Comments on: The Facts and Falsehoods of Commercialisation Australia: Six myths exposed http://anthillonline.com/the-facts-and-falsehoods-of-commercialisation-australia-six-technology-industry-myths-exposed/ Business help for entrepreneurs, startups and small business owners in Australia | Business > Innovation > Technology > Entrepreneurship - Anthill Magazine: It's Where Ideas and Business Meet. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Matthew Griffiths http://anthillonline.com/the-facts-and-falsehoods-of-commercialisation-australia-six-technology-industry-myths-exposed/#comment-32406 Matthew Griffiths Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:57:17 +0000 http://anthillonline.com/?p=38776#comment-32406 All,<br><br>I've set up a blog to deal with all the questions related to CA...<br><br><a href="http://commercialisationaustralia.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://commercialisationaustralia.blogspot.com/</a><br><br>I'll add to it as the queries come in...<br><br>M All,

I've set up a blog to deal with all the questions related to CA…

http://commercialisationaustralia.blogspot.com/

I'll add to it as the queries come in…

M

]]> By: Matthew Griffiths http://anthillonline.com/the-facts-and-falsehoods-of-commercialisation-australia-six-technology-industry-myths-exposed/#comment-32264 Matthew Griffiths Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:25:40 +0000 http://anthillonline.com/?p=38776#comment-32264 Peter,<br><br>Perceived need for funding is a critical issue for the Program, particularly for the larger ESC grants. As you note there is a potential catch 22 between needing and matching funding.<br><br>As a general rule of thumb, I'd base the size of your application on the scale of the matched funding you actually have available, and build a commercialisation case around that. This also fits with the general thrust of successful applicants to date where there has been a strong focus on imminent and achievable commercial outcomes, as opposed to broader "take on the world" objectives.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Matthew. Peter,

Perceived need for funding is a critical issue for the Program, particularly for the larger ESC grants. As you note there is a potential catch 22 between needing and matching funding.

As a general rule of thumb, I'd base the size of your application on the scale of the matched funding you actually have available, and build a commercialisation case around that. This also fits with the general thrust of successful applicants to date where there has been a strong focus on imminent and achievable commercial outcomes, as opposed to broader “take on the world” objectives.

Regards,

Matthew.

]]> By: Peter http://anthillonline.com/the-facts-and-falsehoods-of-commercialisation-australia-six-technology-industry-myths-exposed/#comment-32255 Peter Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:23:59 +0000 http://anthillonline.com/?p=38776#comment-32255 Hi Matthew - I'm interested in clarity on your point 5.<br>After reviewing the program it would appear at a glance that the 'need for funding' criteria is a definite catch 22 and that for a company to qualify based on the grant requirements they would need to either mislead or lie in some way within their application. Is this yet another Government funded initiative specifically designed for companies to gain access to interest free money with a vague repayment schedule which they don't actually need to spend on commercialising things they don't necessarily want? Hi Matthew – I'm interested in clarity on your point 5.
After reviewing the program it would appear at a glance that the 'need for funding' criteria is a definite catch 22 and that for a company to qualify based on the grant requirements they would need to either mislead or lie in some way within their application. Is this yet another Government funded initiative specifically designed for companies to gain access to interest free money with a vague repayment schedule which they don't actually need to spend on commercialising things they don't necessarily want?

