according to the threat their habitual behaviour will have on their health, be it alcohol poisoning for those who spend a majority of their time in their local pub, respiratory problems for excessive coffee drinkers or type two diabetes for those who visit Krispy Crème too often.

The aim of this data gathering is to determine where government health warnings should be displayed regarding these health risks, monitor epidemics and monitor human reaction to natural disasters, creating a super healthy optimal society not dissimilar to the abstract one depicted in Huxley's dystopia.

Sykes claims that information could be treated as a commodity, with the individual choosing which personal information to share and restrict depending on particular companies, but it's not clear how this would be monitored.

Although this Big brother society seems a long way off yet, this data could be applied to plenty of other applications utilised to increase commercial gain by companies that choose to invest in this 'Gods eye view'. With the precise whereabouts of your target market tracked consistently minute by minute, day by day, organisations will soon know the optimum locations for advertising, product placement and extensive marketing campaigns.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=43502 2011-10-26T11:08:53 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=43502#comments 0 "Our lives have been defined by machines, Galileo's telescope, Watt's steam engine, Bell's telephone. We will show you how science is a force for good - prepare to meet your future." Stephen Hawking

The first in Stephen Hawking's latest six part series debuted last week on Channel 4, A brave new world marks Hawking's latest examination of human and technology interaction, and the future of these often turbulent relationships.

Aptly named Technology, this episode focuses on automated machines and their impact on the lives of human beings. Kevin Warrick, whose new book we have reviewed in this months E&T magazine, believes mankind's problem with accepting integrated robotics is the fear that they could be better than us, eventually replacing us altogether.

A brave new world tackles this issue head on, featuring a car that can drive better than the average driver, an exoskeleton that can lift heavy loads better than the average soldier and telescope that can see further than the human eye.

The driverless car, project-managed by Sebastian Thrun and Chris Urmson of Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute, took Kathy Sykes for a spin, completing its laps safely without a hitch. The car proved that even at high speed, robotic cars are better and safer than their human counterparts, with the potential to reduce road accidents.

The amorous robotic baby I-CUB mimics the cognitive learning process of its human equivalent, rendering Jamil Al-Khalili pervious to its kinder-garden charm. A conspiracy-theorist's dream, I-CUB challenges the argument that robots will supplement and improve the lives of human beings, rather than just replacing them. A suitable application for this technology - without the gimmicky child-shaped exterior - would be within advanced industrial robotics. Automotive factory-based machines for example, would gain the ability to 'learn' a variety of control patterns, adapting the pattern depending on the section of the supply chain.

But aside from their public legalisation in Nevada, autonomous cars and even robotic children are not a particularly new subject matter to tackle. Autonomous cars for example have been in development now for almost thirty years, and the I-CUB project currently spans a seven year history. Unfortunately, this is a problem which is prevalent throughout the first episode; there are too many other autonomous projects that have eclipsed the examples featured in Hawking's new televised offering.

A brave new world may not tackle particularly cutting edge applications, but the program does give the world of engineering a well needed publicity boost, revealing to the audience what all of us knew anyway: whether it be medical, transport or discovery, advancements in engineering and technology impact on every one of us.

Erika Burrows has now left E&T, Abi Grogan will be taking over What we're watching.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=43180 2011-10-05T12:05:25 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=43180#comments 0
If you are interested in appearing on Dragons' Den to pitch your business idea, follow this link to apply:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/aps/apply.shtml ]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=43075 2011-09-28T10:31:08 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=43075#comments 0 Dr Jonathan Levie of the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde, has conducted extensive research to find out. He shares his findings...

Earlier this year, the UK Government's Department for Business, Innovation and Skills released a research report on the 'Impact of Media on Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions'. Along with my colleagues from Aston University, Professor Mark Hart and Mohammed Shamsun Karim, I conducted the research and wrote the report. After interviewing 1,250 people across the UK, we found that one in five non-entrepreneurs were motivated to start their own business having watched programmes such as Dragon's Den, The Apprentice and The Secret Millionaire.

Nearly nine out of ten established entrepreneurs surveyed also believe these programmes are making people think more positively about entrepreneurs and the same proportion feel they make people want to start their own business.

This is quite a turnaround from a few decades ago, when TV tended to portray entrepreneurs as crooks. But does this new generation of business format programmes actually portray business life accurately?
40 per cent of non-entrepreneurs said the programmes had shown them the practical steps to start a new business. However, only 11 per cent thought the programmes were realistic portrayals of business. We also know from other research that the programme makers and presenters see them as primarily entertainment shows: producing more heat than light, and they seem relaxed about that.

