Archive for the ‘Innovation’ Category

«
»

Future demands we think big

April 15th, 2009 by Jason McFarlane

There is a tendency to knee-jerk reaction whenever major pieces of infrastructure are announced.

We saw it again only recently with the Federal Government’s new $43 billion National Broadband Network, described by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as the biggest infrastructure project since the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The brickbats came thick and fast, with opponents immediately claiming it was not commercially viable and amounted to little more than reckless spending from a Prime Minister in search of  headlines.

Of course the network requires rigorous examination – $43 billion is no small change – but the naysayers have lost sight of the big picture.  Assessment of the long term economic costs/benefits of infrastructure cannot be accurately assessed by input/output modelling without taking into account the economic activation benefits that will be derived from having the infrastructure in place.  The nature of infrastructure (in particular knowledge infrastructure) is that it will be used for a long time, by many, in ways that have not even been thought of yet.  Conversation should centre around whether the benefits that such an investment will bring in terms of economic,  social and community sector development are worth the overall cost to the taxpayer.

For an example of the importance and longegivity of strategic infrastrcture look no further than Western Australia’s  Kalgoorlie freshwater pipeline.

When John Forrest introduced a Bill into State Parliament in July 1896 to raise the €2.5 million to fund a pipeline to carry water more than 500km from Perth to the burgeoning Goldfields, the cost was more than the annual state budget at the time. 

It was met with seemingly insurmountable opposition, with visionary engineer CY O’Connor, in particular, subjected to virulent press and constant political pointscoring. 

With the benefit of hindsight, few would argue the outcome was not worth every cent. The pipeline kept the Goldfields mining and allowed it to flourish.  This critical piece of infrastructure has been a key component in supporting economic development in the state for over a century (and tipping a fair swag back into the state coffers in the process).

Certainly, there were cheaper options at the time, but none that offered the same long term benefits. Major infrastructure projects require foresight, planning and no small measure of resolve to see them through.

And so it is with the broadband network. Australia is still very much in the business of raw produce, be it growing, extracting or processing. If we want to be competitive in the future, we have to look beyond simply what we can dig out of the ground and get on board the knowledge train.

The knowledge economy is rapidly globalising and we’re not even at the station. Australia ranks 16th in the world in the take-up of broadband and the 9th fastest advertised connection speeds of OECD countries.

We need this major piece of infrastructure to give us a kickstart. It is impossible to imagine just how important this technology will be to our future.

But we do know that without it, we may as well be using the telegraph while the rest of the world communicates via mobile.

permalink | trackback

Posted by Jason McFarlane Posted in Innovation | 1 Comment »


We must weave better networks

January 27th, 2009 by Michael

Innovation requires an ability to grasp the need for change.

How do you ensure that the right people are brought together to generate innovative solutions to major problems?

Policy makers recognise the need for knowledge precincts; to develop technology parks and put them near universities or hospitals, to offer subsidised rents and generally create conditions that facilitate knowledge transfers.

But knowledge creation requires people who have the potential to find solutions to be deliberately put in each other’s way. It’s not enough for planners to build smart buildings, put in nice park benches and places for various boffins to eat. Planners must physically intervene in networks of people to help form knowledge hubs.

Knowledge hubs are intersections of pieces of the network that have similar enough interests but different technical backgrounds.

The traditional planning approach has been to build the physical infrastructure required for a development and to then let the market take care of itself.

That is like saying we want a really high yield wheat crop and we know we need a nice field, a tractor, some rain and some seeds. So we’ll go and get all of them and we’ll put them all in the field, the sack of seeds next to the tractor and make sure it rains and we’ll have great crops. Well, of course, you won’t. All you’re going to end up with is a wet tractor and a bag of rotten seeds.

Networking weaving is about putting all the ingredients together in the right combination so they can produce the right outcome.

The work Pracsys has been doing with the Brisbane Knowledge Corridor and the redevelopment of Tonsley Park in south Adelaide addresses the need for policy makers to be aware of the part they must play in network weaving.

In the case of Tonsley Park, if it had been left up to the market, as is the traditional thinking, big retail and fast food chains would have simply moved in because the site is on a highway with good visibility and great exposure.

But the State Government said, “no, with the Mitsubishi plant closing we’re losing all these export jobs and we know that heavy manufacturing is marginal because we don’t have a comparative advantage with the cost of labour in Australia. So what can we put there?”

When Pracsys was first brought in, the comment was “right, we want to build a knowledge precinct, what buildings should we build?”

Our goal was to get them thinking beyond the physical infrastructure to the sort of knowledge activities that would ensure a viable precinct. Buildings won’t attract the right people. Knowledge activity requires a different kind of planning.

This is where the network weaving conversation comes in. The South Australian Government wanted to turn Tonsley Park into a knowledge precinct focused on renewable energy.  So a series of questions needed to be asked and answered: Where are the existing activities in the state? How do you bring them together? What pieces are missing? Do you need to pay a subsidy to get the missing elements to relocate?

We went through the mechanics of what it would cost to weave a network that would in effect give them a knowledge precinct, apart from the physical buildings.

Once you’ve got those people together, they can talk until the cows come home about the equipment and buildings required to do their jobs properly. That’s the easy part. The hard part is network weaving.

Network weaving demands that all the collaboration mechanisms be brought together and all the barriers to innovative solutions be taken away.

Policy makers don’t yet grasp the need to formally facilitate these network hubs and that’s the thinking we need to change.

What governments do is they try to re-invent the wheel. We need renewable energy so let’s invent the new solar technology.  Well, no, you don’t need to invent the new solar technology… it’s already there. Instead we should be going wherever the technology is and saying, “we’ve got a real interest in this, we’ve got all these researchers, what would it take for you to come over and help us out and how can we help you? And if we can’t get you to physically move can we at least meet with you and share information?”.

It’s all about building the right networks.

permalink | trackback

Posted by Michael Tags: , ,
Posted in Innovation | No Comments »


May we live in interesting times…

January 21st, 2009 by Jason McFarlane

The boom is over. And so, too, it seems is the pervading optimism that goes hand in hand with prosperous times. But, paradoxically, did this optimism allow us to rest on our laurels and limit our willingness to be visionary and take risks? 

As pessimism creeps into the private and public sectors with every piece of economic doom and gloom, are we, like fearful snails, heading back into our shells?  Is this the right thing to do?

Recent research by the Kauffman Foundation, a US based economic development think tank, has found that business start-ups that are launched during an economic downturn have a greater chance of long-term survival than those launched during the good times.  

Paul S. Kedrosky, a senior fellow at the foundation, suggests that such start-ups are based on lean, efficient business principles, and a greater determination by founders to succeed. 

I believe such findings are relevant to public sector investment as well.  Much talk in Western Australia revolves around how we “squandered the boom”.  

Well, here’s our chance to develop lean, targeted initiatives that stimulate the economy in the short term, and set the state up to hit the ground running for the long term when we re-emerge.  

We don’t have the luxury of enormous surpluses, so we had better get it right.

Initiatives that support innovation, broaden our ability to solve major world problems, and compete in international markets across a wider range of sectors are essential.  

Reactive policy targeted at interest groups will just mean we squandered the “bust” as well.

permalink | trackback

Posted by Jason McFarlane Tags: , ,
Posted in Feasibility, Innovation | 1 Comment »


Knowledge transfer: The getting of wisdom

January 15th, 2009 by Michael

As you sit at your PC typing away, looking up details on the Internet, sending and receiving emails to and from clients and colleagues, you could be forgiven for thinking we don’t need personal contact to do business anymore.

But while these technological advances have changed the way we work irrevocably, they are no substitute for person-to-person transactions.

The Information Age has been a boon for the transmission of data and other information. You can go online and research something in detail. There is now a wealth of material at your fingertips. But this process does not necessarily translate into knowledge.

Knowledge is the use of data and information for an outcome. And interestingly, in the literature that we’ve been working through for Pracsys clients, knowledge still very much requires human interaction.

If knowledge were a person-less transaction then you wouldn’t need physical university sites. Everything could be done via the Internet and everyone could learn at their own pace.

But there are certain efficiencies in a physical entity that brings people together. And unexpected knowledge spillovers occur when you have concentrations of certain groups of people discussing problems and transfering their knowhow.

This is the basis for a new type of infrastructure, the post Industrial Age, post Information Age infrastructure – knowledge infrastructure for the Knowledge Age.

This is infrastructure that assists people to come together to exchange knowledge for commercial reasons, not just for its own sake. To take significant problems, such as a cure for cancer or viable renewable energy, and come up with solutions.

Knowledge transfers occur not over the celebrated Information Highway, but when you get people from different backgrounds together in physical locations where they can discuss solutions to these big problems.

If you want to go online and find out specific information or access experts in a particular area you can go to a forum and post a question, participate in a discussion or observe a discussion. And that’s about as close as you get to knowledge transfer without physical contact.

What is clear is that physical contact actually accelerates the innovation and discovery process.

If you enter an economics forum on the Internet you get economists coming together who are more concerned with refuting the arguments that others are making. And that has a place. Similarly, if you go to a  chemistry or physics forum, you don’t find a bunch of economists hanging out there. Like attracts like in the World Wide Web.

But what you get with universities, or any other research and development knowledge transfer physical entity, is a real mixture of backgrounds – technical, non-technical, financial, non-financial etc. And what we find is that this mix of skills often brings about a solution more effectively than a group of, say, economists ever could on its own.

The reason for this is – and this is the intangible thing – is that knowledge spillovers from one area to the another occur not in linear ways, but in unexpected ways.

The Knowledge Age requires different types of infrastructure to the Information Age.  If our policy makers don’t get their heads around the sort of infrastructure – something they currently term “soft infrastructure” for want of a better description – required to bring the necessary groups of people together, the crucial transfer of knowledge simply won’t happen.

permalink | trackback

Posted by Michael Tags: , ,
Posted in Innovation | No Comments »


«
»
« Previous Page