Convaim Submission to Industry Growth Program Consultation

Dear Minister Husic,

Convaim is pleased to provide a submission on the Industry Growth Program (IGP). We value the diligent work of our public servants in implementing this initiative and welcome the Albanese Government’s directive in establishing this program.

I am writing to you as the CEO of Convaim, a registered lobbyist firm passionate about the future of Australia's Arts, Deep Tech, Renewables industries and Australian manufacturing. I want to take a moment to appreciate the commendable work you and your team have done in launching the National Reconstruction Fund (NRF) and changes to the Critical Technologies List. This initiative speaks volumes about your commitment to fostering a prosperous and forward-thinking Australia.

My company provides services to advance a modern, forward-thinking Australian workplace. This vision comes to reality through diligent initiatives such as this and the indispensable work of public servants. Our clients include innovative SMEs eager to foster innovation, create employment, and contribute significantly to Australia's economy and industrial resilience. Beyond advocacy, I am also the CEO of Balance Mat, a company that qualifies postural sway data for concussion and falls risk, and I support my family’s angel investments in the start-up sector

We have closely followed your announcements about the new Industry Growth Program. I am expressing our support for this significant initiative. The focus on bridging the "valley of death" for young businesses and SMEs is an admirable approach that aligns perfectly with the needs of our clients. Further, we look forward to reintegrating program delivery into the public service, as the experiment in outsourcing these responsibilities has been disappointing.?

We commend the program's focus on providing expert advice and matched grants to enable early-stage companies to increase revenue, grow their workforce, and attract investment. This transformative step will help our clients and other Australian businesses flourish nationally and internationally.

The program’s strong focus on commercialisation and early-stage business growth advice, combined with grants, is a high-impact, cost-effective way to back Australian ideas and build capability. It effectively positions innovative, early-stage Australian businesses on a sustainable growth path, enabling them to seek potential funding through the National Reconstruction Fund or attract other investment interests in the future.

Having reviewed the proposed features of the program, we would like to contribute our insights towards its design and implementation. Considering our experience working with SMEs and startups, we can offer valuable feedback that would make the program even more effective.

To this end, we have comprehensively responded to the questions posed in the consultation paper. We look forward to contributing our thoughts on the eligibility criteria for innovative SMEs, the design elements of the program, the role of industry partner organisations, program governance, and other vital areas.

Once again, I extend my congratulations for this commendable initiative, and we look forward to contributing to the discussion to make the Industry Growth Program a success.

Kind regards,

George Tulloch CEO, Convaim

What objective criteria should determine eligible innovative SMEs? For example, annual turnover of $20 million or less, employee cap and net asset cap??

The objective criteria for determining eligible innovative SMEs under the IGP should consider the context and uniqueness of the startup environment in Australia, as well as the core objectives of the Government.

Firstly, the ground floor of the NRF should serve as the leading guide for eligibility. The fund already outlines clear criteria for qualifying businesses, and aligning the IGP with these existing standards can streamline the application process for potential beneficiaries while ensuring a consistent approach to supporting innovative SMEs across different government initiatives.

An annual turnover cap of $20 million or less for specific metrics seems appropriate. This would ensure that the program targets SMEs rather than larger, more established corporations. Moreover, it would focus on businesses in their growth phase, which typically face unique challenges and could benefit most from the program's support. However, enforcing an employee cap might be less beneficial. The IGP intends to foster growth, and implementing an employee cap could limit a company's expansion potential, which would counter the Government's objective of enhancing high-tech employment. Many startups remunerate employees with equity and a base salary, often allowing them to attract higher-skilled, enthusiastic workers. Such arrangements empower workers to leverage their income for wealth generation, thereby increasing market competition.

Lastly, assessing eligibility based on a company's net assets might not be a suitable criterion. Given that those assets in a startup environment are usually self-reported,? such a criterion could be manipulated. Therefore, it might be best to omit net assets as an eligibility factor to maintain the program's integrity and ensure its support is targeted appropriately.

What level of grant matching is appropriate? Should there be a variation for earlier stage Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) programs and the size of the grant??

Determining the appropriate level of grant matching for small to medium enterprises (SMEs) involves a balance of incentivising innovation and responsible management of taxpayer funds. Historically, a 50% grant matching model has proven to be effective. This model ensures that businesses have a vested interest in the project's success, as they must progressively match the funds provided by the Government. This reduces the risk to taxpayers and encourages a sense of ownership and responsibility within the SMEs. After all, as this is a government grant program, the expectation is that there should be an equal contribution from parties looking to utilise tax monies in a profit-oriented environment.

The grant size should reflect the opportunity presented by the proposed project. Every innovative venture has different financial needs depending on factors such as the industry, technology, and the market it aims to serve. For instance, some projects of SMEs require significant investment to transform a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) into a fully deployable solution. A "phantom" criteria exist within the grant request amount. By understanding the funding needs and the amount requested, a business demonstrates its grasp of the financial realities of its project, which can serve as an indicator of its overall capability.

There could be a case for varying the level of grant matching. Early-stage TRLs often represent a higher risk as the technology is still being developed and may be tested in real life. This can deter businesses from pursuing these projects despite their potential benefits. A higher level of grant matching could be implemented for earlier-stage TRLs, providing a stronger incentive for businesses to take on these ambitious projects.

This approach aligns with the understanding that grant size should be proportional to opportunity. Businesses are tackling large-scale problems and pushing the boundaries of current technology. They represent considerable innovation and economic growth opportunities. The Government can foster an environment that promotes technological advancement.

Are there barriers beyond the pre-profit stage that the program should consider supporting??

Small to medium enterprises (SMEs) face challenges beyond the pre-profit stage, particularly in commercialisation, especially in an export market or a market already populated by one or more large corporations (mainly foreign-owned). Transitioning from a developed product or service to a commercially viable offering can often be challenging, also called crossing the 'Valley of Death'. Market development grants, such as the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG), could be an effective strategy to support SMEs during this phase. Providing at least 50% upfront funding can give these companies the necessary resources to overcome obstacles in market research, product localisation, and marketing strategies tailored for the target market.

Moreover, the program should consider promoting industrial partnerships to enhance SMEs' commercialisation capabilities. By providing tax-effective schemes encouraging collaboration with companies operating in allied markets, SMEs can leverage their partners' existing market knowledge, distribution networks, and customer relationships. These collaborations could help SMEs reduce market entry barriers, accelerate their growth and enhance their competitiveness.

In addition to these measures, a response to the Inflation Reduction Act is required. Much like the R&D Tax Incentive, a similar but more targeted scheme could assist manufacturing development. This program would provide tax incentives to companies investing in advanced manufacturing processes, production techniques, and innovative product design. This measure could stimulate investment, improve competitiveness, and create jobs in the manufacturing sector, contributing to the economy's overall growth.

The broader challenge for Australia is the 'brain drain' phenomenon, where highly skilled workers leave the country for opportunities overseas. Australia has invested millions of dollars in producing every post-graduate, only to see them seek employment abroad. The recent shifts in the structure of global tech companies' workforces and the changing work dynamics due to the pandemic present a unique opportunity. The program should look into ways to attract these workers back to Australia through incentives for companies that hire locally or through schemes that make it attractive for overseas Australians to return. Doing so could significantly enhance the country's tech sector and further innovation and economic growth.

Should Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) be used to determine project eligibility? If so, what are the appropriate TRLs for commercialisation and early-stage growth phases??

Determining a project's eligibility based on Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) could be limiting. While TRLs are essential indicators of a technology's maturity, they do not necessarily reflect a project's commercial potential. Many companies might have achieved a high TRL, indicating technical viability. Yet, they may still need to reach the market due to the inherent challenges in their commercialisation strategies. Thus, relying solely on TRLs may need to pay more attention to some innovative projects with significant market potential yet to mature technically.

In contrast, the Commercial Readiness Index (CRI) or Business Readiness Level could offer a more holistic understanding of a project's potential. These metrics evaluate a project's technical viability and assess its market readiness, financial planning, and risk management strategies. For instance, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) has developed a CRI that considers the multifaceted barriers that new technologies and entrants face in their commercialisation process related to their investment mandate. The CRI recognises that retiring technology risk through the TRL framework often leaves significant commercial uncertainty and risk in the demonstration and deployment phase. Therefore, it provides a more robust framework to evaluate projects intending to enter markets typically supplied by proven incumbents and financed by risk-averse capital markets.

However, it's worth noting that while ARENA’s Commercial Readiness Index offers a comprehensive evaluation method, it is not directly applicable to the IGP, being focussed on ARENA market development goals rather than industry development per se. Tech entrepreneurs, for instance, have demonstrated that commercial readiness is validated throughout the TRL process, with market traction building as the product features are developed and refined. This suggests that commercial readiness begins at the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) stage or even earlier if secured intellectual property is a target. Therefore, it would be beneficial to understand and incorporate this new commercialisation model for programs like the Industry Growth Program, which strongly focuses on manufacturing. This approach would encourage participants to validate their market potential earlier, fostering more robust growth and efficient resource allocation.

