National Innovation Education and Training Scheme Proposal

From AussieInnovation Wiki

A formalised education and training scheme is the missing element in the transformation from a National Science System to a National Innovation System.

The problem

Since the early ‘nineties, the trend in Australian public science and R&D funding programs has been towards larger grants for inter-sectoral, interdisciplinary teams to solve large-scale problems and/or pursue significant emerging commercial opportunities.

Concurrently, there has been a shift in performance evaluation from inputs and outputs to outcomes. The competition for funding has become intense, requiring researchers to demonstrate high-level management, financial, legal and other organisational skills as well as world-class scientific capabilities. Research governance, management and operations are now expected to follow corporate best practice and be demonstrated in proposals, annual reports and other documents. The trend is essentially a transformation from a National Science System to a National Innovation System.

Responding to this shift has been a severe challenge for Australia’s 50,000 researchers, who, hitherto, have mainly focussed on scientific inputs and outputs (problem definition and publications), working alone or in small groups within isolated departments in a highly devolved institutional environments that have taken care of the limited requirements for public accountability. As the reward system previously only required scientific skills, most researchers have, therefore, lacked the experience or training in innovation skills needed in this new environment. Conversely, most businesspeople have no experience in laboratories and are equally unskilled in either science or communicating with scientists. Although this lack of innovation skills is understandable, it is no longer excusable or tenable.

It should not be surprising that the slow rate of transformation of the science system to an innovation system has not matched public expectations. Despite the increasingly clear signals that change is needed, there has been no systematic and wide-scale effort to develop the necessary skills. Researchers have mainly had to learn from trial and error and by interpreting new guidelines, selection criteria, funding rules and program evaluations from within their existing framework of understanding.

The key issue here is one of skills- as with any other area of endeavour, these skills must be learned- they do not magically appear in a timely way simply because there are needed or wanted.

In other areas of economic activity, skills shortages, once identified, are usually met by concerted collaborative action by business and government to provide the resources for up-skilling the workforce relevant to that area. These resources include new courseware, re-trained instructors and refurbished facilities together with agreement between management and staff to access the new training opportunities. There is a vast array of courses being offered in almost every conceivable area of human endeavour by TAFE, Management Institutes, Professional Societies and the Universities.

However, in the area of skills development for innovation, little has been done in Australia despite the well-known problem. There are very few opportunities for researchers and business people to gain the requisite skills systematically. Somehow, the 'university of hard knocks' has been expected to provide these skills, as if the processes of innovation were unteachable. This is paradoxical, as researchers have invariably attained their positions through the application of their formal education, as is the case with most businesspeople. The Federal Government’s response to the immediate (acute) problem has been to establish venture broking agencies such as IIF's, PDFs, COMET, BIF, BITS, REEF, etc. Their limited success can be attributed (at least in part) to the nature of their role as go-between agencies, endeavouring to mediate between two parties- science and business- whose attitudes towards each other have been mainly negative. The causes of this mutual negativity relate mainly to their lack of understanding of each other’s culture and the innovation process itself. Innovation requires science and business to work intimately together. Broking agencies are not a long-term solution to the (chronic) problem.

The solution

In many other countries this problem has been recognised and addressed with investment by government, higher education, industry and the community in the resources for innovation skills development. Prime examples include the Ohio State University Technology Partnerships Program, The Foundation for Entrepreneurial Management, London Business School, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, Universty of Twente, The Netherlands. These Centres provide a rich learning environment that brings together researchers, students and business people to both learn from each other and from the formal skills’ development teaching program. The outcome has been not only significant improvements in their knowledge of effective innovation processes but they have also produced a vibrant "community of practice" and significant investment in real ventures.

A similar program, specifically designed to meet the distinctive challenges set by the Australian context need to be developed and delivered on a wide scale.

A National Innovation Education and Training Scheme (NIETS) is required to bring together researchers and business people to 'learn and do'. The Program should be modelled on successful courses that have been conducted previously, together with best practice from overseas. The Innovation Partnerships Program must aim to be relevant, accessible, affordable and make a major contribution to addressing the Nation’s innovation skills gap. The Program must have a suite of learning experiences ranging from short courses to postgraduate degrees that will combine sound strategic knowledge within practical frameworks, innovation tools and essential experience within a cross-disciplinary team setting.

The courses that do exist in Australia are limited in their scope and scale through the limited remit and the resources of the presenters. An initial capital investment in the order of several million dollars is required to develop the coursework and train the trainers necessary to address the needs of more than 50,000 researchers (and a similar number of “research users”) throughout Australia. As attractive as the market appears, developing a NIPP is an innovation itself, with all the attendant risks and competition within institutions for scarce capital. Only the Federal Government is in a position to instigate the Program, which should be developed in collaboration with all public research institutions, State Governments and Industry. Given the nature of the benefits that would flow from the Program, it is an appropriate area for strong Government support.

First Steps

Lessons from the theories of innovation diffusion must be heeded in developing the NIETS. Although the addressable market for NIETS courses is about 100,000 researchers and research users, the immediately accessible market is much smaller. Courses need to be researched, developed, trialled and introduced like any other innovative product. The use of the internet for delivery must also be explored, therefore, the steps to implementation should be:

1. National recognition of the need for a National Innovation Education and Training Scheme.
2. Analysis of international best practice and Australian experiences.
3. National analysis of the innovations skills needs.
4. Analysis of the products (courses) to meet skills needs.
5. Development of prototype courses.
6. Establishment of beta-test sites in each State.
7. Evaluation of beta-test sites and product modification.
8. Establishment of State and National delivery systems.
9. Wide-scale delivery of NIETS.
10. Ongoing product and process innovation.

The timeframe for achieving wide-scale delivery should be less than five years.

Conclusions

Australia’s chronic inability to innovate is unlikely to improve of its own accord at an acceptable rate to justify the Federal and State Government’s significant recent investments in R&D. As with other products, the marketplace for innovation skills training will ultimately take care of itself. However, the “market failure” aspects of the research sector require Government support to provide the initial capital and leadership necessary to develop the products and the early markets. Without such support, the transformation to a National System of Innovation will be slow and piecemeal, to the detriment of the community and the economy. The development of the NIETS provides an opportunity for the Nation to become an international leader in innovation.

“Between the idea/And the reality/Between the motion/And the act/Falls the shadow.”- 'The Hollow Men', TS Eliot.

Dr John Barker

Science Dynamics

22 Caddy Avenue

West Leederville 6007

ph: +61 8 9388 0740

mob: +61 0412 105 505

jedbarker@iinet.net.au