If the industrial revolution was one of the central themes of the London 2012 opening ceremony, what was witnessed over six fantastic weeks of Olympic and Paralympic competition was the industrialisation of British sport.
Through years of detailed preparation, creating infrastructure, setting targets, exploiting the research base, attention to detail, identifying talent, developing skills, and – whisper this – public funding, Team GB produced world class, extraordinary athletes who pushed performance to the limits.
At the British Science Festival in Aberdeen last week, the Head of Research and Innovation at UK Sport, Scott Drawer described how he and his team had systematically drawn on the UK academic research base and worked with industry, to support and improve the performance of athletes.
Examples range from real-time data capture and analysis of videos to provide coaches with instant feedback on an athlete’s performance in training, to an in-depth study of how best to use cryotherapy to speed muscle recovery, and the application of high performance engineering to customise wheelchairs to the individual needs of paralympians.
Drawing on the science base
Sport is blossoming everywhere of course, prompting more investment in research and a surge in sports science publications. UK Sport has devised ways of filtering all this information, allowing it to provide evidence of the value of individual innovations, and helping coaches to anchor their instincts and experience in scientific understanding of the training and development of athletes.
As Drawer noted, this approach and these concepts can be applied to numerous other industries. The only sustainable competitive advantage is to learn from research and apply it faster than the opposition.
He’s not the only one to have spotted this. The Business Secretary Vince Cable also drew on the exemplar provided by London 2102 in a speech he made on industrial strategy at Imperial College earlier this week. British athletes achieved what they did because of long-term commitment and planning, Cable said. Not only were they singled out through programmes for systematically spotting talent, they were then given the best coaching, the most high-tech equipment, and the financial support to pursue Olympic glory – even though the event was years away.
As Cable suggested, there should be a read-across from this strategy for achieving sporting excellence, to industrial and innovation policy as a whole. “We need to take the same approach: a clear, ambitious vision; the courage to take decisions that bear fruit decades later; openness to new opportunities as they develop; focus on the things we do best; and an enduring commitment,” he said.
Innovation strategy
One of the obsessions at the heart of the planning and construction of the Olympic Park in east London was the legacy. What would happen to the venues when the flame was extinguished and the Games moved on to Rio de Janeiro? It’s evident now that there could be a far greater legacy than finding a football club prepared to make its home in the Olympic Stadium.
London 2012 could be the template for a future industrial and innovation strategy – that supports and systematically exploits the research base, promotes emerging technologies, creates a pipeline of scientifically-educated and skilled workers and provides access to capital for high-tech spin-outs.
As the Olympic success of Team GB illustrates - long-term investment and planning make it possible to compete – and win - in the global arena.
Receive the Funding Newswire each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
A unique international forum for public research organisations and companies to connect their external engagement with strategic interests around their R&D system.