How should we determine which projects have the most potential for future growth and market impact?

Determining which projects have the most potential for future growth and market impact is a multifaceted task that should consider the proposals' strategic, economic, social, and labour considerations. A balanced and representative assessment committee is crucial to this process. The committee should comprise proven start-up investors, founders, expert industrialists and union representatives who can collectively appreciate technologies' total impact on the Australian and global markets. Such a diverse board would ensure a comprehensive understanding of the various factors that contribute to the potential success of a project and its market impact.

Proven start-up investors, angel investors, and VCs bring expertise in spotting growth potential, financial sustainability, and market opportunities. On the other hand, founders can provide insight into the operational challenges and innovative solutions that are often crucial to the success of early-stage projects. In contrast, expert industrialists offer a historical perspective of having achieved manufacturing industry success. Union representation ensures that the labour perspective is factored into the evaluation, safeguarding workers' rights and promoting equitable growth. This diversity of perspectives is essential for making well-rounded decisions reflecting the multi-dimensional growth and market impact.

Consideration should be given to the potential of projects to create jobs and stimulate commercial activity. It's in the interest of the Government to support initiatives that will boost employment, particularly in high-growth sectors. In addition, projects that have the potential to open up new commercial markets or disrupt existing ones could have significant economic benefits, stimulating growth and innovation in the broader economy.

Evaluation of projects should be based on their alignment with Australia's Critical Technologies List. This list outlines the technologies of strategic importance to Australia's national interest, including but not limited to sectors such as energy, medical devices, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and advanced materials. Projects contributing to these critical technologies may have significant market potential and contribute to the national strategic objectives, further enhancing their value.

The board should pay attention to the social impact of the projects. Projects that offer solutions to social challenges, improve quality of life, or contribute to sustainability could have a far-reaching social impact, fulfilling the Government's responsibility towards social welfare. Considering job creation, commercial potential, alignment with critical technologies, and social implications, this broad-based evaluation approach would help identify the projects with the highest potential for future growth and market impact.

In the modern era of generative AI and trained consultant grant writers, the case for public servants, as was the case in previous programs, or consultants, as was the recent model, representating the applicants within the final stage of the pitching process is no longer industry standard. A core part of the assessment process should include a traditional business pitch to the Committee. This face-to-face interaction will allow an appropriate estimation of the applicant’s capabilities outside the written environment. A founder’s capacity to lead and direct the team, particularly in the startup environment, guides the project’s success. Appropriate consideration should be given to diversity and inclusion during this process, with training provided to Committee members. We understand the apprehension of some potential members to participate in this process, but this is standard practice in venture capital and other funding environments. Any potential Committee member will be aware of this dynamic while also being aware of their conflict of interest and integrity responsibilities. The remuneration for the Committee will reflect this level of commitment.

Should it be necessary that the applicant has the legal ownership, or effective ownership, of the know-how, intellectual property or other similar results arising from the project??

The question of ownership, particularly in the context of intellectual property and other project outcomes, is critical in evaluating applicants for innovation grants. It is indeed necessary for applicants to have effective ownership of their technology, be it protected by intellectual property rights or otherwise. This ownership is about having a legal claim over technology and demonstrating the applicants' capacity to effectively manage and leverage their innovation and freedom to operate.

Technology ownership brings control and accountability fundamental to successful project execution. Without a degree of authority over their technology, it becomes difficult for applicants to establish risk control measures. This is not to suggest that all risk can or should be eliminated, but instead that an inherent aspect of stewardship is the ability to manage, mitigate, and respond to the risks associated with bringing new technology to market.

Moreover, protecting technology and embracing stewardship of technology is a critical gatekeeper for many startups. For instance, the steps required to secure intellectual property rights can demonstrate a startup's commitment to innovation and strategic thinking. Understanding and acting with this mindset protects the startup's interests and enables growth and more rapid scaling, ensuring that the value created by the innovation remains within the company.

That being said, there are also potential roadblocks to this ideal scenario, particularly in the context of Australian Universities and Research Organisations. These entities have gained a reputation for fiercely protecting the IP created within their institutions, to the point where the licensing process becomes so tricky that it borders on futility. This restrictiveness is counterproductive to fostering innovation and collaboration within the national ecosystem.

