SciBlogs

Posts Tagged Science policy

National Science Challenge winners underwhelm Peter Kerr May 14

14 Comments

There’s only one word really to describe the winners of the National Science Challenge – ‘wow’ writ small.

Or, perhaps it is just me that is completely underwhelmed by the announcement of 10 research areas that can comfortably be binned as business as usual.

Though, pity the team tasked with coming up with an overview of the NSC considering there were only 200 entries from greater New Zealand on where and what we should research.

Right from the get-go the challenge lacked direction, had a sort of what is it all about non-rationale.

As chairman of the NSC, the prime minister’s chief science adviser Sir Peter Gluckman is obliged to put a positive spin on the challenge.

As he commented recently:

“The intent is to invigorate the science system, allowing it to become more collaborative and strategic in its approach.”

As the Tui billboards say,

‘Yeh, right’

But firstly, a reminder of the challenges selected.

  • Aging well – harnessing science to sustain health and wellbeing into the later years of life
  • A better start – improving the potential of young New Zealanders to have a healthy and successful life
  • Healthier lives – research to reduce the burden of major New Zealand health problems
  • High value nutrition – developing high value foods with validated health benefits
  • New Zealand’s biological heritage – protecting and managing our biodiversity, improving our biosecurity, and enhancing our resilience to harmful organisms
  • Our land and water – Research to enhance primary sector production and productivity while maintaining and improving our land and water quality for future generations
  • Life in a changing ocean – understanding how we can exploit our marine resources within environmental and biological constraints
  • The deep south – understanding the role of the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean in determining our climate and our future environment
  • Science for technological innovation – enhancing the capacity of New Zealand to use physical and engineering sciences for economic growth
  • Resilience to nature’s challenges – research into enhancing our resilience to natural disasters

They’re all worthy, but.

The trouble is, they’re just another ad-hoc add-on to a science and innovation system that has no clear idea of what we, NZ Inc, are trying to do, or of what particular piece(s) of a very large pie we should/could concentrate on.

At the same time (and I appreciate this is dirty-type talk) – these challenges don’t address where and how are we going to make more money for our country by clever use of R&D, and taking such new products and services to market?

There’s no connectedness between science and the economic health of our country. It means there a lack of relationships and countrywide partnering linking everything.

The NSC will achieve nothing. The public will have no more engagement with science, business is none the wiser, scientists will simply keep on keeping on.

Amongst comment, from my point of view, the best came from Prof Shaun Hendy – who was courageous enough to call a whole lot of nothing exactly that. Shaun’s a professor at Victoria University’s School of Chemical and Physical Sciences, as well as deputy director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology. He also a regular answer-provider on National Radio’s evening show. Original story is here.

“Of the 10 science challenges selected, only one really addresses one of the key economic challenges our country faces: namely the over-dependence of our economy on the primary sector,” he said.

“Our government invests far less in physical sciences and engineering than those of other small advanced economies, leaving our economy perilously exposed to volatile commodity markets.”

Having one of the challenges “simply aimed at making better use of physical science and engineering research is disappointing, given that we have just created a new organisation, Callaghan Innovation, to do exactly this”, Prof Hendy said.

Exactly.

We have MBIE, Callaghan Innovation, the Marsden Fund, these challenges – but no clear idea of what we’re doing.

Certainly is business as usual.


Problemsourcing initiative gets the academic once-over Peter Kerr Apr 24

3 Comments

Open innovation and crowdsourcing are two relatively recent ways of finding solutions to (often) technical challenges experienced by companies.

There’s particular issues which need resolving when using the power of the crowd; along with the hope that someone has a usable answer.

Victoria (University) Business School in Wellington has, in the academic way that adheres to such publications’ rules, identified many of the pros and cons of open innovation and crowd sourcing in a hot-off-the-press paper recently published in ‘Technology Innovation Management Review’, see here.

Sally Davenport, Stephen Cummings, Urs Daellenbach and Charles Campbell have turned open innovation and crowd sourcing on its head with their paper and exploration; ‘Problemsourcing: Local Open Innovation for R&D Organizations’.

They’ve coined the term ‘problemsourcing’ – and given the rigour with which peer review is maintained – you have to presume they’re first.

“Problemsourcing is akin to crowdsourcing in reverse in that the open call initiator, not the crowd, holds the problem-solving capabilities, and the crowd-members offer not solutions but promising problems that would create substantial value if solved.”

The paper uses (the late) Industrial Research Ltd’s 2009 initiative ‘What’s Your Problem New Zealand’ as the model around which its authors explore problemsolving as a new open innovation practice – and in particular how the WYPNZ? competition for $1 million of research spending addresses eight key issues.
• Project delays
• Solution quality
• Ambiguous liability
• Temporary relationship
• Professional challenge
• Identity clash
• Exploitation and reputation effects
• Losers disenfranchised

The writers conclude that the success of WYPNZ? at this stage is measured primarily by the range of high-quality problems that were proposed as well as the sheer number of companies (in a small country) that, by submitting problems, indicated an interest in participating in such a process.

They point out: “With crowdsourcing, innovative activity is distributed somewhere in the crowd, but with problemsourcing, it remains firmly within the boundaries of the R&D organization, which we propose mitigates many of the risks and pitfalls associated with typical crowdsourcing initiatives.”

IRL ensured that its selected challenge had a fit with its own science and research resources, could make a difference to the country (and its economic health) and had a degree of sexiness (sticK, not Victoria Business School’s terminology) that would resonate with the general public and business alike. Resene Paints, and its wish to create a sustainable-base paint was the ultimate winner.

As Callaghan Innovation comes into being (and taking note of BusinessDesk journalist Pattrick Smellie’s recent article suggesting we give CI a chance to find its feet) the Davenport et al paper would be good reading for its people.

WYPNZ? was one of a number of IRL initiatives that lifted science and research beyond the white lab coat concept.

It spurred some companies which had never thought of R&D as a part of their business, to reconsider. It also brought (as the paper points out) many, many more partnering research opportunities IRL’s way.

WYPNZ? also dovetailed strongly, as you’d expect being its instigator, with IRL’s strengths.

But most of all it was fun.

And that’s an ‘f’ word we should allow ourselves, along with another one – failure.


A solution to our lack of shared purpose around a science-innovation strategy Peter Kerr Mar 05

No Comments

OK, now we have Callaghan Innovation gestating its way into life – with no indication of how long the process will take, or even what it is we’re trying to bring to fruition.

At the same time we have the ‘Great New Zealand Science Project’ – a public wish list of all the wonderful things we could research – which a committee of the great and the good are now trying to make sense of.

Meanwhile MBIE is still responsible for allocating some of the research funding too.

What these three initiatives clearly indicate is we actually don’t know what we’re doing, or why, or how.

Now, it seems like long ago (but actual fact it is only 18 months) that the High Value Manufacturing Review, a.k.a ‘Powering Innovation’, came out with its recommendations.

A re-read of this document might be a useful exercise for minister-of-everything Steven Joyce.

Recommendation 1:

Develop a strategic and structured approach for connectivity between research and development providers and the high value manufacturing and services sector

Whether this is going to be fulfilled by CI, who knows? Beyond motherhood and apple pie type statements, the purpose (not a vision, not a mission both of which are meaningless) of Callaghan Innovation is still a mystery.

Rumbles from manufacturers, universities and CRIs about the lack of information, sense of shared direction, or a strategic intent (let’s call it a plan) during the whole CI creation process show a glaring omission from the ‘Powering Innovation’ document – and more than a hint that science minister Steven Joyce is playing free and loose in whatever definition of innovation he’s decided upon.

This brings me to the point – and possibly the only way for NZ Inc to strategically line up its science and innovation.

Among a number of excellent recommendations in ‘Powering Innovation’, was #13.

This also demonstrates, by inference, why our country’s currently on an unknown course to an unknown destination.

Recommendation 13:

Form a Science and Innovation Council, led from a very senior ministerial level in Government, with representatives from the university, public and private research organisations and from industry. Members should represent a wide range of science and technology themes, including the social sciences. The role of the Science and Innovation Council should be to establish a national innovation strategy and advise on science and innovation policy and priorities.

Now I realise that such an S&I Council would force us to actually have a shared plan; and that maybe that’s the last thing Minister Joyce wants.

But, until we, like Denmark, Singapore, Taiwan, Switzerland et al, have such a thing, then the person in the street, researchers or industry will have no sense of being part of a wider (game) plan.

Running around and doing science and innovation ‘stuff’ in the absence of a national plan is doomed to provide middling mediocrity. There will be plenty of peddling by all involved, but nobody will be quite sure who or what it is we’re trying to get over the finish (start) line before anyone else in the world.

