By Sheryle Moon, CEO Australian Information Industry Association
For the first time in a long time we're worried. You can see it on people's faces as they read of the malaise in the global economy, or in the way they fidgit at any mention of interest rates.
And the reason we're concerned is for a long time we've been taking our economic situation for granted. In a strong global economy we have allowed our trade deficit to get seriously out of balance, especially in areas where we should be doing well, like the service sector.
At the moment we import more knowledge than we export, and this is a problem we'll need to face if we want to get some control over our destiny.
To gain this control we need to cast off our sheepish tendency to false modesty, and begin to innovate.
And don't come back at me with the invention of the stump-jump plough, or the black box, or the hills hoist. I'm not talking about invention, I'm talking about innovation; the capacity to do things differently, to refuse to accept the status quo, to look for ways to make thing run more smoothly or more efficiently.
Innovation is the capacity to think outside the box and try out new ideas.
Innovation is about inventing new ways of doing things, not just by coming up with a new product or service, but also by looking for ways to streamline a process. It's about problem solving, often when there doesn't appear to be any problem in the first place.
Whether it's cultural, economic or historical we simply aren't good at innovation.
According to figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, only 34 percent of Australian companies say they innovate, which is pretty poor given innovation is at the root of all economic development.
Part of the challenge is that we don't actually think of ourselves as innovative, and we don't look for collaborative ways to solve problems. We don't look for opportunities to learn from other's experience, or to take a successful new technique from one sector of the economy and trial it in another. We don't get excited about doing things in new and different ways, we don't look for novel solutions to old problems, we just keep living with the problem.
To become innovative we need to start by investing more in our knowledge sector, and work on better ways of sharing information. Invest more in higher education, research and development and systems which encourage more innovative thinking. Open up the lines of communication between the universities, government and the corporate sector.
But most of all we need to begin to recognise that we are in fact able to innovate and begin to value innovation at a cultural level.
But there is cause for hope. When the Australian team returned from the 1976 Montreal Olympics with one silver and four bronze medals, we managed to turn our disappointment in to positive action.
Five years later, then Prime Mininster Malcolm Fraser opened the Australian Institute of Sport on a 65 hectare site in Canberra. It was to become an intensive training ground for athletes in a range of disciplines, and went on to become a centre of sporting excellence now copied throughout the world.
The formation of the AIS was an innovative response to what we saw as an untenable situation of failure in the sporting arena.
If only we were to look at our economic track record with the same critical eye, and call for innovation in the way we fish and farm, learn and teach, manufacture and create. If only we were to be as proud of our innovation as we were of our sporting achievements, imagine where we would be on the world stage.
Just think for a moment.... the possibilities are endless.
1999 Australian Business Woman of the Year, Sheryle Moon brings to bare more that 25 years of experience in senior leadership positions in companies such as Computer Sciences Corporation, and Manpower Services Australia. She recently stepped down from the position of CEO of the Australian Information Industry Association to take up the role of Australia and New Zealand Director for recruitment company Ross and Julia Ross.
__________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION THREADS ON INNOVATION:
Printer friendly version
I couldn't agree more!
After reading your comments Sheryle, I would have to say, I can't agree more.
As a global player, Australian really does need to Innovate more. We seem to follow existing trends and technologies.
We do have wonderful Universities here in Australia, innovation is going on. And although I do believe Australians are good innovators both in Business as well as technologies and matters (for example) in the Environment, there is a lot more to do.
How long can we continue selling the same old things. Our farming industries are suffering, competition is tough in Australia, we have a lot of people doing the same things. Innovation, new areas to make money I believe is the key.
Thanks for your comments, it was great actually reading something I have believed for a long time.
PowerHost - Reliable Web Hosting, Domain Names & SSL
Stephen Morton
http://www.powerhost.com.au
top down approach
I do believe australia is teeming with innovative people and that more examples or avenues to have their innovation realised would allow change to move at a higher rate.
Generally "so much" is expected of hte innovator however that for something to work they have to solve all cirtcumstances - and if there is one flaw to it - no matter how minor it may be compared to the flaws the existing system holds, its enough for others to be non-supportive.
This I beleive is due to our culture and the structures of decisive collaborations themselves hold.
Most of the time the structure of government, universities and the corparate world in australia is modelled on a top down approach - this works when generals have to coordinate armies - were information is channeled to the generals.
Generally those in high positions manage by exception. Namely "everyone follow my plan do their bit and report back to me if there are exceptions".
Japans coparate world is more bottom up than most think and is one reason for their success. They know that the people doing their job know how to improve it more than others, companies that requested suggestions and showed that more than 1 in 2 suggestions are implimented made the culture in those businesses change - soon the suggestions for improvements became floods.
Ideas were always there - actions however not - if its governed by a belief that none care how flawed a process is until its "cut back time" or publically catastrophically flawed.
My initial expectation of my government is to actively make citizens happier.
My initial expectation of my universities was to make me more cultured and knowledable
My initial expectation of my corparate is that we are a team striving for one goal.
When this isnt true its easy for individuals to fall into apathy when generally they are siphoned and fed though a machine of policy and processes.
Technically government is from the bottom up from a voting point of view,
but once established its stucture is generally top down.
Usually the "idea" and the "person behind it" are not separated. That is why character destruction is so successful in discrediting peoples motions.
For government I feel we need to disassocate the "idea champion" with the idea itself.
Now we have
"Vote for such and such that has these beleifs (that with ministries and our system become policies or law"
Imagine this:
Separately voting for people to facilitate the policies we individually vote on and present ourselves
all policies on a subject are shown as "candiate policy models" and link to other policies that can it supports / jeapodieses or is dependant on ( deducing this is what government does).
anyone - can vote of them and of course isnt mandatory this is more a true ideal of citizens determinng everything. Also if online it could be set up such that individuals can cast automatic votes. I log into my "goverment policiy site" and select :
"vote for all policies that allow abortions to be the mothers choice"
It is very frustrating electing someone because of certain policies they championed then see them act as authorities on a a host of unrelated subjects.
Refurrendums are are expensive clumsy and spun so much before the question is even anwered by the public generally the results reflect the charisma of which side had the best political propaganda than anything else.
Mini efficent paperless online "refurrendums" for smaller issues as well as ethical ones would make everyone interested in politics. ... and its governments role to impliment the models that are voted for. Yes it does have its fear-flaw "what if a hacker" - but safeguards can be in place where the scope of their actions can be as or more ensured than flaws in paper voting.
The infrustruture for this is avabile ( online voting ). Its security can be closely and independantly monitored and it would be a bottom up approach for anything that ANYONE had a good idea about.... this also separates government "filtering" what we is being focused on or managed at any time.
Government currently is a bottle neck for change as much as it is an avenue for it.
Effectively we could have a highly distributed government -
its people for more things
all the time.
Low cost / more accutely reflective of the citizens views.
A Polymathic Approach to Innovation.
History shows us that people with a broad based knowledge of practical skills and theories i.e. generalists, are more prone to solving problems than people who are single field specialists. While brilliant specialists have their place and make valuable contributions, they serve more as passive resources than active innovators. The term I prefer for generalists is "polymaths", who are people skilled in more than one area of science or business endeavour. People with this broad knowledge base can employ methods from other disciplines and quickly see ways through problems that will otherwise be considered insurmountable.
Within the international tertiary education sector there is a tendency for people to "build a defensive wall" around their discipline, beyond which they fear to tread, and woe betide the newcomer who trespasses in their territory. This guild-like and antiquated structure often masquerades as a pursuit of academic excellence, but that is a fascade, and has led to the increasing stultification of tertiary education. Talented and innovative students are discouraged from pursuing multiple fields and receive a blinkered education as a result, similarly educators who move into other disciplines are dismissed as "dabblers".
Is anyone seriously going to suggest that ultimately our ability to innovate doesn't rely on our levels of education ? I doubt it/hope not. As we find our educators being pressured into "knowing more and more about less and less" i.e. overspecializing, our overall educational standards will decline. Conversely, when we find people who take a genuine interest in understanding more about the world around them, they enjoy solving problems that more linear skill sets can't "manouever around".
Who invited you?
Nice Comments, especially the ones about the lack of polymaths.
If only we could train them as easily as an athelete. Unfortunately, the AIS model of specialization just isn't relevant in a country recovering from an education which has them alarmed not alert, productive not perceptive, and inventive not innovative. I can roll over and play dead as well as any Australian cattledog; well trained as I have been. Woof!
It's about communication isn't it? Sure we'll all say "Open up the lines of communication between the universities, government and the corporate sector". As i read through this subset of a theme from the Australia 2020 summits - both the one for the oldies and the kids - it continues to strike me as strange. Nice words like this are said so often these days in forums hosted on lots of domains, and in emails to the Minister for Social Inclusion. Meanwhile their use in broadening the ongoing discussions has been noted since the Summit was conceived. No time! We're too busy being productive!
But it's not surprising that we never see any Innovation around isolated Aussie silos when all of them make the same mistake. As it says on the About this Site page for this Openforum; Participation in Open Forum discussions, fora and projects is by invitation only.
Glad the same words can't be found on Wikipedia. Otherwise we'd never have a template for what happens when the same rules aren't applied.
http://me.edu.au/p/Simonfj
Open Forum is an Open Forum
Many thanks for pointing out the contradiction on our site. Open Forum did indeed begin its life as a closed forum - as we began life as an online support tool for conferences and round tables.
However, I can assure you that we are now definately open to anyone who feels they want to raise or comment on an issue that is important to them.