SciBlogs

Archive 2012

Change by chance, by design or by stealth – Callaghan Innovation’s ‘birth’ far from democratic Peter Kerr Dec 20

No Comments

Hypothetically speaking, say we’re all on the same page and all wanting more to happen around the innovation space – you know, spend $X here and see a clear $Yreturn there.

Say too there’s been a suggestion for an Advanced Technology Institute – somewhat replicated on overseas models – a better, faster link between industry needs and the country’s ability to provide clever science and tech answers.

You carry on down a path which would see the broad-brush IRL proposals for the ATI begin to be put in place.

Then, a bit down the track, going back to a private-industry business model that allows you to pull a lever here and you observe a result there, you think, ‘nah, let’s change the way we do things totally, fundamentally’.

Hypothetically speaking, you’ve got this ATI creation thing happening.

Why not use that process as a cover, as a way to bring in a new system – one that nobody had any idea was being proposed in the first place.

That would be a nice, subterfuge-type way to do it.

At the same time front what you’re still calling an ATI-creation with a person who only reports to you.

Of course, having the ATI Establishment Unit only report to the Minister direct, with no involvement of the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (the former Ministry of Science and Innovation) whatsoever also avoids that messy consulting thing too, as does not talking to actual industry.

While we’re speaking theoretically too, we might as well put a rule in place that no one from the Establishment Unit is allowed to talk to, or have anything whatsoever to do with, the senior management of Industrial Research Ltd.

At the same time, don’t put up any concrete idea of what…..(oh yeh, now we’ll call it Callaghan Innovation for that feel-good and distraction factor)…..the new body, structure or whatever looks like, nor what its purpose will actually be.

In other words provide no idea of what CI’s ‘value proposition’ will be. Remember, we’re working to a model that exists in someone’s head. Which in itself is kind of ironic, because the first core part of any innovation (no matter how it is defined) is market validation.

And just to make it really interesting and infuriating, say that all will be revealed, and only can be revealed (though there’s no reason why this has to be) on February 1.

That way it’s very difficult for the rest of us to object to something early, when we have absolutely no idea what we’re objecting to, (or alternatively endorsing).

This is another way of saying, speaking hypothetically, that the CI which is being forced upon us essentially in the blink of an eye, totally without consultation, is not democracy in action.

Steven Joyce may think that running the country is like running a company – but plenty of ministers have slipped up through assuming that. ……the law of unintended consequences comes to mind.

Just because a (super) minister wants something to happen, and has powers, doesn’t mean that they should be unilaterally applied.

The rumour is (and again, nobody knows) Callaghan Innovation is to be established as a Crown Agency – something that gives effect to Government policy (see Wikipedia)

Mr Joyce may feel that simply establishing such a beast means his desire to make more money from science/tech investments will come to pass at his command.

But, given its genesis, a Callaghan Innovation (Agency) will be just as secretive, bureaucratic and self-centred as its more famous C.I.A. namesake – and be regarded just as warmly by scientists, industry and the public as a whole.

By creating the CIA in such an underhand way, without consultation, excluding some of the main brains behind the original ATI concept, and telling us nothing, any potential reform of our innovation ecosystem has been put behind two years at least.

That is the time it will take to realise, yet again, a specialised Advanced Technology Institute, working directly to and with industry, and not through a stultifying encumbrance like the CIA, is what the country does need.

Now, apparently too, the CIA business case is meant to be signed off by Cabinet on Friday.

I bet there’s some heroic numbers in that.

Not that they’ll have been stress tested.

Not that anyone with a modicum of experience in the innovation area will have had an opportunity to go, ‘whew, not sure about that assumption, those figures.’

Not that any of us have had the chance to question.

But perhaps you’re right Mr Joyce, keep us in the dark, no one will be any the wiser.

It is almost Christmas and holidays are around the corner….we can simply steam into the new CIA mess that’s been created early next year.


We are the picture that a child draws of a farm Peter Kerr Dec 18

2 Comments

A child draws a picture of a farm.

The sun is shining, the water is clean, the animals are happy.

A question could be, ‘What is the name of that picture?’

Our farms, done correctly, are that picture. There’s a heck of a lot of science to validate it as well.

But, like the picture, we’ve never given a name to what and how we do things.

Without a name, we’re undifferentiated from factory farming.

However, the moment we give our responsible pastoralism method a name, then we provide ourselves with a frame for the offer we make to the world.

It is a frame of reference, of expectation, of delivery, of allowing a consumer to connect heart and head for the piece of meat they may be thinking of buying.

It also provides a frame on which to do much more applied science – get the special bits, add lots of margin, create more value from the raw materials, reinvent products.

(This also applies to our forestry, fishing and other biological resources – our strengths, upon which we can build, make much more money).

Because what we want to do is have a relationship with consumers – they too ‘own’ our pasture Harmonies method. By naming it, we can have a conversation, with them, with other world farmers, with the supply chain, with the rest of New Zealand.

And wouldn’t it be nice to be able to positively yarn, rather than always having to be reactive.

Imagine too the competition and labelling opportunities from having children paint pictures and/or come to somewhere/something that is already named!

It all would happen by naming our story, taking control of our destiny.

Or would that be just too simple?


If Callaghan Innovation is the answer – remind me again what was the question? Peter Kerr Dec 14

No Comments

Well, surely I’m not the only one surprised that what was to be the establishment of an Advanced Technology Institute – or a supercharged IRL – somewhat on the model of Taiwan’s ITRI, is instead going to end up as a revamped Tech NZ.

That certainly hasn’t been communicated in its four month gestation – in fact precious little has been publicly stated….apart from some imaginative words of why and how the moniker Callaghan Innovation came into being.

In fact, communication has been woeful – to say the least.

Now maybe CI is going to be more than a funding vehicle, and move beyond the current Tech NZ role.

Maybe it will address those routes to market, partnering and capital issues that bedevil the turning of an idea into a saleable reality (and success).

Maybe it is what the country needs.

But – if ‘we’ had known CI was going to be an all singing all dancing affair, shouldn’t the process have been a heck of a lot more transparent, in-depth and more question and answering?

After all, this is as equally as big a change as took place 20 years ago when the DSIR and MAFTech was morphed into the CRI model.

That process was carried out over a reasonable timeframe and out in the open.

What we’re going to end up with here is a fait accompli, a model based on a muddle. (As an aside, precisely the type of thing the late Sir Paul Callaghan would have been aghast to have his name associated with).

If the (flawed) thinking was that NZ industry and people with ideas didn’t know what door(s) to go through to get science and tech answers or help – and CI is the result – you have to suspect entirely the wrong problem has been addressed……in secret.

Again, the trouble is we’ve all been kept in the dark, when we don’t have to be – we’re all on the same ship here.

Saying things like we can’t tell you anything until the legislation is in place, is a circular non-argument. That all will be revealed on Feb. 1 is equally invalid.

The approach, the cloak-and-daggerness is totally unwarranted.

So, based on gut-feel as much as anything, I make the following observations.

How will Callaghan Innovation NOT just be another layer of innovation bureaucracy – divorced from both the science/engineering and the market – which is as much a hindrance as a help to those who need it?

Where does this place an ever-improving initiative such as KiwiNet? This is the 18 month old CRI/university commercialisation initiative that self-formed after the disastrous non-creation of the National Network of Commercialisation Centres through the then Ministry of Science & Innovation.

Why would any person with an idea still not go straight to the science or engineering establishment that actually has the capability, rather than going through what will undoubtedly be an officialdom-onerous process through the CI?

Finally, sure (without even attempting to define the hackneyed term) ‘innovation’ needs to be done better in NZ.

But the way CI’s coming into existence, the huge risk is it is change by accident rather than change by design.

And no one is allowed to argue.


Food & beverage stars for NZ to hitch its wagon to – report Peter Kerr Dec 13

No Comments

There’s not that many reports you can sit down and study and go – uumm, interesting.

But Auckland-based Coriolis has done it (again), and their ‘Investors guide to emerging growth opportunities in NZ food and beverage exports’ is, and I don’t say this lightly, quite fascinating.

The company has deliberately taken its methodology and report-back from a (potential) investor’s point of view.

The simple objective was to find the next ‘wine’ – such as that fledgling industry existed 25 years ago.
Over 500 food & beverage items, based on export trade codes, were screened down to 25 candidates for stage II in-depth investigation.

Each of these 25 received a quantitative and qualitative scorecard – which makes for strangely compulsive reading. The snapshot view of the products includes:

  • Global market – major importing and exporting countries.
  • NZ exports and imports, key NZ metrics and firms
  • Global market structure and situation – and the nature of the challenge; including leveragable existing NZ factors, potential source of value creation, challenges and limitations

This combination has Coriolis managing director Tim Morris putting some of his reputation on the line, though as he says, the judgements provided are backed by data – and past work for industry – and he’s quite happy to debate and if necessary change some of these opinions in the light of industry and individuals providing new information.

It is a report that brings clarity and light, compared to other types of report that muddle around the middle, never reaching a conclusion. Framed from the point of view ‘well, what would you put your money into’, it really does provide a single-minded focus.

Thus, the potential star performers for NZ according to Coriolis are salmon, honey and alcoholic spirits.

Salmon because there’s a large world market, NZ’s proportion of that is tiny, and our reputation, quality and price received are all top notch. Morris says the challenge for NZ is whether we’d be prepared to see more salmon farms residing on our coasts – does it fit our mental image of our beaches being a summer recreation pursuit?

Honey, especially manuka honey, has lots of potential too. There is a danger (like the term kiwifruit) that we haven’t laid claim to the name Morris says. NZ should also take advantage of the fact there’s a supply constraint around manuka honey, and head away from the notion it’s something to spread on our toast. “We should “weaponise” manuka honey,” Morris says, bringing forward more applications such as throat lozenges, oral sprays and would dressings.

Alcoholic spirits have the ability to ride on the coattails of the market entry and reputation forged by our wines. Selling a bottle of distilled and uniquely flavoured waters for say $70 is, when you think about it, an excellent value-add. Like our early wine industry, there’s large number of small firms, many headed by immigrants (often German), doing interesting and innovative products and leveraging off the New Zealand reputation.

However, this post in no way does justice to, I repeat, a quite fascinating report, with in-depth reports on salmon, honey and alcoholic spirits also available via the Coriolis website.

Apparently the whole project was done on the smell of an oily rag – but you’d hope and expect that Coriolis picks up other consultancy work through clearly being New Zealand’s best at this sort of thing.

Morris reckons he could book all his working days till Christmas with food and beverage companies wanting to know more. You could almost call him a type of Santa with presents of knowledge.


If we knew what we were inventing when we figured it out…..we would’ve named it Peter Kerr Dec 11

1 Comment

The concept of rotational grazing has been around for so long now (but only about 60 years really) that we take it for granted.

It is ‘just’ the way we do things at the on farm level, and there’s no question that this is the best way to manage the ryegrass/clover mix that makes up a majority of our pastures.

However, the ‘just’ hides a hell of a lot of applied science, and incremental increases in knowledge that resulted in a graze, rest, graze, rest….. method of management, and as importantly, tying it all in in a systemised approach.

(As an aside, this is how wild animals/nature manages the Serengeti Plains. Lush new grazing is inundated with animals, which move onto new grazing as it grows, allowing the old growth time to replenish).

Rotational grazing, as opposed to set-stocking, was a big breakthrough.

So, imagine if back in the 1950s, as our extremely talented (and nationally known) agricultural scientists were getting their heads around the ‘graze, rest’ style of pasture management, they realised what it was going to mean.

Do you think for a moment they would’ve hesitated to give it a name if they’d realised the multi-dimensional beast they were creating?

If, landing from another planet they’d descended straight into the technology, they would’ve been sure to have done so.

But, much as a frog placed in a pot of water with an ever increasing temperature doesn’t jump out, being so tied up in tweaking and re-tweaking the pastoral system, nobody thought to give it a handle.

There was a time when our grazing (including extensive use of greater paddock subdivision) was known as the McMeeken Method. Those in farming knew exactly what this meant.

With time, this moniker faded away.

However, it still doesn’t get around the fact that, especially and most importantly, there is no descriptor from a CONSUMER point of view. As the people who ultimately pay our agriculture’s way, they are who we need to engage with.

The story of how a lamb chop or steak (or even mince) is nurtured into life is a fantastic one (and for many people, especially those with discretionary income, several cuts above a feedlot yarn).

But, we’ve never named that story.

Until we do we’re undifferentiated.

The moment we did call our pastoral method (= responsible pastoralism) something, then an entire linkage from R&D, to the entire and wider agribusiness sector to the consumer would have a place to start.

We would give ourselves a common strategy – that mythical beast that has been talked about as being required for the past 40 years, but never cracked.

Sounds too simple…..which is probably why some people think it is impossible or crazy.

Or maybe not.


Some worrying disquiet around Callaghan Innovation Peter Kerr Dec 06

2 Comments

From what I gather, it is not only me who has a degree of disquiet about the lengthy and somewhat secretive gestation taking place around Callaghan Innovation (the new moniker for the Advanced Technology Institute).

Because part of the unease is it appears responsibility for establishing C.I. has been abrogated to its Establishment Board, and especially its chair Sue Suckling. Allowing it to run fast and loose with a relatively undefined mandate is not in our best interests.

Therefore, when we have no idea what or how the C.I. is going to look, advertisements for its new CEO have only just been placed and the word is that the outgoing chief executive of Industrial Research (Shaun Coffey) offered to act in a ‘caretaker cum help the new person in’ role – but was turned down – is it any wonder I’m nervous for our science and innovation system.

Some captains of industry, academia and research have expressed opinions around “I hope the minister [Joyce] understands what he’s doing here.”

Now, maybe the Minister’s hands-off approach to C.I’s establishment is legitimate, maybe he is retaining the ability to cut its Feb. 1 recommendations loose if there’s too much political, science and industry grief over its proposals, maybe it is a sign of his fatigue around science and innovation and more closely aligned to thoughts of “what do we do now.” (In that regard too the utter revamping of what was FoRST and MoRST, into the Ministry of Science & Innovation, and now into MBIE, and the subsequent loss of some really capable brains hasn’t helped).

Perhaps too it is the government retaining the ability to appoint an advisory board over and above whatever the C.I. establishment board comes up with.

But as industry opinion increases that they’ll simply be carrying out business as usual (with whoever is their current science and R&D provider), and that C.I. doesn’t appear to be solving the main challenge for NZ Inc – which is that really messy, ugly, difficult part between the idea and the market – such disquiet is better addressed now than later.

Or perhaps I’m just being pessimistic.

Perhaps the Sue Suckling-led C.I. establishment board is going to deliver a proposal that gets all the R&D ducks and drakes, the capital, routes to market, partnership and ‘innovation’ pieces of the puzzle aligned, and cranking.

Because, as the numerous statements and documents around C.I. say, NZ Inc’s science is relatively OK.

It is that iterative, two-way conversation between the market and science that we need to improve.

As already stated in a previous blog, something concrete for us to consider on that front would be really appreciated.

P.S. Riffing on a theme ……one of the deep ironies of the C.I. development (in the loosest sense of the word), is that the A.T.I was originally I.R.L’s brainchild. Its mutation into heaven knows what has all the potential to be a kiwi tragicomedy.

I hope I’m wrong.


Agricultural R&D – a fantastic legacy and a means to move forward Peter Kerr Dec 04

No Comments

New Zealand, and its agriculture (systems) owes a heck of a lot to the billions of dollars poured into its research and development over the past 120 years.

Our wealth has, literally, been built on sunshine, soil and fresh air – and more importantly applied brains figuring out how to convert pastoral production into protein. (Actually, and to be fair, it is sunshine, soil and water – but that doesn’t work quite as well from a poetic or story POV).

For nearly a century, the ever refined pastoral method (essentially graze pasture, rest it, graze, rest…) has evolved to a quite elegant recipe.

Along the way, our scientists and science have developed deep understanding of soils, water, its microflora (with much to learn), the plant/microflora/soil interface, plants (especially grass and clover), the plant/animal connection, rumens and their biology, and optimising plant and animal growth. From a business perspective we’ve developed a way to manage quite complex systems.

(From a romance perspective, it’s working in harmony with the seasons).

Our pastoral method has deep intellectual property.

It is one reason farmers and scientists from round the world have beaten a path to our door, studying, learning, adapting.

It is one reason that back in the day, people like Mac McMeeken, Leonard Cockayne and Bruce Levy were household names from the 20’s to the 60s.

There was a public realisation that the learning we’d achieved provided a platform for an excellent standard of living.

It’s great that our economy has got away from such a reliance on agriculture, diversifying biologically and smartly. Equally, the notion that we’re trying to feed the world is well-gone.

The body of knowledge remains however.

And, even more in an environment of ‘man-made’, the proven way that products can be sustainably made from our agricultural method has a value way and above of how much we’ve dared to believe.