What we desperately need is an integrated innovation system from the fundamental science through technology development to commercial exploitation of the results. We also need to ensure this integration includes research and commercialisation carried out by the Health Research Council.

Instead, what we have at the moment is a hodge-podge of barely connected elements, with nothing even remotely looking like a plan in place.

Until we begin to get all our R&D cum innovation cum shared strategy ducks in a row through something like a S&I Council, we have absolutely no show of emulating the exemplar countries that NZ Inc, through government officials, have visited dozens of times in the past 20 years.

Mind you, if we had a simple national science and innovation plan, then there would also be some corresponding accountability.

That’s probably the fly in the ointment!


Callaghan Innovation – wishing it all the best…..but Peter Kerr Jan 25

No Comments

I hope I’m wrong about Callaghan Innovation, and for our country’s and industry’s sake that it is a roaring success when it stumbles into life on Feb 1.

But, the portents aren’t good – and as a solution in search of a need, instead of the other way round – we’ll end up with a couple of years of bureaucratic confusion before eventually going for a form of the Advanced Technology Institute as originally proposed by IRL.

In the meantime we’ll have a Callaghan Innovation Agency (CIA), and all the bumbling that’s implied in that.

Why the glass half empty viewpoint?

Among the things that have happened, the common knowledge at IRL and further afield, have been the following happenings.

  • An ATI Establishment Board (before it morphed into CI), whose chair, Sue Suckling, reported only and directly to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment super minister, Steven Joyce. Not through MBIE (who weren’t involved), only to Joyce
  • A chief science adviser (Sir Peter Gluckman) who hasn’t been able to talk to Joyce
  • An October command that no member of the ATI establishment team or board was to have anything to with the senior management of IRL. (Odd, presumably you’d expect such people to have the best knowledge/overview of requirements to promote high value manufacturing)
  • An as yet non-public business plan; and no idea how any sort of transition/transformation takes place between IRL to Callaghan Innovation
  • A management and governance structure that merely transfers the original ATI establishment team to new positions – let’s call it jobs for the girls and boys…..never, ever a good look
  • Total and utter disregard for transparency, democracy, clarity of (desired) outcome – and the trust that goes with those processes

In short, what we have with Callaghan Innovation is a secret, ill-conceived creation of a model that’s been disproven overseas.

We don’t have anything like Taiwain’s ITRI – which has an extremely strong industry/research group hug and development of science/engineering platforms that will strategically support a future.

Nor Switzerland’s, nor Singapore’s, nor especially Denmark – who’s research institute’s must be wondering how we got so far away from their own model.

Now, Joyce is well-known for forming a point of view and pulling all the levers to achieve an outcome – it’s something you can do in business (more or less).

How much has his notion that ‘innovation’ (and let’s not even begin to try and define it) is a command and control activity intersected with the law of unintended consequences?

Wow, we’ve ended up with ‘tell me exactly what it’s meant to do’ Callaghan Innovation?

CI will be much more hands-on from Joyce’s point of view, but I’m afraid Steven, that’s not how innovation works.

CI as a model is much more sand in the gearbox.

Whether it is because her background’s as an economist, but Sue Suckling’s viewpoint seems to be that inventors/innovators/ideas people have had trouble accessing the IRL (and other university/CRI) brains who could help with their industry challenge. We’ll call it a supply problem.

That’s not the case – anyone with even half and idea can relatively easily, today, get the help and R&D expertise they need.

Providing a 0800 ‘Callaghan Innovation’ number addresses a problem that doesn’t exist. It will simply be another bureaucratic layer of frustration for science and industry.

But, prove me wrong CI – I’ll be happy to admit my error.


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.


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.


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.


Come on ATI, tell us what you’re thinking – please! Peter Kerr Nov 15

1 Comment

Those of us who care about creating more national wealth through better commercialisation, innovation and implementation by leveraging our science capability really want to see the Advanced Technology Institute succeed.

The ATI will be, after all, an important stepping stone between research and the market.

It will have to have an NZ-centricness – simply attempting to copy other exemplar countries such as Taiwan, Singapore, Denmark or Switzerland will be doomed to failure.

Equally, no one who understands the complexity and difficulty of trying to put together what is a completely new piece of the puzzle will be under any illusion of the challenge of the task the ATI establishment board and unit have on their hands.

That is, we all know this isn’t easy.

But, it is even less easy when you don’t really tell us what is going on.

Sure, there’s a newsletter dated 31 Oct which outlines a process.

There is an intent as well:

The Board looks forward to keeping you up to date with the progress of the Establishment Board and Unit. Shortly we will be regularly updating and communicating with you via our own website and will make sure you know when this is available.

If February 1, 2013 is meant to be the up and going day (which it obviously won’t be), given that a fair percentage of December, and all of January are essentially dead days, then there ain’t much time to tell us much.

However, it is the structure, and more importantly the thinking around different possible structures, that is the meat of this particular sandwich.

From a public relations point of view, there’s a heck of a risk in a grand announcement that has failed to (in PR-speak) ‘engage with stakeholders’.

These stakeholders range from individual scientists to the CRIs themselves, universities, private research entities (think HERA, Cawthron) industry, entrepreneurs (or those of that way of thinking), investors and the general public – as well as other government entities.

I’m pretty sure none would mind if you flew some kites, looked for feedback on potential options, kicked a few tires on alternative structures.

Because, as I’ve already said, everyone knows this is not easy. We (and we’re all in on it) are unlikely to get it right first time; whatever shape it takes will almost undoubtedly require some massaging and morphing into an entity that works beyond the science, before the market.

So, just tell us what you’re thinking – please.

P.S. Since penning this, it has been announced that the ATI is to be known as Callaghan Innovation. Out of respect for the late Sir Paul, who, while loving science, was just as keen as making money from the commercial use of clever brains, let’s hope the (now) C.I. concentrates on those route to market difficulties, not rearranging the deck chairs of what we already have.


Officiating our way to an ATI totally the wrong policy Peter Kerr Nov 08

2 Comments

Now everyone wants to see the Advanced Technology Institute set up and thriving.

This ranges from the ATI’s establishment board, to science minister Steven Joyce, to (about to be reformed) IRL, to the CRI and university scientists and commercialisers, to industry and the NZ public.

A question that needs to be asked is whether ‘policy advice’ and officialdom is getting in the way, hindering even, what is and will be an NZ-centric model to cranking up commercialisation of our science, engineering and entrepreneurial resources.

A couple of illustrative points.

My (process and chemical) engineering brother, recently returned from Australia, was at a function the other day, and met another policy person seconded from a government ministry to help the establishment unit.

My brother asked what it is that is that’s trying to be established? A vague non-answer.

Well, what will it help improve? Apparently, one thing is that instead of three possible doors for people/manufacturers wanting help to go through, there will be one door. Wow.

And then there’s the policy advice. The establishment unit is one source, MoBIE itself is another, MED comments on everything and NZ Trade & Enterprise also provides such advice. (On the NZTE front, whether or not it does become rolled into the ATI function looks less likely by the day seemingly).

Which brings us back to the main point that officialdom’s not doing us (NZ Inc) any favours in the way it operates…..aided and abetted by the fact that ATI’s intended role is presently a line of question marks, this ???????.

If the rumour that there are 4000 pages of cabinet papers about the ATI is true, that too is a scary thought.

What we all want out of ATI is a philosophy, a mouldable funnel and pathway of ideas and people across the science, engineering, innovation and implementation spectrum.

ATI needs to address issues such as capital, pathways to market, partnering, and bringing on and in best expertise in quickly creating scaleable businesses (especially in addition to the person with the original idea).

The danger with officialdom’s approach is it will invent answers for problems that don’t exist, and, even worse, create solutions that cannibalise existing providers – both public and private.

The other danger of officiating our way to an ATI non-answer is it talks amongst itself.

The paucity of discussions with industry and science leaders by the establishment unit is one indication of this. The ‘this is what we’re trying to achieve’ response that my brother received is another illustration.

So, for all our sakes, let some of these clever people on the ATI establishment board use their contacts, connections and links to alternative thinking to help develop unconventional models before developing answer(s).

Spread the intellectual focus away from how to adjust science capability (at this stage), and concentrate on making more money from our R&D + entrepreneurs + routes to market.

Creating any more than broad policy at this stage is a mistake.

When we don’t know what ATI is going to do, creating oodles of policy is totally cart before the horse.

It is the default course of action.

What we’d all be grateful to see is a business plan/’this is what we’re going to do’ created as a one-pager.

That way we can all clearly see and measure if we’re creating a structure that provides something of value. (And if we don’t then we can quickly tweak it!).

Policy production doesn’t produce useful answers.

All it does is shift the deckchairs.

P.S. According to the first ATI newsletter about this time next week we could see the name and head office location of the new body announced.


« Older Entries

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer