Posts Tagged ‘knowledge’

«
»

Job measure short of the mark

May 29th, 2009 by Jason McFarlane

Employment self-sufficiency (ESS) is a metric that is without doubt a useful planning tool, but nonetheless cannot be turned to every task.

ESS measures the quantity of jobs available in a given area as a proportion of that area’s labour force. For example, the North-West Corridor of Perth has 41 percent employment self-sufficiency (2006 Census), meaning that 41 percent of the labour force living in that sub-region have the potential to gain a job there.

This is a valid measure at the sub-regional level as it provides a good baseline indicator of  economic sustainability. It helps answer questions about whether a population can be sustainably supported in the long-term. 

Where ESS falls down is when it is applied to individual developments. Increasingly authorities are requesting its application in this manner. Pracsys recently looked at a proposal for 2000 dwellings in an in-fill residential subdivision of Perth. Part of the requirement for the project was that it include a statement of employment self-sufficiency with a view by statutory authorities that a higher percentge would be more desirable.

In this context the use of ESS does not take into account the economic role that a particular development will play within the sub-region.  Focussing on ESS creates an impetus on developers of residential activity to ‘design in’ s jobs where there is little logic for them to exist.  This is ultimately destined to fail as the provision of land is only one component of an economy, and therefore unlikely to soley determine an enterprise’s location.

A focus on local ESS for developments also moves the emphasis of statutory authorities away from supporting sub-regional activity centres in the creation of agglomeration economies, and ultimately knowledge intensive, export orented clustering. 

A much more relevant measure for individual developments is a determination of how it will contribute to the overall sub-region’s economy. To answer this a series of questions need to be asked.  These  include:

  • How will the development interact with major employment nodes? 
  • What knowledge, skills and abilities will the development’s population bring to the sub-region?  
  • How will developers support investment in knowledge infrastructure within the sub-region? 
  • How will the development support the economic activation of population-driven activity in surrounding activity centres?

Measuring the potential of a particular development is much more than a numbers game and ESS is not the catch-all.

permalink | trackback

Posted by Jason McFarlane Tags: , , ,
Posted in Feasibility, News | No Comments »


No strategic centre planning in retail policy

May 26th, 2009 by Georgia Moore

The NSW Draft Centres Policy focuses on providing for the needs of consumers in an efficient and competitive manner. However, it lacks detail on how to plan for centres that are driven by demand from external markets – vital for economic development and regional job growth.

The policy states that it should be read in conjunction with other policies, such as those relating to residential development and employment lands. However, the State Employment Lands Plan deals with traditional industrial land and business & technology parks containing higher order jobs, while the Draft Centres Policy is supposed to cover all retail and commercial employment including ICT, finance and business services.

The policy identifies a network of centres, including local centres to cater for the population, and strategic centres, which are considered crucial to the economic, social and environmental function of the state or region. The latter covers global Sydney; regional cities such as Parramatta; and centres with a special economic function such as airports, ports, universities and hospitals.

Apart from identifying the centres’ hierarchy and ensuring land is zoned appropriately for business uses, the policy does not address important planning considerations for strategic centres, such as:

  • Links between knowledge industries and traditional employment lands; 
  • Lack of high-order job provision in regional areas requiring long journeys to work; 
  • Maximising leverage from investment in infrastructure through co-location.

The policy’s focus on zoning sufficient land parcels for retail and commercial uses does not reflect the need to attract export-oriented and knowledge-intensive industries and jobs to the residential growth corridors.  

Jobs in population-driven industries, such as retail and entertainment, can only do so much to achieve the sustainable development aims of the NSW State Plan, which prioritises increasing business investment in regional areas and providing jobs closer to home.

The bulk of the policy concerns the provision of retail and commercial floorspace, with demand tied to population growth and household spending; and location and scale dependent on assessment against a set of suitability criteria. In terms of population-driven ‘retail-focused’ centres, the policy has many valid points which could enable industry and government to work together to ensure that centres expand and develop in a sustainable way.

In contrast, the Western Australian Metropolitan Centres Policy (currently under review) aims to ensure an equitable distribution of centres so that consumers can access goods and services close to home. However, the use of retail floorspace caps as a method of control restricts overall supply, leads to dispersed retail rather than concentrated centres, does not enable centres the flexibility to innovate and grow in a sustainable way, and reduces healthy competition.

The Draft NSW Centres Policy highlights the importance of flexibility and competition in creating the most benefit for consumers, with people able to make choices based on factors such as price, convenience, access and quality. It advocates:

  •  Responding quickly to consumer demand;
  •  Letting the market determine the need for additional floorspace;
  •  Allowing the planning system to assess development applications on external costs and benefits, rather than demand (or arbitrary retail floorspace caps).

Further examination of how to measure the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of a development is required. This is particularly important for the sustainability of a centre in terms of opportunities for working close to home, public transport accessibility and the ability to access a diversity of activity with one trip. 

It is also vital that when determining the economic or net community benefit of a retail development, the importance of employment in higher-order export or knowledge industries is prioritised. This will ensure that strategic sites are maintained as valuable employment lands, crucial for long-term economic development.

permalink | trackback

Posted by Georgia Moore Tags: , , ,
Posted in Activity centres, News | 2 Comments »


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 »


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 »


«
»