Intellectual property webinar

The Lighthouse Business Innovation Centre hosted a web based online seminar (webinar) on "IP Growth Cycle of Early-Stage Companies", 11 November 2008. This was free and a useful event, although it did not cover open access/open source. I wanted to ask about that but the event suddenly ended twenty mintues early, before I had a chance to. The "webniar" format pfoved useful, apart from the abrupt end. But then an IP seminar whi9ch doesn't address open source in the first 30 mintues is of little value.

After I signed up for the event online I was sent a message with a web address for joining. I tried clicking on the link straight away but just got a response saying the site would not be available until the scheduled time. This was frustrating as when it can to that time I found I had to download and install software. This took several minutes so I was late joining the event.

The event used Citrix 's GoToMeeting. This was used with audio broadcast to the participants and synchronised Powerpoint type slides. There was no video used. One problem was that there was no image of the speaker and so less sense of who they were (a still image would have done). Also there was only one voice talking all the time, which gets tedious. It would help to have a different person talking.

The system provides a text back channel for asking questions and for when there are problems with the audio. This arrangement works well, as you do not need to interrupt the speaker. Also there is a "raise your hand" function to get attention.

The audio worked well (I was using the ANU's high bandwidth Internet link so problems would not be expected). It is also possible to use a telephone conference with the Internet used for the slides and text chat.

Other Internet based products provide similar facilities. Also one integrated e-meeting product may not be the best approach. With the synchronised slides you can't go back a slide or skip forward to see how may are left: you are stuck looking at the slide the presenter wants you to. Also you can't read or search the actual text of the presentation (particularly important if you a re blind), as all you have is an image of the slide, not the slide itself. So it might be more useful to simply provide the slides and have people follow along themselves. A separate text chat and audio system can be used, perhaps with the text saying what slide the speaker is talking about occasionally.

Using multiple tools would also make the abrupt end which occurred with the IP webinar less likely. What happened with the Citrix software was suddenly I had a message saying the event had ended and then the application disappeared, along with the slides and text chat. This would be useful for those wanting tight control for a presentation. But for most events it would better iof the slides did not suddenly disappear and the text chat could keep going after the audio ended.

Intellectual property online seminar

The Lighthouse Business Innovation Centre is hosting a web based online seminar (webinar) on "IP Growth Cycle of Early-Stage Companies", 11 November 9:30am Canberra time. Registration online is free:

Licensing of intellectual property (IP) can allow early-stage companies to acquire the rights to commercialise new technology, accelerating their R&D program and their go-to-market plans. In addition, many companies view licensing of their technology as a viable path to market. In each of these cases, the decisions and structuring of license agreements can greatly impact a company’s financing options, its organisational structure, as well as its exit strategy.

This webinar will discuss the stages that companies often go through, from the decision to acquire seed IP, to the decision to commercialise IP through licensing, to what can happen during M&A discussions. Case studies from several companies that highlight the issues and lessons learned will be used to make this webinar a practical, real-world look at the issues as well as the opportunity to monetise technology through licensing.

YOUR FACILITATOR

Martin Suter - Vice-President of Business Development, BelAir Networks.

Bringing to BelAir Networks an impressive track record of wins over a 20 year span, Martin is a results-driven, intellectually agile, strategic business development and technology licensing executive with extensive experience in developing corporate strategy, building asymmetrical strategic relationships and negotiating complex transactions. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise.

Prior to Cohda, Martin was Vice President, Business Development at MeshNetworks, Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola.

Prior to MeshNetworks, Martin was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, SUN Microsystems, and Teradata.

Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and SUN.

Martin’s blog can be found at www.iplicensing.net ...

Technology Transfer Seminar in Canberra

Tom Hammond and Victor Pantano from the Office of Commercialisation will talk on Technology Transfer at the ANU, Canberra, 2pm 28 October 2008:

Technology Transfer at the ANU
Tom Hammond and Victor Pantano (The Office of Commercialisation, ANU)

DATE: 2008-10-28
TIME: 14:00:00 - 15:00:00
LOCATION: RSISE Seminar Room, ground floor, building 115, cnr. North and Daley Roads, ANU

ABSTRACT:
The Office of Commercialisation provides a number of technology transfer related services to the ANU, with the objective of finding paths beyond traditional sponsored research funding to support ANU research with commercial potential.

Members of the Office of Commercialisation Physical Sciences Team will present a short seminar on the support the Office provides in protecting and managing IP to facilitate research and commercial objectives; identifying and evaluating the commercial potential of research outcomes; and travelling the most appropriate path from research to technology transfer in the physical sciences. ...

From: Technology Transfer at the ANU, CECS, ANU

Dr Victor Pantano (Physical Science)

Before moving to the Office of Commercialisation in March 2006, Victor was based at the University of Warwick where he lead a number of projects associated with technology transfer into the UK automotive industry. Based at the International Automotive Research Centre in the West Midlands, his role involved facilitating the development of industry-based relationships with Centre researchers as an outlet for technology transfer. This included the formation of SME-based technology transfer clusters as a means to enhancing regional development. Prior to this, he completed his industry-based PhD with Ford Motor Company, based in various locations including Australia, India and the US. Victor holds a Bachelor of Science (Chemistry) and a Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) from the ANU.

...

Dr Tom Hammond (Physical Science)

Tom comes to the Office of Commercialisation with academic experience in Zoology and Science Communication, and a career in the craft brewing sector.

After completing a BSc (Hons) in Zoology in 1998, Tom spent some time working in wildlife conservation in Western Australia, before completing a PhD in 2002, focusing on the acoustic behaviour of bushcrickets. An interest turned into a career in the craft brewing industry for several years, before Tom came to the ANU to study a Masters in Science Communication at the ANU. Tom brings a sound technical background, an appreciation of the processes of science communication, and an understanding of the requirements of industry to his role in the Office of Commercialisation. ...

From: Office Team, Office of Commercialisation, The Australian National University

Review of Australia's National Innovation System

Senator Kim Carr, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, has released the Green Paper report of the expert panel on Australia's national innovation system. The Minister has announced the Government will release a white paper in response by the end of 2008. Unfortunately the report has been provided in a difficult to read format and so is of little value. This appears to have been done deliberately to impede analysis of the report.

Unfortunately the report of the Review has the clumsy title of "venturousaustralia - building strength in innovation". The contraction "venturousaustralia" looks like a misprint and is hard to make sense of ("VenturousAustralia" or "Venturous Australia" would have been better). This perhaps indicates the major problem with the Australian approach to innovation: trying to be too cleaver for our own good.

The panel have provided

1. Report overview and recommendations (1MB of PDF)
2. Full report: venturousaustralia - building strength in innovation (3MB of PDF)

There are also assorted media releases and transcripts from the launch. Unfortunately little thought seems to have gone into making this information available in an easy to understand and systematic way. This also seems to be a common proble with the Australia approach to innovation: assuming that a clear idea is self explanatory.

There is no list of the reports main recommendations provided on the web page and the detailed report is offered to the reader, followed by the smaller, but still too large overview. This material is then followed by a list of annexes, but the reader is given little idea what is in the annexes, as they are labeled 4 to 12 (what happened to 1 to 3?).

It is a shame that a lot of work by some very cleaver people has been largely wasted. Normally I would extract the summary of recommendations from the PDF of the report and convert them to text format for easy access. However in this case this is not possible as the security features of the PDF document have been set to block copying of text from the document. This is occasionally done with company documents to impede those attempting to misuse intellectual property. However, it is difficult to see why this was done in a government report, other than an attempt to make it difficult to disseminate the information and carry out a detailed analysis of the report. It would appear that the report's authors do not want the report looked at in detail.

I suggest that the Minister reject the report and begin the process again using a new panel. There is nothing to be learnt from this report, apart from how not to do a report on innovation.

The ACT Government also commissioned a Report on the ACT Innovation System, which is available online.

Innovation and Technology Statistics

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released "8101.0 - Innovation and Technology Update" 29/07/2008. This includes stats on ICT in Australia, R&D and "innovation" They also have an ICT Theme page.

1. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Statistics
2. Research & Experimental Development (R&D) Statistics
3. Innovation Statistics
4. Business Characteristics Statistics
5. Other

Innovation ANU Final Round of Judging

The ANU has been running "Innovation ANU": an education program and competition to encourage researchers to commercialize their work. Six teams will present business plans a panel of judges for the finals this week. Interestingly some of the teams chose to develop not-for-profit projects, by adapting the business skills being shown. The projects range from very technical ones (fleets of miniature robot submarines) to ones involving the arts (encouraging music). The program started out with seminars on business issues and intellectual property and then moved on to fun presentations from the teams.

This Wednesday evening 23rd July will be the final evening of
InnovationANU 2008. After four months of hard work six teams will be
presenting their final business plans to our panel of judges and you are
all welcome to attend to see the impressive ideas that have emerged.

Date: Wednesday, 23rd July
Time: 5.30pm for 6.00pm start
Venue: Finkel Lecture Theatre, John Curtin School of Medical Research

Each team has been allocated ten minutes for their presentation, with
5-10 minutes for discussion with the judging panel following. For full
details about the talks and timing please see the attached agenda.

The InnovationANU program this year has been a success thanks to all of
you who got involved attending lectures, preparing and delivering
elevator pitches and finally preparing and submitting business plans.
From all the organisers we would like to extend our thanks to the over
100 participants who have been involved in InnovationANU in some
capacity this year. We hope this is the first of many years for this
program and we wish you all the very best in your future entrepreneurial
endeavours and hope to see you next year for InnovationANU 2009.

Kindest Regards,

The InnovationANU Organisers

Business Development Program
Team Presentations
Wednesday, 23rd July 2008
5:30pm
Finkel Lecture Theatre
John Curtin School of Medical Research

Agenda

5.30pm Drinks
6.00pm Welcome and Opening Remarks
6.15pm Presentation 1: One Corp - Generation Y Receipt Storage
6.40pm Presentation 2: Fault Technology - Blind minerals exploration
7.05pm Presentation 3: Photos Inkorporated - Online community photo-sharing and printing
7.30pm Break
7.45pm Presentation 4: Harp Centre Australia - A Centre for Harp in the Nation’s Capital
8.10pm Presentation 5: Cardishield - Cardiac protection
8.35pm Presentation 6: Serafina - Swarms of submarines
9.00pm Closing Remarks

Neither Microsoft nor Netscape started the web revolution

"Bill Gates: How A Geek Changed The World" a BBS interview with Bill Gates was broadcast by SBS 8 July 2008 (online video from SBS). This was a more than a puff piece with some criticisms of Gates included.

One point made was that Microsoft was late embracing the Internet. Microsoft had to scramble to create a web browser in response to Netscape. But not mentioned was that it was the Mosaic web browser developed by the non profit National Center for Supercomputing Applications which popularized the web. Both Netscape and Microsoft then licensed Mosaic to make their Navigator and Internet Explorer browsers. Early versions were little different from Mosaic or from each other. And I must be about the last person in the world who paid for a copy of Netscape Navigator, shortly before they decided to give it away. ;-)

Program Synopsis
TV Show Name:
Broadcast Date: Tuesday 8 July 2008
Channel: Free to Air / SBS
Broadcast Time: 8.30 pm
Classifications: Other, (CC)
Timeslot Duration: 60 mins
Official title / weblink if available: CUTTING EDGE: BILL GATES

How A Geek Changed The World - After two years of negotiations, BBC filmmaker Fiona Bruce pulled off a rare coup: a candid full-length interview with Bill Gates. For many years the richest man in the world and the founding genius of Microsoft is set to step down from his company and get on with the business of giving away £12 billion through the charitable foundation he runs with his wife Melinda and father William Gates Sr. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation aims to improve the quality of life for people in the US and around the globe, with a focus on tackling health problems in the developing world and improving access to drugs. Bruce's interview and her meetings with Gates' friends and rivals uncover a sometimes irascible character, who has long prided himself on corporate aggression and is only recently said to have begun mellowing. (From the UK, in English)

From: ebroadcast.com.au

Canberra Open Coffee

Canberra Open Coffee is an informal meeting for designers, bloggers, developers, investors and anyone interested in start-ups to get to know each other over coffee. First Saturday on the Month. Venue: Essen, Garema Place, Civic Saturday 5 July from 3pm Contact: Rohan Mitchell ... Email: rohan(a)rohanmitchell.com

Innovation ANU Elevator Pitches

Greetings from the Innovation ANU Elevator Pitches in Canberra. This is the culmination of a series of evening courses to educate university people in how to turn an idea into a product. Earlier each person with an idea presented and then formed teams. About a dozen of those teams now get two minutes each to present their idea. Two judges, from the venture capital industry, select the best for an award and then for development.

The presentations are entertaining. It is remarkably difficult present an idea in two minutes. One part I found surprising was that few of the teams used props for presentations. Most presentations were someone standing at a lectern talking. This makes me appreciate the quality of the presentations which the ANU software engineering present.

Topics of the presentations were aids for home finance, puzzles, teaching English, B2C, photo printing, fast food catering. At that point the next presenter, Felix Schill woke me up by pulling a miniature robot submarine out of their backpack and said these would cost $15,000 each. This is the Serafina, developed by ANU (sort of an underwater Aerosonde).

The next presentation was the EtherDVB", video over Ethernet product. That was followed by the BushLAN system for long distance broadband (might be useful for the last few percent of the population with the government's broadband system). This was followed by a proposal for electronic medical records. Then gold prospecting.

At that point the presentations changed outlook to one with a "non-profit" proposal. The first was about reconciliation and learning about indigenous culture.

When then flipped back to a proposal for keeping track of receipts. There was then a second food proposal. One of the few medical proposals was for a drug to reduce deaths due to heart disease. We then had a proposal for bio-gas for developing nations using cow manure for cooking. There was then a second proposal for e-health records. A less usual proposal was for a low cost harp to be sold online (bit like the OLPC, but for music). The last presentation was for asthma treatment: a counter for dispensers and a test kit to check the medicine is present. It was claimed that these are already protected by patents.

The one hour of elevation pitches went very quickly. The judges are now considering their decision.

... first round of judging and awards and will require teams to submit a two page executive summary and a 2 minute (maximum) elevator pitch. Details about both of these submissions are outlined below. Executive Summary submission will be by midday, Tuesday 22nd April (the day before the judging evening), to give the judges plenty of time to read the executive summaries. The elevator pitch will be conducted on the evening and the order of the teams will be selected randomly on the evening. Both the page and time limits are fixed and teams will be asked to strictly abide by these.

The elevator pitch is a two minute pitch to sell your vision/idea of a product, service or project. The name reflects the fact that an elevator pitch can be delivered in the time span of an elevator ride. The elevator pitch should be delivered without visual aids (pictures, powerpoint presentations, etc.) and within the required time limit, after which the team will be asked to stop immediately.

Investors will often judge the quality of an idea and team on the basis of the quality of a short pitch such as this as any weaknesses are often easily exposed in this process. An effective elevator pitch is designed to give the audience just enough information that they will have a sense of what you are talking about and want to know more. Second, and just as importantly, it is designed to not give the audience so much information so that they feel overwhelmed (and tune you out). There is an overview of the requirements for the elevator pitch on the resources page of the Innovation ANU Website (www.anu.edu.au/InnovationANU). There is also a good overview of an elevator pitch at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq0tan49rmc.

An executive summary is similar to a written version of the elevator pitch and outlines many of the relevant elements of your concept and idea and why it will be a success. This should be a two page document without images or other visual elements. There is an overview of the requirements for the executive summary on the resources page of the Innovation ANU Website (www.anu.edu.au/InnovationANU). The executive summary should be submitted in word (.doc) or pdf formats by midday, Tuesday 22nd April. Late submission will rule participants ineligible for this award.

Innovation ANU Elevator Pitch Awards Evening

The Australian National Unviersity is having an evening of "elevator pitches" by budding entrepreneurs on Wednesday in Canberra. This is part of a program to educate university people in how to turn an idea into a product.

The first awards evening is upon us this week and we are in for a very exciting evening. The evening will commence at 6pm in the foyer and later in The Finkel Lecture Theatre of The John Curtin School of Medical Research this Wednesday 23rd April.

The first elevator pitch will commence at 6.30pm and the order of teams will be randomly chosen on the evening. Refreshments will be served all evening. Each elevator pitch will be followed by a short question and answer time. At the conclusion of all the pitches the judges will award the winners of both the elevator pitch and executive summaries with their awards.

Failure to submit an executive summary or elevator pitch may make participants ineligible for the major awards at the conclusion of the program. The following details were sent out last week and are included as a reminder of what is required this week.

* Please note the deadline of the executive summary submission is midday, Tuesday 22nd April, which is the day before the awards evening this week.

* If any more information is required please contact us, otherwise we look forward to seeing you all there.


Regards
The Innovation ANU Organisers


Next week will be the first round of judging and awards and will require teams to submit a two page executive summary and a 2 minute (maximum) elevator pitch. Details about both of these submissions are outlined below. Executive Summary submission will be by midday, Tuesday 22nd April (the day before the judging evening), to give the judges plenty of time to read the executive summaries. The elevator pitch will be conducted on the evening and the order of the teams will be selected randomly on the evening. Both the page and time limits are fixed and teams will be asked to strictly abide by these.

The elevator pitch is a two minute pitch to sell your vision/idea of a product, service or project. The name reflects the fact that an elevator pitch can be delivered in the time span of an elevator ride. The elevator pitch should be delivered without visual aids (pictures, powerpoint presentations, etc.) and within the required time limit, after which the team will be asked to stop immediately.

Investors will often judge the quality of an idea and team on the basis of the quality of a short pitch such as this as any weaknesses are often easily exposed in this process. An effective elevator pitch is designed to give the audience just enough information that they will have a sense of what you are talking about and want to know more. Second, and just as importantly, it is designed to not give the audience so much information so that they feel overwhelmed (and tune you out). There is an overview of the requirements for the elevator pitch on the resources page of the Innovation ANU Website (www.anu.edu.au/InnovationANU). There is also a good overview of an elevator pitch at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq0tan49rmc.

An executive summary is similar to a written version of the elevator pitch and outlines many of the relevant elements of your concept and idea and why it will be a success. This should be a two page document without images or other visual elements. There is an overview of the requirements for the executive summary on the resources page of the Innovation ANU Website (www.anu.edu.au/InnovationANU). The executive summary should be submitted in word (.doc) or pdf formats by midday, Tuesday 22nd April. Late submission will rule participants ineligible for this award.

Innovative Ideas Forum on Mobile Internet and Archives

The third annual Innovative Ideas Forum started at the National Library of Australia in Canberra this morning. This is a one day event for librarians and other information professionals. There is almost a full house in the NLA theatre. It is very pleasant to be able to just sit here and let someone else do the organizing, after last week's Open 2020 Summit.

The proceedings are being recorded and will be podcast by the NLA, along with copies of the speaker's slides next week.

The ideas forum is a curious blend of the old and the new. Demetrius of Phaleron, librarian at the ancient Great Library at Alexandria, would have felt at home at the NLA; it looks like a temple for books. If you look closely, some of what was on paper, such as catalogs and signs, have been replaced with electronic screens. But the operation and feeling remains the same. No doubt Demetrius would have attended forums on "papyrus 2.0". ;-)

The event was opened by Professor Gerard Goggin on Internet and Mobile Phone. He described broadband as a "totem" for the new government and asked what it might be used for and the role of wireless. Roger Clarke got a mention in recording the history of the Internet. Gerrard pointed out that scientists figured prominently, but activists should be mentioned. My recollection from around the early 1990s is that we deliberately clothed any social activism of the Internet in scientific language to make it politically palatable. Having, for example, someone who had been jailed for their political activism did not seem a good way to get the government onside.

Professor Goggin mentioned several Internet historians and activists. But he did not mention Carl Malamud's "Exploring the Internet : A Technical Travelogue" (1992), which was about trip around the world visiting Internet pioneers, including those in Australia. This book has a large effect on me. Much of what is advocated has happened. Some of open access to documents may be about to happen.

Professor Goggin asks for histories of how and when the Internet developed in different parts of the world. However, he proposes to approach this from that of the key figures involved. The problem with this is that the people saying things publicly in traditional forums were not necessarily the people actually key to the process. Many of the key strategists were not public figures, relying on others to put the message out. Also the technology was used, so that the work was done by loose online groups which did not necessarily have leaders or formal structure. Those involved in this process may not necessarily know who did what.

This distributed approach still applies to Internet development. As an example, a few weeks ago I was part of a process to tell the government that it was not a good idea to give each school child a laptop. Within 24 hours, a cabinet minister said this to the media. It is not clear who said what to who and for this form of political communication to work, the lines of communication need to remain unclear.

It was not clear in the 1990s that "the Internet" would be a success and their were many alternatives which were proposed, failed and forgotten. It is very much the case with the Internet and the web that the victors have written the history. The other forgotten histories are buried in electronic archives, yet to be dug up by Internet archaeologists.

Professor Goggin pointed out that exciting new developments in the use of mobile phones in developing nations do not get considered. He also said that exactly what would be done with broadband on mobiles in Australia was not yet clear.

The commons approach then got a mention (of which Creative Commons is an example). He argued that the commons approach to mobiles has not been explored. This is relevant to broadband development in Australia, as the Australian Government recently cancelled the Opel contract to build a wireless broadband network in regional Australia. The government has no viable strategy to replace that network. A commons approach may help solve a looming political problem for the government. The opposition could get political traction around the perception that regional Australia is missing out on broadband access.

At question time I asked if historians needed to adopt analytical techniques to discover the history of the Internet. I suggested reading what people wrote in old fashioned paper books is not the way to do it. Also reading Wired magazine is not the way to do it (described by my technical colleagues as "The Dolly magazine of the computer industry"). The Internet Archive and others have kept records which can be analyzed to see who said what first. Professor Goggin replied that both approaches were needed. He was working on an analytical analysis of how Australian youth use mobiles, but it was also important to look at what historians say about topic.

Next there was Kris Carpenter Negulescu from the Internet Archive. She started off pointing out that the archive has more than just copies of old web pages, with books, music and video. Alos the use of the archive for research was emphasized, with "content as infrastructure" and "examination of primary data". She mentioned challenge with archives linking together with APIs. One aspect of interest was the risk of patent which risk the use of common approaches, such as a US company patenting the us of a thumbnail of a web page next to a reference to it. As an expert witness I have used the Internet Archive to check the prior art for such patents.

One interesting development was the use of Zotero in place of End Notes to keep research references. Mellon is funding an extension to this to allow a social network of researchers to exchange their references in a closed group or publicly.

Also it is interesting that data can in the archives can have analysis. An example Kris gave was of the use of the term "Cube Farm" to refer to an open plan office with low partitions. In passing she mentioned that Herman Miller was horrified that his idea of a more comfortable more flexible office layout turned into the confined cube farm.

Kris pointed out that the trend in research funding in the USA was to require the researchers to plan for sustaining the results of their work beyond the end of the funding. In Australia there has been some limited discussion of doing this, with researchers having to put their data in an institutional repository and pay for its upkeep.

Product and Market Definition for Innovation

Greetings from the Product and Market Definition seminar by John Hemphill from Pyksis. This is one of a series by ANU Innovation to encourage staff and students to innovate:

This seminar will focus on the difference between an idea and a product and going from an idea to the product. It will then focus on the right market to target, market segmentation and the right approach to market analysis and validation.

Last week's seminar was replaced by a "speed dating" event, where budding innovators presented their ideas and then invited others to join there team. This was entertaining, as well as informative.

As well as the educational content of these events, there is excellent catering from "The Vanilla Bean" cafe. One extra source of entertainment this week is that four people were working on the electronic information sign in the foyer, next to the Jackie Chan Research Center. The people had the front of the electronic sign open and were working on the display.

This week's seminar was a conventional format with slides and talk by John Hemphill. This went through the process of working out if an invention is a good idea: what problem does it solve? Who has done it before? Will people pay for it? My favourite comments from the evening, was a quote from motoring writer Jeremy Clarkson on the topic of Tata India buying Range Rover: "What would Ghandi say?".

Also mentioned:

• Presentation by John Hemphill

• Market size estimator by John Hemphill

• The InnovationXchange (IXC)
• Nine Sigma
  

Review of the National Innovation System

An expert panel reviewing Australia's national innovation system. Senator Kim Carr, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, set a deadline for a Green Paper from the panel by July 2008, but set himself no deadline for the White Paper from Government in response.

... The Panel will identify gaps and weaknesses in the innovation system and develop proposals to address them. In particular, it will:

• Identify a set of principles to underpin the role and participation of the public sector in innovation.
  
• Develop a set of national innovation priorities to complement the national research priorities, ensuring the objectives of research programs and other innovation initiatives are complementary.
  
• Identify regulatory and other barriers to innovation and recommend ways to minimise these.
  
• Examine the scope for simplifying and reducing program duplication and ensuring that any support provided is well-targeted and easy to access.
  
• Consider the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Concession Scheme in promoting innovation and make recommendations to improve innovation outcomes.
  
• Consider ways to improve the governance of the national innovation system to support higher expectations of government agencies and industry.
  
• Assess the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program and make recommendations to improve innovation outcomes.

In conducting the review the Panel is to have regard to relevant reports and studies, including the Productivity Commission's Report on Public Support for Science and Innovation. ...

From: Terms of Reference, Review of the National Innovation System, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, 2008

The panel is:

Dr Terry Cutler (Chair)	Principal of Cutler & Company
Dr Nicholas Gruen	CEO of Lateral Economics
Prof Mary O'Kane	Executive Chairman of Mary O’Kane & Associates Pty Ltd
Prof Steve Dowrick	Professor, School of Economics, the Australian National University
Ms Narelle Kennedy	Chief Executive of the Australian Business Foundation
Prof Glyn Davis (AC)	Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Melbourne
Ms Catherine Livingstone (AO)	Director – Future Directions International - Macquarie Group Ltd - WorleyParsons Ltd - Telstra Corporation Ltd - Macquarie Graduate School of Management Pty Ltd
Dr Megan Clark	Vice President Technology, BHP Billiton
Professor John Foster	Head of the School of Economics, University of Queensland
Dr Jim Peacock (ex-officio) (AC)	Chief Scientist
Ms Patricia Kelly (ex-officio)	Deputy Secretary of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

The experts announced to help the panel are: Prof Alan Hughes, Prof Richard Lester, Prof Stan Metcalfe and Prof Keith Smith.

The web page for the review has a lot of useful links to materials. Really there are too many links on the page and it reminds me of a Chinese newspaper web site and could do with some rearrangement. ;-)

Here are some of the items:

1. Minister Carr's Speech - New Agenda for Prosperity, to the Australian/Melbourne Institute 2008 Economic and Social Outlook Conference.
2. Review Submission Process- Information on the process for providing submissions to the Review.
   
3. Consultation Presentation - The presentation made by Dr Terry Cutler at each of the stakeholder consultations is now available.
   
4. Video Presentations - An introduction to the Review from Minister Carr and Review Panel Chair Dr Terry Cutler
5. Letter from the Chair of the Expert Panel
6. Outcomes of Feb 21 Expert Panel Meeting
7. Working Group Membership
8. Chair's Speech to the Australian Industrial Research Group - the text of Dr Terry Cutler's speech on 25 February 2008.
   
10. Review Submission Process
11. Submissions Received - submissions will be made available here

Questions and Answers about the Review

Review Fact Sheet

Review of the Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear industry

Review of Australia's Automotive Industry

Review of Australian Higher Education

Review of Export Policies and Programs

The ACT Government also commissioned a Report on the ACT Innovation System, which is available online.

Afternoon Canberra 2020 Session

The morning session of the Canberra 2020 Summit was a little disappointing. I was frustrated by the process of using a face to face forum, which limited the discussion to one speaker at a time. It seems bizarre that in the 21st Century we would be working this way. However, the rapporteurs did a good job of note taking. By the time the points had been transcribed to white boards at the front they made a lot more sense and were much more coherent that the discussion sounded to me.

I quickly tried the record the themes:

Active citizenry: Included and engaged
Recognized city of excellence: regional creative hub
Linked internationally, nationally, and regional
Designing and planning for its future
Making it easy to make choices and participate
No "No Lost People"

Indeginious Future:
Communities and families Inclusion
Community Saftey

Economic and Digital IT:
City for Asia Pacific / Hub of Innovation
Form "Infrastructure ACT"
Radical rethink housing and planning
Refocus the public sector to risk and outcomes

Creative future:
Healthy futures
Sustainablity and the city: Design the city around pub.ic transport; Implement bio regional planning; Move to best practice building; Become carbon neutral
Education and skills: Become a capital city for education and culture; Life long learning; redesign the notionof "school"

The lunch break discussions were almost more useful than the formal sessions. Some issues which came up were the changing demographic of Canberra, transport needs (such as a Canberra Sydney fast train Saturday. Also one of the ACT Government staff commented that they would at least like a day off for having to work; like the federal summit, the ACT public servants working at the summit are unpaid.

Another issue which came up was how to communicate the outcomes of the ACT 2020 Summit and accept further input. The ACT Government's plan was to put the outcomes on the Chief Minister's web site and invite input. The Moodle web site I set up for the Open 2020 Event seems to have been well received and I might see if the ACT Government would like a similar one.

Opening of ACT 2020 Summit

Greetings from the ACT 2020 Summit, which is on Saturday 5 April 2008 at the National Convention Centre (NCC), in Canberra. By a curious coincidence, in 1996 I wrote a 2020 scenario as part of an ACT Government project about Canberra, including the NCC.

The theme of the day is "Innovation: for a city state whose core natural asset is its people". Lynette Glendinning, from PALM Consulting Group is managing the complex process which which has working groups and facilitated plenary discussion. The idea is participants split into groups to discuss one to and will then consider what comes out in a later session.

The mechanics of the complex process took up quite a bit of time and I was more than a little confused. I was supposed to have a number on my badge which indicated which group to join. There was no number, but the group on the digital economy was under subscribed so I thought I will go there.

The audience at this stage is very enthusiastic and applauded the introductions from the Chief Minister and others. However, I am not sure that this enthusiasm will extend throughout the day. The idea of having 350 people in one room working on one thing does not make a lot of sense.

At 10:30am We moved from the theater room into one with a flat floor. There were 12 square tables. with about 18 people around each. The setup of the room reminded me of MIT's TEAL room, minus the technology. The noise level was a little high for comfort and the light level a bit low. The session started with the facilitator introducing themselves, the rapitor (note taker) and people introduced themselves around the able. It turned out that many of the people around the table were from the ANU and from other universities. But we also have Brand Hoff, founder of Tower Software and Senator Lundy, as well as the head of AARnet.

The discussion got a bit bogged down on open source versus proprietary software (we had been through this at the Open 2020 Summit on Thursday). "Cloud Computing" also got a mention. We then got back to the issue, assuming we had broadband in Canberra, what could we do with it. One use is to replace travel.

The link with Asia came up with sport being a way to connect. Infrastructure was also an issue, with rail links to Canberra (I proposed a hybrid one). Also the need for a new convention center (I proposed the one at the ANU could be combined with an educational and decision support center). Tourism was also an issue and other services sector. One idea support for local entrepreneurial activity. "Canberra e-City, the Hub of Australia" was suggested. The need for city economic planning was mentioned.

ACT 2020 Summit

The ACT Government have sent out details of their Canberra summit., as one of the Australian Government local 2020 summits. The name of the event has been changed from the ">Canberra Summit", to the "ACT 2020 Summit". Unfortunately there appears to be no web page for the event (unlike the Open 2020 Summit I am co-charing). Here is the program I was sent:

ACT 2020 SUMMIT

Saturday 5 April 2008

... Canberra

Facilitator: Lynette Glendinning, PALM Consulting Group

THEME: Innovation: for a city state whose core natural asset is its people.

PROCESS: Working Groups and facilitated plenary discussion. Participants will discuss a topic in the first session (topics listed below) and will then consider emerging themes in the second session.

DRAFT PROGRAM:

9.30am	Registration and coffee
10.00am	SUMMIT OPENING
	Opening and scene setting MP
10.20am	SESSION 1 – WHAT IDEAS DO WE HAVE FOR CANBERRA 2020?
10.30am	Working Groups in topics Education and skills Economic infrastructure, the digital economy and information technology Sustainability and the future of our city Healthy futures Strengthening community/supporting families/community inclusion Options for future for indigenous Australians Towards a creative future Community safety
11.15am	Reconvene and plenary report back
12.00pm	Discussion of emerging common themes from the topics
12.30pm	Lunch
1.15pm	SESSION 2 – INNOVATION THEMES: HOW CAN WE BEST POSITION THE ACT FOR 2020?
	Synthesis of key themes emerging from topics Allocation to Session 2 Working Groups
1.30pm	Working groups on Innovation themes – how can we best position the ACT for the future?
2.15pm	Plenary report back
3.00pm	Afternoon Tea
3.20pm	SESSION 3 – CONFERENCE OUTCOMES
	Identify key issues for the National Summit – which themes have national as well as local implications?
3.50pm	Closing remarks
4.00pm	Close

Secure Web Collaboration Across Government and Industry

The March Canberra WIPA/WSG meeting, today discussed government use of web based collaboration, including for sensitive matters at Cabinet level.

Brian Stonebridge, Department Finance and Deregulation
Topic 1: GovDex: a tool to support collaboration across government agencies

Brian Stonebridge talked about how to invest in ICT facilities which did not need to be kept adding to respond to government policy. The particular example was GovDex. A five nation collaboration workspace was demonstrated. This provides support for meetings between governments. Another example was support for the Australian Government ICT Standrads Group. One hot topic this is being used for is to establish the Australian Government position on OOXML (a position has been decided, but not released). Another demonstration was for communicating to new graduate staff. GovDex is secured to IN-CONFIDENCE level of security (PROTECTED cabinet level security and video is planned for GovDex 2).

My first thought was that the tools demonstrated would appear primitive to a group of teenagers organizing their social lives: Surely the Australian Government has something more advanced? Some of the discussion seemed very quaint and last century, for example pointing out that not all graduates may be working in Canberra and the Internet could be used to contact them. In the 21st Century the assumption that staff would be in a particular city, seems an odd one. I would have thought that a 21st century organization would make no assumptions as to where in the world there staff were working from. But the use of such tools need to be learned and also the government's security and public policy issues are difficult ones which most users do not face.

AGIMO is taking a gradual approach of fitting the tools into the usual bureaucratic processes. Ultimately this approach will not work: the processes will need to be changed to improve productivity. The main value of GovDex and similar tools will ultimately come from facilitating the change in these processes.

While I have been a registered GovDex user for some time (they let government consultants in), this talk was still very useful for me. I had the impression that GovDex was just for computer projects. Brian pointed out it can be used for any government project which needs secure collaboration. An example of this is that in the morning I was asked how a wiki could be provided to support the Australian Government's Review of the National Innovation System. My immediate reaction was to say "you can't do that, bureaucrats are not allowed to use wikis" (altought I teach them how to in an ANU course). But GovDex should be ideal for this providing the needed collaboration, but within a structure which supports the needs of government policy development.

Michele Huston, National Library of Australia
Topic 2: Wikis at work

Michele Huston talked about how wikis work in practice, with people initially experimenting and then settling down to organize their information. She discussed problems with the technology, including the editor. She suggested the simple editor has advantages in encouraging people to use simple designs (and at least having to work with wiki markup).

She pointed out a wiki is not intended as an archive, publishing work flow, secure documents or for blogging. These should rightly be done with other tools, although they can be interfaced.

Intellectual Property for innovation

Andrew Blattman from SPRUSON & FERGUSON Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, talked on Wednesday 26th March 2008 in Canberra at the second of the Innovation ANU: a staged business and commercialization development seminars. He talked about what patents are and what they are for.

There were about 80 people at this event, many kore than the first seminar. As Dr. Blattman pointed out, this is a large event for a relatively dry subject like patents. The excellent free drinks beforehand may have helped. But I suspect that the idea that students and staff of the university could win thousand of dollars for a bight idea and have access to millions of dollars in venture capital has spread by word of month.

Researchers probably think that IP protection is limited to very tangible inventions, but Dr. Blattman pointed out that particular shades of the color purple has been trademarked, as have made up words and shapes of pharmaceutical tablets. Other IP protect, such as plan breeders rights, and copyright, are available. Different forms of IP, provide different protection. Patents provide protection for the first to patent, whereas copyright and trade secrets will not protect from independent invention.

A patent provides a monopoly for 20 years. In return, the details of the patent must by published within 18 months. The details of patents are available online. There are 45 references to the ANU at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

the US The process of applying is complex and takes time.

As Dr. Blattman pointed out, there is no exemption from patents for researchers. So researchers need to be aware of patents, as it might stop them using a process in their research, even one they invented.

Business processes can now be patented (I have consulted on some business process patent applications).

To get a patent, the application must be for something legal , useful and not obvious to someone skilled in the field. This can include methods of medical treatment. Patents can be taken out on processes which may not be highly valued, that is for the market to decide. The patent office will search to see if the invention had been previously published. It is important to realize that if the inventor publishes details of the invention before patenting it, this will likely prevent it being patented.

Usually competitors will wait to see if a patent is valuable, before taking legal action to have it invalidated.

More than one patent can be taken out, for example for a formula, how the substance is made, how it is used. The patent does not need to be for a fundamental breakthrough, it can be for a small incremental improvement in some existing process.

There is an important difference between US and most other areas, in that it is "first to invent", that is who can show they invented first gets the patent. Most other places it is first to lodge the patent. It is therefore important to keep good records.

Slides and audio of Dr. Blattman's talk will be available.

ps: The ANU has a very readable and useful 34 page "Manual for the use of ANU Intellectual Property", which includes a flowchart explaining the process. Under this: "... the ANU claims ownership of IP generated by its staff in the course of their employment duties. Students at the ANU own the IP generated by them during their studies.".

The ANU manual also emphasizes the use of laboratory notebooks, to provide evidence of an invention. Unfortunately the manual is out of date. It assumes that written records of research notes are printed on paper and that laboratory notebooks are not electronic. The advice that "It is preferable to make regular hard copy print out of results and paste them into the laboratory notebooks" is unworkable. The ANU needs to revise the manual to provide realistic advice on keeping legally admissible electronic records.

Also the manual does not mention open source or creative commons type licenses.

Also the name of the ANU's commercialization arm which was ANUTECH, needs to be changed to the name adopted in 2004: ANU Enterprise Pty Ltd (this seems to have been missed in the 2006 review of the manual).

Intellectual Property for Seminar

ANU are sponsoring a seminar on Intellectual Property (What it is, how to protect it and how to use it.) by SPRUSON & FERGUSON Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, Wednesday 26th March 2008 in Canberra. For the next five weeks, there will be a seminar each week covering a different area of commercialisation and business planning. This is part of Innovation ANU: a staged business and commercialisation development program for ANU students and staff designed to transform cutting edge research and business ideas into tomorrow’s leading businesses and commercial entities.

Report on the ACT Innovation System

The ACT Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, launched a report on innovation in the ACT, on 19 March 2008. The study was done by Howard Partners, and the full 174 page report is available online ( 1.8 Mbytes of PDF). This should be useful for the Canberra 2020 Forum to be held on April 5 on the theme 'innovation'.

The report has a readable 5 page executive summary and set of recommendations. At about 24 Kbytes per page, the report is reasonably efficiently encoded. However, it would help if the summary and recommendations were provided separately, preferably in the form of a web page which would be easier to find and read. Appended are excerpts from the recommendations, summary and table of contents of the report.

One deficiency of the report is that it does not address new approaches to intellectual property, such as Open Source and Open Access. These provide the potential to unlock creativity, innovation and economic development currently lying unused in tertiary institutions and government agencies in Canberra.

Recommendations From the Report

Leadership

1. An entity, tentatively termed Innovation Canberra, be formed to provide leadership and direction in the development and implementation of knowledge based innovation strategies for the ACT and surrounding region—with a particular focus on the ICT and the creative practices sectors.
2. Innovation Canberra consist of members drawn from business, creative, education, and government sectors.
3. Members of Innovation Canberra be required to contribute to overhead and operating costs, with the ACT Government providing seed funding for start-up costs.
4. Innovation Canberra be tasked to develop a strategic agenda of major projects and initiatives and advocate, promote, and seek funding support from industry, higher education and government—locally, nationally and internationally.

Creating and leveraging sector linkages

5. In view of the potential for the creative sector to make a stronger contribution to economic development, the ACT government give consideration to making further investments to build capability. In particular, initiatives to accelerate the bridging of the technology and creative sectors should be examined.

Stimulating and supporting innovation at the enterprise level

6 The ACT Government establish an ‘Ideas Fund’ to nurture innovative ideas and concepts to a stage of development where they become potentially marketable products and services and are of interest to customers and/or technology investors.
7. The Epicorp incubation and enterprise development model be extended, in partnership with universities, research organisations, and national collecting institutions, into a Canberra Innovation Development Centre directed towards product development and scale up for technology and
arts and creative businesses.
8. A program to support innovation strategy development in more developed and mature start-up firms be examined—for example, program support to cover the cost of advice and mentoring to assist firms develop innovation management strategies and the organisational infrastructure
pertinent to their business models.

Innovation, Creativity and Leadership

9. The ACT Government be a participant in a collaboration between Government and ACT universities in an ARC Linkage project application for innovation in government procurement. As one of the smaller jurisdictions a pilot study should be undertaken for the ACT public sector.

Branding and positioning of Canberra

10. There is need to develop a more progressive view and brand of Canberra, particularly in the domestic market. The ACT Government, together with industry through the Canberra Business Council, higher and further education institutions, the national collecting institutions, research
organisations, and the Australian Government develop a strategy to position Canberra as an international city of design.

Promotion

11. The ACT Government support an annual Canberra Exhibition that showcases, celebrates and markets ACT innovation capability across the science, technology, and the cultural and creative sectors ...

From: Innovation, Creativity and Leadership, Report of a Study of the ACT Innovation System, Howard Partners for the Australian Capital Territory Government, March 2008, ISBN-978-0-642-60439-2,
ISBN-10: 0-642-60439-8

From the Executive Summary:

... Cities and regions provide the frameworks for innovation by being ‘hubs of capability’ and facilitating ‘linkages’ between businesses, research and teaching organisations and government organisations. The concept of ’hubs’ and ‘linkages’ provides the basis for the analysis of ‘innovation systems’. ...

This study complements the science system approach by documenting capability in what will be referred to as the ‘arts and creative practices system’ and drawing attention to the importance of creativity as a major source of innovation. Creativity is linked to innovation through design as well as research, teaching, and experimentation in art and creative practices. Cultural institutions, such as libraries, galleries and museums also have a role in the ‘arts and creative practices system’. ...

In 2004-05 a total of $698m was spent on research and development in Canberra—amounting to 10.2 percent of total research and development expenditure in Australia. Almost 90 percent of expenditure in Canberra was performed in the public sector. Business expenditure on research and development Innovation, Creativity and Leadership amounted to $99m (1.0 percent of the Australian total). Sixty two percent of this was incurred in the electronic equipment and computer services (ICT) sectors. This compares with 11 per cent for Australia as a whole.

Several research intensive and software development based businesses have grown in Canberra and become sustainable, often on a global basis, on a foundation of relationships developed with Australian Government departments and agencies and the Defence Materiel Organisation.

However, the study indicates that contracting with the Australian Government presents particular challenges, particularly in the absence of a demonstrated ‘track record’. Unlike the United Kingdom and European countries, the Australian Government does not use its procurement system to source or stimulate innovation. This constitutes lost opportunity. ...

The strengths of the ACT science system relate to its position as an international centre and global hub for research and teaching excellence across a number of disciplines, including natural and life sciences, information and communications sciences, economics, the policy sciences and humanities, and curatorial studies.

Research excellence attracts top students who in turn provide the human
resource base for businesses starting up or relocating in Canberra, for government advice, and for national institutions wishing to tap into world class expertise and capabilities.

The arts and creative practices system reflects the location and activities of the national collecting institutions based in Canberra—including the National Library, the National Gallery of Australia, the National Museum of Australia, the National Film and Sound Archive, the Australian War Memorial and the National Archives—and teaching and research undertaken in the schools of art, music, design and architecture located at the ANU, the University of Canberra and the Canberra Institute of Technology. ...

A private college, the Academy of Interactive Entertainment (AIE), is a leading educator for the computer game development and 3D digital industries. ScreenACT, the ACT Office of Film, Television and Digital Media, is responsible for implementing industry development initiatives. Canberra has a developing film and television production industry, with a particular strength in non-fiction and documentary film, and which displays potential to grow. ...

In June 2006 there were 3,000 creative businesses in the ACT, representing 10.7 percent of all businesses in the Territory—this data does not include businesses located in Queanbeyan. Creative businesses have a higher propensity to be micro-businesses—with 40 percent of GST registered creative businesses being sole traders compared to 36 percent across all industries. This is reflective of a
pattern in other capital cities—particularly London and Berlin.

There is scope for substantial further development of the creative industries through linkages and partnerships between universities and colleges, creative content providers, the substantial computing capacity available in the ACT (through the ANU and NICTA) and optical fibre communications capability. ...

The study outlines a number of key issues that need to be addressed in going ahead with an innovation based economic development strategy. These include creating critical mass among smaller businesses through collaborations and networking, the exercise of leadership and building business capacity and capability for expansion and growth. ...

The study has suggested that there are a number of initiatives that can be put in place to capture and develop innovation opportunities for the ACT. There was a strong view that government, industry and universities should work in partnership to capture the ICT and creative capabilities of Canberra through investment in an MIT style media laboratory. ...

