Scotland 5G Centre (S5GC): evaluation

Primary Research

5.1 Introduction

As part of the evaluation process, MS Teams interviews were undertaken with 15 organisations that had been supported by S5GC in a variety of ways. Nine of the respondents were private companies, three were public sector organisations and three were higher education institutions. All had engaged with the S5GC in the last two full years of operation.

While the interviews had a focus on benefits achieved (now and in future) there was no expectation of quantifiable economic impacts at this stage, given the focus on R&D and early stage innovation projects. It is also important to note that 15 is a very small sample, albeit drawn from the supplied database of 57 organisations.

It should also be noted that in terms of overlap with the case studies discussed above, four of the organisations interviewed were within the case study sample.

5.2 Initial Engagement

While most respondents were satisfied that they had a good understanding of the S5GC’s purpose and of how it could help their organisation, some reported less clarity. Table 5.1 presents the results.

When asked about their motivations for engaging with the S5GC, the most popular responses were to develop a 5G project, to learn more about 5G technology, and to access expert advice.

N=13

Multiple response question where organisations could select more than one option and all that applied. Numbers may total more than 15 as a result.

Similarly, when asked about the barriers to the organisation adopting 5G technology, lack of knowledge of 5G and lack of technical skills were most frequently reported.

N=12

Multiple response question where organisations could select more than one option and all that applied. Numbers may total more than 15 as a result.

Organisational feedback on the engagement with the S5GC was positive, with the majority noting high levels of satisfaction with initial engagement, the responsiveness of the team, the team’s understanding of organisational needs and ongoing communication and engagement. The results are summarised in Table 5.2.

5.3 Support Received

Most of the organisations said they had an initial meeting with the S5GC team. Thereafter, technical advice and support in developing a 5G project and attending an event or live demonstration were the next most commonly reported areas of support. Three of the organisations had received support via one of the S5GC hubs. The results are summarised in Figure 5.3 below.

N=12

Multiple response question where organisations could select more than one option and all that applied. Numbers may total more than 15 as a result.

Levels of reported satisfaction with the support provided were generally high (although not all respondents provided ratings). Organisations typically felt that the events had been less relevant than expected. Other dissatisfied ratings were related to projects not progressing as hoped, albeit not always for reasons within the control of the S5GC. Table 5.3 summarises the results.

When asked about the extent to which the support had helped to develop awareness and understanding of 5G, of the ten that responded, five said very much so, and four to some extent. Only one reported that the support had not helped in this respect.

Similarly, four out of seven organisations noted that the support had helped them to address barriers to 5G adoption either very much or to some extent. Two reported to a limited extent or not at all and one did not provide a response.

5.4 Outcomes

Not all respondents reported outcomes from the S5GC support. Three provided no response and two reported that it was still too early to say. The outcomes reported are summarised in Table 5.4 below, and while these were generally positive the small sample size must be noted.

N=12

Multiple response question where organisations could select more than one option and all that applied. Numbers may total more than 15 as a result.

When asked what would have happened in the absence of S5GC support, 12 organisations provided a response, as follows:

• seven reported that the project would have gone ahead but later.
• one reported that the project would have gone ahead but would have been smaller or of a lower quality.
• three reported that the project would not have happened at all.
• one did not know.

These results suggest a reasonably strong level of additionality associated with the support of the S5GC.

In relation to expected future benefits arising from the S5GC support, again four organisations did not provide any response and a further four reported that they expected no further benefits.

N=11

Multiple response question where organisations could select more than one option and all that applied. Numbers may total more than 15 as a result.

5.5 More Qualitative Feedback

It is clear from the interviews that for most the experience of working with the S5GC was positive and organisations praised the technical knowledge and expertise of the team and, where relevant, input on finding partners and securing spectrum licences.

Most also noted that their involvement with the S5GC had provided them a far better understanding of the potential (and limitations) of 5G technologies, and it is also clear that many of the resulting projects have delivered benefits, which are in some cases significant.

One company, for example, reported that the 5G systems that they have installed have resulted in a 75% reduction in paper waste and have optimised energy use and engineer time. Another reported efficiency savings of almost £400,000.

The feedback also identified issues, including:

• some disruption relating to changes in personnel at the S5GC.
• the need for better connection to the wider innovation support landscape.
• the need also for perhaps more focus on commercialisation to help organisations translate 5G benefits into economic growth.
• the need for more in the way of onsite technical support (although recognition that resources could be an issue).

Some noted that the S5GC was perhaps set up early in a market that was not yet mature enough, and there was also feedback that the terminology of ‘5G’ was too limiting when optimal solutions may not always have been 5G.