http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5qZ29VKqnk

Given the intellectual, entrepreneurial and pragmatic nature of the Anthill family, it is of no surprise that all the comments reflect the academic findings recently published by Ian Marsh (Australian Innovation Research Centre, Uni of Tasmania) and Lindy Edwards of ANU in the December 09 edition of the Australian Journal of Public Administration.

For those interested – this paper looks at the Dilemma’s of Policy Innovation in the Public sector – and an overview of the history and politicking behind the various R&D / Innovation platforms that have been put forward since the 90′s – and why the government bureaucracies have failed at the strategy level, thereby impinging on the delivery.

In precis with a comment on The Innovation Summit – “The Summit represented an elaborate process of search and engagement that sanctioned an outcome that was, in most respects, largely predetermined. Its outreach and deliberations served the political purpose of mobilising industry and media attention and communicating the governments commitment. But there is no evidence that it exercised any substantive influence on policy development.”

http://anthillonline.com/can-australia-really-claim-to-be-a-nation-of-innovators/

It’s long-winded and not my finest but one of the core arguments is that the Australian people (and, therefore, governments) will continue to find it difficult to change while we are having such a good run with our minerals.

Opportunistic optimists! Australia needs more of ‘em. But on this point, might it be time to prepare for a rainy day?

Excuse me for now, I see a possum…

But I did not argue a research side focus at the expense of dev.

I think that you make some good points, but clearly you want to stir the possum, which is good too…

Its actually quite easy to create the rhetoric. What is hard is to shift a culture. And to do it requires that there is a willingness to change in the first instance.

I think that this government is actually trying to do some things that will work. I guess I am more of an optimist than you are, albeit an opportunistic one!

In the next few days, I’ll be posting a long piece on why I think Australia is NOT a nation of innovators (no doubt, it will offend). This piece is a pre-curser to an overview of the R&D tax incentive reforms (another long piece, unfortunately).

There are a few points that I’ll be making again and again, themes that I believe we should never overlook. The most important…

“Innovation is not the R&D you do, it’s what you do with the R&D.”

Sure, there will always be folks who get funding that don’t deserve and there will always be deserving folks who miss out.

But I’m not convinced that a Research side focus (particularly at the expense of Development) is the way to go.

I mean what about the guy that says, that he goes on line to see if he qualifies and since he doesn’t have any money of his own, finds he doesn’t.

I have been involved in companies that have exported. I have been involved in companies that have been successful, and companies that I have had to close down (particularly during the tec wreck). The companies that I have been involved in have variously had EMDG grants, Comet grants, and frankly anything that was on offer that we were entitled to claim for.

One company that I was a co-founder of and was a recipient of a Comet grant is still not cash flow positive, but would absolutely not have survived without the Comet funds.

I have recently worked on a commercialization strategy for one of the ARC’s in Australia, and am hopeful that some of the basic research that they are doing, which is absolutely at the bleeding edge, will be able to transition into the marketplace.

But it is not easy to change the culture of academia and turn make it commercial. And it is not necessarily advisable either.

From what I have read of the literature that has been released by the minister, I would conclude that there is a real sense of design in terms of the architecting of Commercialization Australia. And I think that is helpful.

The focus appears (when taken into account with Ken Henry’s announcements) to be about using the funds that are available to address several key areas of innovation – (1) Clean Technology, (2) Health issues that relate to aging, (3) Water.

These three issues are really big picture stuff and are going to drive the real economy over the next 10-50 years. So I think it is really good that the government wants to play favourites. You have to pick winners, and there is no question that in the past that the grants programs have tended to favour either companies that already have significant clout in terms of their balance sheets, and don’t really need largesse from the government or fly by night companies where the entrepreneurialism is perhaps stronger than the technology… But that’s life too.

As things stand the CI plan enables researchers in universities to apply for grants to build commercial prototypes. This is a really good thing to do in my opinion. It means that researchers will have to apply their thinking to matters that are real world commercial issues and try to figure how to get over the most critical roadblock to getting funding from VC’s and high net worth individuals when you are dealing with a new piece of technology – a working prototype.

Sure there are going to be people who miss out. Sure the government is going to make mistakes. But people, this is moving in the right direction… If you don’t qualify because you don’t have the ability to raise cash from family and friends to get started, that is actually a problem that you have personally, not a problem that the government should attempt to solve.

As I write this series, I find myself constantly wondering (often out loud) whether the effort of writing, researching, seeking feedback will produce any tangible positive outcomes – particularly with respect to the proposed R&D Tax Incentive reforms. Information is one thing but this blog series, while still in its infancy, requires some element of action to be truly effective.

On this point, I’m stumped. Any ideas?

Hi Ray, I’d hoped to do exactly what you suggest – evaluate COMET. But one of the greatest problems with COMET I have found so far is a lack of research/data/measures to evaluate its outcomes. (You can’t improve or even evaluate what you can’t measure, right?). If anyone can hit me with some hard data on COMET’s effectiveness (or otherwise), I’m all ears and eyes.

I suspect that this lack of hard data was its downfall.