There is certainly nothing wrong with spending more on research and development, but let us be clear.. R&D spending does not drive changes in the economy.. Changes in the economy drive R&D spending. So the figures on Australian R&D spending or an indicator of the economy, rather than a failure of it. Spending more on R and D in the hope that more advanced manufacturing will result, or that the economy will somehow be better is a vain one. Somehow we have to restructure the economy then spending on R&D will follow. How do we restructure the economy? How do we get advanced industries? Dunno, but lets not waste time with indicators..

So what's the return on investment been so far for your CRC? Why don't you mention how much it enriches Australia having these CRCs?

I've worked with CRCs and they seem to be a money sink, for other people's money (Government in other words). I might be wrong but have not seen much come out of them, not the ones I have dealt with.

Ever tried to work with DSTO or CSIRO, to take existing research to market - their IP processes are so onerous our company decided to give it up and go invest in the US manufacturing market, very happily.

The administrative overhead in Australia is enormous, in the US it is so much friendlier, they even allow you to reinvest instead of paying tax, here you need an Ernst and Young team in house to help you manage the reporting on the government's R&D "incentive program", which is a disincentive.

If you're having trouble here getting going, try the US and like us, bring some of your profits home and stop stressing trying to work with the bureaucracy here.

Some R&D is in direct response to economic pressure. However, in many cases economic developments are a response to R&D. For example, I can remember when lasers were an answer looking for a problem. Now. every house will have lasers in their computors, DVD's etc.

In many cases research that starts looking for something ends up finding something unexpected that is far more value. I remember starting research on the efficiency of a screen and then finding that that the amount of fines generated on the screen was about the same as the amount passing through the screen. We took the screen out of the circuit and added millions to profit. Then went on to reduce other losses due to fines generation.

The key point is that a balance is needed. We need the sort of long term research that finds answers looking for problems as well as the research that looks for answers to problems. We also need to give researchers enough flexibility to realise that it would be more productive to follow the side issue they have discovered.

So we want researchers to innovate and add more value? Good R&D starts by seeking to understand, then sees the implications of this understanding then does the further innovation and developing to produce outcomes that improve peoples lives and generate profits. Perhaps more thought needs to go into thinking about the types of people who do these various jobs best and the resources and management reuired at each of these stages. We certainly didn't have this sorted out in the past and I think the tight funding and controls we use these days could do with some improvement.

Blue sky research mostly yields little usable technology, but occasionally produces significant technology jumps that would not occur if the profit motive were the sole driver.

However, the government is particularily good at two things:

1 creating obstructionist beaurocrasy,
2 awarding grants partially based on political agendas.

Joint private public ventures would also require the gov yielding up most of its control before industry would become seriously interested.

I'm with you 100% rpg.

In fact, I would have posted ahead of you except I had to let myself cool down before putting finger to keyboard.

As far as encouraging R&D is concerned, this country is the absolute pits. It isn't just the bureaucracy, which is in a class of its own, but also the swingeing financial penalties if you get it wrong. At least in the US, if your business goes belly-up you're allowed to keep your house and the clothes on your back. Here, they take the lot.

There just isn't any point in attempting innovation. For a start, if your venture doesn't fit into an existing pigeonhole, it will take a lifetime to wade through the endless meetings with people who have never had anything except a cushy 9 to 5 paid for by the taxpayer. And of course, if it does fit into an existing pigeonhole, the innovation level is likely to be a lot lower.

Trying to explain something new to these people is like talking to a three-year-old. You have to start with really simple words, like "car" and "bus" and "house", and work your way up from there. In one meeting, not so long ago, I found myself explaining the concepts behind the Internet, from first principles. Duh.

So when I see an article headed "Researchers must innovate and add more value", my blood boils. And don't get me started on CRCs. That's just a gravy train for political mates...

Grrrr.

Innovate or perish.
Some suggest that the 'facilitators' are employing dolts.
Its true.
However let's look at the truth -
Anyone our there who has ever actually needed to contact a government agency or any sort of otherwise aligned outfit pretending to support industry will go away from the phone with burst blood vessels.
Hopeless beyond any recall.

In fact, by contacting these dropkicks one's future demise is usually guaranteed.
If there is the slightest chance that some innocent in industry contacts some delegate comfortably associated with anyone in 'government' or 'governance' - then they'll have immediately scotched their chance of ever engaging with governance /industry /commercial policy ever again.
Some commenting before me suggest the show is a gravy train.
It isn't. She's more serious than that.
It all began with the Rum Corps and despite the fact that the quality of the bastardry had dropped off since then - the game still continues without anyone being brave enough to combat the misery that the present day tontine continues to cause.
The whole show requires reflection and some cogitation.
Be pleased to read some considered comment outside of immediate greed.