OK, now that we have the naming of the Advanced Technology Institute out of the way, and itsgenesis to Callaghan Innovation has been carried out, it’s time to move on from the warmfuzzies.
The thinking behind the new name and logo is, let’s call it an ‘interesting explanation’and let it lie – can be found
There’s a statement in the same newsletter number two, that the name of the organisationshouldn’t turn into an abbreviation or set of initials….wishful hoping I’m afraid. CI or C.I.it will become once first named in any story.
There’s also,
“our thinking definitely veered towards the new organisationbeing first and foremost an attitude, an approach, a new conversation and activity, rather than afixed position or a building.”
Because it is easy enough to talk around the edges as the CI’s underpinning operatingprinciples demonstrate:
All of which will be of little comfort you suspect to the R&D community, private researchproviders, and numerous consultants involved in commercialisation (let alone private industry).
This also includes the fledgling KiwiNet, the CRI and universities created group/hugcommercialisation entity which came into being as the would-be Ministry of Science & Innovation
This current CI fuzziness is even more reason for it to come out with some specific and practicalillustration(s) of how it is going to work.
I would suggest that the CI needs a type of
Because the danger for it, and the country, is that CI becomes a proposal with little support ifpresented as a fait accompli.
And given that there’s precious few working days left between now and Feb. 1, creating andbuilding stakeholder engagement, rather than policy development, is THE crucial element.
Or, to put it another way, and something I’m sure the late Sir Paul Callaghan would’veendorsed – give us something concrete we can actually chip away at….orendorse.
Quickly.