The funding that these educational and research facilities receive should be contingent on their willingness and ability to integrate and collaborate with Australian industries and businesses. They should not focus on overseas or large industrial partners as a first preference. We aim to cultivate an environment of innovation that drives national growth. In that case, we must encourage and facilitate the transfer of knowledge and technology from research institutions to businesses that can commercialise them, creating jobs and economic value.

Is 'need for funding' (i.e., why applicants cannot access sufficient funding for the project from other sources) an applicable merit criterion for assessing grant applications? If so, how should this be measured??

The 'need for funding' is a significant and practical merit criterion when assessing grant applications. This aspect highlights the reason for such grants: to provide financial support where traditional or alternative funding sources are insufficient or inaccessible. Unfortunately, in Australia, the local investor ecosystem has developed a solid aversion to risks associated with manufacturing, precisely the high capital expenditure that this sector often entails. This creates a gap where innovation in manufacturing can be stifled due to a lack of financial support, severely impacting our economic diversity.

However, more than merely establishing the 'need for funding' is needed. It is essential to measure this need in a way that provides an accurate and objective picture of an applicant's financial situation, awareness of the demands for future growth and ability to access other funding sources. A system needs to be established to evaluate the need systematically, providing a quantitative and qualitative understanding of the applicant's situation.

One way to measure this could be by appointing an advisor who understands the highs and lows of a high-turnover investment environment and acts as a devil's advocate. Advisors from funds that focus on software, where risk aversion is high yet the rewards of successful startups are great, can bring a valuable perspective to the table. This advisor could evaluate the company's risk profile using a 5-point scale, with these 5 points contributing to 5% of the total grant application assessment criteria.

What are the potential barriers to accessing the Industry Growth Program??

Various potential barriers to accessing the IGP must be considered, reflecting issues in the broader startup ecosystem. A significant barrier stems from the prevalent misunderstanding within the startup community. Many startup entrepreneurs of the current generation are under the impression that the role of the Government in supporting their ventures is limited to providing small-scale proof of concept grants under $100,000. This perspective can limit their engagement with programs like the IGP, designed to provide more substantial support to startups with high growth potential.

Further, representation and inclusivity remain considerable challenges in the startup landscape, which may impede access to such programs. Women are consistently underrepresented among startup founders, as are First Nations peoples. This underrepresentation could result from systemic biases or a need for tailored support for these groups in the startup ecosystem. We must adequately address these issues to maintain valuable perspectives and innovations these groups can bring. Therefore, the IGP must include strategies and mechanisms to ensure greater inclusion and equity.

Another critical area of concern is the underrepresentation of regional areas and founders. While there is a growing recognition of the potential in regional Australia, regional founders still need to be represented in the startup space. This could be due to various factors, including less access to resources, a need for more awareness about opportunities, and challenges in building and maintaining networks. Consequently, there needs to be an intentional focus on outreach and support to founders in these areas.

It is critical to ensure that this IGP fosters an environment where every ambitious and innovative individual, regardless of gender, background, or location, can become aware of and access the support they need to succeed. Doing so will help break down existing barriers and enable a more inclusive, innovative, and vibrant startup ecosystem.

How can we help overcome these barriers to expand the reach of the program??

To effectively overcome the barriers and expand the reach of the IGP, several measures can be implemented in line with the principles of Australia. Building on the Minister's engagement with universities and their startup programs, we should expand these connections to include startup accelerators outside the educational system. These accelerators often provide fertile grounds for innovation, mentorship, and growth for early-stage startups. By establishing solid ties with these accelerators, we can ensure that more potential applicants are aware of the opportunities provided by the IGP.

The IGP must have specific initiatives to promote inclusion and diversity. This means implementing tailored strategies to support women and First Nations people who want to start their businesses. Such initiatives include providing dedicated mentorship programs, facilitating access to networking events, and creating safe spaces for knowledge exchange and collaboration. This approach addresses the underrepresentation of these groups and enriches the startup ecosystem with diverse perspectives and innovative ideas.

Finally, to better support founders from regional areas, we must invest in infrastructure and resources that allow these entrepreneurs to connect with the larger startup ecosystem. This can include setting up regional innovation hubs, facilitating virtual networking events, and offering travel grants for regional founders to participate in significant startup events. It's also vital to showcase successful regional startups to inspire and guide budding entrepreneurs in these areas.

Should the program consider more specific merit criteria for traditionally underrepresented groups???

Given the recognised need for more representation from specific demographics in the startup ecosystem, introducing tailored merit criteria could address this imbalance and foster a more diverse and inclusive industry.

Convaim proposes to include a 10% diversity criterion for all social and economic barriers. This criterion could encompass factors such as the gender, cultural background, and geographic location of the company's leadership, as well as its strategies for promoting diversity and inclusion within its workforce. By factoring these elements into the assessment of grant applications, we could incentivise businesses to prioritise diversity and inclusion and actively work towards correcting systemic imbalances.

In addition, to ensure this criterion effectively serves its intended purpose, it will be essential to provide clear guidelines and standards for what constitutes 'diversity' within this context. This could include, but not be limited to, fostering gender equality, promoting the involvement of First Nations people, supporting individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, supporting founders with disabilities and encouraging participation from regional and rural areas.

What core capabilities and resources would be most helpful from industry partner organisations to improve commercialisation and early-stage growth performance for participants of this program??

The availability of the right resources and partnerships can drastically enhance the potential for commercialisation and early-stage growth for participants of the IGP. Such collaborations can play a critical role in bridging the gap between innovation and implementation, especially for startups in the manufacturing sector.

Given the complex technical challenges often encountered by startups in this space, one core capability that should be prioritised is engineering services. It is here where industry partners like Bosch Australia Manufacturing Solutions (BAMS) can bring immense value. Born out of the closure of a Bosch manufacturing facility in Victoria, BAMS has proven its ability to support Australian startups with their bespoke engineering needs. Their work with solar startup 5B serves as a testament to the potential of this model. Their engineering services can be leveraged to help startups navigate through technical obstacles and accelerate their route to market.

Moreover, the BAMS model is now being replicated globally, signalling its effectiveness. The IGP could seize this opportunity to incorporate this Australian innovation into its framework. By doing so, the program can better equip startups with the technical resources needed for scaling their operations.

Additionally, drawing insights from functional models of manufacturing hubs in Australia, such as the Western Sydney Aerotropolis and CSIRO outreach projects, could be beneficial. These initiatives have shown success in fostering innovation and facilitating commercialisation. The program can gain insight into the equipment and resources that most benefit startups by collaborating with hubs and engineering partners like BAMS. This could further assist in tailoring the support offered to the unique needs of each participant.

What services and support should industry partner organisations provide to participants??

The opportunity to partner with organisations like Bosch Australia Manufacturing Solutions (BAMS), which provides specialised services such as the Design for Manufacturing Workshop, can significantly enhance the success of startups engaged in the IGP. This is a prime example of how collaboration with industry partners can be instrumental in shaping a startup's manufacturing plan, setting the stage for its further development and growth.

The NRF could play a pivotal role in fostering innovation and promoting commercialisation. A mentor responsibility could be implemented as part of NRF funding. The NRF would be a critical catalyst for accelerating technology development by establishing manufacturing centres for industry coordination. Drawing from the extensive literature on technology clusters, the benefits of hosting multiple technology-related activities within a defined geographic area are abundantly clear.

Such a setup would facilitate resource sharing, skill development, and knowledge transfer, thereby enhancing the overall productivity and competitiveness of the participating entities. Furthermore, the 'hub and spoke' model, a time-tested strategy in traditional manufacturing, could provide a highly effective operational framework. In this model, a central hub coordinates and distributes resources and production to smaller satellite facilities or "spokes", creating a coordinated and efficient production centres network.

In addition, establishing a supplementary Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for scaleup manufacturing would bring significant added value to this program. CRCs could provide a platform for collaboration among key stakeholders, including industry, researchers, and the Government. This would ensure an integrated approach to research and development that addresses the specific priorities set out by the IGP.? The recently shut down IMCRC (Innovative Manufacturing CRC) established a proven methodology for fostering manufacturing innovation and could serve as a model for a next-generation Manufacturing CRC.

Are there other skills and expertise that should be represented on the committee??

The committee's composition governing the IGP should reflect various skills and expertise to ensure the program's objectives are effectively achieved. The Committee should include founders and angel investors. Notably, including members with expertise in engineering and scale manufacturing is essential. These individuals bring invaluable technical knowledge and insights about the realities of the manufacturing sector, its potential, challenges, and the opportunities that could be leveraged for maximum benefit. Their expertise will provide a solid technical backbone for the committee, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the projects the program supports and the needs of the startups that run them.

Furthermore, as we move into the second industrial revolution, it's crucial to include union representation on the committee. Unions play a significant role in shaping labour policies and protecting workers' rights. They can offer valuable insights into workforce needs, training requirements, and fair work practices, ensuring the program promotes projects that contribute to sustainable job creation and support proper working conditions. Their inclusion in the committee would be a firm nod to the program's commitment to uphold and promote labour rights and inclusive workforce practices.

Finally, having an advisor with experience in high-risk, high-reward investment environments, such as software-focused VC funds, is highly recommended. This advisor would serve as a devil's advocate, critically evaluating the program's risk profile and, conversely, guiding decisions toward less secure outcomes.?

What other design elements could be considered to ensure a quality, positive business experience and outcomes??

The design of the IGP should be created with a holistic view, considering not only the immediate practical needs of the business but also the broader user experience and outcomes. An essential design element to ensure a quality business experience is to have a well-established support network involving consultants and public servants. Expert consultants bring industry insights, strategic guidance, and external perspectives that can help businesses innovate and grow. Simultaneously, having a public servant counterpart allows companies to receive advice grounded in public policy and the broader socio-economic context. Public servants can provide businesses with insights about government regulations, policy shifts, and funding opportunities, offering 'frank and fearless' advice that reinforces the value of our public service workforce.?

Moreover, these advisors, both from the public sector and the consultancy world, would assist in streamlining the businesses' interactions with the Government, helping them navigate bureaucratic procedures more effectively and ensuring they know all the support avenues available. It is imperative that a consultant is not contracted when there is no government employee to counterbalance their input.

To facilitate positive outcomes, creating direct pathways for grant recipients to apply for the NRF funding would be beneficial. By providing these natural pathways, the program can encourage continuous growth and development for businesses, ensuring they have the resources necessary to realise their full potential. Moreover, the linkage between the IGP and the NRF would create a growth pipeline for businesses contributing to Australia's research and innovation landscape. This synergistic relationship would benefit individual companies and boost Australia's innovation ecosystem.

Are the proposed project periods (up to 24 months) reasonable??

The proposed project period of up to 24 months is reasonable and strategic when viewed within business scaleup and growth. This time frame aligns with the typically accelerated pace of business development and innovation within the startup ecosystem. Businesses and innovators must perceive this period as a concentrated time for scaling up and propelling their ideas to the next level of growth rather than an extended phase for prolonged development or experimentation.

In a rapidly evolving global business landscape, Australian enterprises must act swiftly and decisively to close the industrial gap caused by a decade of neglect and mismanagement. This window of 24 months offers businesses a focused and intensive period to consolidate their operations, refine their market strategies, and scale their products or services. It is long enough to allow for substantial progress yet short enough to maintain momentum and a sense of urgency.

Further, this proposed project period aligns with the Government’s commitment to expedite industrial growth and innovation, positioning Australian businesses at the forefront of their respective fields. The program aims to foster an aggressive approach to bridging the industrial gap, stimulating rapid growth, and promoting competitive advantage. Therefore, any founder applying to this program should have a robust and ambitious plan for maximising these two years. They must demonstrate an understanding of the urgency of the task at hand and have strategies in place to capitalise on the opportunity provided by the program within the proposed timeframe.

How should we measure the success of the Industry Growth Program for the economy and participating businesses??

One of the primary measures of success should be the number of successful recipients of NRF funding from IGP Grant Recipients. This criterion directly links the IGP to its broader objective of fostering innovation and research while highlighting its role as a conduit to further opportunities and growth for participating businesses.

Secondly, acknowledging that traditional metrics may need to catch up in capturing the holistic impact of the IGP, a shift towards alternative measurements is warranted. The program's success should also be gauged by its ability to create quality Australian jobs. In this light, the IGP's reporting should include an analysis of the proportion of median disposable income for jobs created by the fund as a category in its investment returns. This will enable a deeper understanding of the program's contribution to improving living standards and reducing income inequality.

Moreover, the program's success should also be evaluated by its influence on regional areas, particularly those undergoing workforce shifts due to market forces or energy transition. Here, case studies could highlight how the program has facilitated the modernisation and diversification of workforces, thereby bolstering local economies and diverting tertiary-educated individuals away from overcrowded cities.

Further measures should be drawn from CSIRO, DFAT, and ABS data to assess the program's effect on quality, reputation, workforce participation, and household spending. These metrics provide a more comprehensive picture of the program's success by capturing its broader influence on the Australian industry's economy, society, and international standing.

Ultimately, the success of the IGP should be measured in terms of its capacity to foster innovation, enhance the competitiveness of Australian businesses, and create sustainable, quality jobs that contribute to overall economic prosperity and social well-being. This involves a nuanced understanding of success that extends beyond traditional financial indicators to encompass the program's broader societal and economic impact.

What information would be essential to seek during the follow-up (post-grant or post-advice) period??

The follow-up phase of the IGP presents a crucial opportunity to gather meaningful information to assess the program's success, impact on businesses, and the broader implications for Australia's socio-economic landscape. Collecting data from various sources will help shape a nuanced understanding of the program's outcomes.

Quality is a critical factor that directly speaks to the success of an enterprise. Data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) can provide insights into the quality of products, processes, or services developed or improved due to the grant funding. This could encompass various dimensions, such as reliability, performance, and customer satisfaction.

Reputation is another critical factor, as assessed through data from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). DFAT's assessment could reveal how the company is perceived internationally, the success of its foreign relations and its ability to project a positive image of Australian industry overseas. These insights can have far-reaching implications for Australia's international standing and the global competitiveness of our industries.

Labour market indicators, such as workforce participation and household spending data, which can be sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), will offer valuable insights into the program's impact on job creation and economic stimulation. This data will show Increases in workforce participation and household spending, in turn, signals of job growth and improved living standards.

In terms of income, examining median disposable income and over-award wage differences can provide insights into whether the program contributes to creating quality, well-paying jobs. This aligns with the Government’s commitment to enhancing living standards and reducing income inequality.

Furthermore, surveys of new employees can yield rich, qualitative insights. Information regarding whether they relocated for the job, their commute time, workplace satisfaction, remuneration satisfaction, and housing status can help paint a vivid picture of the real-life implications of the IGP.

Finally, keeping track of new Intellectual Property (IP) lodgements can offer a concrete metric for the innovative output spurred by the program. A rise in IP lodgements can suggest that the program fosters innovation and develops new technologies, processes, or services.

Over what timeframe should the program follow up with grantees and advise recipients to collect data on their business??

The follow-up period and data collection timeline are essential factors in assessing the success and long-term impact of the IGP on participating businesses. It's crucial to have a practical data collection framework that captures the program's immediate and long-term outcomes.

A data collection process should occur immediately at the project's conclusion, preferably as part of the company’s annual report as required by incorporation. This early assessment would help capture immediate outcomes, such as the project's success in achieving its stated objectives, direct job creation, and the development of new products or services. It would also allow for a swift response in case any issues arose during the project implementation, such as unforeseen challenges or bottlenecks, which could then be addressed promptly.

Following this immediate follow-up, additional assessments should be made in yearly increments for at least three years. These yearly check-ins allow the program to monitor the funded projects' longer-term effects and ongoing success. These follow-ups would capture data on sustained job creation, financial growth, changes in company reputation, and market penetration of new products or services, among other factors.

Furthermore, drawing upon established business growth models, which often examine five years, a timeframe generally recognised for gauging business investment, growth, and eventual plateau, might be beneficial. While this model is usually applied to more established corporations, it could still provide a valuable framework for smaller businesses and startups involved in the IGP.

A five-year follow-up would give the program a comprehensive understanding of the grant's impact, tracking businesses as they grow, scale up, and stabilise. The data collected over this extended period would provide invaluable insights into the program's long-term effects on the Australian industry and economy. It also offers the opportunity to learn and adapt the program over time, ensuring its continued relevance and effectiveness.

??

How can the reporting burden be kept to the minimum required to support future program evaluation best??

Maintaining a balance between comprehensive program evaluation and minimising the reporting burden on grantees is crucial for the success of the IGP. The goal should be to create a system that effectively captures the necessary information without imposing an excessive administrative load on participating businesses, which can potentially hinder their growth and productivity.

The reporting requirements can be integrated into the application process to achieve this. By aligning the data needed for program evaluation with the information required for the application, businesses can avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. The application could include specific questions or prompts to gather relevant data for future evaluation, thereby streamlining the data collection process.

Moreover, there's tremendous potential in leveraging existing government services and databases to reduce the reporting burden on grantees. For instance, data from the ATO can be used to monitor the financial growth of participating businesses, reducing the need for firms to submit detailed financial reports themselves. With the consent of the grantees, these data sources can provide a wealth of information on business revenues, job creation, and other critical metrics that can inform the evaluation of the program.

Additionally, technology can be utilised to facilitate efficient data collection and reporting. Online portals and digital platforms make submitting reports more straightforward and less time-consuming. They can also allow for real-time data collection, easing the reporting process and enabling more timely and accurate program evaluation.

Finally, providing clear guidelines about the reporting requirements and offering support to businesses in meeting these requirements can also minimise the reporting burden. This can include workshops, webinars, or one-on-one sessions to guide companies through the reporting process and address any challenges they may face.

What other opportunities (including those beyond data) could be explored during the post-grant period??

There's a broad spectrum of opportunities that could be harnessed during the post-grant period, and indeed, it is crucial to consider these opportunities as they can generate long-term positive impacts. Broadly, an Alumni association similar to that of universities could be established, with conferences held to foster collaboration and network building among participants.

One such opportunity lies in fostering collaboration and resilience among grant participants. Entrepreneurship is inevitably fraught with risks and failures, and it's essential to develop a perspective that views these not as roadblocks but as learning opportunities. The IGP can take strides to alter the current cultural aversion to failure, adopting a more American mindset where the journey of starting a business, even if it fails, is highly valued for the lessons it provides.

In this context, those who've experienced failed operations could be encouraged to serve as mentors for new participants. Rather than shunning these individuals or casting them as ineligible for future funding, their wealth of experience should be utilised as an asset. They could provide invaluable insights and guidance, having firsthand knowledge of the challenges and pitfalls that startups may encounter. It's not about romanticising failure but about learning from it, taking the valuable lessons it offers, and applying them in new contexts.

Similarly, a synergy between the IGP and the NRF could be fostered. The relationship between the two could be formalised such that grant recipients are encouraged, or even required, to submit an NRF proposal. This process could be facilitated by assigning a dedicated public servant to each grant recipient. Their role could involve assisting the businesses in preparing their proposals, navigating the submission process, and providing feedback and support as necessary.

This approach provides a clear progression pathway for grant recipients. It promotes an integrated innovation ecosystem where research, entrepreneurship, and government support interact synergistically. The interplay between these elements can catalyse the creation of innovative solutions, promote economic growth, and contribute to the broader societal well-being, aligning with the vision of a progressive and inclusive Australia.

How can the program complement other university, industry and government initiatives??

The IGP presents unique opportunities to foster new entrepreneurial initiatives and complement and synergise with existing university, industry, and government initiatives. It has the potential to build a bridge between diverse sectors and create an ecosystem conducive to innovation, economic growth, and job creation.

The program could align with university and industry initiatives by establishing a supplementary CRC for scaleup manufacturing. CRCs are known for their ability to bring together industry, researchers, and the government to collaborate and address specific research and development needs. In this context, a CRC focused on scaleup manufacturing could work with the IGP to identify and deliver on priorities essential to the industry's growth. This would reinforce the interconnectedness of the sectors involved and underscore the importance of a collaborative approach to problem-solving.

In addition, the IGP could help bridge the gap between academia and entrepreneurship by advocating for creating an ombudsperson within IP Australia. This ombudsman could support students who wish to claim licensing rights over their academic work for entrepreneurial purposes. By doing so, the program could incentivise universities to support student entrepreneurship and avoid negative community backlash, thus reinforcing a culture of innovation and entrepreneurialism within academic institutions.

The program also has the potential to harmonise with government initiatives, particularly regarding tax system reform. For instance, simplifying the equity component of the tax system could make startup remuneration more straightforward. By proposing a cap on remuneration, such as the $20m suggested in the consultation paper, the IGP could help ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth and contribute to a fairer economic system.

All of these elements underscore the multifaceted ways in which the IGP can complement and enhance other initiatives. By building on these synergies, the program can strengthen the ties between universities, industry, and government, ultimately fostering a robust and dynamic ecosystem that spurs innovation and growth.

How could the program support better connections from industry to universities and entrepreneurial students??

The IGP could be pivotal in fostering more robust connections between industry, universities, and entrepreneurial students. This would help nurture an ecosystem of innovation and entrepreneurial growth in Australia, simultaneously addressing the pressing needs of the labour and union movements.

The program could enhance these connections by linking universities' research to IGP merit criterion. This approach would encourage universities to focus their research efforts on areas of high national interest, providing incentives for collaborations with the industry. It would also help entrepreneurial students leverage these research initiatives to innovate and contribute to Australia's growth sectors.

Lastly, the IGP could support connections by working within the existing models of universities that have successfully fostered industry relationships. For instance, the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) Startups program provides free access to facilities and desk space to startups while encouraging interactions with students. Models like this foster a symbiotic relationship between industry and academia, enabling the practical application of academic knowledge while providing students with real-world entrepreneurial experience. In effect, such an approach creates a powerful interlink between industry, educational institutions, and entrepreneurial students.