Category: government

Australia’s missing technology leadership

Australia’s political and business leaders go missing as the nation tries to refocus its economy

This morning Cisco announced its latest global innovation centre in Sydney focusing on what it describes as Australia’s strengths in agriculture, resources and smartcities.

Along with with Cisco’s commitment to support the Sydney centre to the tune of 15 million Australian dollars and invest in local IoT businesses the project promises to bring together the data resources and skills of the University of New South Wales’ Engineering faculty, the Data 61 research agency and various state government departments.

Cisco’s launch though comes at a difficult time for the Australian scientific and research communities as just last week the national research agency, the CSIRO, launched another wave 0f job cuts immediately after restructuring the sector and even the location of the announcement is being sold off to property developers as the state government sees real estate ventures trumping technology investments.

Governments go missing

Even more telling during Cisco’s announcement was the poor presence by governments and corporate partners, the New South Wales state government at least sent along a minister and his Departmental head but the Federal government, despite its much heralded Innovation Agenda, was nowhere to be seen.

That lack of Federal government support is telling, particularly given regional and rural development is supposedly a priority of the current administration. An informed observer may be forgiven for thinking 21st Century technology investment would assist even the 1950s inspired project to develop Australia’s sparsely populated north but one supposes that grand vision extends to dams and highways.

The missing corporate links

Probably the most troubling omission is that of telecoms providers, agricultural and  resources businesses utilising the Internet of Things or M2M technologies need connectivity and the absence of either Telstra or the flailing government owned National Broadband Network means an important piece is missing from the push to connect these industries.

Once again both Optus and Vodafone – the latter probably having the best global M2M capacity of any provider – miss an opportunity to position themselves as an alternative provider to Telstra which proves whingeing about competition in the Australian market is a damn sight easier than putting some money down.

Notably missing as well is support from Australia’s corporate sector. While resources giant Woodside is a partner of the Perth centre, there’s little engagement from any other major company. The reply to a question by this writer to the panel about accessing the data held by the large pastoral companies illustrated what little engagement there is from key private sector stakeholders.

Fighting the innovation bureaucracy

To be fair to Cisco, these missing links are not the company’s fault and the delay in launching their Sydney centre was due to various shenanigans within Australia’s innovation bureaucracy beyond their control.

Hopefully Cisco’s Sydney centre will be successful – despite the fine words of Prime Ministers and other politicians Australian industry desperately needs some genuine leadership as the nation realises the safe certainties of the 1990s have passed.

For the moment though the lack of engagement in the technology industries by political and business leaders is striking. It’s hard not to think the country has regressed back to a smug 1950s view of the view, something not helped by all these events being almost overwhelmingly dominated by white, middle class middle aged men.

It’s time for Australia to start thinking differently. The nation’s business and political leaders can’t expect multinational corporations to drag the nation into the 21st Century.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Taking responsibility for algorithms

In a smart connected world awry algorithms pose a number of risks. What should regulators do?

Who is responsible for the effect of renegade computer programs is going to become a serious legal topic as an increasing number of things become ‘intelligent” and connected to the internet.

Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is one of the first regulators to start looking at how companies’ algorithms. In their just released rules for wholesale traders, the FCA sets out the responsibilities for companies and their managers.

“We are determined to embed a culture of personal responsibility within the banking sector,” says the FCA’s Acting Chief Executive Tracey McDermott. “Clear individual accountability should focus minds, drive up standards, and make firms easier to run and to supervise. And if things go wrong, it will allow senior managers to be held to account for misconduct that falls within their area of responsibility.”

The definition of ‘misconduct’ when an algorithm goes awry will undoubtedly prove contentious, as will the idea of ‘personal responsibility’ in the banking sector.

While it’s too tempting to be dismissive of such move in the financial services industry, the FCA’s regulations are a pointer of what most industries are going to face over the next ten years as the more devices make decisions for themselves or communicate with other equipment over the Internet of Things.

In many areas the question of who is responsible for a rogue computer program will be left to the uncertainties of the legal system with no doubt many surprises, injustices, inconsistencies and unintended consequences so the earlier regulators develop a framework for dealing with mishaps the better.

Should the IoT start delivering on its promise of a connected world a poorly designed algorithm in even what should be relatively trivial devices or services may have the potential to cause massive disruption and damage. It’s hard not to imagine many other regulators in other industries are looking at how to attribute responsibilities, if not minimise risk, in a smart connected world.

Similar posts:

Does venture capital really matter?

Venture capital investments are concentrated in a handful of cities, but does it matter?

Around the world governments are trying to replicate the Silicon Valley startup model. But does that model really matter?

On the Citylab website, Richard Florida looks at which cities are the leading centres for startup investment.

Unsurprisingly eight of the top ten cities are in the United States with San Francisco and San Jose leading the pack. While London and Beijing make up the other two, the gap between the regions are striking with the Bay Area being home to over quarter of the world Venture Capital investment while the Chinese and London capitals com in at around two percent.

global-startup-cities

While these proportions are impressive, the numbers are not. The total VC investment identified by Florida in 2012 is $45 billion, according to the Boston Consulting Group there was $74 Trillion of funds under management in 2014.

That makes the tech venture capital sector .06% of the global funds management industry.

In the US alone over 2013 small businesses raised $518 billion in bank loans, more than ten times the global VC industry.

What this scale shows is how small the tech startup sector really is compared to the broader economy and, more importantly, how the Venture Capital model perfected in the suburbs of Silicon Valley is only one of many ways to fund new businesses.

Even in the current centre of the startup world, it’s estimated less than eight percent of San Francisco’s workforce are employed by the tech industry although that goes up to nearly a quarter in San Jose.

None of this is to say the startups are not a good investment – Thomas Edison’s first company raised $300,000 in 1878, $12 million in today’s dollars, from New York investors including JP Morgan. The Edison Electric Light Company, while relatively modest went on to being one of the best investments of the 19th Century.

That twelve million dollar investment looks like a bargain today and it’s highly likely we’ll see some of today’s startups having a similar impact on society to what Edison did 140 years ago.

Edison’s success created jobs and wealth for New Jersey and New York which helped make the region one of the richest parts of the planet during the Twentieth Century and that opportunity today is what focuses governments when looking at encouraging today’s startups.

So it’s understandable governments would want to encourage today’s Thomas Edisons (and Nikola Teslas) to set up in their cities. The trick is to find the funding models that work for tomorrow’s businesses, not what works for one select group today.

While the Silicon Valley venture capital model receives the publicity today, it isn’t the model for funding most businesses. Founders, investors and governments have plenty of other options to explore.

Similar posts:

Reinvigorating Australia’s research sector

How an outward focus might reinvigorate Australia’s besieged research sector

Could Australia’s poor track record in commercialising research be turned into an advantage? Data 61’s CEO Adrian Turner believes so.

Australian research agency Data61 was formed last year following the science hostile Abbott government’s slashing of research budgets coupled with a merger of the National ICT Australia organisation (NICTA) with the long established CSIRO.

The intention behind Data61 was to create a world leading data research agency. At the time of the announcement then communications minister and now Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull said, “Having a single national organisation will enable Data61 to produce focussed research that will deliver strong economic returns and ensure that Australia remains at the forefront of digital innovation.”

Having been in the role for six month and now, in his words, having his feet finally under the desk, Data61’s CEO Adrian Turner met with the media last week to discuss the directions he intends to take the organisation.

Business in a data rich world

Coming from a corporate Research & Development background and having spent over a decade in Silicon Valley tech businesses, Turner is conscious how industries are being changed in a data rich world.

For corporate R&D model shifting as industries are changing he says, “their challenge is they can’t hire the digital and data talent that they really need.” Turner sees one of the opportunities for Data61 in providing access to the high level expertise large companies are struggling to find.

Giving Data61 is global focus is Turner’s main objective with an aim of capturing a tenth of one percent of the world’s private sector R&D budget, describing how he will sell the organisation’s scientific expertise to global corporations, “we can plug them into the Boeing and GMs of the world and introduce them to the people to short circuit the sales process.”

“We’re going to go around the world where corporate R&D dollars get allocated and convince these companies that Australia is a place where primary R&D can take place,” Turner continued, “we’ve got the talent and we’ve got the capabilities to do the research.”

Good at the basics

Turner highligthts an ongoing problem in Australian science and industry. The nation historically has been good at basic research but poor at getting those developments to the marketplace, something the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s Global Innovation Report has regularly flagged.

While Australia ranks at 17 overall in the 2015 WIPO report, the nation’s business community flounders at 38th in the world for its collaboration with researchers and 39th for knowledge and technology output. Put bluntly, Australian businesspeople are not very sophisticated or research orientated.

Adrian Turner puts that down partly to the nation’s being weak at product management, “I think it’s a function of global companies seeing Australia as a sales and marketing outpost so we don’t have the product development expertise.”

Inward looking locals

The nation’s inward looking local corporations are also part of the problem, “for us to succeed as a country we have to have a global mindset. We can’t have the zero-sum mindset that I win if you lose in the domestic market,” Turner continued. “In that sense what we’re doing is creating a product marketing function.”

So to meet Data61’s objectives of meeting its own financial performance targets, developing an R&D ecosystem and having an impact on the nation economy, Turner sees the organisation having to go overseas for most of its partnering with private sector researchers.

Sparking the startups

All is not lost though for Australia with Turner believing Data61 has a role in helping the local startup community develop. “We don’t have the infrastructure in place to support the entrepreneurs to go out and build new business,” he says.

“In Silicon Valley over decades you have this infrastructure, you have this workforce, you’ve got the legal infrastructure, you’ve got capital, all of these things that have built up organically over decades and they stack the odds in favour of the entrepreneurs.”

Data61 was born out of an unfortunate period of Australian politics where for the first time the nation was lead by a government that was genuinely hostile to science. Now the political winds have changed and the organisation has a global focus, it may be possible to reverse the long-term neglect of Australian research and build a new business culture.

Similar posts:

Discrediting the dark web

The Dark Web is in decline after the Silk Road was broken up

The Libertarian dream of a free trade zone out of reach of authorities on the Dark Web has come to an end reports Wired.

Ironically it’s not the authorities that have discredited these sites but the untrustworthiness of the various contraband services’ operators that have doomed these illicit marketplaces.

While there’s still potential for these dark web markets to evolve into something more robust their current failure shows that radically changing existing institutions and systems is rarely happens quickly and without cost, as those with stolen Bitcoins are learning.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Building a European Silicon Valley

Europe’s development of an equivalent to Silicon Valley faces many hurdles

The World Economic Forum asks can Europe build its own Silicon Valley?

It seems the answer lies in money, investors’ money to be precise, with a lack of VC funds to finance emerging businesses and a lack of acquisition hungry corporates providing high profile experts argues the WEF piece’s author, Keith Breene.

That appears to be a strong argument although there’s still some strong contenders for European tech hubs with the WEF identifying Munich, Paris and London as being major centres.

London’s claims are reinforced by the city’s strength in financial technology with KPMG nominating 18 of the world’s top 50 fintech startups being based in the British capital.

Interestingly, the Belgium town of Leuven which has styled itself as a centre for 3D printing and beer features on the WEF list of European startup hubs as well.

While it’s unlikely Europe can create a ‘Silicon Valley’ – even the post Cold War US would struggle to do so today – the presence of major centres like London and specialist hubs like Leuven indicates another important aspect of creating a global centre, that of having an existing base of businesses and skills.

That skillbase isn’t built up overnight, it’s a decades long process of commitment from industry, investors and governments and often as much the result of a series of happy accidents rather than deliberate planning.

It may well be the question of Europe creating a Silicon Valley isn’t really relevant with the bigger issue being how the continent’s cities and nations put in the conditions to develop long term industrial hubs. Trying to ape today’s successes for a project that will take decades to come to fruition could be a big mistake.

Similar posts:

Walling off the Internet

Governments and politicians have an urge to restrict the internet

China held an internet conference today where, as Forbes reports, President Xi Jinping laid out the nation’s vision of an Internet that ‘complies with Chinese laws.’

That Internet is a walled garden where access to sites like Facebook are blocked and an army of censors make sure that subjects which aren’t to the Chinese Communists Party’s approval are promptly removed.

Meanwhile in the US, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stated the Internet should closed down for America’s enemies.

That both the Chinese government and Donald Trump agree on something shouldn’t be surprising, however the urge to monitor and shut down the Internet is shared by many governments. It’s an urge that needs to be resisted.

Similar posts: