C’est dans le Googleplex que le leader des moteurs de recherche a présenté son nouveau système d’exploitation : Google Chrome OS. Celui-ci présente l’intérêt d’être d’une trés grande simplicité d’utilisation et d’un temps de démarrage record de 11 secondes. Pour le moment cantonné  à requiert un autre système de base pour le tester il pourrait très vite être commercialisé dans sa version complète et autonome. Parmi les applications présente, ont retrouvent toutes celle de Google (Gmail, Google wave, Google agenda etc.). A noter que les éditeurs  évoquent une commercialisation de nets books dotés de Chrome OS d’ici un an. De plus, ils ont publié le code source pour permettre à la communauté de le développer.

Sources:

Google Chrome OS : démarrage (…)    20/11/09    lien

Google Chrome a été officialisé (…)     20/11/09    lien

Some time ago I came across a website (I no longer recall the details) which was running what I thought was a particularly silly survey: it was asking its readers to ‘vote’ in an online poll whether universities should be more like corporations. It was silly in the sense that at that level of generality the question was completely meaningless: more like corporations in what sense? Some modern companies have adopted what we might call traditional academic values and methodologies; and I guess that understanding the ability of well-run companies to manage and maximise resources is something that wouldn’t necessarily harm us.

However, the relationship between universities and business organisations is an important issue and deserves both analysis and comment. It is important in two different ways: (i) is there anything we can learn from the corporate world? – and (ii) what kind of relationship should we have, or allow ourselves to have, with corporate partners?

For this post I shall focus on the second of these questions. I may come back to the first on another occasion, and I might just point out in passing that modern organisation theory applies an analysis to companies that could be helpful to academic institutions, whether they might want to adopt business insights or indeed avoid them. But that’s for another time.

But what about relationships with industry? Just over ten years ago the University of California at Berkeley caused some academic observers to raise their eyebrows when it announced a special relationship with the Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis. The agreement was confined to agricultural biotechnology, and under its terms the company provided the university with $25 million of research funding, and in return it acquired rights in a share of the resulting discoveries. A number of concerns were expressed at the time, with some arguing that the deal created conflicts of interest and the possibility that academic integrity might be compromised by the industrial partner’s commercial interests. The arrangement came to an end in 2003, and was subsequently assessed by a team of outside experts. The resulting report was fairly critical. It found no ethical misconduct, but it questioned whether the arrangement had had any real impact on research output, and wondered whether the intellectual property aspects had been efficiently and fairly handled.

Whether the Berkeley/Novartis agreement was good or not so good, it is now a matter of general consensus at least amongst state agencies and government departments across the industrialised world that academic-industry links are to be welcomed. The major funding programmes of Science Foundation Ireland, for example, are based on the requirement to assemble university-industry collaborations, and in this country most of the high value research centres across more or less all of the universities have such collaborations in place. The major motivation for such relationships is that they may accelerate the commercialisation of discovery, as industry partners apply their skills in financing, developing and marketing products that are derived from the research. The risk, as some might see it, could be that the commercial imperatives applied by the industry partners may skew the research, or that the prominence given to these projects might crowd out the also necessary basic or blue skies research that should have a home in the universities.

There is little evidence to date that industry links have undermined university research, though the risks are always likely to be there to some extent and this requires strong ethics monitoring and a clear university research strategy (that goes beyond industry partnerships) to be in place. An external analysis of SFI and its funded programmes published in 2008 suggested that the industry dimension was positive and should be developed further.

It is probably also arguable that industry links should be developed, where appropriate, on the teaching side. DCU has from its establishment operated a work placement programme as part of all the university’s programmes of study that has had the effect of creating close links with the employers that take on our students, without giving our industry partners any direct influence over programme content or assessment.

Academic and intellectual integrity must always be at the heart of everything a university does; but being ‘networked’ has many benefits, not least that it allows a university to understand better what society’s needs are and how we can contribute to their resolution. Industry links are an important part of that mission.

PMB Services recherche un (e) assistant(e) commercial(e)

L’entreprise:

PMB Services, première société en logiciel libre en gestion de bibliothèques et centres de documentation, créée en 2004, très forte progression, 18 salariés.

L’entreprise s’adresse à des collectivités de 1000 à 100 000 administrés, à des grands comptes de l’industrie ou du service comme Amadeus, Areva, Bouygues, Alstom, France Telecom et aussi à des établissements publics, Ministères, Grandes Ecoles, Universités.

Assistant(e) commercial(e)

Mission:

Vous participez à la rédaction de devis et réponses aux Appels d’Offres en collaboration avec la direction.

Rigoureux, vos offres sont rédigées avec précision en harmonie avec le logiciel PMB et ses évolutions.

Vous assurez la commercialisation des produits et services que propose l’entreprise:

•participation active à la démarche commerciale avec les contacts entrants,

•réponse aux appels d’offres des collectivités,

•rédaction des devis et argumentaires détaillés,

•démonstration du logiciel, à distance ou sur site chez le prospect.

Connaissances indispensables:

Traitement de texte et tableur

Internet, emails

Diplôme et expérience:

Diplôme bac+2 exigé

Qualités requises:

Autonome, ayant le sens du service client, sens de l’écoute et du conseil

Aisance rédactionnelle.

Les plus pour ce poste:

L’une ou l’autre des connaissances suivantes et la volonté d’acquérir l’autre:

– Métier de documentaliste/bibliothécaire

– Commercial

Situation:

Le poste est basé au siège à Château du Loir (72)

Type de contrat et rémunération:

CDI, salaire brut annuel de 18 000 à 22 000 euros selon profil et expérience, évolutif, négociable.

Comment candidater:

Envoyez votre lettre de motivation+CV à erobert@sigb.net

Kate: One of the potential challenges to maintaining Australia’s capacity for mining innovation is predicted to be the increasing dominance of large, conglomerated, multinational organisations.

Historically, the mining industry had a number of medium sized organisations that could drive rapid and diverse innovation, however the rationalisation in the industry means that the policies and objectives of the large players may increasingly narrow the focus on future mining innovation. Head of Innovation and Technology at Rio Tinto John McGagh, recently spoke about Rio Tinto’s Innovation Strategy being implemented through a closed innovation model, whereby research and development is done by Rio Tinto and selected partners with innovations retained exclusively. This Closed Innovation Model is very different to the traditionally more open innovation models in the sector where typically university research projects are funded by a large number of mining industry sponsors through an intermediary such as AMIRA. This Open Innovation Model allowed any innovative mining solutions to be taken up fairly rapidly across the sector. The early adopters have an advantage of several years but any significant advantage is usually short lived.  With closed innovation, companies can lower their mining cost curve (a competitive advantage) preferentially over their competitors until the competitors obtain the innovative solution themselves. One potential downside of such a strategy is the risk associated with the typically high staff turnover within the mining industry. Time will tell. An overview of the implications of closed and open innovation models for industry more broadly is provided by the Australian Institute for Commercialisation here.

Another challenge arising from the global reach of multinational mining companies is the ability for Australia to maintain flows of benefits from innovation to Australian companies and institutions. Any successful innovation produced in Australia will be quickly transferred to the other global operations of a given international company. In this environment niche technology innovation (such as the technology developed by GroundProbe) may be important, as long as first mover advantages are significant. Agility may be the key for smaller companies operating within a market dominated by large players. In the worlds of Rupert Murdoch, in a rapidly changing world “Big will not beat small anymore. It will be the fast beating the slow.” (IBM Global CEO Study 2006)

Small innovative companies and research groups are going to have to develop evolving strategies to deal with the challenges of operating in an industry dominated by large multinational players. It will be the role of the Australian mining industry, universities, research centres and government to develop coherent policies to maximise the potential of competitive advantage from innovation in Australia.




“The University of Limerick is set to receive millions of euro in royalties after signing commercial agreements for new technology its researchers developed for cooling computer devices. The new micro coolers, which were developed at the Stokes Institute, will use less power, cost less to make, and offer improved performance …” (more)

[Ciara O'Brien, Irish Times, 13 November]

I recently commented on the NZ Angels blog about a post discussing the New Zealand Institutes report on ‘ lifting innovation ecosystem performance ‘

Check it out here.

On a similar note there have been a couple of other notable reports that have been published.

• a report released by the office of the PM’s science advisor presents the results from a recent workshop about what is needed to help translate NZ research to economic benefit. Download here.
• Driving Economic Growth through Bio-Based Industries: The 2009 Bioeconomy Industry Summit Report. View here. It was good to see them recognise the Bioscience Enterprise program at the University of Auckland, too bad they forgot about Chiasma despite it addressing some key issues highlighted in the report (point 9.5 and 9.6). It also excluded some other developments  e.g. the LENS classroom at the Liggins institute which is responsible for exposing high school students to careers in science (point 9.6); FRST industry fellowships for fresh grads, The Institute of Innovation for Biotechnology at the University of Auckland. It also includes some weird ‘progresses to date’ e.g. MoRST’s future watch program – does anyone even know about this? I am also getting quite concerned with the number of times (in addition to this report) I read about the need to keep PhD students in NZ following doctorate completion. Going overseas to pursue your science research is not a bad thing, in fact its actually good. Why? You get an international perspective, experience and connections working at the world’s leading research institutes with world leading researchers. The more important aspect of this debate is making sure individuals return to NZ following this experience and then capitalising on it (glad to see the report mentions this also). Also keep in mind at present NZ is oversupplied with science grads, there is simply not enough jobs out there. Go check seek.co.nz or trademe jobs if you doubt this. But wait it doesn’t stop there. Over supply typically = lower wages. Lower wages = less incentives to stay in NZ. A vicious cycle indeed.
• New Zealand’s research, science and technology priorities: feedback document. “ The government is currently setting priorities for research, science and technology and is seeking feedback from the sector. This document seeks your comments on the government’s proposed investment structure, the balance between investment areas and on the areas in which it is proposed research platforms might be established. “ Feedback due 18th Nov.

____________________________

Graeme @ graemefielder.com

Né dans la rue est une exposition qui met en lumière l’extraordinaire vitalité d’un mouvement artistique né à New York: le graffiti. Le Kairos Mosaïque s’est rendu à la Fondation Cartier pour comprendre comment un phénomène, à l’origine comparé à du vandalisme, a pu devenir une pièce majeure dans le puzzle de l’Art contemporain. Malheureusement Né dans la rue se concentre majoritairement sur la naissance du phénomène sans tenter de faire comprendre son émergence dans la sphère du “grand public”.
Tentons de comprendre pourquoi le graffiti est progressivement devenu une source artistique incontournable dans les publicités, le packaging, la photo de mode, les musées, etc. Pour comprendre cette mutation, quoi de mieux que d’étudier un phénomène similaire au graffiti à sa naissance? Le Kairos Mosaïque tente ici d’établir un parallèle afin d’imaginer pourquoi une “expression” née dans la rue se retrouve sous le feu des projecteurs.

Constat: se retrouver dans un musée devrait être l’apothéose pour un mouvement artistique ou pour une œuvre. Prédiction: le graffiti va mourir à cause de sa mise en lumière sur la place publique. Pourquoi tant de pessimisme?
Sans être un expert en graffiti ou en culture urbaine en général, on peut arriver à déduire cette hypothèse tant les signes sont puissants. A l’origine le graffiti est un outil, un outil de communication qui permet de se faire entendre. Les bombes de peintures permettent de se rendre visible, de transmettre un message. C’est un cri de désespoir qui permet tout simplement d’exister aux yeux du monde. Sauf que le monde rejette ce moyen d’expression. Depuis les années 70, le graffiti est ainsi perçu comme un fléau à éliminer. Mais le bébé est coriace et croît sans relâche malgré les mesures prises par les autorités et les coups durs (de nombreux artistes décèdent dans le métro new-yorkais, surpris par les wagons notamment). Le graffiti permet donc de faire parler de soi et d’étaler sur les murs sa misère, mais c’est aussi un moyen pour se procurer une bonne dose d’adrénaline. L’interdit attire invariablement l’Homme, le graffiti ne déroge pas à la règle.
Question: que faire pour effacer les graffitis sans faire appel à un service de nettoyage? Réfléchissons deux secondes. Si le graffiti devient un produit commercial alors il perd toute sa force et sa valeur. Donc au lieu de karcheriser tous les murs recouverts de peinture, si j’affiche le graffiti dans les musées, les publicités et chez D&CO (M6) alors je TUE le phénomène! Né dans la rue… et mort dans un musée. Voici l’histoire du graffiti qui est voué à disparaître. Une fois que la “machine commerciale” aura roulé sur l’ADN même du graffiti, alors ce sera fini. Plus aucun artiste ne voudra taguer un mur de peur d’être associé à Valérie Damidot.

Le graffiti est mort, vive le graffiti Pixação!
La Fondation Cartier ne souligne évidemment pas cette transition. La marque se positionne en mécène et n’a sans doute pas conscience (je suis peut-être naïf) des répercussions que pourra avoir cette exposition et l’ensemble de la “commercialisation” du graffiti.

“Je préfère que tu me détestes plutôt que tu m’ignores”
A São Paulo, au Brésil, le graffiti “bien trop commercial” a été chassé pour laisser place au Pixação. Le Pixo est un art encore à l’état sauvage (comme le graffiti des années 70) qui veut afficher la précarité des habitants des favelas. Mais pour ne pas subir le même sort que le graffiti – ce que j’ai appelé “la mort dans les musées” – le pixo prône une communication fermée. Ainsi, les pixadores ne communiquent qu’entre eux et ne répondent à aucun journaliste. Le pixo est un art né dans la rue qui restera dans la rue. Le pixo est cependant beaucoup plus anarchiste et violent car il doit lutter contre les autres formes de pollution visuelle (graffiti et publicité) pour se faire entendre. Les pixadores transgressent toutes les limites comme le montre la vidéo – filmée par l’un d’entre eux – ci-dessous. Les immeubles n’ont qu’à bien se tenir!

As a first step, perhaps one should be clear on the definitions of the two, before we can even begin to discuss them;

“Sorry, but there is a line in the sand that has to be drawn here. Entertainment’s job is to pass away the hours; art should make profound, eloquent and affecting statements about the human condition. I find it difficult to use ”entertain” in the same sentence as, say, “Tristan und Isolde” or “Hamlet” or even “Sweeney Todd.” – Mitchell Kreiger.

“In simple terms, to me, art is a creative expression that stems from the heart and soul and breeds self exploration and self examination, whereas entertainment is just some shit we enjoy that takes us out of our heads for a moment.” – Dave Navarro.

“Entertainment wants to give you what you want. Art wants to give you what you don’t know you want.” – David Cronenberg.

In short:
Entertainment is about Performance.

Art is about Revelation.

It is the difference between “acting”, and “not-acting”. If you study the process of some of the great actors of our time, the one thing they come down to, in essence, is getting to a point where you are no longer “performing” a role. You are not acting anymore. And that is the highest state an actor can reach. It is for this that method acting was even created, to finally reach this level.

The interview with Dennis Hopper, where he speaks about James Dean’s “non-acting” acting, will shed light on this. See Video:

I want to return to a clarification of the definition before I continue this exploration…

“Entertainment is part of an evening — mini-golf, pizza, a movie, ice cream. Art is the evening — you generally have to make plans to see an art movie, and then you find somewhere to sit and discuss it afterward.

Entertainment is terrified of losing you, and is willing to change itself to be more to your taste. Art doesn’t give a fuck whether it loses you — if you’re lost, that’s your problem.

Entertainment condescends to what it perceives as your level. Art assumes you’re at a high level and wants to take you higher — it conascends.

Entertainment wants to make you think you’re thinking, but actually steers you toward its chosen conclusion. Art actually does make you think, and allows you to arrive at your own highly subjective conclusion.

Entertainment generally isn’t personal or obsessive or visionary. Art often is.

If entertainment is unappealing, offensive, and hell to sit through, you just wasted your ticket money. If art is unappealing, offensive, and hell to sit through…maybe you should see it again.”

- Martin Blank.

But at this point we come to a fork on the road… on distinguishing between that which “poses” to be art, and art itself.

“All true artists, whether they know it or not, create from a place of no-mind, from inner stillness.” – Ernst Ludwig Kirchner.

“A sincere artist is not one who makes a faithful attempt to put on to canvas what is in front of him, but one who tries to create something which is, in itself, a living thing.” – Giorgio Morandi.

“The role of the artist I now understood as that of revealing through the world-surfaces the implicit forms of the soul, and the great agent to assist the artist was the myth.” – Joseph Campbell.

“Art is not about thinking something up. It is the opposite — getting something down.” – Julia Cameron.

“All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.” – Pablo Picasso.

“The serious revolutionary, like the serious artist, can’t afford to lead a sentimental or self-deceiving life.” – Adrienne Rich.

“Good art can not be immoral. By good art I mean art that bears true witness, I mean the art that is most precise.” – Ezra Pound.

“Art is a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument. To perform this difficult office it is sometimes necessary for him to sacrifice happiness and everything that makes life worth living for the ordinary human being.” – Carl Jung.

- What’s the underlying message here?

I’m not arguing the different approaches to art, be it relativist, realist, or objectivist. If you look up Wikipedia’s definition of art, it mentions;

“The definition and evaluation of art has become especially problematic since the early 20th century. Richard Wollheim distinguishes three approaches: the Realist, whereby aesthetic quality is an absolute value independent of any human view; the Objectivist, whereby it is also an absolute value, but is dependent on general human experience; and the Relativist position, whereby it is not an absolute value, but depends on, and varies with, the human experience of different humans. An object may be characterized by the intentions, or lack thereof, of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose.”

The message that keeps repeating over and over again is that art is that which is not created to make money or entertain – these aren’t it’s sole purpose. Sure, an artist may be commissioned, but his work is essentially a revelation of the soul.

There is an honesty – an integrity – an oath to be true to himself. One is honorable in their art, they don’t give it lipservice. It is this integrity that moves me, and why I feel the intensity of art is something that deserves due notice.

In contrast to that, in most cases films are concieved with the intention of commercialism. That, is entertainment.

It is like the Gladiator games held by Roman emperors. To keep the minds of the citizens dull and entertained by death and destruction so that they don’t wonder about the state of their existence.

Art does exactly the opposite.

The distinction between art and entertainment is not hazy at all, even and especially when a piece of art is also made to entertain. It is a lot like the difference between people who have an internal “bullshit-detector”, and others who easily fall for a lie. But if they are hurt enough times, they also learn. Everyone learns… there is bullshit, and there is truth, and it’s more about your receptivity in seeing the difference, than it is about opinion.

Conventional wisdom points to cutting subsidies to fossil fuels as a path to climate salvation.  In particular, subsidising consumers at the pump is a target.

The thinking is that subsidies keep fuel prices artificially low, do not reflect real resource scarcity, and do not send real market signals to consumers.  Without subsidies, world prices would be higher, which should both suppress demand, and spur investment into alternative fuel sources and energy efficiency.

However, I just re-read an article from the Economist – ‘Petrol Prices in China – Driving in the Right Direction’  - which seems to suggest that this is not necessarily the case.

It includes the intriguing line

Last year, when crude-oil prices soared, Western economists heavily criticised China for holding petrol prices below market rates. Artificially cheap prices, they said, encouraged households and firms to guzzle more oil, pushing global prices higher. (my accentuation)

It infers that, when the subsidy is for a large enough market segment, it stokes aggregate global demand artificially, thus causing fuel price escalation in other regions/segments. 

If the subsidy in China weren’t in place, then it is conceivable that demand would decline in China, depressing global prices, thus marginally reducing invesment in mitigation and behavioural change  in other markets.

While the subsidy therefore does not create the appropriate market signals and associated response in that market, it is conceivable that, in aggregate, the resulting global fuel price escalation (ex-China) would provide for a larger response than would otherwise occur.  Some modelling of this would be of great interest.

In considering the mechanics of the outcome of this potential, it is worth thinking about the composition of the response to prices. 

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must invest in abatement which are both short term, but also structural.

A temporary reduction in fuel use in China may generate (substantial) short-term abatement, but not necessarily the investment in R&D, and commercialisation, and innovation required for longer-term structural change.

A marginal global oil price increase resulting from the China subsidy would signficantly affect the gas-guzzling United States. 

The US is No. 4 in the most innovative countries in the world according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, while China doesn’t make it into the top 25. 

According to IEA statistics the US has consistently accounted for over one third of all OECD public energy research and development investment (Australia accounts for about 1%).  Investment in alternative energy correlates strongly with energy prices (brent crude).

It therefore seems likely that the long-term structural adjustment impacts and climate mitigation effects of a marginal elevation of fuel price in the United States would be greater than that with the short-term effects of a marginal global price reduction concurrent with a response to a decline in Chinese demand were the subsidy removed.

Whether the real-world reflects this theory or not is another issue. 

Since the mid-1990s US Federal R&D in energy accounted for only 1% of all Federal R&D.  PNNL, in a review of US Federal Energy R&D expenditure between 1961-2008, provides some interesting points on the response of public R&D to the 1973-1976 oil price embargo, driven by ‘Oil Independence’ programme launched by Nixon in 1973.

 Federal investments in energy R&D more than doubled in real terms in the short interval between 1973-1976 and nearly doubled again between 1976-1980. Federal investments in energy R&D rose from $2.45 billion in 1974 to $7.47 billion in 1980 (in constant, inflation adjusted 2005 US$). 

 (….) Federal spending on renewable energy grew 42 fold in real terms from $32 million in 1974 to $1.36 billion in 1979. 

(….) it was not until 1974 that there were any outlays for a dedicated federal energy efficiency R&D program (OMB, 2006). This federal energy efficiency R&D program started out with a modest $29 million in 1974 and quickly expanded to $511 million in 1979 (in constant inflation adjusted 2005 US$). 

 The oil intensity of GDP of IEA member countries dropped between 1973 and 1985 by an average of 20 percent.

In a 2005 paper, Nemet and Kammen state that overall energy R&D (public and private) dropped from US$ 5,833 billion in 1994 to US$ 4,506 billion in 2003 across all energy technology categories at the same time as overall R&D expenditures (i.e. across all sectors) during the same period increased by 6 percent. The reduction in the funds allocated to energy R&D has been primarily caused by reduced private commitments. The share of private to overall energy R&D used to be roughly 50 percent. Yet, by 2003 it had dropped to less than a quarter.  They blame the incoherence of Federal public investment and end-market programmes for the reduced private sector investment.

In a 2008 issues paper, Will Blyth points establishes the requirement for linked technology R&D and end-markets (e.g. emissions trading, but could also apply to new market caused by high fuel prices) to enable cost reductions in abatement as an outcome. 

This infers that alongside the creation or perpetuation of higher emissions prices (or energy prices as a proxy), the continuation of high levels of public basic energy science research funding needs to continue, but higher levels of public funding for ‘proof of concept’ and demonstration programmes are also required, in order to leverage private sector investment.

A perception in the OECD  (in particular the US, which has high levels of innovation, high expenditure of GDP on energy, high levels of public energy R&D investment, and increasing dependence on imported oil) of a long-term continued thirst in China for energy, exacerbated by subsidy, which will cause continued elevation of fuel prices, may actually be the spur to induce both substantial and continued public and private investment in R&D that is required to meet the greenhouse gas mitigation challenge.

La Chambre de commerce française au Canada, section Québec, organise à l’hôtel Plaza de Québec le 30 octobre un colloque sur le thème : “Le marché européen, une alternative au resserrement du marché américain“. en présence de tous les Délégués généraux du Québec en Europe (France – Wilfrid-Guy Licari, Belgique – Christos Sirros, Angleterre – Pierre Boulanger, Allemagne – Charles Villiers, Italie – Daniela Renosto et Espagne – Claude Fleury).

Au programme figurent aussi Monsieur André Drolet, adjoint parlementaire du Ministre du Développement Economique, de l’Innovation et de l’Exportation (MDEIE) et Luc de la Durantaye, président de la compagnie EducExpert qui livrera un témoignage sur le choix de la PME technologique d’implanter en 2008 une filiale en France pour percer le marché français puis le marché européen.

Ce colloque s’adresse à toutes les entreprises qui ont déjà débuté leurs exportations vers l’Europe mais aussi et surtout à celles qui hésitent encore à franchir le pas. Les réponses à vos questions sont peut-être là !

A cette occasion, la Chambre de commerce française au Canada présentera ses grandes orientations pour les années à venir et le positionnement qu’elle entend prendre pour favoriser les échanges économiques entre le Québec et la France.

Pour s’inscrire : site web de la CCFC

 As announced in the 2009-10 Budget, the Australian Government is establishing Commercialisation Australia  (formerly known as the Commonwealth Commercialisation Institute) to provide assistance to commercialisation.  How this relates to existing and announced funding and technology developments in the clean-tech space is not eminently clear.  I discussed commercialisation funding in Australia for clean-tech in a previous post.

On the surface the plan looks great:  $196m for the first four years, then $82m a year thereafter.  While there was a consultation exercise, there is extremely little detail on the final form and functionality of the organisation.

It promises that:

It will tailor assistance to applicants’ needs, not fit the applicant to the program.

But then goes on to say

Early Stage Commercialisation grants will provide funding from $250,000 to $2 million to undertake activities focusing on enabling a new product, process or service to be developed to the stage where it can be taken to market.

Applications for grant funding will be assessed through a competitive, merit based selection process.

So: the applicant will continue to have to fit the funding programme, as it will be assessed according to a defined set of merit criteria.  What are those merit criteria?  Does the framework of those criteria unnecessarily confine the applicant to the program structure?  See – not as easy and ‘new’ as it sounds and promises to be. 

(one criteria that is sure to arise is ‘national benefits’.  This means jobs, market value and, controversially and implicitly, Australian content – which has to be carefully handled so as not to contravene WTO obligations.)

Also – it is evident that funding will continue to be a competition, which implies periodic funding rounds with applicants having to score highly against a range of specified criteria which add up to a final score.  Thus, applicants will continue to have to artificially chase and respond to specific merit criteria in order to come out ahead of the competition on points across all scored areas.

Of the last ‘technical’ point to address, the following is extremely interesting:

Commercialisation Australia will adopt a mutual obligation approach to assistance. Early Stage Commercialisation grants will be repayable on the success of the project.

So this element says that if things go wrong, then you only lose half the investment.  If things go right, you have to return the cash, thus possibly leaving you still with a project that doesn’t provide a commercial return (remember that early stage commercialisation projects will often end up being a loss-leader in any case).

Start-up companies, or companies investing in high-risk, costly technology, would expend significant resources on a grant they may never get, then experience a four-to-five month delay in being notified of a grant award, in order to achieve a potential return from an early-stage project, that they would then have to substantially repay.  This repayment might possibly occur in a timeframe prior to much in the form of revenue to their business from the activity being forthcoming.  I’m not sure how this idea got as far as it did.

Lastly, remember the dictum that 90% of start-up businesses go bust in their first year? 

A sequenced, time- and resource-consuming competitive government grant programme that won’t be online until Feb 2010, and of which the funding programmes are not likely to disburse funds much before mid-2010, will ensure that those innovative start-ups entering the market now will likely not be around to see the fruit of the new programme.

Not so ‘radical’, and not so straightforward.

So Liam Fox seems to think that an approach to cutting costs in MoD might be to sell off the Met Office, mentioned in a BBC interview.

I’ve felt for some time that Fox has little understanding of defence in the round, given his various utterances. There is a fixation on the front line, whatever that means, with no recognition that there is a fairly significant amount of support required to get boots on the ground on a consistent, reliable and safe manner. Neither does he demonstrate a particularly strong grasp on defence economics or how the majority of the system works. I will allow him some latitude given that he’s a politician and his main loyalty appears to be to getting his party elected, however he gives every indication that as Sec State for Defence he’ll preside over a wide ranging decimation of our military capabilities.

Anyway, to the point. Selling off the Met Office is more likely to increase costs to MoD than reduce them.

The Met Office is a trading fund, able to sell services to government, and in the wider private sector. The CEO is answerable to the Minister and Parliament for performance and the office have a broad remit to support MoD and wider government. Any surplus, or profit if we’re going to be grubbily commercial about it, hits the MoD bottom line.

Clearly MoD, its agencies and the uniformed services are heavy consumers of meteorological data and have to pay for it, but any surplus made eases the burden. Other government entities also purchase data from the office. The data would need bought anyway, and in selling off the provider Fox would expose the MoD to the need to then compete the service provision anyway. The competition would cost money and given the limited size of the supply market a cost reduction would be a surprise. So not only does he suggest losing the contribution but also increasing the cost of the met information anyway. There is a case for regular market testing, but that can be done cost effectively without the risks of divestment.

The profitability isn’t high, an agreed target of £5.3M, which places it fairly firmly in the small business sector, but one wonders just how much of a saving it’s supposed to generate by divesting. Other performance metrics are all fairly general and apparently being achieved Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to look at business areas that do currently cost, rather than contribute, and find other ways to deliver those capabilities?

This short sighted and ill informed populism from Fox is not an isolated case, one would hope that he’s watching his back come the election.

A recent blog post by Adam Small and article by Godfrey Bridger comments on the issue of scientists becoming entrepreneurs got me thinking about our expectations of the modern day scientist.

What do we want them to be?

Ultimately we want them to conduct world standard research to expand our knowledge which we can leverage for the benefit of the human race. This benefit can take many forms but of particular relevance is products and services to fuel our economic prosperity as a country.

Scientists don’t need to be entrepreneurs, but they do need to be entrepreneurial or commercially aware. This is not an option! It is and will continue to be part of the scientists job description. Part of their responsibility to ensure the knowledge derived from their research is disseminated and put to use. Like most things we need to take in consideration the diversity amongst our scientists; from those who want to pursue the venture through to fruition to those who are quite contempt to pass it on to the ‘business folk’. However the basal level of competence should include the ability to:

• be innovative (obviously)
• assess the need for their proposed research e.g. patent search
• recognise commercial opportunities within their research and know how to act upon them
• know the implications of intellectual property within their research
• have an understanding of how products and services typical in their field are developed and delivered (regulatory routes, commercialisation routes, timelines).

The majority of senior scientists that have learnt the above have simply absorbed it through the years of osmosis while being in academia. What we are seeing now is hopefully this happening a lot earlier in scientists’ careers supported by education programmes and initiatives to cater for the various thirsts for bio-enterprise and technology transfer.  Some examples off the top of my head [of course biased towards Auck Uni ] are university business plan competitions (Spark, Kickstart/Audacious, Entre’), new cross disciplinary degrees (Bioscience Enterprise Programme a Auck Uni), student lead initiatives ( Chiasma), integration of IP components into papers (Baldwins and CHEM392 at Auck Uni), integration of entrepreneurship papers into core tech programmes (MGMT 303 New Ventures & Entrepreneurship in the Biotech programme at Auck Uni).

Conversely the business units supporting these R&D facilities i.e. typically business development teams (BDOs) in CRIs and tech transfer offices within Universities need to also provide adequate support to nurture their scientists. Some methods include:

• having strong relationships with its researchers from Day 1. Don’t sit back and wait for them to come to you. Part of a early career scientists induction should be a meeting with their TTO/BDO rep/ contact.
• communication
  • communicate to researchers the benefits of technology transfer
  • communicate success – each new successful licensing agreement, each time a academic reaps benefits from taking their research through the TTO/BDO
• allow staff to explore their entrepreneurial ambitions.
• promote cross collaboration of research through linking IP.
• have seasoned entrepreneurs on standby to mentor or develop technology for potential spin offs or search for appropriate licensees.
• have funds available to drive both technical and business development of projects that have commercial value.
• educate staff in intellectual property and R&D commercialisation

____________________________

Graeme @ graemefielder.com

Les entreprises (et notamment les PME) françaises sont, contrairement à leurs homologues allemandes par exemple, en retard en terme de savoir faire à l’exportation et elles se contentent encore trop souvent de leur marché domestique pour assurer leur croissance. Cependant, la mondialisation a pour effet d’apporter la concurrence sur tous terrains et sonc dans leur propre cour et un regard vers les marchés extérieurs devient souvent une alternative obligatoire.

Les dispositifs français d’aide à l’exportation sont multiples et leur lecture était auparavant un peu complexe. C’est la raison pour laquelle ils ont été revus et regroupés sous le label UBIFRANCE et s’inscrivent maintenant dans une “chaine de valeur” telle que décrite ci-dessous :

Source : Fabien Val (Mission économique de France à Montréal).

Cette nouvelle approche a été présentée par Fabien Val (Chef du pôle Infrastrucutres, Transports et Industrie à la Mission économique de France à Montréal) lors de la semaine d’excellence en affaires France-Québec. Au cours de sa conférence intitulée “Tandem France-Québec“, il a ensuite illustré le cas des exportations vers le Québec et précisé les évènements spécifiques organisés par la Mission économique en 2010.

Pour télécharger la présentation: Présentation Tandem “France – Québec” – Fabien VAL

“The central ethical premise of universities has changed fundamentally. The discovery and dissemination of knowledge has been replaced by the desire to exploit it. Just think, can anyone today imagine a university giving a valuable vaccine away? Hardly likely. In fact, the government encourages universities to do just the opposite – to patent our discoveries and capitalise on our intellectual property …” (more)

[Steven Schwartz, University World News, 11 October]

The Olympic Spirit has flooded the media every 4 years, (or 2, including the Winter Olympics) creating a globalised media event. Broadcasts of the Olympic Games have definitely come a long way from the small-scale competitions in Athens more than a hundred years ago to the world-wide phenomena in modern times. Who would have thought that you could get paid to snowboard fast down a hill? 50 years ago snowboarding had not yet been invented.

Commercialisation takes many forms within the Olympic Games movement. The mascots employed to represent each host city are an explicit example of the link between media and commericalisation. Media Coverage of the Olympic Games goes beyond the reporting of just the sports involved. In a video interview, one Canadian asks an important question regarding the 2010 Vancouver Olympics mascots, “How do they relate to the winter Olympics?”

Media coverage of the Olympics creates nationalistic pride. Are the Olympics a platform for media to portray a nation in the globalised world?  To think of the Olympics as a form of government propaganda, is its interesting to note that the Olympic torch relay idea actually came from the Nazi organisers of the 1936 Games.

 The Olympic Games as a media event can also be indentified as government technology, deploying particular governmental rationale (Miller and Rose) within the charter such as sport ethics and to ensure the regular celebration of the Olympic Games.

Reference (Miller and Rose): Nikolas Rose; Peter Miller ‘Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government’. The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43, No.2. (June 1992) pp173-205

As discussed in a previous post, Australia ranks well among the G20 in terms of absolute and relative investment in green (as defined by UNEP) programmes in the stimulus spending.

UNEP defines the green component as consisting of investments into rail, smart grid, water and waste, building weatherisation programmes, renewable energy project subsidies, and low carbon vehicle programmes.

Much is made by some groups of the positive employment and economic growth potentiality of the clean-tech and sustainability sectors. In 1957 Robert Solow established the impact of innovation on output in his seminal paper ‘Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function’.

The application of this thinking to the clean-tech world would seem to suggest that strong support throughout the innovation cycle will generate substantial output benefits.

Only last night Julia Gillard on lateline was speaking from California of such potentiality: of new industries, of employment benefits, of low-emissions technology, and the like.  In NSW, the State Parliament Hansard is littered with such references made by the then Minister for Climate Change, Carmel Tebbutt.  In Canberra, there are at least three agencies involved in administering funding for low emissions technologies.

So then it seems that the problem is solved: Government has identified the important role in can play, and has stepped into the breach with a range of programmes and assistance measures that meets the requirements of those brave souls stepping into the world of establishing new businesses and/or new technologies.

You would think.

Government programmes such as the Renewable Energy Target and Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will assist in providing the long-term economic framework to provide some security to green infrastructure deployment, that much is true.

But what about those measures due to assist companies navigate the technology ‘valley of death’? One successful programme, Climate Ready, which was administered by AusIndustry, closed its last funding round on 25 June this year.

It was successful because it was technology neutral, covered a breadth of the innovation cycle, and had a series of foreseeable sequenced funding rounds.

There are no such programmes that are currently open, to my knowledge. Any programmes that are in the pipeline are prescriptive.

Some of the technology investment programme promises may actually have slowed investment into clean technology in Australia. This assertion is currently only based on anecdotal evidence, but is echoed by others (see for example David Gold).  Companies and investors sit on their hands awaiting news of Government largesse, thus stalling development.

The new low-emissions programmes identified in the 2009-2010 budget have yet to be seen. Are we to await the formulation and operation of whole new implementation agencies such as ‘Renewables Australia’ or the ‘Australian Centre for Renewable Energy’ before any further funding is disbursed? What is the difference between these entities? When will they be operational? What funding will be available?

The only hint we have of what to expect on the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy comes from the Renewable Energy Target site, and states simply:

ACRE is expected to be established during 2009-10.

Very helpful.

An oft-quoted dictum is that most new businesses fail in their first year.

If innovative businesses in the clean-tech space in Australia must wait between 4-12 months to access Government assistance, then we can expect this to remain true, irrespective of all the cosy things being said.  

The only likely exports in such a scenario will be talent and technology, as entrepreneurs flee for more conducive incubating environments overseas.