The juxtaposition of two trade shows, Manufacturing week last week, and the current CeBIT, have raised some questions in my mind about the road on which we are travelling.
I spent the best part of two days at Manufacturing week, and yesterday at CeBIT, talking, observing, getting caffeinated, and generally trying to question the preconceptions that seem to be driving the activity I saw. I arrived at a small number of questions that I think need to be addressed.
How do we overcome the myth of Silicon valley?
Simply put, it seems that the general view is that an ‘App’ or digitisation of something will be the panacea. The VC’s will emerge from their caves and fund the next big thing that will solve all the problems, despite much of the stuff I saw looking a bit like an App in search of a problem to solve, particularly at CeBIT.
There needs to be, in my humble view, more focus and understanding that the improvements in manufacturing will come more from the improvements in material science and engineering than from a VC funded miracle cure.
The developments that make a real difference are long term ones, basic science that bounces around often for decades before a commercial application is found, a timeframe that requires public funding, as the VC’s will not be interested. A case in point is the development by CSIRO scientists of the wireless LAN technology we all now use every day.
Where do we find the skills to compete?
We are a small country, so graduate numbers in STEM subjects are low by international comparisons, but apparently dropping as a proportion of graduations. Numbers vary, as do definitions, but to be globally competitive we need to increase the number of quality graduates, ensure their funding, and focus their activities on areas where Australia has some sort of competitive advantage. Logically the first two should be an outcome of government policy, sadly lacking, and the latter an outcome of commercial forces over time. Currently we import a substantial percentage of STEM employees and entrepreneurs, a fact demonstrated clearly, albeit qualitatively, at the two trade shows.
How do we build genuine collaboration between Government, Academia and Industry?
This collaboration gets a lot of air time and ‘polly-speak’ but seems lacking. There are a lot of government programs around to assist industry, but most are not well understood, are hard to access, and have demanding guidelines that alienate time poor manufacturing management. To be fair, we all want to see out taxes spent sensibly, but sometimes you have to take a leap of faith, and make the funding more accessible, and not so risk sensitive to the bureaucratic, risk averse funding bodies. This requires additional expert, non bureaucratic resources at the early stages of project development and assessment.
The problem with academia holding IP remains a huge stumbling block. I delivered a session at a University recently, for free, on the understanding that I would be given a recording of the session. I put a lot of work into the session, the Professor concerned assured me that the recording would be forthcoming, but it is tangled up in the Universities IP policy, and I have not got it. Next time they ask for help the answer may be different, and this was just a simple exercise of me passing on the wisdom of my experience, not leveraging the IP of some advanced research project in which the University had a hand.
How do we participate meaningfully in the next wave?
Forget today, it is already too late. However, the next wave of development, artificial intelligence, IOT, human/machine interfaces, in short, industry 4.0, the combination of advanced manufacturing and digital technology, is just around the corner. Australian of the year Professor Michelle Simmons leads a world class quantum physics team, but I wonder if there is the supporting infrastructure and political longevity of will to leverage the break-throughs that appear to be coming. In addition, there is really only the one team, competing against the world, as well as collaborating with it, and I suspect both are insufficient.
As a final observation, and this is a ‘groan’ from a marketing bloke. The quality of thought that has gone into the leveraging of the investment made by the organisations of all sizes with stands at both exhibitions is rubbish. After Fine Foods last year I penned this post that outlined 18 strategies to leverage the substantial investment required to be present at a trade show. I was astonished, particularly at CEBIT yesterday, the digital tech show, at the number of times I was allowed to move on after a conversation without the stand staff getting any of my details, even in instances where there was obvious genuine interest, and therefore some potential value in a follow up.
Photo credit: CeBIT via Flikr
