Category: government

Super connecting cities

How can cities re-invent themselves in the connected economy.

I’m chairing a panel this week in Newcastle for the New Lunaticks on How Cities can Become Super Connected where we’ll look at how a city can develop its broadband infrastructure and how the local economy can grow in a global, connected marketplace.

The challenge for a city like Newcastle is great as in many ways the city’s economy is a microcosm of Australia’s – a massive restructure of the local economy over the last forty years has left the region with a consumer driven suburban society and the massive coal resources of the region have made the city the biggest coal exporting port on the planet.

Much of the wealth flowing out of the port to India and China isn’t being distributed into the city and the Newcastle central business district is suffering from years of underinvestment and neglect by the business community and governments of all levels.

So the rollout of the National Broadband Network offers an opportunity for the city and the local economy to reposition itself. The question on the panel is how?

Waiting for Godot

The first aspect is that waiting for a government agency or telephone company to come to town is risky; recent history shows Newcastle gets no favours from state or Federal governments so expecting the region to be a priority for the National Broadband Network is unrealistic.

Indeed this has proved the case so far with no planned rollout locations for the NBN announced in the Hunter region to date.

At present higher speed Internet access comes through ADSL over the telephone lines and Telstra’s 4G mobile network in the downtown part of the city.

So it’s up to the community to create the conditions and demand for faster broadband.

Building the infrastructure

One way to make Newcastle more attractive to the providers of high speed internet is to make the supporting infrastructure easy to access. The local council can work on this by making streets, building and underground services like conduits accessible and available.

Part of encouraging investment in the local telecoms infrastructure includes an attitude from council that doesn’t put unnecessary barriers in the way of developments.

This isn’t to say local residents’ views should be over-ridden; if a city is going to be successful then it need the support of the residents.

Who funds the network?

While the city waits for the NBN or expanded 4G services to arrive, what happens in the interim? Should local and state governments build a temporary Wi-Fi network to cover the Central Business District?

If so, why just the CBD? Why not key industrial, commercial and shopping centres in the suburbs? Over the last forty years, Newcastle residents have shown they prefer to work and shop outside the city centre.

Of course the biggest question is who is going to pay for such an interim network. Putting the load on already stretched local governments guarantees the project will be strapped for capital.

Open data, open processes

An area where local governments can encourage growth is by being open and innovative themselves.

By making data available they encourage local developer communities and attract entrepreneurs who see a welcoming environment.

More importantly, having open procurement and recruitment processes that encourage local business to apply for government work and suggest innovative ways to work is one way industries in the region can be encouraged.

Connecting communities

Even with the best infrastructure you’re not going to build a vibrant economy without the community working together.

If we look at successful industry clusters such as Silicon Valley or the Pearl River Delta today, or historical successes like Birmingham in the 18th Century, we see industries built around a small core of determined entrepreneurs utilising local resources.

For Birmingham this was access to coal, iron ore, skilled labour and waterways to ship the products out. Silicon Valley’s role developed because of its access to high technology defense spending, good quality education facilities, a highly educated workforce and a free wheeling capital market.

Cities like Newcastle have to identify what the local economy’s strengths are and how these can built upon. It needs government, business and educational groups to be co-operating.

A liveable city

The key to all successful cities is making them attractive to entrepreneurial, skilled and younger workers. In some respects Newcastle has aspects that can attract these groups.

For Newcastle, and other centres, the challenge is to use their advantages to attract the human talent that will build the networks that matter.

Similar posts:

Should we be subsidising industries?

Can we pick winners in a globalised world?

The 2012 UK “austerity” budget has one bright side with big tax breaks of the games and television industries.

Meanwhile down under, the Australian government is about to announce more massive subsidies to the local motor industry.

While protecting jobs and trying to help struggling industries is admirable, we should ask if the cost to the taxpayer and economy is worthwhile.

Squeaky wheels

“The industry has lobbied for such changes for several years” says the BBC report on the UK budget and this is one of the problems with industry specific support; that it’s the ones who complain the loudest who get the assistance.

Often the companies and industries lobbying for subsidies spend too much management time and resources duchessing ministers, public servants and key media “opinion makers” than actually listening to their customers.

The fact they have staff dedicated to lobbying efforts in itself shows where their investment priorities lie. It isn’t in building better products or delivering what their customers want.

Missing voices

It’s often lamented that the high growth and small business communities don’t receive support, this is because they are running and building their businesses rather than shmoozing journalists, public servants and politicians.

Industry support programs often end up helping established insiders or those with a talent for filling in government grant applications rather than those who genuinely need help.

The Australian film industry is a good example of this where talented film makers struggle to attract funding from government agencies while a generation of well connected, experienced form fillers keep churning out subsidised movies that no-one wants to see.

Behind the times

One of the problems with government picking industry winners is they are often well behind the times with support going to mature or fading industries; both the Australian and UK announcements illustrate this.

The UK games announcement is at least ten years behind the times; strategic investment in the games and TV industry a decade or two ago may have been a wise move, today it’s just supporting another mature sector that is struggling to adjust.

At least though the UK’s policies are somewhere near the 21st Century, the massive Australian support for the failed motor industry shows Canberra’s politicians are mired in an era somewhere Henry and Edsel Ford.

It’s worth noting one of the first moves of the incoming Australian Labor government in 2007 was to axe the Commercial Ready program that was designed to help commercialise new technologies and innovations yet motor industry support dwarf any savings from abandoning this scheme.

The investment problem

In most countries the real problem to building jobs and industries is investment. Both the UK and Australia illustrate this with their domestic investment being largely directed at the housing industries.

The two countries have taxation and social security policies that favour over-investment in property. In Australia the problem is exacerbated by a retirement saving scheme that directs domestic savings to index hugging fund managers.

Australia’s sinking of money into an industry that have been struggling for nearly forty years and currently suffering massive worldwide oversupply is one of many damning indictments on the country’s political classes squandering of the current resources boom.

Making things worse, massive subsidies to uncompetitive industries already distorts a twisted economy.

Real economic reform that encourages investment in research, development, training, innovation and entrepreneurs is tough and means losses for many in those vocal, dying industries.

For the average politician a feel good announcement giving a bucket of money to a noisy group is a much better short term investment.

The challenge, and opportunity, in the democratic world is to make the politicians aware that the economy has moved on from the times of John Major in Britain or Bob Menzies in Australia.

It may well be that industries do need, and deserve, government support although we need far more scrutiny and justification from our political leader of why certain groups get help while others do without.

Similar posts:

Insanely profitable

Apple change the game again with some major ramifications

Apple’s announcement that they will start paying dividends to shareholders changes a number of things in Apple’s business model and those of many other businesses.

The sheer size of Apple’s cash reserves also illustrate how profitable the outsourced manufacturing model is as well the contradictary nature of special pleading by affluent corporations.

Moving a cash mountain

Not only is Apple’s business insanely profitable, but sales are growing exponentially. In the company’s conference call, CEO Tim Cook reported that 37 million iPhones sold last quarter and 55 million iPads sold in the last two years.

Apple’s CFO Peter Oppenheimer pointed out the company’s cash reserves increased $31 billion in 2011 and 2012 is on track for a similar result in 2012, leaving them plenty of money for investment along with a “warchest for strategic opportunities”.

Paying a dividend

The reluctance to pay dividends has been a feature of the US corporate for the last few decades and Apple are certainly not alone in not distributing their profits to shareholders.

Companies like Microsoft, Google and Oracle -even Yahoo! once upon a time – have been just as profitable as Apple and their efforts to shrink their cash mountains has had some perverse effect.

Many of these companies have squandered suprpluses on poorly thoughtout and badly executed buyouts of smaller businesses, this urge to avoid returning money to owner has been one of the drivers of the Silicon Valley VC Greater Fool model.

