|
|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
Subscribe to the RSS feed › 
We need a set of legislative changes and incentives to encourage investments into R&D and early stage start-ups, so that Australia too can claim a multinational like Nokia, CheckPoint or Google.
There's definitely something to be said for finally having a minister dedicated to the areas or research development and innovation in the Federal Government. And certainly when I met with Senator Kim Carr together with a group of IT industry representatives a few months ago, he's making the right noises regarding the sorts of approaches which would lead to a more innovative economy.
What we need to see now is some action. Specifically we need the government to adopt legislation which encourages what might be termed a "virtuous circle of innovation" within the Australian economy.
We don't need a hand out, and we don't need any extra money. We need a series of approaches which encourage investors to put their money into enterprises which lead to the creation of intellectual property, which can go on to make money in the global economy.
By Bill Gates
We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well.
Thirty years, twenty years, ten years ago, my focus was totally on how the magic of software could change the world. I believed that breakthroughs in technology could solve key problems. And they do, increasingly, for billions of people. But breakthroughs change lives primarily where people can afford to buy them, only where there is economic demand, and economic demand is not the same as economic need.
There are billions of people who need the great inventions of the computer age, and many more basic needs as well, but they have no way of expressing their needs in ways that matter to the market, so they go without.
If we are going to have a chance of changing their lives, we will need another level of innovation. Not just technology innovation, we need system innovation.
Yes, process and entreprenurial innovation is crucial - but let's not forget the importance technical innovation.
It is always hazardous to make a distinction between technical and non-technical innovation, lest one be accused of favouring one over the other. As has been pointed out, technical innovation is still a critical area where Australia is falling behind the rest of the world.
Business spends only the equivalent of one per cent of GDP on R&D, half the OECD average and a third of that of the leaders - even Icelandic business does better. Our venture capital sector which might fund businesses to come from research is 0.1 per cent of GDP - again even Iceland manages more. Australia accounts for a mere one half of one per cent of global exports in technology-intensive industries.
The fact is there are few R&D driven business on the stock exchange other than the familiar, Cochlear, Resmed and CSL. Most of our top companies are banks or miners. Multi nationals from Ericcson to JDS Uniphase have voted with their feet and ceased large scale R&D in Australia while most global giants in pharmaceuticals and IT spend a fraction on R&D locally compared to overseas rates.
It's no secret the Federal government wants to reinvigorate Australian innovation policy.
In the last month alone, the government announced more than 630 submissions have been received towards its Review of the National Innovation System. It also launched a national program of festivals to increase innovation awareness in the wider community.
We know innovation is central to Australia's economic future, arresting the ‘brain drain' and ensuring we continue to build strong, non-resources led, alternative export industries, among other macroeconomic drivers. We also know that government policy provides a strong foundation for fostering and encouraging innovation.
But it's also up to industry and the businesses within them to make incisive judgements on how to best leverage the skills and resources they have to ensure Australia retains a reputation for innovation, particularly on the international stage.
Consider these examples. If we cast our eyes back to the contract manufacturing boom in the late '90s and early '00s, there was a call to action to Australian business to focus on the value-added areas where we are traditionally strong - engineering, design and R&D - rather than on trying to keep dwindling local production facilities open.
By Dr Nicholas Gruen
You may not know it but around 20% of the home loan market has just collapsed - the securitisation market. The banks are moving into the space and, as a result, rationing credit elsewhere. Below the fold is an op ed in the Age about it. It introduces a theme you'll probably be seeing a little more of from me.
In a paper I published in 1997 (I think it was) I argued that while competitive neutrality was a good thing, it was possible to have too much of it - at least where it stopped us making the best possible use of the specific qualities of the public sector. But an alternative and in many cases ultimately more compelling principle is the desirability of making gains through trade. There are some things the public sector does better than the private sector, and it should be able to do them - prudently and within appropriate institutional frameworks. This column outlines one. I will outline some others if and when I get the time.
The globally integrated economy requires fresh thinking and innovative approaches to managing change.
In today's globally integrated economy, CEOs are bombarded by change -- can they handle it? According to IBM's 2008 Global CEO Study of 1,130 CEOs, which was conducted face-to-face in 40 countries, CEOs are battling to keep up with the pace of change.
CEOs reported a surprising level of optimism about change as an opportunity to build new competitive advantage. In fact, 83 percent of surveyed CEOs expect substantial change in the future, an increase of 28 percent in just two years.
Yet, while CEOs see change ahead, their ability to effectively manage change is increasing at a far slower pace. CEOs rate their ability to manage change 22 percentage points lower than their expected need for it, a ‘change gap' that has nearly tripled since 2006. The study reveals that CEOs were specific about where the most important change will occur - within their own customer base as two classes of customers emerged: the ‘information omnivore' and the ‘socially-minded' customer.