From: Innovation, Creativity and Leadership, Report of a Study of the ACT Innovation System, Howard Partners, for the Australian Capital Territory Government, March 2008, ISBN-978-0-642-60439-2,
ISBN-10: 0-642-60439-8

From Table of contents of the report:

Executive Summary 1
Recommendations 6

1. Introduction 9
   1. Background 9
   2. Innovation and innovation systems 10
   3. The competitive environment 21
2. Approach to the study 22
3. The innovation policy context: vision, plans, and frameworks 23
   1. Innovation policy objectives 23
   2. The Canberra plan and strategy 24
   3. The economic framework 26
   4. Australian Government purchasing and procurement 32
   5. Issues and implications 37
4. Innovation system capability 39
   1. Research and development capability 39
   2. Creative capability 52
   3. Business and entrepreneurial capability 62
   4. Conclusions 64
5. Innovation system institutional framework 65
   1. Institutions for teaching and research 66
   2. Cultural institutions 67
   3. Lead businesses 68
   4. Networks 73
   5. Conferences, awards and prizes 78
   6. Technology parks and seed funds 80
   7. Investors 81
   8. Support services 83
   9. Policy and strategic framework 84
6. Innovation system dynamics 85
   1. Framework 85
   2. System attributes 87
   3. Interactions and connections 90
   4. Issues and implications 92
7. Canberra’s distinctive capabilities 93
   1. A City with an international outlook and connections 93
   2. An international centre for research and teaching 94
   3. Centre for culture, arts, and creative practices 94
   4. A Centre for defence procurement 95
   5. An attractive place to live and work 95
   6. Implications 96
8. Best practice 97
   1. Berlin 97
   2. Ottawa 98
   3. Washington, DC 98
   4. London 101
   5. Wellington 102
   6. Observations and implications 103
9. Some emerging trends 105
   1. The ‘democratisation’ of information technology 105
   2. The convergence of information technology and creative practices 106
   3. Higher education engagement 107
   4. Biotechnology 108
   5. Demand for security solutions 109
   6. Government procurement practices 110
   7. Centralisation of government administration in Canberra 112
10. Key issues to address 113
    1. Creating critical mass 113
    2. Leadership 114
    3. Building a culture of collaboration 114
    4. Building business capability in the creative industries sector 115
    5. Support for new business development 116
    6. Resources 117
    7. Out-migration of skilled people 117
    8. Policy issues 117
    9. Innovation, Creativity and Leadership
11. New visions for Canberra 119
    1. A centre for a technology, arts and creative practices industry 119
    2. A ‘connected city’ 120
    3. An international city of design 122
    4. An international centre for conservation management and practice 123
    5. Australia’s ‘education’ capital 123
    6. Sustainable City 124
    7. Issues and implications 126
12. Actions and initiatives 127
    1. Establish leadership and direction 127
    2. Build a framework for new business support 130
    3. Advocate for innovation in government procurement 133
    4. Position Canberra as an international city 134

Attachment A: Strategies and actions to establish Canberra as an international city of design and architecture 135

• Achieve UNESCO ‘City of Design’ status 135
• Branding through the Canberra Biennial 137
• Establish a Graduate School of Design 138
• Plan for a National Design Museum 138
• Encourage Establishment of a Peak Body for Design 139
• Overall framework 139

Attachment B: Australian Government Contracts Gazetted for Procurement of Goods and Services in the ACT and Region 2006-07 141

• Classified by ANZSCC Code 141
• Classified by Agency/Department 144

Attachment C: Profile of Research and Development Expenditure in the ACT. 147

• Overview 147
• Higher education 148
• Government 153

Attachment D: A note on financing start-up businesses 155
Attachment E: The MIT Media Lab 159
References 163

Table 1: ACT Industry Percentage Contribution to Total Factor Income 27
Table 2 ACT Employment by Industry Sector (‘000) 31
Table 3: Australian Government—purchases of goods and services in the ACT and region exceeding $10m 33
Table 4: Australian Government purchases of goods and services in the
ACT region—ANZSCC code 34
Table 5: Innovation system capability investment framework 40
Table 6: Higher education expenditure on R&D by type of activity 2004 ($’000) 41
Table 7: Higher education expenditure on R&D by type of activity 2004 (proportion) 41
Table 8: Summary of higher education expenditure on R&D by research fields 2004 ($’000) 42
Table 9: Summary of higher education expenditure on R&D by socio-economic objective 2004 ($’000) 43
Table 10: Higher education research commercialisation indicators 44
Table 11: Government expenditure on research and development 45
Table 12: CSIRO research commercialisation indicators 46
Table 13: Major Australian research infrastructure located in the ACT 46
Table 14: Business expenditure on R&D, by industry - by location: 2005-06 47
Table 15: All ACT Students by Higher Education Provider and Broad Field of Education, Full Year 2005 48
Table 16: Students by Higher Education Provider and Broad Level of Course, Full Year 2005 49
Table 17: Australian Government Business Support Programs 51
Table 18: Employment in Creative Industry Segments, 2001 census 54
Table 19: Number of creative businesses in the ACT by segment—2006 55
Table 20: Innovation system institutional framework 65
Table 21: Expenditure on R&D, by industry - by location: 2004-05 147
Table 22: Higher education expenditure on R&D by source of funds 2004 ($’000) 148
Table 23: Higher education expenditure on R&D by source of funds 2004 (proportions) 148
Table 24: Higher education expenditure on R&D by type of activity 2004 ($’000) 149
Table 25: Higher education expenditure on R&D by type of activity 2004 (proportion) 149
Table 26: Higher education expenditure on R&D by research fields 2004 ($’000) 150
Table 27: Higher education expenditure on R&D by research fields 2004 (proportion) 151
Table 28: Higher education expenditure on R&D by socio-economic objective 2004 ($’000) 152
Table 29: Higher education expenditure on R&D by socio-economic objective 2004 (proportion) 153

From: Innovation, Creativity and Leadership, Report of a Study of the ACT Innovation System, Howard Partners, for the Australian Capital Territory Government, March 2008, ISBN-978-0-642-60439-2,
ISBN-10: 0-642-60439-8

See also:

• Building Arcadia: Emulating Cambridge's High Technology Success
• Canberra 2020 summit

Innovation in New Zealand

The NZ Ministry of Economic Development has issued two request for tenders for an Auckland Innovation Centre. One is for the Design, Business Case and Plan, the other is for Market Testing. Perhaps Canberra can join in and prepare a joint plan for their ACT Innovation System.

The Ministry of Economic Development (MED) is seeking project management and consultancy support to:

• Develop the current draft value proposition for the Auckland Innovation Centre into a detailed concept, including further testing and refinement with industry and researchers in New Zealand;
• Develop a business case for the Centre
• Develop a business plan for the Centre
• Secure initial cornerstone partners and investors into the Centre.

Scope:

This document is a Request for Proposal (RFP) by MED. MED seeks proposals for project management and consultancy support to:

1) Develop the current draft AIC value proposition into a detailed design.
2) Use the concept document as a basis for discussion and negotiation with stakeholders, in order to secure initial cornerstone partners, tenants and investors.
3) Develop a full business case for the Centre.
4) Develop a full business plan for the Centre.


From: Auckland Innovation Centre – Detailed Design, Business Case and Plan, Request for Proposal , NZ Ministry of Economic Development

The Ministry of Economic Development (MED) is seeking consultancy support to test the draft Auckland Innovation Centre value proposition, in order to:

• Understand the state of advanced materials capability in other markets and whether the Auckland innovation centre proposition represents a differentiated and competitive proposition;
• Understand where potential competition lies and what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the current proposition relat