Category Archives: Innovation

There is Snow Recession in New Zealand

Posted on by

remarkablesRecently I indulged my eight year son with a short holiday down south, including a day on the slopes at the very scenic Remarkables range. He’s already a very competent skier and full of confidence after only one season. In contrast, I spent most of the day sitting on my backside wondering why snow-boards do not have brakes installed – design flaw no doubt. But my son’s lack of fear provided me with some insight into what a difference attitude makes.

The recession may have dulled most travelers’ enthusiasm for spending in the short term; but the southern lakes region actually managed a small increase in visitor overnights in the past year. The “world’s adventure capital” must be one of the few places in which commercial and residential real estate development continues unabated and there remains a steady stream of incoming buses, boats and aircraft overflowing with families and young backpackers. Sure there has been the odd mortgagee sale and some of the trendy apparel retailers were a obviously bit quiet. But the town retains an optimistic feel about it, even in the midst of winter.

My point is that attitude can take you  long way. If other tiny Pacific Island nations can refuse to “participate” in the recession – why can’t we also? If positive-minded, friendly and engaging tourism industry employees and entrepreneurs can keep local economies ticking over – why can’t we apply this mindset to the whole country? And I don’t just mean tourism. Singapore has Biopolis, the U.S. has Silicon Valley and India has Bangalore. Regional resource advantage can be channelled by deliberate agglomeration, especially when there is sufficient access to capital and intellectual talent.

You can write good software code and draw up financial contracts just as easily from a villa overlooking beautiful Lake Wakatipu as you can from an office block in Palo Alto. So instead of polluting our landscape producing commodities that continually drop in price, we should be inviting entrepreneurs from offshore to base themselves here to create new enterprises and wealth whilst enjoying the scenery. The only crisis in well endowed New Zealand is one of lack of confidence.

Cow-shit and Candyfloss Overcomes High Tech

Posted on by

In an interview for Unlimited Magazine, physicist and technology entrepreneur Paul Callaghan recounts meeting Prime Minister John Key at a business function. The PM had just stepped off the speaker’s podium where he had been talking up agriculture and tourism and expressing scepticism about the value of New Zealand’s technology sector to the economy. If that is the kind of leadership we are faced with, then I fear that the devaluation of our economic potential will continue unabated.

And before I’m accused over being overly harsh, let’s just look at this government’s track record since taking office well over six months ago:

  • Research & development tax credit reduced then cut altogether.
  • Fast Forward programme wiped and replaced with identical project with less funding.
  • I.T. worker redundancies from government agencies.
  • Negligible budget increase to RS&T vote.
  • Major cuts to tertiary education funding.
  • NZ Innovation Centre loses $15M in funding.
  • Reported $100M net loss to market development assistance programmes for exporters.

To be fair, we all knew that the Budget needed to be tough – even if Key and English can’t agree exactly why. Certainly borrowing to fund superannuation and tax cuts doesn’t make good fiscal sense; but neither does knee-capping your research, science and technology capability. To its credit, the government did provide additional resources to the Marsden Fund and a one-off operational grant to REANNZ the high speed research network. In the latter case, they obviously could not be seen to allow the research network to fail, whilst at the same time pouring billions into digging trenches for a brand new domestic network for which a proper economic business case has yet to be made.

Investing in and commercialising research will never be cheaper than today and you can be sure that our competitors in America and Europe are continuing to do it. I’ve said it before – when I look around town, it is the businesses that have invested in developing new technology that are still growing. It seems like the government is signalling it wishes to play less of a role in this arena. Dairy commodity prices are dropping again, so too are visitor numbers. The PM’s support for agriculture and tourism is no doubt uplifting for the cow-shit and candyfloss brigades, but it does little to bolster our GDP per capita output in the long term.

Wool to Weta by Paul Callaghan is available at all good bookstores and explains why research, science and technology is important to the New Zealand economy and why a unified vision is needed.

Innovation, Property Rights and the Political Economy

Posted on by

In recent months I have noticed an elevated volume of commentary relating to the overlap between economic development and the political expression of property ownership rights. Part of this debate has been driven by sea changes on the political landscape and new analysis of the role previous governments have played through intervening in markets. Last week’s OECD report card on New Zealand fanned the flames of this debate to a new level.

The report suggests that previous governments have consistently failed to address historically poor levels of productivity and innovation. In the face of a global economic emergency there is a strong call for urgent action to reconfigure policy on this front.

“New Zealand’s living standards remain well below the OECD average. This is entirely attributable to persistently low labour productivity, which in turn is related to economic geography as well as structural policy factors. The small size and remoteness of the economy diminish its access to world markets, the scale and efficiency of domestic businesses, the level of competition and proximity to the world’s technology frontier. This points to the need for a “New Zealand policy advantage”, that is, a set of structural policies attractive and welcoming enough to overcome the geographic handicap and attract the drivers of prosperity – investment, skills and ideas – to New Zealand.”

Innovation, property rights and the political economy are intertwined. For example without a robust framework for the protection of intellectual property there is little incentive to innovate and generate economic returns from new ideas. But implicit in the OECD calls for macroeconomic restructuring is the suggestion that Crown assets be sold to address fiscal debt. This remarkably unoriginal idea seems to mysteriously surface every time a National government is elected.

Some have argued that New Zealand’s historically interventionist approach has discouraged investment in innovation and critical infrastructure. However, hurried or ill considered sales of State assets (originally funded by taxpayers) in some respects seems contradictory to ongoing academic arguments that favour less intervention, more consistency and the protection of unalienable rights to property. How do we reconcile these positions? Should we be doing so? As was once proposed, would it not be better to leverage the capital invested in State owned enterprises to create new, high value spin-off ventures?

Of course the situation is complicated in New Zealand by the fact that Maori have strong views in terms of property rights, securing favourable State regulation and the connection this makes with their own economic development aspirations. But can we promote a free and unfettered market with strongly protected property rights on the one hand whilst at the same time contemplating separate justice and electoral systems and the wholesale transfers of property assets based on race? External investors no doubt also weigh these risks when considering New Zealand as a destination.

The Dilemna of Online Identity

Posted on by

The vexatious issue of online identity becomes steadily more and more intractable with the staggering growth in the number of Internet and mobile users and the proliferation of web-based communities and online applications. But the problem of online identity goes well beyond simply finding a ubiquitous login profile for all your favourite websites. 

Technology now controls and mediates the permeable boundary between communities and a growing number of services.  Dealing with the technology around online identity involves addressing important issues such as verifiability, security and reputation. In difficult economic times the expression of our online identity holds considerable value, because it may affect our ability to find a job or win a contract. Centralising the protection and management of online identity then seems like a logical step towards solving some of these issues, but it also brings with it some philosophical problems.

If you entrust your personal data to a single organisation how can you be sure that it is secure? Is it better to have a multiple identities and logins? If your favourite social networking site went bust tomorrow you may lose some data but at least all your other identities remain intact. Could access to personal data be abused if it was located in a centralised repository? Would it mean more or less spam and invasion of personal privacy? What happens to your data in perpetuity? The reality is that we are already struggling with these issues. If you own a telephone, get a welfare benefit or operate a motor vehicle – your personal information already resides on numerous databases around the place. Almost certainly some of that information is incorrect and you don’t even know it. Recently I had to make two personal visits to my bank to make a simple address change happen!

Last week’s launch of the new .TEL domain was a positive step towards allowing Internet users to regain control over their online data. The launch of .TEL received little coverage in New Zealand,  despite the tremendous opportunity it represents. The new domain was set up by Telnic, a respected global domain registry. Each .TEL domain comes with it’s own free website that the owner can configure to display contact information. Here’s how the ideegeo .TEL site looks for example. You can also add active links such as phone numbers, email addresses, related websites, blogs and personal social network pages.

Over time .TEL will grow to become the equivalent of  the world’s virtual White Pages and no doubt a myriad of application offerings will spring from within it. It seems like the perfect way for small businesses to get listed on the web without the expense of developing and managing a full blown website. The domain owner has full control over the page content and level of access by other users (public or private). If there is any change of address or other contact details it is a simple matter to update the site. The .TEL sites are protected by high level encryption to keep spammers and cyber-criminals away.

The .TEL launch included a funny video that alludes to some light hearted social benefits from becoming a .TEL owner. We’ve been promoting the clip on our iWantMyName domain management site this week. Enjoy.

Rural Towns Left to Wither

Posted on by

I had occasion to head home to the provinces for a family visit last weekend. What always strikes me is the character of the little towns along the way. Some of them have been dying off for years, only kept alive of late by the fact that the surrounding rural economy has been booming. But with commodity prices plunging, the underlying support from dairy (and oil) is falling away.

If city dwellers are feeling the pinch now, spare a thought for the rural towns. For some, almost nothing has changed since the 1950s. Their central business districts generally comprise a petrol station, convenience store and a public bar. Now with falling trade even some of the pubs and petrol stations have passed on. Weeds creep insidiously through gaping holes in ramshackle corrugated iron fences that surround overflowing car wrecking yards and the odd farm machinery repair workshop. It’s not rustic or charming, it’s decay; and it’s a testament to how decades of questionable government economic policy has left such towns unimproved.

The one beacon of hope amongst this desolation is the local school. Tidy, manicured grounds surround the elderly buildings, replete in yet another coat of standard issue Ministry paint. The school is the last remaining focus point for the community. But even the school is at risk as roll numbers dwindle and the same Ministry casts its bureaucratic ruler over the books. Not even community pride in the school can prevent the young people from leaving town as soon as they are able – there is nothing to hold them.

Some of the troubles faced by rural towns are simply geographical. No amount of government intervention can compensate for poor soil, challenging climate or remoteness. For those towns that do not have viticulture or glaciers or fishing quota, the future looks rather bleak. On a broader front, the withering of our small towns is related to the fact that New Zealand in general continues to lag behind in GDP per capita. There is simply not enough cash to go around, largely because we have underinvested in innovation as a nation. Our small provincial towns are a metaphor for the wider economy.

I mentioned that education is a beacon of hope, there was also another glimmer of light on the horizon last week. McKinsey run an annual exercise involving mapping global innovation. Auckland was the only New Zealand city that was polled, but it showed up in the top left corner of the data as a “hot spring” of innovation. In other words we are registering more technology patents each year, but only in a small number of areas. Now, it turns out that bubbling hot springs generally host a thriving microcosm of life. On that basis investing in science and technology innovation as a means to generate economic wealth seems like a good idea. So why is the government heading in the opposite direction?

Local Tech Rejected for Auckland Transport Solution

Posted on by

Infotech are reporting that a French firm has been identified as “preferred provider” for an integrated smart card solution across the Auckland region. If NZX listed local company Infratil misses out, it underlines the continuing struggle faced by local technology firms to secure major publicly funded contracts.

The Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) has been assessing tender responses for a much needed smartcard solution that would provide considerable relief for beleagured commuters in the City of Sails. But ARTA appears to have already flagged Thales as the most likely candidate in the project, which is reportedly valued at up to $100 million. At a time when everyone is concerned about preserving jobs, you would think that local contractors would receive favourable consideration. But – as in the past – local component is not a criteria for assessing public spending.

The stakes are high for the companies concerned. Wellington is considering extending to a region-wide solution and Christchurch is looking for a system that is compatible with whatever technology Auckland settles upon. The New Zealand implementations will also be excellent business case studies to support future export sales.

So perhaps the local technology is inferior? Not so. Last year Infratil, in a joint venture with ANZ bank, developed and launched the Snapper smartcard on its bus network across the Wellington region. Apart from some minor teething problems at the outset, the product has proven a success amongst Wellington’s commuters and usage continues to grow. The swipe cards can be recharged periodically and also used for small purchases at convenience store outlets.

Perhaps the chief criticism of Infratil’s solution involves concerns about monopolistic practices, because only Infratil buses currently have the Snapper technology installed. However that argument seems like a moot point given that ARTA have complete control over the scope of the solution for Auckland. Infratil will also draw upon the experience of it’s Australian project partner, infrastructure giant EDI Downer. So there is little doubt about the vendor’s ability to stay the course. Having eliminated the usual arguments – what is it that stops NZ public agencies from supporting local businesses? Outdated attitudes towards procurement of local technology should be confined to history.

Jobs Summit Lacked Innovation

Posted on by

Predictably the sketchy proposals emerging from last week’s “Jobs Summit” ranged from mildly interesting to the completely ridiculous and I’m left wondering how many will actually come to pass. But the ideas fest, hosted at Manukau City, was not actually about generating sensible approaches to the economic crisis, it was about putting on a display of unity and generating some positive buzz. Ironically, the business leaders at the conference will likely preside over hundreds of layoffs themselves in the coming months.

I like that John Key is an ideas man and is prepared to entertain novel concepts. But his sidekick Bill English made it very clear going into the summit that the state of the nation’s finances would not allow for a great deal of additional expenditure. By lowering expectations ahead of the summit he allowed the government to wiggle out of addressing any meaningful economic reform. His comments may even foreshadow some backpeddling on big ticket sacred cows like tax cuts, broadband and superannuation.

I guess my real concern is that the Jobs Summit hoopla has eclipsed the fact that economic realities have shifted so much that we really need to make a quantum leap in how we approach investing in our future as a nation. I’m not convinced that the summit properly addressed these issues. Borrowing cash to dig cable trenches and build a cycleway will simply not cut the mustard in my opinion.

Since it was elected, the government has astutely avoided making any comments about the need to invest in research, science and technology innovation. In fact the only promise they have made in this area is to kill off the R&D tax credit. They still don’t get it. The only businesses that are growing right now are precisely those that have invested in technology research and development. For example colostrum manufacturer New Image have exploded onto the Asian market. Even the horrendous balls-up in China by dairy commodity behemoth Fonterra has failed to suppress the demand for this high end, added value product.

Saving jobs in the breakfast cereal factories and assembly lines of South Auckland is important. But even more important is creating more high tech companies and developing our largely under-educated workforce. The lack of aspiration we currently demonstrate as a nation is reflected more and more in the ugly twin cultures of ethnic gangs and idiot boyracers that are furtively permeating our society and populating our streets with a generation of social rejects. What we really needed was an all encompassing social, economic and technological Innovation Summit.

The Digital Innovation Terminator

Posted on by

With the squashing of the R&D tax credit, the biffing of BIF and the annihilation of the Digital Development Council one could be forgiven for thinking the incoming government is auditioning for a role in the forthcoming Terminator movie. Of even more concern is a blatant lack of understanding about where the Internet is taking us, as witnessed by their trashing of the Digital Forum.

Don’t they get that distributed problem-solving by communities and networks is the way forward now? When the Minister states that the government will now consult individually with the parties concerned, what he really means is that he will open the door to the best corporate lobbyists around town. Joe public, small business and the creative sector won’t get a look see. The Digital Forum wasn’t perfect, but at least it gave voice to a wide range of users and producers of digital innovation and creative content.

The axing of the government shared network represents yet another another milestone in the government’s ideological war being waged on every last programme or initiative that had Labour’s brand on it. This leads one to the disturbing conclusion that the KAREN research network might be the next target on the chopping block. Established as a Crown entity, the network was supposed to turn a profit whilst delivering high bandwidth capability to the already under-funded research agencies and universities. But poor demand modelling and underinvestment in marketing new services left the network underutilised.

Given the already woeful levels of research, science and technology investment by government, it would be a disaster to let KAREN go. In fact the government should be fully funding its owner REANNZ as a matter of course, as part of a wider commitment to building up RS&T capability. The potential in terms of research and science outcomes from a properly wired and (socially) networked science and technology community has yet to be fully tapped.

Can Web 2.0 Save the World?

