Less innovation statements, more innovation action?

As we all await another innovation statement, I reflected on the history of statements during my 24 year career in the innovation system and what I'd like to see in the next one.

I should declare upfront that as a former Senior Innovation Adviser to a Federal Industry Minister, I was involved in the creation of the 2013 innovation statement "A Plan for Australian Jobs". I'm very proud of that statement but, on balance over the course of 24 years, you may be forgiven for thinking that statements haven’t been catalysts for the required change.

I've listed and linked (where available) some major national innovation reviews and statements, that have occurred during my career, below. As a starting point, Section 1 "Science and Technology in Context", in a little over 5 pages at the beginning of the "1993/94 Science and Technology Budget Statement", captures our national challenges and opportunities with words and intent that are still very much relevant today. Let me paraphrase:

“innovation is one of the keys to economic development … a weakness in the ability to exploit our R&D in many fields … a high priority to establishing Australia's place in Asia … a clear sense of direction, planning and leadership are needed to achieve our goals … our most urgent task is to build an innovative culture in industry … above all, we need a cultural change - among business leaders, decision-makers, and the community generally - which recognises the major significance innovation has for building national competitiveness."

Other key statements and reviews have included:
1995 - "Innovate Australia"
1996 - "Going for Growth"
1997 - "Investing for Growth"
2001 - "Backing Australia's Ability - An Innovation Action Plan for the Future"
2004 - 'Building Our Future through Science and Innovation"
2007 – “Global Integration: Changing Markets, New Opportunities”
2008 - "Venturous Australia - Building Strength in Innovation"
2009 – “Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century”
2013 - "A Plan for Australian Jobs"
2014 - "Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda"

So why does our national innovation challenge still persist 22 years later?

In my opinion, the key issue is our culture and the underlying behaviours, which ensure that we don’t fully capitalise on our potential. We are critical of both failure and overt success (the Tall Poppy Syndrome), entrenching a mediocrity where survival is seen as success. We need to celebrate and learn from both success and failure. As Qld Minister for Science and Innovation, Leeanne Enoch has said recently “failure and success are just feedback on what you’re doing”.

We also need to stimulate ambition and build capabilities in leadership, strategy, collaboration, resilience and entrepreneurship. This is for everyone – not just start-ups and universities but all public, private and community organisations. For example, our SMEs contribute much to our economy and an influx of new ideas, knowledge, energy and capital will unlock considerable extra value.

This culture has to pervade our education system from early learning to higher education. Life-long learning facilitation needs to replace bulk teaching delivery. Skills and education need to be delivered with an employment or enterprising outcome in mind.

We also need a uniquely Australian vision and strategy, recognising who we are, who we want to be, and setting out an ambitious and focussed strategy of global engagement between now and say, 2025. We have distinct experiences, challenges, capabilities and resources that have shaped our strengths. We shouldn’t want to be the “next” anything (Israel, Silicon Valley, etc). Copying others is not by definition innovative. In a world of 7.3 billion people and climbing, a country of 24 million highly skilled, healthy and prosperous people should be able to identify, grow, combine and deploy our talents for maximum benefit.

We need to measure what matters. How much money is available, how many projects are funded, how many researchers are employed and how many people graduate with degrees are not outcomes. Developing a national scorecard with key metrics such as employment participation, average incomes, high value export revenue, business profitability and future tax revenue will drive an investment rather than administrative approach to our efforts.

Fundamentally, we are good at throwing money at programs and initiatives. There have been a myriad of these over the years, some re-badged, some cancelled and some have survived. Whether they have worked and what we have learnt appear to be secondary concerns to funding announcements and good grant management. A business-centric approach would integrate policies and programs around individual needs and outcomes. Initiatives would be evaluated concurrent with delivery. Publicly funded R&D could be made more accessible with a “use it or lose it” policy, ensuring that knowledge isn’t locked up.

Whatever the upcoming statement includes, we have much to be positive about as a country.  Together we can achieve great things.