Personally, I think that the makers of these programmes have a responsibility to ensure that they are not misleading the public. I have no axe to grind on the ruthless way that the Dragons tell people what they think of them. That is pretty true to life. (Whether the programme makers should set up vulnerable individuals to fail quite so publicly is a different, ethical question.) However, in real life the entrepreneur does not make an opening offer of a set percentage of the company for a set amount of money. This is because the entrepreneur does not know the prospective investor's internal rate of return. The other false picture portrayed by these programmes is the speed at which deals appear to be done. In reality, they tend to take months, not minutes.

Finally, we need to put these programmes in context. Family and friends, work colleagues and training in college or university are much more likely to have been a major influence on a new entrepreneur's decision to found a business than the media.

www.entrepreneur.strath.ac.uk]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42933 2011-09-20T11:59:12 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42933#comments 0
The No-Way-José
Example: Mark's 'Haggis Dog', Paul's canine safety accessory (read plastic stick), Richard and Gill's Realtor Network
As soon as the black cloth is pulled off the strange-shaped 'opportunity', you can see the Dragons shoulders droop. There is no money to be made here, quite the contrary, money will probably already have been lost by a disillusioned inventor who has ploughed their life savings into a black hole and as yet, seen no return. Sometimes the Dragons are kind, sometimes patronising. Often the best thing for the inventor to do is to throw themselves into the black hole after their money and hope Evan Davis isn't waiting for them.

The Long Shot
Example: Aidan and Gemma's O-Pods and Eco-Hab homes
These are the edge-of-your-seat opportunities, where the nation as a whole wills the last remaining Dragon to throw the inventor a lifeline and part with some dosh, and though the Dragons' almost always err on the side of caution, there are times when their hearts get the better of them and we are reminded that they're human after all. They've got oodles of money though, so don't feel sorry for them.

The Firework
Example: Yasmin Hussein's Tri-Namic balls
These opportunities appear quite frequently on DD. There is a business person who doesn't offend the dragons (tick), there is money to be made (tick tick), but, and it's a but we hear often, 'this is not an investable business'. Be it a product with a short lifecycle or a service that only a few people can provide, these opportunities build up and burn out quickly. Risk-averse Dragons will never get on board with this kind of opportunity, but there is money to be made and PR to be gained so expect to see plenty more fireworks on the Den.

The Sure Fire Hit
Example: So rare, I can't think of one!
The golden ticket of opportunities that leaves the Dragons falling over themselves to part with their cash. This kind of opportunity doesn't come up very often in the den, nor in life, but when it does it leaves everyone with a smile on their face (except Duncan Bannatyne of course who hates to smile).

The Take-A-Chance-On-Me
Example: Michelle and Steve's Wingz, Ryan and Liam's record label, Wendy Thompson's Heath Swing
This Abba hit of an opportunity usually presents itself in the form of a quirky but likeable individual with a sometimes-great-sometimes-not-so-great idea. More often than not, this kind of opportunity will end in a jovial exchange between Dragons and inventor...but no investment. Occasionally, as seen this week with Ryan and Liam's record label, there is a deal to be done - at the right price.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42727 2011-09-05T15:44:45 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42727#comments 0
However, the very basis of the show; to match make investors with would-be entrepreneurs, is all too often flawed.

The Dragons, a collection of undoubtedly successful yet inexplicably grumpy business men and women, are looking for somewhere to deposit their stacks of money that will earn them more money with the minimum amount of effort on their part.

The entrepreneurs, an assortment of odd bods with products, plans and in some cases, purely ill thought out ideas, are indeed angling for the cash, but in most cases are also after business acumen.

So far this series, there doesn't seem to have been much willingness on the part of the Dragons to get involved in the businesses they invest in, and perhaps that is the reason why so many entrepreneurs are walking away empty handed? (The more cynical among us might suggest that after nine series of DD, the nation has simply run out of good ideas....or that the Dragons are finally feeling the bite of the recession and are being more cautious with their Monopoly money....)

This week's instalment was no different. Viewers were subjected to no less than seven unsuccessful pitches before any Dragon dared to part with their cash. From fish pedicures to poker consoles, the entrepreneurs on the block underwent the dissections we have become all too familiar with and yet still come into (voices at the ready) The Den unprepared. Woe betide anyone who enters the den without knowing their gross from their net.