Posted on by

Last year Umair Haque, a Harvard University technology commentator, vented his annoyance about the fact that the new wave of Web 2.0 start-ups being funded out of Silicon Valley mostly contribute very little towards solving the world’s really big problems. I’m inclined to agree. So are New Zealand’s online ventures providing anything of real social value?

I’m not saying that simply selling stuff and making a profit is not an admirable goal in itself, because it is. Such activities generate taxes and contribute to the fabric of society in a variety of ways. But it would be great to see some more initiatives that have purely social or environmental goals, but with a sustainable business model. So I drew to Haque’s attention a New Zealand venture called Celsias.com. This is a community site that aims to “solve global warming one project at a time”. The site so far has no fewer than 126 global projects listed in which organisations or individuals commit to changing the environment for the better. Celsias also aggregates recent articles on green issues and has a discussion zone where users can initiate conversations on topics of their choosing.

Celsias looks great and makes a tangible contribution to society and probably doesn’t get the attention it fully deserves. Every workplace should have an account on their site. As Ben Milsom CEO of Nexx points out in this well considered blog article, for the most part we haven’t really progressed from simply being online consumers. After all, the sites with the most traffic in NZ are actually Web 1.0, simply replicating real life activities online such as banking and selling consumer goods. As Ferrit discovered, there is not a lot of upside left in this business model. We need more innovative online services that actually solve real problems.

Very few of the most highly trafficked websites offer true interactivity or provide an opportunity to be creative. As a nation, we are possibly not as digitally savvy as we might like to believe. However Ponoko is one site that simply shines because of the way it pools and leverages talent. Ponoko won’t save the world but it does allow its community of users an unusual creative outlet, one that has garnered global interest. It also facilitates collaboration and provides lots of advice and guidance on designing and selling. It is good to see new online business models emerging. Recently launched TribeHQ also takes a fresh approach to online knowledge sharing and, by acknowledging network effects and cluster theory, looks set to redefine white collar recruitment.

But ventures like Nexx, Celsias, Ponoko and TribeHQ can change the world, if for no other reason than that they remind us that the economic order is changing. Unfortunately there is a great deal of inertia out there. The battles with bureaucracy encountered by Nexx and other “social lending” platforms are instructive. The gatekeepers haven’t yet realised that we are in the midst of an economic, technological and social revolution. If a platform like Kiva can be allowed to facilitate micro-financing to clients in developing nations, why can’t we have a peer-to-peer lending platform in New Zealand? If we can get a project like Nexx underway perhaps it would expedite some much needed capital flowing into the technology sector too!

Got any other online ventures that have social, creative or environmental objectives? Let us know.

Will the “Jobs Summit” Deliver?

Posted on by

Almost everybody with half a clue accepts that another round of economic reform is required to address the challenges ahead. But the National government’s “100 days of (in)action” will soon look like an opportunity lost unless John Key can execute rapidly on some good ideas following next month’s “job summit”.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the perfect storm is gathering. Melting commodity prices, a tidal wave of leveraged debt plus cooling consumer spending has all but evaporated economic growth. The rainy day has arrived. The good news is that previous governments have been fiscally responsible by putting some of their pocket money in the piggy bank. The bad news is that they gave up on attempting to diversify the economy away from logs and animal protein, despite all the advice to do so.

Whatever happens, the prime ministerial “jobs summit” planned for next month will not be a panacea. However it is better than doing nothing, which is what the government appears to have been doing since the election in early November last year. A quick flick through government Minister’s press releases reveals that almost no new ideas or economic strategies have been announced since the election. What are they waiting for? Management theory suggests that business turnarounds succeed best when there are early wins and momentum for change is built up rapidly. Economic turnarounds are surely subject to the same laws of physics. So far the signs are not very promising

The “jobs summit” needs to be rebranded more broadly as a societal forum because it is not just about jobs or even money any more. It’s about dealing with a paradigmatic shift in how business, government and society operate within economies. If the government don’t understand this, we have a real problem. That’s why it troubles me that the forum has been proposed by a former investment banker and will be chaired by a stock exchange CEO. Aren’t these just the kind of people who got us into this mess in the first place?