Kate Wilson was talking to about 100 people actively trying to kick university or CRI ideas into life.

It refers to keeping records of so-called ‘failure’ in research and development. It may be notes of what was technically difficult, impossible or not very successful.

Wilson, of patent attorneys James & Wells, says such a record can actually be a saleable product – especially to those working in the same field, who can save themselves time and money by NOT repeating what’s been shown to be not useful.

But in the line of reframing the idea of failure, negative know-how is a powerful term.

The KiwiNet university and CRI commercialisers were also given a reminder (as if they didn’t realise it anyway) of the mindset(s) that researchers will often have. Whereas someone who is trying to figure how to turn an idea into something of (commercial) value might think in days or weeks, some researchers have a much longer timeframe – years even.

As Prof Alison Stewart says too (having had 20 years successful and less so experience in commercialising science) told attendees, when she’s briefing researchers about to engage with industry she reminds them – what, why and how.

The big picture, particularly from an industry (in her particular case innovative and natural plant bio-protection) needs to be kept in mind by scientists – the what and why – before they jump to the how….which is the science experiment itself.

Too often Stewart says, recently graduated PhD’s are thrown into the deep end of a research project for an outside client; when these are the very people who should be nurtured and guided through the whole process.

A simple management strategy is very helpful in this case she says – in particular the maintenance of an accurate laboratory book, and monitoring progress against commercial milestones.

“Researchers also need to be taught how to talk the talk,” when they’re in discussions with industry clients Prof Stewart says.

In identifying valuable intellectual property, the before-mentioned Kate Wilson says there’s four categories of competitive advantage:

• Knowledge
• Function
• Look
• Brand

Sometimes scientists will almost have to be ‘interrogated’ by commercialisers – “often they don’t know what they’ve got or how to communicate it.”

One of the more effective techniques Wilson says, is to ask a researchers why they’ve bothered to do a particular piece of work?

“Then you need to pause,” she says. That silence, that answer is often “when the breakthrough occurs.”

If there was one observation of what might help improve the quantum of commercialisation from KiwiNet members, it was from a couple of non-New Zealanders.

Both Anthony Francis of Flinders Partners (of Flinders University, South Australia), and Duncan Ledwith of UniServices/The Icehouse, had that salesman come dealmaker aspect to how they viewed converting an idea into a product.

After some hard and fast market validation, their attitude was simply to let people (preferably with a vested interest in the gig) get on with it.

Don’t get too worked up about IP ownership, just get on with it as hard and fast as possible!

The two-year old collective of developers and designers and other connected people, is a work in progress, which its founder Joshua Vial considers to be more closely akin to an organic network than a regular business.

What it isn’t is a hierarchical company model of being. Decision-making is very flat and inclusive, and the Courtenay Place based business (but going global) has even released an ‘alpha’ version of software to help develop consensus conclusions. (See here for loom.io)

From half a dozen people, it now has over 40, and Vial’s yet to find a similar overseas model for how it works and operates.

Vial’s been an independent contractor (back end web development) himself, and was influenced by the thinking behind Richard Semler’s book, ‘Maverick’ and ‘Seven Day Weekend’ (see a Wikipedia version here ).

“Part of the ideas there is that if you treat people like children, they’ll behave like children,” he says. “If you treat them like adults, they’ll behave like adults.”

“From that, we figured we wanted a business in which there was no distinction between who works and who owns.”

Hence Enspiral’s model, in which members share the same information and have the same level of autonomy as a business owner would have.

Enspiralites also set their own salary – what they think they’re worth – but have to bring in work and show they’re justified in receiving it.

For Enspiral to achieve its ongoing success, “we’ve had to evolve a strategy that involves all, for which we have an emergent shared values and vision,” he says.

“That’s why it is as important how we get to a decision [bringing on new members or companies, spending shared resources] as to what the decision actually is,” Vial says. Also, hence, the development of loom.io – loosely derived from loom as to weave.

Along with the extensive use of work-focused intranet ‘Yammer’ and Google Docs, loom.io has been developed “because it would be impossible to run Enspiral without it. There would be too much noise to make decisions.”

loom.io is built around the concept of a motion or proposal – should Enspiral do this or that?

The participatory process seeks to build consensus. “It forces us too to front load the decision-making with conversations to get everyone onboard, obtain perspectives from different people.”

“It also forces a level of trust and communication within the teams.” Under this model, a person may not necessarily agree with the final decision, but can generally run with it says Vial.

He’s also the first to admit that Enspiral’s very much learning about the process of how to make decisions, and how people engage with each other and their level of contribution that “isn’t normal in an ordinary company.”

Part of the non-ordinariness is how Enspiral has organically grown, and acquired much of its work and clients.

Much, if not most of this has been through word-of-mouth and social networks. That is, people knowing people, businesses knowing about Enspiral through other businesses, and a general awareness within the community of what Enspiral offers.

“Every time a new person comes into Enspiral, they release untapped potential within the organisation and their own networks,” says Vial. “It is one of the laws of networks; if you double the size of the network you haven’t doubled its value, you’ve increased it by much more than that.”

“When you envisage a company as a network then, you have more value as the size increases….though you do have a natural ceiling.”

As Enspiral has increased in size, Vial’s also noticed that smaller groups are naturally coalescing into their own teams. This too requires a balance between Enspiral’s role and the individual’s autonomy and freedom.

“We are mostly learning by doing,” Vial says.

From Enspiral’s point of view, ‘growth’ sees new Enspiral entities springing up in Auckland and Hong Kong (already 30 people under its banner) and a soon to be established node in Berlin (as former Wellingtonians set up shop in the German capital).

Using a network analogy, this will expand Enspiral’s ability to “do things”.

Because though the collective is partly a business play in the traditional commerce world, it also has a larger purpose.

Some of the biggest issues of our time – think climate change, environmental degradation, poverty, food security – have only had a trickle of human energy thrown at solutions.

“Enspiral’s as much a capacity play, where people, having provided for their own living requirements, have the skills and time to work on some of the biggest issues of our time,” Vial says.

“Our people tend to have a much deeper purpose, want to make a tangible impact on the world and make it a better place. The only rational strategy for the world, is to increase the resources allocated to finding solutions. What holds us back in a global sense, is not a lack of good ideas, but a lack of people working in those spaces.”

From that point of view, Enspiral is a resource play, and more specifically a human resource play. Its strong sense of looking to provide better social outcomes and making the world a better place is THE underlying ethos.

This is part of the reason that the Enspiral developed BuckyBox (software for better food distribution) and Loom.io.

As an organic network, Enspiral is and will always be a work in progress.

“We have no perceived perfect model,” says Vial. “The world’s always changing, and so will we.”

The award, for Excellence in the Field of Environmental Technology Research, is proof positive that New Zealand is at the forefront of exploration into new battery technology for the green car market, and the future for the company looks bright.

The CleanEquity Conference is magnet for the world’s investors and ArcActive, buoyed up by their success, aim to raise enough equity over the coming year to develop a mass market for their innovative battery. As ArcActive’s Chief Executive, Stuart Mackenzie, commented: “This will be a multibillion-dollar market by 2020. Our technology has world beating performance and is very low cost, so we hope it wins out over other new technologies.”

Igniting the Spark

The Company began its life at Canterbury University; building on technology first developed over 30 years ago by Dr John Abrahamson, but has since expanded and taken this initial research much further.

ArcActive is targeting the “stop- start” and micro hybrid vehicles which are increasing in number in China, Europe and the United States. These cars’ engines reduce or turn off in certain situations such as when the car is idling or coasting to a stop which saves on fuel but places huge demand on traditional batteries which last only weeks in these vehicles.

ArcArctive’s long term aim is to fine tune the negative electrodes found in the batteries for stop/start vehicles in order that the DCA (Dynamic Charge Acceptance) can allow the battery to have a much longer charge life. (See a slightly technical explanation here)

McKenzie commented that: “every man and his dog” had been trying to enhance the DCA of batteries and stated: “What we have developed is a battery which has got astonishingly good DCA and lifetime and is no more costly than a state of the art battery.” However, he felt confident that although other companies were also in the running to solve the DCA problem, ArcActive were in a strong position to beat their rivals and take a chunk out of the car battery market if they could scale up their technology and replicate the results with international car and battery manufacturers.

Collaboration Has Been Key

The initial University of Canterbury project received some much needed initial support via a $225,000 KiwiNet PreSeed investment from Ministry of Science and Innovation to prove the technology worked.
McKenzie felt that this early support was critical in getting the project to this stage as early work identified electrodes for batteries as a key application for the technology.

He commented: “It’s been a very collaborative effort getting to this point. We’ve received some great support from KiwiNet in terms of funding and expertise from other members. This support allowed us to move the project to a point where we could attract additional technology grants from the Ministry of Science and Innovation and private investor funds to get to where we are today.”

Raising capital in order to develop a product is a hard task in itself, but it is clear that the company has worked diligently to raise $5m in grants and investor capital with about $2.5m still unspent in the bank.

Such is the faith in this product that investors in the company have grown as ArcActive continue to develop and refine their product. They now include NZVIF, ACC, Neville Jordan of MAS Technology and Endeavour Capital fame and K1W1, while Canterbury University still has a large stake.

Greener Products for the Planet = A Billion Dollar Industry

Recently mandated emission controls in both the EU and USA are driving the take up of electric vehicles as automakers focus on fuel economy and protecting the environment. The race is on.

There are big bucks to be made for companies who can provide cheaper solutions to ongoing issues within the green car market.

It is worth noting that the market for start/stop batteries has been forecast to grow from 5 million batteries per year in 2011 to 39 million per year (US$6.3B) by 2017 and nearly 100 million per year by 2020.

In Europe 30 per cent of all new cars are expected to be stop-start by 2015 and all cars by 2020, with China and US following shortly after.

Stuart McKenzie is positive about this: “The auto industry is undergoing a quiet revolution towards green cars. We’ve tested the performance of our batteries using new protocols developed by the hybrid car industry and obtained exciting results.”

From the research the company has undertaken, it has been estimated that that start/stop cars using ArcActive lead acid batteries will have a longer life and consume 10% less fuel, compared to 2-4% if using alternate technology AGM batteries, at no extra cost.

By cutting costs in this way, ArcActive are aiming to become an important component of this emerging multibillion dollar market and with the desire to have their components being manufactured in New Zealand, it could also be good news for the country’s economy.

What Does The Future Hold?

Stuart McKenzie is the first to admit that the company have a long way to go.

“If we sell one battery to a car maker we will be a very big business,” an optimistic McKenzie said, but he pointed out that one of the biggest challenges facing them would be to convince battery makers to adopt the new technology.

There was also the added technical problem of making the batteries in volume, but the company are determined to find a way to solve this issue, hence the reason why they have given themselves until 2015 before they fully promote the product on the market.

However, with the arrival of Westerby’s Mitsubishi MiEV electric car now available on the New Zealand market, and one of eight, midway through a two-year trial to evaluate their real world performance, the signs look pretty positive. This compact car has been expressly targeted at government and corporate fleets that travel short commuter distances.

One of the proposals put forward is that this nifty little car could be used for carhire or as a ‘pool car’ employed on short trips by multiple users and being quick-charged between runs. In that scenario, it could be a powerful tool, and ArcActive are only too aware of the potential that their product can offer to the green car market in New Zealand and worldwide.

As the Ministry of Science and Innovation chief executive Murray Bain so aptly put it: “Kiwis are great at coming up with good ideas, but it’s sometimes a challenge to turn those ideas into something valuable. ArcActive are showing the way – not only developing new technology, but doing so in such a way that industry wants to be a part of it.”

KiwiNet is the collective commercialisation arms of eight CRIs and universities – combining knowhow and networks and providing an outward facing view for much of our tertiary smarts and ideas.

The May 2 forum was an opportunity to up the networks, and provide practical knowhow.

In this regard, Anthony Francis managing director of South Australia’s Flinders Partners (part of the same named university) reckoned there must’ve been a mistake when he was brought in the commercialisation scheme.

But it was soon clear that the ex-accountant (who got out before he was bored to death), and has been involved in some private ideas to market ventures, is the ideal dealmaker in this commercialisation space. There’s a suspicion that this Aussie is more in the ‘ask for forgiveness rather than permission’ camp.

If there was one Francis take-home message, it was NOT to get too tied up about where/who has the intellectual property.

FP’s general policy is to vest the IP in the separate company that is set up. Often this was someone else with money and/or passion, and willing to drive the idea. Basically, they’re told to get on with it.

Francis isn’t than enamoured of the idea of licensing IP either – “it sets up an adversarial mindset right from the start”.

He gave one example of some IP ‘freed’ (sticK’s description) from Flinders – where large collections of data in the form of icons or images are displayed in a 3-D array organised about axes of relevance.

As described on thereitis.com’s website:

“Scanning large collections of visual data, users are able to detect clusters of the type of objects they are looking for – often in their peripheral vision. They then focus on the general area to further refine their visual search until frequently they announce ‘there it is!’ Our studies to-date show a significant reduction in search and find times”

This startup is less than a year old, has already been valued at $5 million and has been selected as one of the most innovative technology firms in Australia.

It is a perfect illustration of what Francis described as “it is good to be where the problems are.” From that you can figure:

• How to solve them
• How to extract value from solving them

He gave a couple of other illustrative quotes.

‘Entrepreneurship is the process of creating or seizing an opportunity and pursuing it regardless of the resources currently controlled.’ (Jeffrey Timons)

“A good idea is a bad idea that learns”

‘The competitor to be feared is one who never bothers about you at all, but goes on making his own business better all the time.’ (Henry Ford)

Another of FP’s relationships is with the Aussie Rules team the Adelaide Crows. Now sport’s not something that a university would normally be thought to be part of; but some of Flinder’s thinking is applied to how the players can be better decision-makers on the field. In other words, upping player’s sports-smarts.

For Flinders, having Francis in the driving seat doing some of the deals has been a savvy move – do the deal, don’t get too worked up about the IP (let it go free!)

Last September Marlborough-based Aquaflow announced a partnership of its wild-algae biofuel generating technology project with Texas’ CRI.

The wild algae has a dual ability to clean water and produce a ‘green crude’ (like black but without the millions of years of heat and pressure). CRI has a catalyst and process to convert this green crude into hydrocarbon fuels and blend stocks in typically a few hours.

CRI calls this proprietary technology Integrated Hydropyrolysis and Hydroconversion (IH2) – which can also convert biomass directly into renewable gasoline, jetfuel and diesel. CRI is also a subsidiary of Shell Oil (who recently sold its NZ downstream assets from refining to retail to Z Energy).

Whether or not Aquaflow’s promotion and use of wild algae (localised to the region) will be the route to market for what is plethora of global algae-to-oil projects, is still to be determined. (See here for a small list of such projects).

Aquaflow director Nick Gerritsen says using algae that naturally exist in an area is much more cost-effective and water-cleansing that attempting to create mono-cultures of algae specifically for its lipid oil production.

There’s also the question of whether a globally scalable algae focused solution will be deemed riskier if genetically modified species are used.

But, presumably based on Aquaflow’s understanding of how to optimise algae growth, harvest and production of multi-components, (for everything from fertiliser to bioenergy feedstocks), Gerritsen’s obviously been able to have other ‘conversations’ with CRI.

That includes the introduction of CRI’s IH2 technology to New Zealand – just in time for the growing quantities of biomass we produce (think forestry, gorse, solid waste).

The ability (as stated by Aquaflow and CRI admittedly) to convert biomass into renewable transport fuels, at close to the current price of crude oil puts Aquaflow in an interesting position in the country’s energy security stakes.

Gerritsen’s after investment beyond the $8.5 million already ponyed up by Aquaflow’s investors over the past six years, to crank up the IH2 process (and refineries) in New Zealand.

The point is, without some cards in their hand (or a bit of IP), Aquaflow wouldn’t be in a position to leverage CRI’s technology into New Zealand.

Now Aquaflow’s a long way from getting any sort of IH2 process off the ground – but it is a heck of a lot closer than it would’ve been without its own smarts to bargain with in the first place.

A bit of a case of ‘what you know’ combining with ‘who you know’ to create a ‘do you know what we can do for you’.

But, it is nearly six months since John Key (no less) announced the high-tech transformation of the science sector was to be kicked off.

Namely – and specifically – that IRL is to morph into an Advanced Technology Institute. We still wait for something, anything, to happen.

We’ve had reviews galore (indeed, it is close to reviews of the reviews) of IRL.

We’ve had the plan to absorb the Ministry of Science and Innovation into the MoBIE, or whatever its acronym is.

We’ve had an awful lot of nothing much – along the lines of Nero fiddling while Rome burns (though that was apparently quite unfair to Nero who was generally regarded as one of the better tyrants, see here)

All of which is pretty depressing at a time when doing something, anything, creating some movement and getting runs on the board, would be a bit of a tonic for the country.

Part of the irony of the situation is that it was IRL who suggested the transformation in the first place (and quietly promoted the idea through the Advanced Manufacturing Review and along the political process).

While it doesn’t suggest (and neither should it) that it has all the answers, simply by setting out on a journey to become a more effective half-way house between science and industry, it would be likely to evolve to become that.

Instead it appears that bureaucratic masters want to attempt the impossible of describing and prescribing what it should be, and what results it should deliver in a world that’s changing so fast that any document describing the same becomes redundant the moment it is written.

Look, a quick group hug would soon provide IRL with its riding instructions and allow it to get on with getting on. Part of that is expanded resources for Christchurch and Auckland and new construction at Gracefield to replace some buildings that existed before the Second World War!

What is required is a balanced plan put together collaboratively by industry (to keep everybody honest and ensure that the idea actually works), MSI (to provide world’s best ATI practice and government policy and compliance, and IRL (to retain the integrity of the organisation and to promote the best of what it has). By industry, how about representatives of companies with great track records in R&D and innovation like Scott Technology, F&P Healthcare, Resene and Glidepath.

The risk of industry alone deciding would risk “candy floss science” – excessive focus on short term, applied studies of limited depth. A government-designed ATI – well – think about it then shudder the thought. IRL calling all of the shots on its own would risk the nation ending up with IRL in drag.

But how about Minister Joyce inviting all three to work collaboratively to draw up a simple model then appointing an establishment board to implement the ATI?

In the total, and it seems continued, absence of any sense of national science direction from government, mucking around and trying to dot mythical i’s and cross potential t’s of what an ATI should be doing is true fiddling.

At the end of the day, the ATI is going to be ‘doing stuff’.

In transforming itself, IRL will become much more engineering-oriented, and require specialised brains from the university sector.

The ‘production’ of such people is another aspect that IRL has lined up to happen in partnership with universities. (It is however important that there isn’t an over-emphasis on engineering vis a vis biological, physical and chemical sciences that are strengths of IRL and important to many New Zealand companies.)

But its hands are tied while ‘government’ mucks around doing nothing.

For goodness sake GET ON WITH IT – or put Graham Henry in charge.

Or – to quote ‘The Simpsons’ Mr Burns – “Release the hounds” Mr Joyce.

Ex-pat American Moskovitz brought back a few copies of the book from a recent trip to the States, where the Lean Startup Methodology of applying the scientific method to starting, and growing, or shutting down a fledgling business has become mainstream.

Moskovitz says the book’s central thesis is that previously a startup has been considered more of an artform than a science, but Ries reckons that treating a new business as a series of scientific experiments can quickly refine a concept into a viable business.

By applying three stages – build, measure, learn – hypotheses can be tested quickly, and the problems solved to achieve product-market fit.

It goes without saying that the objective of this startup method is to make money.

Under Ries’ model, the basic unit of success is validated learning – and there’s no use spending time or money on anything if this isn’t the outcome.

Moskovitz gave a potted summary of the book as well (thanks Dave).

Value vs Waste

• You can only improve your product by measuring what customers actually do (and will pay for). Therefore, charge from day one, the information you get is the measure of real value

Minimum viable product (MVP)

• Start with a smoke test. (Particularly with regard to a website) advertise a feature that doesn’t exist, such as a landing page or button to a feature that doesn’t exist. If nobody clicks on the new feature, don’t build in – you’re wating your time and money
• ‘any work beyond what is required to start learning is a waste’
• (make a) video MVP – video of what the product does/will do
• Concierge MVP – pretend that there is an expert system in the background, have it as a person who does the job – a simple way to measure whether it is worthwhile

Innovation accounting = learning milestones

• Different from usual profit and loss accounting
• Establish baseline metrics. Document all your assumptions
• Real metrics are numbers like trial rates, referral rates, conversion rates, customer retention
• Bad news is good news. (You are going to fail continually, therefore you have to be reinventing, learning from mistakes and an incorrect hypothesis….don’t make the same mistake twice)
• Tune the engine
• Pivot or persevere….or….shutdown

Warnings

• Optimisation vs learning. If you are building the wrong thing, optimising it doesn’t matter
• The three A’s of success
• Actionable
• Achievable
• Auditable

Pivoting

• The true measure of a runway (how much time/money you have left) is how many pivots you can make before you’re dead
• An unclear hypothesis makes it impossible to experience complete failure, and to make the required changes for success

Types of pivot

• Zoom-in
• Zoom-out
• Customer segment
• Customer need
• Platform
• Business architecture
• Value capture
• Engine of growth
• Channel
• Technology

Small batches

• Doing things in small chunks lets you do more = rapid, incremental development cycles

Adapting to problem

• Use ‘The five whys’ – question five times what the problem is….often comes down to a person as the root
• Use ‘proposition/investment’ in problem correction
• Be tolerant of all mistakes the first time
• Never allow the same mistake to be made twice

Conclusion

• It’s mostly about not wasting peoples’ time

In conclusion, ‘The Lean Startup’ is a how to manual, where failure is welcomed, almost celebrated as a means to learn and adapt and grow – or, just as importantly quit and not be one of the ‘living dead’.

As Moskovitz gave his summary, it struck me as being a type of antidote to New Zealanders’ underlying ability to shoot ourselves in the foot as identified by Tony Smale (see here, here and here).

Again, having ‘failed’ (i.e. gained experience) in trying to set up a business a few years ago, (and looking for other opportunities now) such a mindset and scientific process would’ve been invaluable.

Among the thousands of management books I haven’t read, this is one I’ll be buying.

The Wellington Lean Startup Meetup group meets every second month and has over 250 members. For more information, go here.

I’m afraid, if you’re trying to outflank National on the science and innovation front, you’re going to have to do much better than your speech to the NZ Association of Scientists (see speech here) on April 16.

As your first major shot from the S&I portfolio you’ve deliberately taken onboard as well as leadership of the opposition, you’ve somewhat underwhelmed.

Which is a pity because I’m not all together sure that Steven Joyce is enjoying or finding he’s able to click the numerous pieces together in the S&I ecosystem.

There simply seems to be a whole lot of nothing happening – unless you call the structural-change absorption of the Ministry of Science & Innovation into a super ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment an inspired piece of strategy-led thinking.

I will give you credit for one good line on that front though Mr Shearer:

“The latest government idea is not about moving forward, but moving offices.”

That’s about it though I’m afraid, because the rest of your speech simply stated what is, even if you said to the assembled scientists

“over the coming months we will want to discuss with you how you believe science can be better supported. How our institutions can work more effectively and better together. We want to begin our government in 2014 with a clear plan.”

Might I respectfully suggest we do enough good science (look at the stats for published papers per capita).

It’s what we’re doing, nor rather not doing, beyond the initial research that the missing part of the jigsaw.

That’s the development part, the innovation part (i.e. bringing elements such as capital, management, lean startup methodologies, routes to market) that is a large part of the government’s missing policy or strategy.

And this is where you have quite a degree of freedom Mr Shearer to plant some seeds, show some leadership, grab our hearts and minds.

Because, (unless he’s cunningly planning to soon reveal an innovation genie of some kind), this is unclaimed territory by Mr Joyce.

Merely by stating some fresh thinking in the innovation area (which we’ll define as converting a good idea into something that makes money or is societally advantageous) you’d start front-footing it with the current government.

As to your speech – No one is going to disagree that we should do good science, retain young people and the like. Stating the obvious isn’t going to grab the nation’s hearts and minds, and that is what is up for the taking in the absence of Mr Joyce inspiring us to a better and brighter use of our smart resources.

You’re absolutely right when you said

“the absence of an overall plan means the science sector is again being turned upside down.”

But you’d better start offering more than what was in this speech if you want to be taken as merely providing platitudes.

In the current S&I climate of all structures and no strategy, you have a golden opportunity to do more than echo comments of the late Sir Paul Callaghan, or state what everyone already knows.

As you also commented in the speech:

“If we want more innovation and science in our industry, then we need the leadership and co-ordination that will create it.”

Precisely.

The S&I ball is in your court Mr Shearer.

You’ve so-far returned a couple of weak backhands.

A few smashing overhead volleys even if they’re out of court, would make us sit up and take more notice, see if you’re worth more than a cursory glance at.

Yours, etc etc

However Tony Shin tweaked an interest in the subject line, ‘A quick question about Instant Gratification’.

He in turn linked through to the following link (see here), an extremely informative graphic about ‘Instant America’.

Without giving the eight pages away, the underlying message of the effect of the internet’s instant gratification is that the desire for speedy information has made Americans (but read all of us) impatient for just about everything.

Well, OK, here’s three statistics (and all their sources, and the other facts are referenced at the end of the graphic) that should give us pause for thought.

• Google found that slowing search results by just 4/10ths of a second would reduce the number of searches by 8,000,000 a day
• In the U.S., 25% of mobile web users browse only on their phones, never using a laptop, tablet or desktop to access the internet
• Half of surveyed Americans would not return to an establishment that kept them waiting

Are we in New Zealand far behind in our impatience stakes? Probably not.

Tony Shin’s also done me the favour of pointing out www.onlinegraduateprograms.com , which has a number of other interesting graphics including; ‘Generation Screwed – It’s not easy being a millennial’, and ‘Should you get an MBA?’

Onlinegraduateprograms describes itself as “devoted to providing a detailed understanding of all aspects of graduate education”.

The site’s well worth a fossick around. Its mandate is beyond the ‘bums on seats’ business model of most universities.

In other words, it has plenty of interesting stuff you probably didn’t know about. See if you can resist ’50 facts you never knew about the English language’ if you don’t believe me

In particular, the push to make (force even) the development of the former oil tank farm Wynyard Quarter as a place that can grow into a hotbed of science-led innovation is wrong.

Purely on an evidence-based front, there’s flaws in the argument that’s been put up for the Quarter.

Why would start-ups, one of the main elements that the Quarter’s meant to be trying to attract, be interested in locating themselves on one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in the country?

Start-ups start in garages and spare bedrooms, rundown warehouses and close to the sources of supply (of raw materials, brains, good distribution) that fit at the particular time of their beginning.

Start-ups don’t kick off in elaborate, over-designed (potential white elephants), and surely government’s not suggesting a subsidised rental scheme!

Even if Industrial Research (as it even so slowly morphs into an Advanced Technology Institute) was ‘encouraged’ to set up in the WQ, those wanting to tap into its knowledge wouldn’t have to be co-located to access the brains. You don’t have to be onsite to have a meeting.

The other worry with the government’s Aucklandisation push for science and innovation is that it is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Sure, some high-level manufacturing takes place there – but attempting to concentrate R&D resources in the Queen City ignores the facts of the matter.

In a New Zealand environment that has a great scarcity of data, a recent working paper by Victoria University’s Management School crunches some numbers and draws some conclusions from IRL’s 2009 initiative, ‘What’s Your Problem New Zealand’.

The 19 page document can be found here. It’s a nicely written piece, low on theory-speak, and prepared to draw a few conclusions.

The management school recognised that analysing the [100] competition application forms

“represented a unique and potentially extremely useful insightful view of the corporate innovation landscape”.

One particular feature they noted was that WYPNZ isolated firms with active innovative intent – that is, thinking about innovation ‘right now’ in order to apply.

The competition was also open of all-comers, not just those identified by another agency or body as having potential to turn innovative intent into value creation, or firms in need of development.

All in all,

“we hope to have created a picture, in microcosm, of the landscape for corporate innovation inNew Zealand.”

Again, check out the report for yourself.

But, to cut to the chase, and the first couple of 13 propositions (which VUW suggests could be the basis for further possible research):

Proposition 1: No geographic region in New Zealand has more or less “innovative intent”, or indeed innovative capability, than any other.

Proposition 2: IRL’s primary location in Wellington appears to have no significant bearing on encouraging or discouraging firms from any particular region to relate to it.

………. so, to draw a long bow.

Don’t go overly pushing Auckland as an engineered hotbed of science and innovation – it’s an incorrect property play in the first instance, and unsubstantiated policy proposal in the second.

And for goodness sake government – let IRL get on with developing its ATI-inspired campus at Gracefield.

In the continued absence of a sense of science and innovation direction (which will only be exacerbated with the MSI’s absorption into the super-ministry), the ongoing mucking around with what was IRL’s idea in the first place is bad for the country.

In other words, tell IRL what you want them to achieve, and let them get on with doing that by allocating its smart people resources in the way that best fits. Kicking off with a rebuild (of a modular design that can be replicated inChristchurchandAuckland) in Wellington is the sensible option.

If the argument is that New Zealand needs to act as a city of four million people, IRL’s current head office location is fine as demonstrated by the evidence.

Or to put it another way, let’s just get on and do stuff, without the Auckland bias.