The final pitch from Andy Bates is a classic example of the rare occasion on which a Dragon is prepared to put both pounds and passion into a business venture. Clearly enthusiastic about his business plan, Bates was prepared for the onslaught of questions and answered them confidently, succinctly and, some might say, a barely detectable hint of smugness. He'd done his homework and knew his figures inside out. He was honest, likeable and couldn't hide the excitement from his face when Peter Jones made him an offer.

Jones' love of cars undoubtedly sealed the deal for Bates. Perhaps next series we can look forward to a tirade of entrepreneurs with a revolutionary app that can break limbs via the internet or simply a collection of dangerously oversized shoulder pads...watch this space.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42656 2011-08-30T16:20:09 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42656#comments 0 "When the Dragons invest, they look at the product; the person; the pitch."

But which is the most important of the three? An innovative product fulfilling a recognisable need in its inventor's chosen market place; a dynamic inventor with the ability to communicate effortlessly with its target audience, or an energetic pitch able to allay the fears of even the most sceptical of buyers? We see how two of this week's most interesting inventors fare under the harsh spotlight of the Dragons' den.

Product
Bog in a bag
Reinforced nylon camping stool with removable 'poo hole' able to withstand up to 125kg of bowel-emptying festival goer. The product is two years in the making and includes a plastic bin-bag liner, featuring absorbable 'magic crystals' which can absorb and solidify up to 700ml of liquid.

Person
First time inventor and Winchester-based mum of two, Kate Castle. The Dragons were charmed by her humble nature and her unwavering belief in her product. She managed to conceal her nerves after bravely disregarding Meadon's offer, insisting that Paphitis was her preferred business partner, which made her an endearing yet steadfast choice for the Dragon.

Pitch
£50,000 for 15% equity
Hesitant Castle began her humble pitch to the Dragons by recalling that age old under-canvas yarn; one wakes up in a tent in the middle of the night and attempts to make the following agonising decision: should I trek across a cold dark field to the toilet or miserably attempt to hold it in until morning? Castle showed spirit during Jones' initial trashing of her 'stool with a hole in it', insisting her product had been technically manufactured to better meet the needs of her consumers. Following Castle's confident retort Jones swiftly backtracked, bowing out of the den, but branding her as "very investable".

It was Kate's unassuming personality, shrewd self-assuredness and vision for her company that encouraged the Dragons to look past Castle's unsavoury product, proving that often it's not the product, but the person that the Dragon's want to invest in.



Product
Metal garden swings
A design and manufacturing company producing metal pod-like hanging baskets made from stainless steel, copper and wrought iron. The aim of the eclectic, Avatar-like pods was to prove that fine art can be mass produced and rolled out as a garden product, rather than being viewed simply as art.

Person
Eccentric South-African born artist and metal-worker Steve Myburg. He appeared to live along with his art in his own peculiar fantasy world, failing to provide the Dragons with a substantial business plan or profit projections. Paphitis rounded off, crying, "You will make any person who enters business with you go spare!"

Pitch
£70,000 for 20% equity
The pitch opened with a bizarre reference to a smuggled child-immigrant killed at one of Myburg's father's factories when he was a child during the apartheid. Myburg's arty drivel was entertaining, but ultimately alienated the business-like Dragons. Jones seemed particularly unconvinced by the product, claiming he was just as happy, "looking at a piece of paper with numbers on it. I'm boring." Though Paphitis and Devey both took a swing in two of his creations, all the Dragons bowed out, praising the project's beauty but claiming it had too little substance to invest their cash in.

The product range impressed all the Dragons, but the vague pitch combined with Myburg's failure to take any previous steps to turn the project into a viable business proposition proved an insubstantial hook for the Dragons, proving that a good product is not always a guarantee to securing their investment.

by Abi Grogan. Erika Burrows is on holiday for two weeks.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42549 2011-08-22T12:24:35 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42549#comments 0
The cheerful midlander
Former Radio DJ and ruddy faced entrepreneur Bob Davis took to the den first, asking for a £50,000 investment for 20% of a new events promotions company, including a Perspex exhibition game which Meadon quickly branded a giant bingo blower. The confident ex-car salesman, dubbed The Car Showroom King, was quickly humbled by Bannatyne who smelled a rat at Bob's insistence that the partnership should be a brand new venture, encouraging him to return to the den and pitch again. Bob grudgingly obeyed, this time pitching his Crystal Maze-style promotion-tool as part of an exclusive deal, offering his current company and future product innovations as part of the agreement. Moved by his determination, Hilary extended a manicured hand to shake on her first and only deal.