]]> By: Glenn Grinsted http://anthillonline.com/the-facts-and-falsehoods-of-commercialisation-australia-six-technology-industry-myths-exposed/#comment-32249 Glenn Grinsted Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:00:35 +0000 http://anthillonline.com/?p=38776#comment-32249 Typical Beauracratic Shit - where learned men tell the entrepreneur how they can fund what he doesnt need and not what he does need.<br>I'll bet on a review of CA expenditure, more is spent on the process of selection and administration by so called experts than what actually gets to the entrepreneur.<br>If you want to move forward , dont tie the dead weight anchor of bureacracy to your boot laces. Its hard enough commercialising a product without getting in to bed with them.<br><br>What clown makes up these varying criterias<br><br>By the way, we've got the best wall panel system on the planet <a href="http://www.constructionsystems.com.au" rel="nofollow">www.constructionsystems.com.au</a> and I'll do it without them.<br><br>Glenn Grinsted<br>CEO<br>Construction Systems Australia Typical Beauracratic Shit – where learned men tell the entrepreneur how they can fund what he doesnt need and not what he does need.
I'll bet on a review of CA expenditure, more is spent on the process of selection and administration by so called experts than what actually gets to the entrepreneur.
If you want to move forward , dont tie the dead weight anchor of bureacracy to your boot laces. Its hard enough commercialising a product without getting in to bed with them.

What clown makes up these varying criterias

By the way, we've got the best wall panel system on the planet http://www.constructionsystems.com.au and I'll do it without them.

Glenn Grinsted
CEO
Construction Systems Australia

]]> By: Matthew Griffiths http://anthillonline.com/the-facts-and-falsehoods-of-commercialisation-australia-six-technology-industry-myths-exposed/#comment-32195 Matthew Griffiths Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:41:49 +0000 http://anthillonline.com/?p=38776#comment-32195 Some more information that may be of use...<br><br>1. CA is about addressing "commercial risk" not "technical risk" - it is not an R&D Program, and it is not a direct replacement for Commercial Ready.<br><br>2. Conceptually, activities that would be covered by the R&D Tax Offset/Credit are not commercialisation activities and thus unlikely to be supported.<br><br>3. A wide variety of commercialisation activities can be supported. However, anything that could be viewed as a subsidy of on-going operations (sales, marketing, etc.) is unlikely to be supported. I believe this is outlawed under the Free Trade Agreement with the US.<br><br>4. Currently, you need to be able to match fund within 30 days of getting the grant. Therefore, you need to have the money. We're hopeful that this criteria might be relaxed to 90 or even 180 days which would allow companies to go out and raise capital against their grant - this would be a boon for capital raising, angel groups, and VC's.<br><br>5. One of the key criticisms of Commercial Ready by the Productivity Commission was the fact that a lot of companies that received funding probably didn't need the support. Thus, the "Need for Funding" criteria is a fundamental underpinning of CA. If you can't prove you need it, you won't get it (there's a whole lot more attached to this that I can go into if anyone is interested).<br><br>6. Repayment of an ESC grant is on a "best efforts" basis by the company - do not think of it as a project specific scheme. The company is on the hook to pay. <br><br>Regards,<br><br>Matthew Griffiths<br>(formerly) Case Manager, Commercialisation Australia Some more information that may be of use…

1. CA is about addressing “commercial risk” not “technical risk” – it is not an R&D Program, and it is not a direct replacement for Commercial Ready.

2. Conceptually, activities that would be covered by the R&D Tax Offset/Credit are not commercialisation activities and thus unlikely to be supported.

3. A wide variety of commercialisation activities can be supported. However, anything that could be viewed as a subsidy of on-going operations (sales, marketing, etc.) is unlikely to be supported. I believe this is outlawed under the Free Trade Agreement with the US.

4. Currently, you need to be able to match fund within 30 days of getting the grant. Therefore, you need to have the money. We're hopeful that this criteria might be relaxed to 90 or even 180 days which would allow companies to go out and raise capital against their grant – this would be a boon for capital raising, angel groups, and VC's.

5. One of the key criticisms of Commercial Ready by the Productivity Commission was the fact that a lot of companies that received funding probably didn't need the support. Thus, the “Need for Funding” criteria is a fundamental underpinning of CA. If you can't prove you need it, you won't get it (there's a whole lot more attached to this that I can go into if anyone is interested).

6. Repayment of an ESC grant is on a “best efforts” basis by the company – do not think of it as a project specific scheme. The company is on the hook to pay.

Regards,

Matthew Griffiths
(formerly) Case Manager, Commercialisation Australia

]]>