Wellington
Well, surely I’m not the only one surprised that what was to be the establishment of anAdvanced Technology Institute – or a supercharged IRL – somewhat on the model of
That certainly hasn’t been communicated in its four month gestation – in fact precious littlehas been publicly stated….apart from some imaginative words of
In fact, communication has been woeful – to say the least.
Now maybe CI is going to be more than a funding vehicle, and move beyond the current Tech NZrole.
Maybe it will address those routes to market, partnering and capital issues that bedevil theturning of an idea into a saleable reality (and success).
Maybe it is what the country needs.
But – if ‘we’ had known CI was going to be an all singing all dancing affair, shouldn’tthe process have been a heck of a lot more transparent, in-depth and more question andanswering?
After all, this is as equally as big a change as took place 20 years ago when the DSIR andMAFTech was morphed into the CRI model.
That process was carried out over a reasonable timeframe and out in the open.
What we’re going to end up with here is a fait accompli, a model based on a muddle. (As anaside, precisely the type of thing the late Sir Paul Callaghan would have been aghast to have hisname associated with).
If the (flawed) thinking was that NZ industry and people with ideas didn’t know what door(s) togo through to get science and tech answers or help – and CI is the result – you have to suspectentirely the wrong problem has been addressed……in secret.
Again, the trouble is we’ve all been kept in the dark, when we don’t have to be – we’reall on the same ship here.
Saying things like we can’t tell you anything until the legislation is in place, is a circularnon-argument. That all will be revealed on Feb. 1 is equally invalid.
The approach, the cloak-and-daggerness is totally unwarranted.
So, based on gut-feel as much as anything, I make the following observations.
How will Callaghan Innovation NOT just be another layer of innovationbureaucracy – divorced from both the science/engineering and the market – which is as much ahindrance as a help to those who need it?
Where does this place an ever-improving initiative such as
Why would any person with an idea still not go straight to the science or engineeringestablishment that actually has the capability, rather than going through what will undoubtedly bean officialdom-onerous process through the CI?
Finally, sure (without even attempting to define the hackneyed term) ‘innovation’ needs tobe done better in NZ.
But the way CI’s coming into existence, the huge risk is it is change by accidentrather than change by design .
And no one is allowed to argue.