The ditzy housewife-turned-hotelier
Stepford-wife Camilla Shornsey from Oxfordshire was next to brave the steely contemplation of the Dragons, offering a slice of her upmarket holiday booking service for £240,000 investment (on hearing her gushing homage to her own 'fabulous home' we estimate this amount is equivalent to only a fraction of the value of the pearls she is pictured wearing.) Initially it seemed she may gel with Cotswolds-rah Meadon or even fellow sloane ranger-fashonista Devey, but the trophy wife, more accustomed to spending money than making it, lost all credibility in the den as her projected revenue eclipsed the realistic realms of her business value. Ah well, we're sure her moneybags husband will provide a cash-injection and some retail therapy to ease the pain.


The suit who is tight with money
Property investor Frazer Allen entered the den to a raised eyebrow from Meadon on hearing his tight-fisted offer; £150,000 worth of investment for a measly 5% equity of his holiday security company. Obviously taking inspiration from his own product, a detachable deckchair safe for valuables, Allen kept a tight hold on his 'baby', refusing to budge facing a compromise for a larger equity stake in his company. After fumbling his figures, none of the Dragons seemed convinced there was a market for his product and consequently all vetoed out of a partnership with Allen.


The softly spoken Mexican chef
Marcela Floris-Newburn's first impression to the Dragons was a deceptive one; she warbled her way through an out of tune plug for her food range complete with wide-brimmed Mexican hats and maracas. However likable Floris-Newburn conducted the rest of her pitch in a quietly confident manner, answering financial queries accurately and providing succinct answers to the Dragon's questions. Native Mexican Marcela has spent the last two and a half years attempting to introduce good quality Mexican fare into the UK food market through her authentic salsa range. But despite culinary praise from her children and the support of a credible advisor, the Dragons deemed her niche business too small scale and wished the softly spoken cook good luck for the future.

by Abi Grogan. Erika Burrows is on holiday for two weeks.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42443 2011-08-15T14:10:03 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42443#comments 0
Pitch one, lesson one: Make a good first impression
The first trio of entrepreneurs to enter the den with their 'doggy litter tray' invention quickly made an impression on the Dragons, albeit not a very good one, with their over-talkative pitching style. Inevitably, the Dragons dropped like flies, but Peter Jones wrapped up with a valuable point: the inventor of the product had been misrepresented by the business owners. Take heed all would-be inventors out there: either represent your product yourself or choose your representative very carefully indeed, for the first impression may be the only impression you have a chance to make! In the wise words of Hilary Devey, "Passion does not equal profit".

Pitch two, lesson two: Make sure you have a good idea
An all-you-can-drink members' club aimed at the corporate market? Enough said.

Pitch three, lesson three: Be careful what you agree to!
Any regular Dragons' Den viewers will surely have loved Duncan's participation in this pitch. The grumpy Scotsman, usually the first to jump ship after so much as a slight stumble over the figures, sat quietly while his fellow dragons devoured their prey, business owners Peter and Michelle Hart, and swooped in at the final hour to secure the investment. Ever impossible to predict, Bannatyne stumped up the requested £100,000 in exchange for 50 per cent of the fancy dress company. Initially offering just 10 per cent of their business, I can't help but wonder whether the married couple in question realised just how much they were handing over.

Pitch four, lesson four: Be careful what you admit to!
Leon Lee's weight-loss clothing business had a promising start when he whipped off his shirt to reveal a toned physique in a superhero-like vest. With leisure-club guru Duncan Bannatyne on the panel, Lee surely had an ideal investor in mind, however, after admitting that he credits 8 hours per week in the gym rather than his invention with his success, Duncan sent him packing and the other Dragons duly followed suit.

Pitch five, lesson five: Good idea? Good investment?
Serbian-born inventor Alexander Tomich delivered his pitch with a hefty dose of nerves but was soon forgiven after blinding the Dragons with his Philharmonic, portable, wireless light display and revealing his refugee background. Though none of the Dragons saw an investment opportunity, they eventually dismissed him with respect and once again Peter Jones wrapped up the episode with words of wisdom: what may be a good idea may not be a good investment - but that doesn't mean it can't make you a nice living.

Pitch six, lesson six: Know when to say no!
Armed with significant interest from credible international companies, sibling inventors Richard and Jim George knew their fence post protector was a good idea and so did the Dragons. After six various offers, all demanding more than the 25 per cent stake they were willing to let go, Richard and Jim stuck to their guns and walked away with no investment. Finally, a lesson learned by witnessing the way it should be done and not at the expense of an intrepid inventor!]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42365 2011-08-08T16:06:13 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42365#comments 0
Dragon's Den, love it or hate it, does make compulsive viewing. More so now with the introduction of the new dragon, Hilary Devey, who I think has a real presence. I really like her no nonsense approach. Time will tell if she falls into the same trap as the other Dragons - believing her own press and starts playing to the camera.

The show started with very two passionate women with a music training academy idea. They did not get an offer from the Dragons - mainly because it was a social enterprise and they wanted too much (£150,000 for 20% of their business). Peter Jones' rapping moment got me hiding behind a pillow...has no one ever told him that middle aged guy's just shouldn't rap (it's the law)?

The next lamb to the slaughter was John's 'inflatable bed in a car' idea. Actually not a bad idea, but the prototype let him down. This is where I think the Dragons' Den lets itself down a bit also. They were taking the mickey out of it, at the expense of the inventor.

The three guys from Saatchi & Saatchi with a brand pop-corn were fun, but Peter Jones mentioned the idea was weak, so I could not understand why he invested in them. Yes, individually, they were great, but together I felt there was a flaw 'too many marketing men spoil the broth'. You need many differing skill sets in a successful team.

If you can remember your name and can sell your idea under pressure, it is well worth the risk for the possibility of investment and the exposure. Just be aware, you have no editorial control, so they can make you look as good or bad as they want - in the cutting room.

My take on the show is, it does help focus inventors and it informs, but you won't see me on there.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42255 2011-08-01T12:09:08 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42255#comments 0
Here's a reminder of the dragons' credentials, along with some highlights from the first episode...

DUNCAN BANNATYNE
Background
Grumpy Scotsman Duncan made his fortune in health clubs and hotels, and is the wealthiest dragon on the panel.

Spends his time...
Fingering his fake money (yes, it has been confirmed by BBC2 that the piles of cash are fake!).

Trademark move
"The Bannatyne" - to withdraw his offer when a dithering entrepreneur does not bite his hand off - as witnessed in the first episode! Duncan lasted all of 45 minutes before throwing his toys out of the pram and withdrawing a (very decent) offer because the entrepreneur in question, Chris Hopkins, was taking too long to make a decision.

Little known fact
Duncan was dishonourably discharged from the Royal Navy aged 19 and spent 18 months in Colchester Military Detention Centre for attempting to throw an officer off a boat landing jetty in Scotland.

THEO PAPHITIS
Background
Retail expert Theo is a self-confessed shopaholic and former chairman of Millwall FC. He made his money through high-street chains Rymans and La Senza, the latter of which he bought for a £1 and sold for £100 million.

Spends his time...
Considering what 'Mrs P' would do.

Trademark move
Teaming up with a fellow dragon, usually best mate Peter, to conjure an offer no sane entrepreneur can refuse.

You may not know...
With the help of his Ryman staff, Theo has raised over £1 million for Comic Relief in the past three years.

PETER JONES
Background
Technology guru Peter owned a successful business in his twenties but lost it 'through a combination of circumstances, personal mistakes and learning the hard way." After a stint at Siemens Nixdorf, he founded Phones International Group which has been dubbed one of the most successful businesses in the UK.

Spends his time...
Coming to blows with Duncan.

Trademark move
Spotting a diamond in the rough when the other dragons have already declared themselves 'out', as per last night's episode with painfully nervous Georgette Hewitt and her online children's present company business idea.

You may not know...
The youngest and tallest of the dragons, Peter is 45, just over 6 ft 7 tall and wears size 14 shoes.


DEBORAH MEADEN
Background
Deborah comes from an entrepreneurial family and made the lion's share of her money through Weststar holidays, which she built up and sold in 2005 for £33 million whilst retaining a 23% share. She made a further £19 million for her stake when the company was sold to Parkdean Holidays in 2007.

Spends her time...
Glaring at anyone who dares to cross her.

Trademark move
Throwing her hand in the air and declaring something along the lines of "You can stop there, I'm out".

You may not know...
Deborah is the only dragon who does not have any children: the other dragons have a total of 17 children between them.


HILARY DEVEY
Background
In 1996, Bolton-born trucking tycoon Hilary sold her house and lived in a flat above a chip shop with her baby son in order to fund her business idea, Pall-Ex. Eight years later, she was turning over £85 million and is now a major shareholder in Eddie Stobart Distribution.

Spends her time...
Giving away her money on Channel 4's Secret Millionaire show and sourcing giant shoulder pads.

Trademark move
As yet to be established but as the first rival female dragon in the den (and judging by last night's show), it will probably involve ruffling Deborah's feathers.

You may not know...
Hilary suffered a stroke in 2009 following a tummy tuck operation in a private clinic. She blames herself for not giving up smoking before the operation despite being told the risks. She still does not have full use of her left arm.]]> Erika Burrows http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42109 2011-07-21T11:46:29 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=42109#comments 0
Yet, as the series came to an end this week, Lord Sugar put his money where his mouth wasn't and gave his £250,000 investment to Tom Pellereau, a mechanical engineer, specialising in innovation and design. Over the course of the series, Tom has been nicknamed Mr Notepad-Calculator, Mr Hindsight and latterly, the Nutty Inventor.

After Lord Sugar's uncharacteristic about-turn, we ask Sam Wormald-Smith, Associate Director of engineering recruitment firm, Roevin, what does Tom have that Glenn didn't?

"Having blasted engineers' business abilities earlier in the series, it was refreshing to see Lord Sugar choose a mechanical engineer to be his business partner in the final. Tom's appointment certainly came as a surprise after his regular appearances in the boardroom but his tenacity and willingness to keep trying new ideas explains why engineers have long formed the business backbone of many of the world's most successful companies.

15 per cent of all FTSE 100 companies have engineers on their board, yet the industry is rarely acknowledged as a strong entry route to business leadership. Engineers' careers are based on coming up with new ideas, pushing boundaries, taking risks - and critically delivering a successful end product - all of which make for business success.

Tom succeeded where fellow engineer Glenn Ward failed in demonstrating softer skills. Tom had a proven record as an inventor and entrepreneur, which were deemed to be desirable attributes of a potential business partner. Both understood the 'product' in question each week, but Tom was able to take this further and understand the audience and how that product would be received. Both clearly possessed a strong technical skill set, but the process made it clear that engineers need to be able to 'sell' their skills if they wish to move smoothly into the world of business - on TV or in an office.

An engineering victory on television is one thing, but on a broader level, engineering and technical skills are essential for the well-being of the economy and this needs to be recognised at the highest level. There is no way around it - the UK is facing a shortage of engineers. For this reason, apprenticeships, closer involvement between industry and academia, and engagement with recruitment organisations must all combine to help to promote the range of exciting career paths in engineering.

I believe that Alan Sugar was absolutely right in choosing Tom as his winner and hopefully this will help raise the overall profile of engineering, as well as highlighting that it can be a genuine, valid path to business success."

So can we attribute Tom's success to his ability in displaying his softer side, rather than his career choice as an engineer? Either way, I for one am pleased to see Lord Sugar eat his words so quickly and award Tom the quarter million pound investment he so clearly deserves.]]> Nick Smith http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=41623 2011-06-20T12:02:38 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=41623#comments 0 We all know as managers that you cannot fire people without taking into account the serious processes behind that, and as some have pointed out, the increase in unfair dismissals tribunals recorded since The Apprentice first aired nearly a decade ago, cannot be definitively or causally related to the content or attitude of the show's protagonists.
But this time Sugar has really got up the community's collective nose. In firing contestant engineer Glenn Ward from the reality TV show last week, he said: 'I have never yet come across an engineer who can turn his hands to business.'
Even by Sugar's outspoken standards this is hard to understand. He either doesn't know that Bill Gates, for example, is an engineer by training, or he doesn't understand that Gates is one of the most phenomenal entrepreneurial and business success stories since commerce began.
On Saturday I picked up a copy of the Sun newspaper off a vacant seat on the bus and was pleased to see that Sir James Dyson, one of the most important British businessmen - and of course an engineer - leaping to the defence of the sector. The subtext of Dyson's well-constructed riposte was that Sugar is living in cloud-cuckoo land. This may well be the case, but there is a more serious and deeper issue here. And that is Sugar simply appears not to understand the role engineering plays in British society, and is clearly a stranger to the idea put forward by Shadow Minister for Business and Skills, Chi Onwurah, that manufacturing is the key to economic regeneration in the UK.
The skills that Sugar seems to admire in his contestants - ability to source cheap materials, and the ability to sell to unwilling customers - are simply a reflection of his uncompromising barrow boy approach to business. Sure, this approach may have worked for him, but it is fair to assume that more of his income is now generated from being a broadcaster, and his comments on engineering show how far out of touch he is. His method of doing business simply doesn't work today.
That the engineering community is up in arms is a good thing. We're getting fed up with being told that Sugar's comments are 'entertainment' or 'tongue in cheek'. We don't so much care that an engineer was fired. After all, The Apprentice is a ruthlessly bloody, gladiatorial programme that mocks the vulnerable and pokes fun at the serious. But in the real world, as a result of the contraction of the economy, engineers are being removed from post on a daily basis. What we care about is that Sugar can make such unrestrained comments based on a collection of prejudices he presents as innate wisdom gained from commercial experience. He is after all the UK Government's 'enterprise champion', and such comments are at best unhelpful.
Perhaps Lord Sugar would give E&T magazine an interview where he would have the opportunity to clarify his comments? There are many in the engineering community who might think that he owes us that, at least.]]> Nick Smith http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=41218 2011-05-19T13:41:21 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=41218#comments 0 I don't know if this is a breach of Twitter protocol but I contacted the commenter directly. Turned out it was Chris Rand, a highly respected journalist - in fact a former editor of the much-missed Industrial Technology magazine - as well as possibly the most important engineer ever to support Ipswich Town.
I wrote to Chris to ask him to expand on his comments. He kindly replied with the following...
The Apprentice is a nonsensical exercise really, just designed to make some compelling television, but I do fear it gives a bad impression to kids about the world of work. My 10-year-old's class is all avid viewers, and I think the BBC knows about the plunging demographic. Despite keeping the post-9pm transmission time, it's noticeable that the bad language prevalent in earlier series has been all but eliminated.
If this is "business", it's a very narrow part of business, which requires regularly dealing like a market-stall trader. Few modern business owners have any need to barter as if they're in a Marrakech souk ...ever. Equipped with everyday research tools, it's easy to seek out competitive prices and delivery times for goods. The areas of commerce where wheeler-dealers like Sugar have any sort of advantage are now minimal. However, it's obvious that the rules of the game preclude the contestants from using the internet or calling on existing contacts for help, so that makes a mockery of any pretence to realism. This is not made clear though, which is why the whole thing is just a game show, nothing more.]]> Nick Smith http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=41042 2011-05-09T11:39:49 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=41042#comments 0
'TV's competing against all sorts of things today, such as the internet and blogs. When it comes to science and technology one of the problems is you get a programme - here it is - but the person presenting it isn't really doing the science themselves. Jim Al-Khalili is a good example of someone who is, and is relevant to the subject. And then you get others who are not, such as Richard Dawkins. So for me it's better if they have presenters who are actually working with the stuff they present.
I think that the TV people are doing there bit to make science and technology a bit sexier and a bit more palatable, but often the shows themselves get a bit buried on BBC2 or Channel 4, rather than pushing it right up on BBC1. And this is a ratings thing. People in general prefer to watch Eastenders. But I can't see why they don't include a little technology education snippets in shows like this.
A typical conversation on Eastenders is: 'All right? How you doing? I'm all right. You all right? Yeah, I'm all right...' and so on. And so there's nothing in the conversation and yet millions watch it. So why can't we use this in some way to get some science into the real world?
This is where someone like Michael Faraday took the game to the people. In his time he did the Christmas Lectures and at the time he was accused of dumbing down. But he said 'who cares?' because he was putting technology in a vocabulary that people could take on board. I just wish that we could do this in the modern day - take IET-type stuff and make it palatable to the masses who watch Eastenders. These viewers are not stupid people, so why can't the conversation in the pub be about some new piece of research? Why can't you have two blokes in the pub talking about their new GPS. What's the range? How does it work?
The makers of these programmes are great at talking to the public, so why don't they include this stuff, and then we won't have to sit on our high horses waiting for the public to come to us. So my view is, rather than try to get more science programmes on TV, let's use our influence to try to get more of what we do into programmes that people by the million are already watching.']]> Nick Smith http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=40719 2011-04-11T14:44:04 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=40719#comments 0
'Short answer: No. The first thing to remember is that television programming is made to maintain audience figures and not to educate people in how to be good managers and leaders. In the particular case of The Apprentice, what's shown in terms of how the apprentices are selected and how the winning one is presented, is actually reasonably fair.
Lord Sugar is at the top of his game and so he doesn't really have anything to prove to anybody. So he can behave in a way that produces good television, but which is clearly unlikely to be a good model for someone who is on their way up in management, particularly within a corporate organisation.
The key thing - and this is a universal thing in management - is to always ask yourself what it is that the other person wants. What are they playing for and what are the intentions of the other person? In the case of the people making the TV shows their highest values - and this is all about values - are all about audience figures, not educating professionals. As long as we remember that we won't go too far wrong.
You can make the same point about news and current affairs programmes on TV and radio, where typically the relationships are presented as adversarial. Again, this might make entertaining media content, but we should not regard this as a model for how things are best done in the real world of professional work.']]> Nick Smith http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=40566 2011-03-31T12:00:45 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=40566#comments 0
The problem with the way management is portrayed on TV is that viewers are encouraged to think that you can simply say 'you're fired'. Now, if a professional footballer puts a foot wrong in terms of race or gender, bullying or anything like that, the media is on them like a ton of bricks. But if a manager does anything like that on a TV programme then that's regarded as fair enough.
When it comes to the way managers are presented on TV, there's the impression given that you are either an aggressive sales person who's going to make it, or that business is not for you. But I've met managers across the length and breadth of the UK who have very different ways of being a good leader. Ultimately what matters in management is that you do it openly and fairly, with the trust of the people you are working with. And so the way you manage is absolutely crucial, and some of the images that TV presents to us are really unhelpful in this regard. Television seems to show a macho style to the exclusion of everything else. That might work for Alan Sugar, if you're Alan Sugar, but in most real life instances you don't have the 'hire and fire' ability, and you are more normally relying on people's good will.
The discipline of treating people as you want to be treated is critical to good management. And even though the viewing figures would tend to suggest that programmes like 'The Apprentice' are moderately entertaining, they do however unfairly portray what management professionals really do as more confrontational than it really is. It over-simplifies and leads you to the wrong conclusion.
Obviously, the intention of such programmes is not to create bullying in the workplace, but they do tend to give the wrong impression of what is essentially a very complex transaction. To allow yourself to be managed by someone implies a huge amount of trust and you are putting yourself in their hands really. It's a crucial relationship that takes a lot of delivery and we need to understand that. And we need to be a little humber and to understand that there are other ways of doing this than the Alan Sugar way.]]> Nick Smith http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=40043 2011-03-03T12:30:13 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=40043#comments 0 Mark Kelly, a Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University School of Management has been inspired by my call for opinions on whether our areas are being represented properly on TV. When it comes to entrepreneurialism, it seems 'The Apprentice' has got it just about right in terms of its strong emphasis on sales...

Mark Kelly writes:
Television, first and foremost, has to entertain and this inevitably presents entrepreneurship in a skewed light. Twenty-five years working with entrepreneurs at Cranfield tells us that entrepreneurship is noble, fun, tough, lonely, controversial and, because of the responsibility an entrepreneur carries on her/his shoulders, incredibly liberating.
The closest television programme that gets to the essence of entrepreneurship is "The Apprentice". Time and again it shows the importance of sales and the ability to sell. The majority of entrepreneurs have to be good - if not excellent - at sales. Most start-up businesses succeed because they out-sell incumbent competitors. The founders' enthusiasm overcomes the scepticism of prospects and turns them into not just customers but advocates. It is a sad reflection of our business environment and media that sales people are often portrayed so poorly. What the country needs are highly skilled people capable of selling our products and services in overseas markets. Frankly, the best sales people I have seen are those with engineering backgrounds.
What of "Dragons Den"? It's done a lot to educate people about the realities of start-up, but because of the need to entertain and the one-upmanship of the Dragons, it descends too often into a laddish berating. Many of the entrepreneurs are in fact inventors, who need to ensure they have three legs to their business stool (invention, sales, finance) and then need the Dragons' expertise in routes-to-market and capital to make the business fly. But being humble and gracious with your advice doesn't necessarily make great telly .

Mark Kelly is a Cranfield Visiting Fellow and Programme Leader for the Business Growth Programme. Visit www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/bgp]]> Nick Smith http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=39913 2011-02-23T10:55:39 00 http://www.theiet.org/forums/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=393&threadid=39913#comments 0
Whether we like it or not, the way engineers and technologists, from shop-floor level to managers and board members, is continually represented on the television. And we're always saying 'but it's not like that!'

On The Apprentice there are endgame scenarios acted out that simply couldn't happen in the board room. Or could they. Some of our experts think that if you behave the way Sir Alan Sugar and his cohorts do, then you'd end up in an industrial tribunal. Others think that the contestants on such reality shows represent accurately the stereotype of today's entrepreneur. But what do you think?

Every week well be analysing what's been on your TV that's been of relevance. Whether it's news coverage of an emerging technology, reality drama, or simply documentary-style analysis. We'll ask people in academia, industry and those in the membership of the IET for their comments.

Are we being portrayed fairly? Does the wider public have a distorted view of what we do for a living, what we design, manufacture and manage? We'll have our say. And you can too.]]>