Tag: early stage commercialisation
Busting the 7th Myth of Commercialisation Australia: It’s not about the money!
Both good and ill sentiments have been shared about Commercialisation Australia since its launch in early 2010. Recently, Adrian Spencer pinpointed six myths about CA. But are we overlooking the benefits of the competitive process by dwelling on the shortcomings? Andrew Weller thinks so. Here, he argues that the point of CA isn’t merely to fund good ideas but to encourage strong business models that withstand the rigours of competition.
PM Kevin Rudd names first 21 projects to be backed by $9.6 million Commercialisation...
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week named the first 21 Australian ideas to receive Commercialisation Australia support totalling $9.6 million. The first 21 ideas consisted of a diverse range of innovative projects from around the country, including treatments for disease, advanced materials, cutting-edge electronics, new online services, and a host of other innovations in agriculture, the media, manufacturing and beyond.
A formal response to our rabble rousing from Senator Carr’s office
Following our recent series of articles on innovation in Australia (our Australia Day series), we received the following note from the Office of Senator Kim Carr, Australia’s Innovation Minister. We were expecting a dressing down. Here's what we got instead.
A formal response to our rabble rousing from Senator Carr's office
Following our recent series of articles on innovation in Australia (our Australia Day series), we received the following note from the Office of Senator Kim Carr, Australia’s Innovation Minister. We were expecting a dressing down. Here's what we got instead.
Would you like to be CEO of Commercialisation Australia?
Our 'secret-squirrels' have revealed to Anthill that the seven board positions, appointed to analyse and approve Commercialisation Australia funding applications, have been filled and that an announcement is imminent. No-one knows who will be among this 'magnicifent seven' other than those appointed or involved in the decision. In fact, it is a complete mystery to external observers how these important functionaries were selected. Was there some sort of process behind closed doors? Were they vetted? Were the decisions political? Or vaguely political, chosen in the same fashion as a US High Court Judge, to perform the role yet still be 'on-side' with the powers that be?
