Thanks To Informa For Arranging The Conference

at an opportune time: * national debate about the future of the economy. * the idea of a knowledge economy in the wind.

research and innovation, smart people, advanced skills, constructing an enterprise platform for a knowledge economy.

So how far advanced is research in the sector and

what of the future?

We are doing well in research....aren't we? we seem to be: * well placed on the OED score card? * ERA 4/5 star firmament indicates good research quality? * key institutions are well ranked globally. so its true....we are doing well. But, at the top end of the OECD upper middle band....?

We are doing well in research....aren't we? we seem to be: * well placed on the OECD score card? * ERA 4/5 star firmament indicates good research quality? * key institutions are well ranked globally. its true....we are! but, at the top end of the OECD upper middle band....?

This satisfies some....but not all. Not Alan Pettigrew, for example. He writes for the Chief Scientist's Office....

"The data indicate that some nations with less than half the population of Australia, particularly in Scandinavia, achieve significant impact in their R&D through a number of different avenues. They have higher rates of R&D spending overall and in higher education; greater employment of researchers in business, manufacturing and services; higher levels of collaboration in R&D; and they attract more foreign investment to support their R&D activity" "Australia's position in the World of Science, Technology and Innovation," Occasional Paper Series, Australia's Chief Scientist, Issue no.2, May 2012.

Are we in too much of a comfort zone? As a relatively small, but high GDP/C economy, are we: * achieving enough economic leverage and distinctiveness globally? * using the strength of our research sector to add value to our economy? * fueling the beginnings of a new economy? Looking again at the OECD score card, should we take Alan Pettigrew's advice, and * benchmark ourselves with the upper OECD band? * look to a Scandinavian exemplar?

Take SWEDEN for example.... WHY? * Small, well educated and well supported population. * Little by way of natural resources to fuel the economy. * Big on brain power in the economy. * 36 companies in Forbes Top 500. * global orientation to export markets. * high public and private investment in R&D, and * high private investment in innovation, with no incentives There could be a lesson here?

A comparative snapshot POPULATION Australia 23m: Sweden 9.6m GDP Australia $1.5T: Sweden $0.6T GERD Australia 2.2%GDP: Sweden 3.6%GDP BERD Australia 1.4%GDP: Sweden 2.5%GDP HERD Australia 0.5%GDP: Sweden 0.9%GDP Sweden is clearly investing more pro rata than Australia in R/D.

But, Given A 3:1 Difference In GDP, Australia outspends Sweden in R/D. By 2:1 In GERD 1.5:1 In BERD 1.5:1 In HERD

As a result Australia has.... more: * researchers in total- ratio 1.6:1 similar: * engineering researchers - ratio 1:1 but less: * researchers in enterprise ratio - 1:1.2 * global research funding - ratio - 1:9 * revenue returns from research - ratio 1:2 and fewer global corporations in Forbes Top 500 - ratio 1:10 There's a fair argument that says Australia invests more actual dollars for less return than Sweden.

What if Australia invested in R/D at the same rate as Sweden...? GERD up by $21b BERD up by $13.5b HERD up by $6b Even achieving half that would be spectacular! But would it just give us more of the same? We may well need a shift in focus as well as a ramp up in resources?

So listen up government! Of course increasing HERD will pay a dividend - * a larger and stronger academic workforce * more basic research, especially where Australia can offer distinctive leadership. * enhanced reputation as an advanced society.

But, ramping up BERD, (using Sweden as the exemplar) ie, more business investment per se + greater university, research agency and government investment in enterprise can generate a new dividend – * more research that is based in and focused on enterprise * more researchers trained for a new enterprise workforce. * more researchers with design and innovation training. * smart products and services with global range and reach. * smart researchers dedicated to creating enterprise. * smart enterprise. This may better position us to be the Sweden of the South??

Assuming so, can the institutional status quo within the sector achieve such a shift? Maybe not? Why not?

Because, Substantial increases in research quantum, research training, integration of innovation skills and shifts in research culture needed for a Southern Hemisphere Sweden require: * wider engagement of research focused institutions. * embracing different research modes among institutions. * redefinition of the outcomes of research for enterprise. * redefinition of boundaries between institutions and groups. It took a while to get to the topic! Revamping the top end of the sector.

In the light of a shift in culture and focus what are some revamping options? * an FG8 * a G14 * a G20 * a KC7?

OPTION - A FEDERATED FG8 * G8 already working cooperatively? Next Step FG8 to: * strategically increase research output and research work force. * single voice communicating to enterprise and government. * streamlining around strengths, focus and scale. * single support agency model around commercialization * tactical co-sharing/co-investment in researchers, hdr supervision, major research instruments and infrastructure. * collaborate to compete model. FURTHER OPTION FG8 + GXA * FG8 Australia + GXA Asia - eg. UT, UK, NTU, NUS, SNU, Tsinghua, SJTU, UHK....

Option – a G14 * ERA and other global rankings suggest that G8 has viable research-led competitors. * adding 25-30% to research critical mass could make a big difference. * greater coverage of research themes and personnel. * G8 missed opportunities corrected - eg Marine Science 4 vv. 2/2? * FG14 still applies?

Option - a G20 * Strategically coordinate the G8, IRG, ATN and ORI into a Research network. * G20 reflects wider national research focus: basic/problem based/enterprise/product and service. * Powerful argument for increasing both HERD and BERD * Stronger networking agencies with enterprise, NGOs, agencies, institutes et al. * FG20 applies

Off the edge option – KC7 Knowledge Cities * 80% of Australians live in 6 Cities. * 75% of Australian universities are located in 7 cities * Knowledge Cities link universities, schools, research institutes, libraries, museums and galleries, hospitals, press, corporates and ngos in knowledge, skill and resources sharing networks. * Cities reinforce their distinctive strengths, enterprise clustering, cultural markers and creative communities. * eg. VVCC as wellspring for Melbourne Knowledge City!

So, in conclusion: G8 G8+IRG G8+IRG+ATN G8+IRG+ATN+ORS = REVAMP All F’ED….hopefully. fini