It has been 38 years since INESC opened a delegation in Porto, thus initiating the path that led to the current INESC TEC.
What has changed – apart from being 38 years older than I was then?
First, in 1985, many perceived INESC as an initiative that broke with the University hierarchy that refused to hand over the power to young doctorates who would hold the means that the University could not even dream of. The University was extremely poor in terms of laboratories or supporting professionals and did not have sufficient computer resources. Its structure was very hierarchical. In contrast, INESC promised a diverse management, based on proven competence, and brought the promise of significant means to create well-equipped laboratories and an IT infrastructure, which would only be possible by creating a space with a separate management. At the time, INESC was a pioneer, perceived with distrust by some and supported by others within the universities. Today it is established; it grew and consolidated itself and is recognised as a successful case – with other R&D institutions from different areas replicating, with adaptations, INESC institutional model!
Secondly, a large investment was needed at the time, because it was necessary to finance activity, and the assembly of the facilities and supporting infrastructure. This is why the financing of the SIFO startup project, approved for four years, was so large corresponding to a significant part of the country’s annual budget for all the research activities! Hence, the initial team – which included me – faced a big challenge, and I had additional responsibilities by being a member of the board of directors of INESC and of the project. As far as I am concerned, this pressure decreased when I visited the Siemens research centre in Munich and observed that the research funds, they invested at the time was equivalent to four times the money for the four years of the project for every working day! However, Portugal showed a significant evolution after Mariano Gago had the political ability to put research as a priority area for development; nowadays, the difference between universities and INESC TEC does not exist at this level. There are differences in the way we manage resources, but I shall not address said topic in this editorial.
Thirdly, the funding came from the communications sector. The public telecommunications and postal services operators – TLP (Telefones de Lisboa e Porto), Marconi (Companhia Portuguesa Rádio Marconi) and CTT (Correios e Telecomunicações de Portugal) -, with the support of the State Secretariat of Communications, secured the financing of the SIFO project. The project objective was to carry out a pilot of communications in the local network, using fibre optics (including digital telephony, radio, and television), according to the standards being defined at the time. Apart from the fact that digital services were a novelty yet to be tested and standardised around the world, we did not have the required experience/proficiency in the development of fibre optic communication systems – nor were these widely installed, except for interconnection networks, with very high traffic (because the cost and complexity of installation did not enable its use on the periphery of networks). This project posed a huge challenge to us. It is worth mentioning a crucial factor at the time, which made this adventure possible: telecommunications operators were monopolists and that implied the need to support national industry and R&D, and this contributed significantly to the project’s funding. The main rationale was that INESC would put the universities’ grey mass at the service of projects identified by the operators, while the latter would allocate the required funds and resources. Today, with the private and competitive operators, nothing of this would be possible. Moreover, research endeavours also lost most of its agents in the national industry, because of the establishment of open market rules. The initial idea of transferring the results of the SIFO project to the national industry was abandoned, as Portugal was included alongside other European countries, in an accelerated process of deregulation and liberalisation of communications and market opening.
I also recall the anxiety I felt given the difficulties associated with all the technical and scientific challenges of the project. There was still a lot to learn about digital audio and video encoding, as well as high-speed fibre optical communication systems; the project also required switching and fast electronics, as well as monitoring standards and development of systems for the implementation of local integrated digital networks. At that time, digital television with adequate quality to distribute to the consumers meant a speed of 140Mbit/s (a lot more in studio, since MPEG only emerged years later, with our participation benefiting from the experience gained in the project). To be able to develop the pilot, it was necessary to hire capable people and establish international partnerships that would boost the skills necessary to research and design the required electronic systems. We managed to welcome a significant part of the students who then graduated, thus reaching our objectives with proven success. Learning was made through partnerships with institutions like CERN, various universities, and research centres – a process later accelerated with the arrival of European projects. Many of said professionals are now PhD and are still working here, while establishing the foundations for many of the current research groups. Many of them are now exploring other domains, different from those in which they started their connection to INESC. Others became friends placed in other institutions and industry partners.
I’d also like to highlight how the operators financed the laboratories. They did not force INESC to use them exclusively for their projects. This allowed the emergence of other areas, like energy management and software, with particular emphasis on the process of digitalisation of municipalities. This position would not be easy to achieve with today’s competitive companies – not without any compensation, at least. I knew that operators were aware of the data traffic associated with said digitalisation that would end up working in their favour, but I still think that they showed great openness – and we took good advantage of.
It’s also worth mentioning the huge difference in terms of the type of work we did. At the time, all experimentation required the production of electronic systems, boards, and circuits, which determined a laboratory infrastructure very different from our current needs – since nowadays everything is done with digital, programable, and flexible systems. The very nature of experimentation has changed substantially: now we can resort to simulation, while in the past, we were forced to build equipment. The challenges of electronics are now placed at other levels – greater integration, nanotechnologies, very high speed, very low consumption, etc.
Finally, I’d like to mention something that makes me feel sad. We did not know that we were making history; and we did not record (adequately) the most striking moments of this process. We don’t even have pictures of the laboratory facilities that we installed in the TLP-concession space at Rua José Falcão – which were soon transferred to other locations as the group grew. All this because of another big difference: at the time, there was no Internet; communication via email was not a widespread resource, nor were cheap cell phones – or even phones capable of taking pictures! JPEG did not exist at the time since it was standardised in 1992!
To conclude, I would like to point out that, after the creation of INESC in Porto, there was a very important moment that would lead to the consolidation of INESC TEC as we know today: the establishment of INESC Porto as an independent institution, capable of managing its strategy, while preserving its connection to the initial INESC – leading to the creation of the “INESC System”. This happened on December 18, 1998 – almost 25 years ago. From that moment on, the institution has grown and surpassed all the other institutions part of the INESC System. I was a member of the initial Board, but I want to point out the extraordinary performance of all those who came after me, and to congratulate the way they’ve been leading the institution. This is an important date that deserves to be celebrated.
Let it be clear that I do not intend to reduce the importance of INESC contributions, and how much we’ve inherited from it – in particular, the culture and the means that allowed us to kick off our activities in Porto. Autonomy has given us the conditions to develop a strategy adapted to our reality, affirming ourselves and taking risks, but receiving the laurels for all the positive things we do so well. Long live INESC TEC and all those who helped built it – as well as those who are doing it today.
Artur Pimenta Alves, Associate Director
News, current topics, curiosities and so much more about INESC TEC and its community!