By naming our story, we would provide a way to associate imagery and emotion of our pastoral method with the science. pasture Harmonies (as an example of a name) would be a way for the R&D to again shine, lead improvement with the consumer onboard.

It is also a way for agricultural R&D to have greater investment, enable the wider NZ population to realise the treasure trove of knowledge behind our green hills, and provide a much stronger story with which to attract smart young and not-so-young people into the industry.

Or maybe not.

Perhaps all our agriculture needs to do is pedal ever faster, keeping our eye and focus on the ground instead of looking up and realising the potential of owning our story.


What a problem for ikeGPS…..managing its growth! Peter Kerr Nov 29

No Comments

ikeGPS chief executive Glenn Milnes with the hand-held device, with plenty of back-end smarts, that can measure and model anything

The ikeGPS has the world at its feet – so much so it is going to have to carefully decide which of many markets it should attack first.

The hand-held device integrates hardware and software and enables anyone from a utility to a mining company to measure and model anything.

By taking a photo combined with laser measurement, and knowing exactly where the device is located through GPS (global positioning system), all parts of the picture can be captured as data.

Any part of the picture can be measured accurately, and that information added to the data stream.

What it means in practice is a tool and package that, for utilities that have assets such as poles for power and broadband distribution which need verification of location and use, a cost reduction of two thirds says ikeGPS chief executive Glenn Milnes.

“Compared to such companies using a measuring stick, we can improve employee productivity by 70%,” he says.

The pole utility measuring and modelling market in the USA alone is estimated to be worth US$5-6 billion alone. But considering industry segments such asenergy and mining who have external assets which they want and need to know where they’re located, how big they are and what condition they’re in; then you’re talking massive market potential.

And also a slight conundrum for Wellington-based ikeGPS.

“The biggest mistake a business can make is try to cover the whole market,” says Milnes, who has a background in the European telecoms market, and in the Wellington venture capital industry before moving to the CEO role 18 months ago.

So, a strategic decision has been made to pursue the utility , defense and intelligence markets in America, and a sales and marketing office is being ramped up in Colorado, with the back end technical R&D and manufacture to remain in Wellington.

The currently 25 person team will look to add another 15 staff, mostly in New Zealand, mostly in the software interface area.

This also indicates a change in the company’s approach, founded in 2005 by current CTO Leon Toorenburg.

“Even two years ago we were all about the hardware,” says Milnes.

“Today, in terms of our engineering resources 70% of what we do is software driven.”

And though ikeGPS has patents and trade secrets around the hardward, its increased software focus is to “provide an end-to-end industry solution,” he says.

Thus, ikeGPS makes its backend software, proliferated on a customer’s IT platform easy to use and install.

To take advantage of the massive interpretation and measurement ability of this system though – well, the customer needs the hardware. And obviously, while there’s competition, ikeGPS sees itself being a few steps ahead at the moment.

“There’s a few layers to our competitive advantage,” Milnes says. “With the software and algorithms needing to network together, and the calibration required; it’s really not that straightforward. It really isn’t just about the hardware.”

The elegance, security and ease of use of the end-to-end solution provided by ikeGPS is also one of the reasons the company has been able to sign a recent development contract with In-Q-Tel, a US company which carries out a lot of strategic development for American intelligence agencies.

ikeGPS is the first Australasian company to be accredited by In-Q-Tel, and will bring remote measurement for asset security assessments.

“They have the capacity to bring a lot of really big customers to us,” he says.

Which again brings the NZ company back to the ‘dilemma’ of what markets to attack first.

Milnes is confident that the private and venture capital backed company can scale up sales and distribution (and NZ manufacture of the hardware).

A decision will probably be required in the next few years around further partnering with others.

“At the end of the day, we’re a platform,” says Milnes. “Do we let others build on it is a strategic question, along with how we’d manage that?”

In the meantime, ikeGPS soon shifts its sales and marketing focus to the US, and will concentrate on the niche vertical market of companies who have poles (and lots of stuff hanging off them).

“We’re looking to become dominant, experts in that; at the moment,” he says.

The company has doubling yearly growth, and Milnes envisages that will continue – at the very least.

The company’s keen to raise its profile and continue to attract clever engineering minds as it continues to develop its products and solutions.

Managing such growth will be a challenge – the past 12 months has seen a lot of change, and preparing for the next phase is equally so.

But, as challenges go, managing growth isn’t a bad quandary to have!

P.S.

In case you’re wondering what ikeGPS stands for; it’s ‘I know everything’.


What would responsible pastoralism mean? (A strategic ‘glue’) Peter Kerr Nov 27

1 Comment

My contention is, by branding our method (pasture Harmonies) and taking that through on products to the consumer, NZ Inc would become the global custodians for responsible pastoralism.

What would that mean?

In one word, ‘glue’.

I argue that as nation of rugged individualists, the thing that has been missing for our farmers, our agritech, our marketers and our publics is a common sense of purpose.

Sure, there’s a sense that agriculture’s the backbone of the country’s economy and a worthy, if dull, image we take when we’re offshore. It’s hardly riveting though.

And across a plethora of ag industry reports and plans and initiatives of the past 40 years, the constant message is that ‘we’ need a shared strategy.

The obvious point, the obvious underpinning where we share a story and method, has never been put forward as a strategic platform.

But why would this act as‘glue’.

Firstly, in a world in which knowledge is seen as having value, it would clearly indicate that there’s a heck of a lot of knowhow in how we’ve learned to convert sunshine, soil and fresh air into fantastic products.

Branding our method would also enable farming to be a lot less defensive, and provide an underpinning argument for farmers’ contribution to our country.

Not the least, it would be a separate component, alongside the electric fences, animal and plant genetics and other agritech components that we sell overseas.

That is, instead of giving away (and implying that it has no value) the knowledge component of responsible pastoralism, we’d have a means to charge for the knowhow.

And on that overseas note, we’d also have a platform on which to partner with others.

If we enable other (world) farmers to be part of our brand, and also make more money, not only could we profit, but we’d be clearly seen to be spreading and encouraging the adoption of responsible pastoralism.

All it takes is for us to name/brand what we do.

Maybe it is just too simple?

Maybe we’d rather look for a complicated strategy that no one can explain in a sentence?

Maybe a common sense view isn’t commonsense after all?

P.S. I envisage that individual farmers would sign in/up to an as yet to be defined philosophy and statement of a sustainable responsible pastoralism. However, it probably would require no more than the current good practice, put down simply on one sheet of paper.


Callaghan Innovation – time for a concrete and practical illustration of its intent Peter Kerr Nov 22

No Comments

OK, now that we have the naming of the Advanced Technology Institute out of the way, and its genesis to Callaghan Innovation has been carried out, it’s time to move on from the warm fuzzies.

The thinking behind the new name and logo is, let’s call it an ‘interesting explanation’ and let it lie – can be found here.

There’s a statement in the same newsletter number two, that the name of the organisation shouldn’t turn into an abbreviation or set of initials….wishful hoping I’m afraid. CI or C.I. it will become once first named in any story.

There’s also,

“our thinking definitely veered towards the new organisation being first and foremost an attitude, an approach, a new conversation and activity, rather than a fixed position or a building.”

Well, if that means practically showing or discussing what that means – fire ahead.

Because it is easy enough to talk around the edges as the CI’s underpinning operating principles demonstrate:

  • Open and consistent processes
  • Focus on significant economic value-add
  • Firm and industry focused
  • Effectiveness through collaboration
  • “Access not ownership” of specialist science, engineering, design and technology services”

As we speak there’s a business case being developed, which will be about “doing more” (the newsletter’s quotation marks), and, we’re reassured, not about an exercise in moving the deckchairs.

All of which will be of little comfort you suspect to the R&D community, private research providers, and numerous consultants involved in commercialisation (let alone private industry).

This also includes the fledgling KiwiNet, the CRI and universities created group/hug commercialisation entity which came into being as the would-be Ministry of Science & Innovation National Network of Commercialisation Centres initiative failed to arrive.

This current CI fuzziness is even more reason for it to come out with some specific and practical illustration(s) of how it is going to work.

I would suggest that the CI needs a type of ‘stress testing’ before it, nominally, comes into being on 1 Feb. 2013.

Because the danger for it, and the country, is that CI becomes a proposal with little support if presented as a fait accompli.

And given that there’s precious few working days left between now and Feb. 1, creating and building stakeholder engagement, rather than policy development, is THE crucial element.

Or, to put it another way, and something I’m sure the late Sir Paul Callaghan would’ve endorsed – give us something concrete we can actually chip away at….or endorse.

Quickly.


Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer