There has been a lot of commentary on what we as a manufacturing cohort, and the government should do to haul Australia out of the steady decline of manufacturing.
Most of it is good, thoughtful commentary, but we seem unable to move forward meaningfully on many fronts.
Question is, how will we know what works and what does not in the absence of specific and apolitical (in the widest sense of the word) measures?
Following are some thoughts distilled from the commentary, and relying heavily on the 2016 paper by the Australia Institute. On re-reading this paper, it seems obvious from my interactions that the numbers may have changed somewhat, but the trends are still in place, and probably more advanced. An update would be immensely valuable.
It seems sensible to me to articulate a few boundary items that need to be addressed before any detail can be reasonably considered.
-
- If we are to effectively manage investment and activity across the economy, we need a common base and clear definitions of what is included under ‘manufacturing’. In short, a common nomenclature.
- Following nomenclature clarity, we then need what is in effect a national manufacturing P&L, undiluted by fuzzy numbers from other sectors, free from confirmation bias, and understood by all. While we do have a range of measures currently via industry bodies, the ABS, and various government departments, there is no common base for measurement. This lack of commonality just serves to obscure the numbers, and more importantly, the trends.
- Having such an explicit set of manufacturing numbers would enable valid comparisons against which to measure progress. Comparisons to other parts of the economy, similar economies around the world, the components of the total numbers, items like employment, sources of inputs, impacts of investments, supply chain agility, all the things we do routinely for our own businesses. This would not be an easy task, but to my mind, it is a vital one.
- Having solid articulation of the current situation is the core of any sensible strategic planning. While we all know the plans will be flawed, and need to evolve with circumstances as implementation progresses, the process of strategic planning is essential.
- Eliminate the prospect of ideological change as governments change by deepening the recognition that for the economy to be sustainably prosperous, manufacturing is a foundation stone. Businesses will be more likely to invest when their time frame of policy certainty is longer than a few short years and managed by a bunch who spend their time watching what the loonies on Twitter think is a policy input. The debacle with energy policy, and lack of it, over the last decade should be a salient lesson for the future.
- Invest in education and research, the underpinning that businesses need to harness to deliver innovations products. We have a fine record of research on limited budgets, but a lousy record in the commercialisation, although there are individual examples that run against this observation. The intellectual infrastructure that delivered this fine record has been rotting for 35 years or more, and we are seeing the impact now. The cycle time of science to marketable product is more like 30 years than 3, and that time frame requires public investment. Sadly, we seem unable to grasp this simple notion. As a result, we have bureaucrats trying to pick winners in a 3-5 year timeframe, and the continuing erosion of investment in education.
We should take advice from some of the real geniuses that have passed through.
‘You cannot manage what you cannot measure’ is Peter Drucker’s often used quote with which I agree, partly. Einstein, speaking on the same topic also said, ‘Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts’.
Two geniuses having different views on the same topic. How confusing is that?
No wonder the Canberra clown factory and its state based training camps cannot get its head around the challenges.
Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gauld at www.tomgauld.com