Another result of fat profits is the rise of flabby, overstaffed management ranks at some of these companies. Although this certainly isn’t the case at Apple where Steve Jobs ran a very lean machine.

The retail model

Unlike their major tech competitors Apple is a manufacturing and retail business as well. In 2012, 40 new stores are planned around the world.

This vertical control of their markets, from the beginings of the supply chain  to “owning” the end customer is anathema to modern MBA thinking and probably the area that gives them the greatest competitive advantage over their hardware competitors.

Justifying Mike Daisy

In some ways this announcement justfies Mike Dasy’s discredited criticisms about Apple’s Chinese suppliers.

The reason for manufacturing these goods in places like China, India or Vietnam is the vastly cheaper cost of doing business, not just in labour rates but in reduced environmental and safety standards.

Plenty of brand name clothing, footware and fashion accessory companies make similar massive profits to Apple with their ten, twenty and sometimes hundred fold markups on their products.

Repatriating profits

One of the big changes of Apple repatriating money is that is undercuts the special pleading by these extremely profitable companies that they should have a US tax holiday so they can repatriate their riches.

It’s now clear these companies can easily afford to pay the taxes of their home countries and it’s time they started to, along with returning dividends to their shareholders.

Once again Apple have changed the way others do business, how these changes affect the way we invest and governments treat companies is going to be one of the most interesting developments over the next decade.

Similar posts:

Milking the dead cow

How Sensis killed itself and the lessons for Australian business

Many big Australian businesses seem untouchable as they dominate their markets to degree almost unknown in most other developed countries. As the story of Sensis shows, Australia’s big duopolies may not be as strong as they appear.

The last few months have been tough for Sensis; revenues last year fell nearly 25%, the once strong business was folded into the latest incarnation of Telstra Digital Media and now the CEO Bruce Akhurst has departed after seven years.

What could have been a dynamic business is now shriveling away, what went wrong?

Milking the revenue cow

Bruce did a good job of keeping revenue coming in during a period that the then owners, the Federal government, wanted to maximise the book value of Telstra before its sale.

Year upon year Sensis could be relied upon to squeeze more money out of the businesses advertising in it.

Management were focused on extracting revenue from the existing client base rather than responding to the obvious threat from online search.

Expensive distractions

When senior management decided to respond to the online world, they were sucked into unnecessary and expensive distractions; the most notable being the 2005 launch of Sensis Search where the then Telstra CEO – the disastrous Sol Trujillo – famously sneered “Google Schmoogle”.

Three years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, Sensis admitted defeat. By then the small business advertisers who were the life blood of the directory market had woken up to the reality their customers weren’t using the Yellow Pages anymore. Sensis had missed the boat.

Clunky processes

Whenever I spoke to small businesses about Sensis through the 2000s there was the same complaint, “I don’t have time to deal with their sales people, just let me tick a box on a web page or send a fax!”

Purchasing space was difficult for customers, their 1950s Willy Loman sales model should have been automated in the 1990s and never was.

Instead Sensis was locked into a high cost sales model and added friction for advertisers which they shouldn’t need, not only were they expensive but they actually made it difficult for their customers to place orders.

Should Sensis have been sold?

At its peak in 2005, Sensis was valued at between 8 and 10 billion dollars as a stand alone company.

Many, including myself, believe that breaking Sensis away would have been the best result given Telstra were at the time focused on protecting their fixed line copper wire monopoly and the directories business was not getting the management attention or capital investment it needed.

History shows though that we might be wrong.

Commander Communications was spun off from Telstra in 2000 and like Sensis had inherited an almost monopoly position in the small business communications market.

By 2007 Commander was out of business thanks to a combination of incompetence, management greed and an inability to recognise the changing communications marketplace.

The Australian disease

Commander’s biggest problem was it saw its customers as cash cows, just as Sensis did. This exposes a much deeper problem in Australian industry and management culture.

Over the last thirty years Australian government policies have seen duopolies develop in almost every key sector of the economy.

All of these duopolies share the same “customer as a milk cow” philosophy which, along with the rampaging Australian dollar, has dragged Australia into being a high cost economy.

The banking industry, while not a duopoly for the moment, is an even more debilitating example of the cash cow syndrome where small business has been crippled by excessive interest rates and fees – particularly since the 2008 crisis.

Sensis’ demise is systemic of a culture that fixates on extracting maximum revenue from customers; concepts like innovation, R&D or adapting to market trends don’t have a role in this mentality.

Milking cows is a fine business, but sometimes you have to think about the health of the herd.

Similar posts:

Building a digital economy

How does a state build new industries?

Yesterday the NSW Government hosted the Sydney leg of their Digital Economy Industry Action Plan forum meetings.

The aim of the action plan, one of a series for targeted industries, is to develop “a vision and strategy for the Digital Economy over the next decade in NSW.”

So how do we build a “digital economy industry” in a country that seems to be hell bent on staking everything on China’s continuing demand for coal and iron ore?

Picking winners

One of the things implicit in forums and plans like this is that the government has identified the ‘digital economy’ as a priority for economic development.

To help identify the opportunities the New South Wales plan breaks the sector into various industries;

  • Digital content and applications
  • Information services and analytics
  • Smart networks and intelligent technologies
  • Autonomous systems
  • E-research
  • ICT service innovation
  • ICT biomedical innovation
  • ICT safety and security innovation
  • Locally developed technologies and applications

The underlying assumption is the state has some sort of natural advantage in these areas or the potential to develop into a leader.

If these are the foundations of a region’s digital industries then we have to understand how they were identified as it’s difficult to build an industry if we don’t know what we can do.

The role of government

An important question is the role of government, an unfortunate thing with bureaucrats and politicians is they sometimes over estimate the influence they have on industry and the economy in general.

In NSW the state government’s role is going to be at best marginal, they can establish policies and offer financial incentives but business needs access to essential skills, finance and infrastructure.

Walking the talk

It’s all very well for governments to proclaim they support local businesses but if they prefer to buy from multinationals – even if the big boys are more expensive and have a less than stellar delivery record – then the domestic industry cannot thrive.

To be fair to governments, this reluctance to buy from local suppliers is shared by Australian corporations and on its own is probably one of the biggest obstacles for innovative companies and entrepreneurs to thrive in Australia.

Until this attitude changes among governments and corporations, it’s  difficult to see how local businesses can develop and survive.

Open data

For the digital industries, open data is probably the most important aspects. Unfortunately the current generation of Australian public servants, managers and politicians share an almost Stalinist view about access to taxpayer owned information.

Without making public data accessible so entrepreneurs can develop new applications and existing industries can improve productivity, governments are only giving lip service to building a digital economy.

A good example of this is the expressed desire of successive state and Federal governments to build Sydney as a global financial centre.

To do this, free and open investment information is essential yet company and stock exchange data that is assumed to be public information in the United States and much of Europe or Asia is propitiatory and locked away behind paywalls.

Government and corporate obsessions with controlling information makes it unlikely any Australian state or city can be global centre in the digital economy or the banking sector which the NSW government sees as an other priority sector.

Consistent standards

Another area governments can improve is by having open standards across government agencies so, for instance, land information can be properly matched with health data or public transport details.

Right now policies on data and things like social media or content platforms is fragmented making the cost of government and doing business more expensive and convoluted than it should be.

Promote advantages

One of the weaknesses in Australia’s overseas marketing is the nation is portrayed as a bunch of alcohol swilling beach bums cuddling koalas.

Google Maps founder Lars Rasmussen once said Google’s head office reaction when he suggested establishing a development office in Sydney was “what are you doing to do? Sit on Bondi Beach and drink Fosters?”

A missed opportunity in Australia’s disjointed tourism and investment campaigns is ignoring the nation’s diverse ethnic and skills base. We need more emphasis on the multilingual skills of the state’s workers and less on bikini babes.

Capital Problems

Whenever a group like the forums gather, there’s always complaints about Australian business’ access to capital.

Australia’s taxation, finance and social security system favours speculation on the share and property markets rather than long term investments or taking risks on new business ideas.

Three generations of these policies have a created a population who, understandably, see owning property as the safest way to provide for retirement. The banking system has responded to this and is reluctant to lend for anything not secured by real estate assets.

At the same time we’ve allowed the compulsory superannuation system to be dominated by flaccid ticket clippers who are content to charge working Australians outrageous fees for hugging the stock indexes.

Sadly what should have been a source of capital for innovative businesses largely spends its time lobbying governments for more protection and a bigger cut of workers’ incomes.

The access to capital is a serious problem for Australian business and one that can’t be kicked up the road for ever by Liberal or Labor Federal governments but it isn’t something the states can fix.

Not only do the distorted investment priorities of Australian society damage developing industries, it almost certainly guarantees the dream of making Sydney a global financial centre unattainable.

Education

One of the canards that always pops up at industry development forums is that educators aren’t in touch with employers’ needs.

There’s a certain type of business manager or owner who believes the roles of schools, technical colleges and universities is a sausage machine popping out perfectly formed young workers who can pick up a spanner, hair clippers or a copy of Photoshop and start productive work straight after being shown where the tea room is.

Those business owners are deluded.

None of that’s to say educators shouldn’t be adapting to their times as well as being open and transparent but the idea that the role of schools is to equip kids with the skills we need today would see them unprepared for next decade’s economy.

Equally however, Australia’s universities and training colleges have been encouraged to offer third rate courses to overseas students attracted by the prospect of getting permanent residence in the country. That bums on seats model had hurt the quality of the nation’s education sector and the skill levels of graduates.

Attitudes

The most essential part of building any nation’s industry is the attitude of people – if the prevailing view is it’s too hard, or threatens established interests then it won’t happen.

Probably the best advantage New South Wales, and all of Australia have, is a comparatively young, diverse and outward looking population.

The best thing the government can do in trying to build new sectors, be they in the digital economy or anywhere else, is to fix what they can such as procurement, open data or taxation and get out of the way.

A constant dreams of governments is to build the next Silicon Valley, just as it once was to build the next Detroit or Birmingham.

The era of the big engineering works passed, at least in the Western world, and the age of venture capital driven social media platforms will probably be over soon as well.

Aping someone else’s success – while ignoring the historical factors and accidents that created it  – seems a guaranteed way to disappointment.

The best part to build a digital economy, or any thriving society, is to encourage the risk takers and the inventors. Bring them together, let them loose and you build the next economic powerhouse.

Similar posts:

Does small business need government support?

Can governments provide business assistance?

The New South Wales State Government’s decision to axe their long standing small business programs raises the question of whether small businesses need government support at all.

Last week’s announcement the NSW Government are abandoning their business education programs and replacing them with a previously announced network of local business advisors shows where small business lies in the state’s list of priorities.

Taken at face value, the changes appear to be moving back to the face-to-face business advice model of a decade or so ago that was common before the winding back of small business programs and local enterprise centres by then Federal Liberal and state Labor governments under John Howard and Bob Carr.

On closer examination, it’s a cut to business support and an effective withdrawal of NSW government assistance to small business. The remaining services will be outsourced to the same local business centres that have been starved of funds for over a decade.

A concern with the individual advisors will be how many businesses they can reach, according to the NSW Trade & Investment annual report 2010-11 the axed events had an audience numbering over 5,000. It’s difficult to see how the advisor network will match that and makes one wonder how the more important events couldn’t have been streamed or podcast across the Internet.

Putting aside the pros and cons of this restructure, the bigger question is should small business expect any government support at all?

The record of Australian government support for industry is not good. We only have to look at repeated visits to the trough by what remains of the Australian car making industry, the bipartisan debacle of assistance to the renewal energy sector or the support given by the Keating Labor government to Kodak to see how well schemes have worked out.

Most of Australia’s economic success stories have happened despite, not because of, government’s pouring money into industries. For example, the first five years of the current mining boom was completely missed by the political classes along with the Canberra press gallery and the media economic commentators.

This is where small business steps in – rather than relying on access to the ministerial suite to protect their industries, the little guys and the startups compete on price, service and innovation. Aspects that organisations in protected industries or those dependent on taxpayer largess struggle with.

Indeed many small business owners and entrepreneurs struck out on their own because they felt stifled by bureaucracy. So offering them programs wrapped up in paperwork is counter intuitive.

Where the government can help is with keeping busy business owners up to date with new developments in business, markets and technology which was exactly what the events programs like Small Business September and Micro Business Week did.

It’s difficult to see how the individual business advisors employed by local Business Enterprise Centres will keep up with their clients up with changes regardless of how skilled or well intentioned they are.

All of the changes are justified by the report from the Small Business Commissioner’s listening tour. Apparently she was told businesses didn’t want events like Small Business Septtember

I certainly didn’t hear any complaints at the breakfast fourm I attended at the Northern Beaches, most of the concerns seemed to be from cafe owners arguing about council outdoor seating permits. If the commish wants to get involved with that nest of vipers, I wish her the best of luck.

Overall, small business can’t expect much from government; particularly in the modern corporatist society where Big Government does Big Deal with Big Unions and Big Business while Big Media selectively reports what suits it.

Probably the best thing for small business is stay nimble and avoid being stepped on the Big Dinosaurs as they dance obliviously to the major changes that are happening in the world around us.

Big dinosaurs look after their own, don’t expect them to give you anything except a big shower of dung.

Disclaimer: I’ve been hired by Trade & Investment to host various events on the now axed programs and worked for 19 months at what was then the Department of State and Regional Development. I wish all of those former colleagues who now find their positions abolished the best of luck in finding another role.

Similar posts:

When tails wag dogs

Have essential functions taken over business?

A recent Business Insider examination of how patent “aggregator” Intellectual Ventures works is a good example of one of the problems in modern business – essential ancillary processes have overtaken doing business itself.

Intellectual property rights are an important part of doing business, however what should be an adjunct to doing business has consumed many enterprises.

As the Business Insider article point out, Intellectual Ventures has become some sort of modern day privateer, extracting loot from hapless companies that cross its path.

This problem with intellectual property is part of a larger problem with lawyers, where they have been given too important a role in business.

In any civilised society lawyers are essential and carry out an important role but in western society over the last fifty the scope of the legal system has expanded so dramatically that now the legal tail wags the business dog.

Today company directors, business owners and entrepreneurs live under the shadow of breaching some obscure law that they had no inkling existed. Of course, the lawyers can help with this.

A similar thing has happened in the financial world, accountants have also moved from being an essential adjunct of business into being at the centre of most enterprises.

Much of this explosion in lawyering and accounting has been due to the increased role of government in our lives; each time a new law or regulation is enacted it makes it harder for the average person, or business owner,  to understand the system.

A cynic can argue this is by design but most government actions are intended to address some injustice or flaw in society. The problem is there are always unintended consequences.

One can also argue that the increased growth in business overheads like lawyers, accountants and patent attorneys is because of fat, prosperous business conditions.

So maybe what western business has seen in the last fifty years has been because of a favorable market place; politicians have introduced a morass of often contradictory financial and legal rules because they know business, and society, can afford it.

Now times have changed and both business and society can’t afford unnecessary overheads it will be interesting to see exactly how our laws and regulations evolve to respond.

Maybe they won’t and we’ll see a black economy develop where whole groups of society ignore the rules, dispense with lawyers and accountants and hope for the best. This would not be good.

Possibly we’ll see legislatures and courts winding back and reigning in some of the more silly and egregious excesses as they recognise society can’t carry the burden and remain productive.

Whatever happens we can be sure the lawyers, accountants and people like Intellectual Ventures will fight hard against any change that reduces their status and income.

Similar posts: