<p>Northern Sydney's Global Technology Corridor spans northwest from North Sydney, takes in large commercial centres such as Chatswood and Macquarie Park and is home to many regional headquarters for large multinational companies.  It has been identified by the NSW Government as an economic region of state, national and international significance.     </p><p>By identifying industry sectors that may be engaged in clustering activities and gaps in linkages, further studies can be conducted on firm interactions, supply chains and networks to better understand what makes a successful cluster work.</p>

2008-04-21T12:38:03+08:00

Northern Sydney's Global Technology Corridor LAUNCH EVENT: TUESDAY, 16 MARCH 2010 207

false

A Scoping Study of Cluster Development

<p><span style="font-weight: normal">What drives successful industry clustering in Australia, and specifically the northern Sydney region?<span>  </span></span></p><p><span style="font-weight: normal">This project undertaken by Macquarie Graduate School of Management, University of Technology Sydney and Bugseye in collaboration with The Department of State and Regional Development (now part of Industry & Investment NSW) and the Australian Business Foundation. </span></p><p><span style="font-weight: normal">The results are intended to contribute to Australian government planning and policy by providing an account of the attractors for businesses to a region, and of the opportunities for growth and the sustainable development of regions through clustering activities.</span></p>

2010-02-02T16:29:01+08:00

<p align="justify">The aim was to analyse the actual experiences of Australian businesses operating in Chinese markets and to describe how they are developing their respective business strategies and sources of competitive advantage. The findings provide a reality check on what is occurring on the ground, delving beyond perception and expectation of China’s growth representing either a windfall opportunity or a competitive threat to Australian business. </p><p align="justify">From the direct experiences of Australian businesses, this study aims to identify the critical issues that can prove decisive in whether businesses are likely to be successful or not in their engagement with China. These are the issues that other Australian enterprises need to attend to when they are considering how to build their own business in Chinese markets and to achieve their particular aspirations. </p><p><em>"Australia use to be concerned about the ‘The Tyranny of Distance’ now with the rise of Asia and China in particular we can more rightly talk about ‘The Power of Proximity’.</em></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><em>"This report shows that Australia’s engagement with China is more than ‘rocks and crops’ and with more Australian companies involved than just BHP Billiton and Woodside. According to Austrade research there are nearly 4500 Australian SMEs exporting to China (more than to continental Europe) and 3000 Australian companies with operations physically in China. Australian construction firms are building Chinese highways, Australian architects are designing the airports and sports stadiums of the ‘second and their tier’ cities in the interior, Australian agribusiness companies are training Chinese farmers and Australian tourist operators are helping develop China’s domestic tourist market.</em></p><em> </em> <p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><em>"In short, there is ‘panda-monium’ amongst Australian exporters for the Chinese market and Australia’s economic engagement with China will widen and deepen in decades to come.</em> </p><p align="justify"><strong>Tim Harcourt <br />Chief Economist <br />Australian Trade Commission</strong> </p>

1965-10-11T13:06:14+08:00

195

true

false

Engaging China: The realities for Australian businesses

2009-08-16T12:00:00+08:00

<p align="justify">The Australian Business Foundation undertook a study examining the current realities for Australian firms doing business with China. This study was led by international relations specialist, Dr Keith Suter with an expert team of senior journalist, Catherine Armitage and China specialists, Sara Cheng and Rab Memari of Australian Business International Trade Services. </p><p align="justify">It involved an analysis of the background to Australia-China business relationships and a series of 26 business case studies based on interviews with senior executives of Australian enterprises which have a substantiative history of doing business with China. </p>

2009-10-29T13:01:28+08:00

<p style="margin: 6pt 0cm" class="CBodyText">The intention of the original project was to make sense of how the future might pan out for businesses and to canvas the most productive responses, so as not to be caught unprepared. That project provided four plausible alternatives pictures of the future for business in Australia to 2010, being - "First Global Nation", "Sound the Retreat", "Brave Old World" and "Green is Gold".</p><p>To read the 1999 alternative business futures study, see <a href="/research">http://www.abfoundation.com.au/research</a> </p><p>Over 2007 and 2008, the Australian Business Foundation commissioned Susan Oliver, one of the expert futurists responsible for the 1999 scenarios project, to sound out how our pictures of the future were unfolding and to refresh them for the next decade. We report the findings in <em>The Future Revisted</em>.</p><p>Our 1999 scenarios and the factors underpinning them are not only proving durable, but they arrived ahead of time. Witness the trajectories of globalisation, bringing both winners and losers, both unprecedented economic opportunities and crises of war and terrorism. We are experiencing the rise of China and shifts in geopolitics and trade. The potency of the knowledge economy is being demonstrated in reality with new internet-enabled global enterprises. Environmental sustainability, climate change and energy use are indisputably now mainstream business issues on the agenda of both developing and developed nations. </p><p>Given this assessment of our 1999 futures scenarios, the Australian Business Foundation has taken a fresh look at how the forces for change are playing out to 2020. We offer a snapshot of five critical factors likely to affect Australia and its business activities towards 2020. These five factors are:</p><p>1. Energy and resources conscious 21st century will redefine basic economic and social parameters. </p><p>2.  Significant changes in global economic geography are reshaping trade and geopolitics.</p><p>3.  Changing patterns of work and demand for skilled people is a crunch issue for Australia.</p><p>4.  Unleashing innovation is a prescription for Australia’s enduring prosperity, whether facing an economic boom or a global downturn.</p><p>5. An outward looking Australia can contribute to defining and achieving the society and global community we want.</p><p>At the time of writing this, Australia is facing significant unprecedented challenges. The Australian economy is being challenged, the global financial system is frail, and economies around the world have entered recession.  We ask: how long will it last? What can governments do to ensure we beat off a recession, that we do not have widespread job losses and that the financial system can continue to support the needs of business for capital?   </p><p>From crisis emerges a new opportunity. We will not emerge from the global economic crisis the same as we entered it. Where next? These are just some of the issues confronting both Australian businesses and Australia amongst never ending environmental, social, and political issues compounding an increasingly globalised interconnected world. </p>

2007-11-09T13:20:06+09:00

193

true

false

The Future Revisted: A review of Alternative Futures: Scenarios for Business in Australia to the year 2015

2009-07-16T12:00:00+08:00

<p>The future came quickly… that’s a key conclusion from the soundings taken <strong>today</strong> of the Australian Business Foundation’s project on alternative futures scenarios which was undertaken originally in 1999. </p>

2009-10-29T13:09:46+08:00

<div><div style="padding-right: 6pt; padding-left: 6pt; padding-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 14.2pt; padding-top: 8pt; background-color: #e5e5e5; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; border: windowtext 1pt solid">Sydney operates as a significant location, but not as a global centre, for the vast majority of foreign multinational companies. Self-sufficient and largely stand-alone, Sydney operations of multinationals are essentially local implementers, rather than regional or global innovators for their parent companies. But, Sydney is more important to the strategies of foreign multinationals in 2008 than it was a decade ago, a positive trend that provides the base for future benefits to Sydney and to multinational companies.</div></div><br /> This is the picture painted by the new study, Global Connections: a study of multinational companies in Sydney, undertaken for the Australian Business Foundation by Professors Michael Enright, Richard Petty and Suresh Cuganesan of Enright, Scott & Associates, a Hong Kong-based research and strategy company with a specific focus on the Asia Pacific region and China. This study provides an up to date understanding of exactly how Sydney features in the strategies, organisation and location decisions of multinational companies. It investigates what differentiates Sydney from other locations in the Asia-Pacific. It also examines Sydney’s competitiveness in different corporate activities and the strength of the local and global networks of the Sydney offices of foreign multinationals. The research is based on an assessment of survey data from 85 multinational companies based in Sydney. Comparisons are made with similar research carried out by Enright, Scott & Associates on Sydney in the late 1990s and with Hong Kong in 2007.<br /><br /><div><div style="padding-right: 6pt; padding-left: 6pt; padding-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 14.2pt; padding-top: 8pt; background-color: #e5e5e5; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; border: windowtext 1pt solid">Sydney is the site of significant high-value managerial activities for foreign multinationals in sales, marketing, customer service, management and internal support functions, but not significant production or research and development functions.</div></div><p><br /> Sydney is well-represented as a location for foreign multinational companies, attracting large, medium and small companies in a diverse spread of industries and a mix of long-established offices with a stable base in Sydney, as well as newer offices adding vitality. The geographic coverage of the Sydney offices of multinationals is primarily focused on the local market of Australia and New Zealand. This contrasts with operations in other cities in the region like Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai, which tend to have a broader span of control across the Asia-Pacific region.The research investigated the importance of Sydney to the company as a whole in performing 39 separate activities grouped into seven functions, namely: Corporate Coordination; Central Management Functions; Finance and Accounting; Sales, Marketing and Customer Service; Distributional Activities; Production Activities; and Research and Development.Sydney is of highest importance in performing sales, marketing and customer service functions, and important in some corporate management activities like competitor intelligence, regional strategy and operations support. Sydney is of relatively low importance in undertaking production activities such as manufacturing, assembling/processing, testing/certification and quality control. Similarly, Sydney is not considered important as a location for research and development activities, including new product or technology development.</p><div><div style="padding-right: 6pt; padding-left: 6pt; padding-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 14.2pt; padding-top: 8pt; background-color: #e5e5e5; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; border: windowtext 1pt solid">Sydney offices of multinationals are moderate contributors to the multinational company as a whole in terms of decision-making; knowledge generation and application; management; and product and service development. They are more local implementers, not regional or global leaders within the parent multinational company. But there is evidence of a small set of exceptions who play a global role.</div></div><br /> While making recognised contributions to overall corporate management capabilities, Sydney offices of multinational companies are not seen as major independent contributors to the design or development of products, services or processes for use internationally. Instead, they tend to develop products and services for the local market, as well as implementing designs, specifications and processes developed overseas. While self-sufficient in generating and using knowledge from operating locally, Sydney offices are generally not searching farther afield for external sources of knowledge useful to the multinational’s global operations, nor are they well ‘plugged in’ to knowledge sources elsewhere. <br /><br /><div><div style="padding-right: 6pt; padding-left: 6pt; padding-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 14.2pt; padding-top: 8pt; background-color: #e5e5e5; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; border: windowtext 1pt solid">Sydney operations of foreign multinationals are relatively isolated in terms of the connections, knowledge-sharing and collaborations they nurture with local organisations, within the corporate network of their global parent company and with other external bodies.</div></div><br /> The study explored the organisations with which the Sydney multinationals worked most closely. Customers topped the list, followed by local industry organisations and associations, but fewer connections were reported with other Sydney-based entities, such as local partners, suppliers, competitors and government. The least collaboration was reported with public research institutes and universities. The main source of knowledge for the Sydney offices of multinationals is their own local operations, rather than though exchanges and collaborations with local companies, other multinationals active in Sydney, their corporate network, or from elsewhere. They learn by doing, not by interacting and working with others.Further, Sydney offices of multinationals identified key gaps in the capabilities of local Sydney companies that would act against introducing these local companies into the multinational’s international networks. The biggest gaps identified as needing improvement were in strategic thinking and customer service. <br /><br /><div><div style="padding-right: 6pt; padding-left: 6pt; padding-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 14.2pt; padding-top: 8pt; background-color: #e5e5e5; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; border: windowtext 1pt solid">Few if any of the potential impacts of the present global economic crisis on multinational companies is likely to be positive for Sydney.</div></div><br /> The study comments on how the global economic crisis may affect multinationals in Sydney and the Asia-Pacific. The story most likely is cut backs, especially if the Sydney operation has a peripheral role either in the Asia-Pacific region or in the global parent’s strategy and organisation. <br /><br /><div><div style="padding-right: 6pt; padding-left: 6pt; padding-bottom: 0cm; margin-left: 14.2pt; margin-right: 14.2pt; padding-top: 8pt; background-color: #e5e5e5; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; border: windowtext 1pt solid">Urgent action is needed to revitalise investment promotion initiatives aimed at multinationals and to ramp up opportunities for more potent connections and collaborations between the Sydney operations of multinationals and local organisations.</div></div><br /> There is a twin imperative for action from this study. Firstly, revitalise investment promotion initiatives so they better reflect and build on the activities and skills revealed as Sydney’s strengths with multinational companies. Secondly, ramp up the opportunities for greater engagement and collaborative activities between local organisations and the Sydney offices of multinationals, so that they are embedded more closely in a web of enterprise, bringing with it new global and regional connections for Sydney.

2007-11-09T16:14:17+09:00

194

false

true

false

Global Connections: a study of multinational companies in Sydney

2009-02-15T00:00:00+09:00

<p>Understanding how Sydney features in the strategies, organisation and location decisions of multinational corporations is critical for governments, MNCs and resident firms alike.  </p><p>Conducted by Enright Scott & Associates principal Michael Enright, this research has been informed by surveying a large number of MNCs operating in the Asia-Pacific region with a focus on identifying which activities are currently conducted in Australia, and what the opportunities and impediments are to attracting more high value, knowledge related activities.</p>

2009-02-26T09:41:46+09:00

<p><strong><em>From the Introduction:</em></strong></p><p align="left">Innovation does not spring from nowhere. It is a process embedded in a creative matrix of human interactions which give it origin and form. This book explores those hidden human dimensions.</p><p align="left">The word innovation is ubiquitous in modern business and political life. Every organisation projects itself as innovative; every country strives to be innovative to compete in a world changing at a dizzying pace.</p><p align="left">While there are many definitions of the word, few would disagree with the working one that it represents the bringing into being of something new and valuable. In fact the concept of the new, the novel, is at the heart of the origin of the term. </p><p align="left">Because producing something new is a creative act, the emphasis in the past has been on creative individuals and the discoveries of science and technology. In a relatively linear model, a white-coated researcher comes up with a powerful fact or idea, and this is eventually turned into new products for the market.</p><p align="left">As this book will show, innovation is far broader and deeper than that. The actual products of innovation are merely visible signs of the usually invisible innovation matrix. This book is a tool to help Australian business and the country as a whole to mine the secret riches of that matrix.</p>

1965-10-11T13:09:02+08:00

196

false

true

false

Inside the Innovation Matrix - Finding the hidden human dimensions

2008-10-16T11:30:00+08:00

<p align="left">The latest research project from the Australian Business Foundation delves into the human kaleidoscope of innovation. Going well beyond old-school, linear stories about a brilliant inventor or creative entrepreneur, this project seeks to understand the transformative power of innovation by exposing the hidden intricacies of individuals, their networks and their interactions – the human dimensions of innovation.</p><p>This book is not about innovation for its own sake. It is about how to drive innovation-led prosperity, to enable Australia to continue to be a great place to live, work and play.</p>

<p align="left"><strong>Foreword</strong>   Stephen Mills and Narelle Kennedy</p><p align="left"><strong>Introduction</strong>   Tony Spencer-Smith</p><p align="left"><strong><a href="/publication_files/61/ITIM_01_Hubbard.pdf">Innovation in Winning Organisations in Australia: Myths and Realities</a></strong>   Graham Hubbard</p><p align="left"><strong>Using Learning Networks as an Aid to Innovation</strong>   John Bessant </p><p align="left"><strong>Australia’s Diaspora Networks in the 21st Century: Winning the Hearts and Minds of the Overseas Innovation Class</strong>   Anand Kulkarni and George Bougias</p><p align="left"><strong>How Intangible Networks Can Boost the Innovation Odds</strong>   Mark Matthews and Bob Frater</p><p align="left"><strong>Innovation: Your Place or Mine?</strong>   Marcus Spiller </p><p align="left"><strong>New Tools to Map and Manage Innovation Networks</strong>  John Steen, Sam Macaulay and Tim Kastelle </p><p align="left"><strong>The Heroes of Innovation? Scientists and Technologists in Australian Business</strong>   Jane Marceau, Tim Turpin and Richard Woolley</p><p align="left"><strong>How Deloitte Embedded Innovation in its DNA</strong>   Gerhard Vorster and Jenny Wilson</p><p align="left"><strong>Learning from the Market in Triple Time</strong>   Mehrdad Baghai, Giam Swiegers and Rebecca Watson</p><p align="left"><strong>Managing the Innovation Faultline</strong>   Verity Byth and Ross Honeywill</p><p align="left"><strong>Factors Behind Successful Creative Project-Based Teams</strong>   Leslie Butterfield and Dafydd Wyn Owen</p><p align="left"><strong>The Human Factor in Innovation Project Portfolio Management</strong>   Catherine P Killen, Robert A Hunt and Elko J Kleinschmidt</p><p align="left"><strong>Overcoming Barriers to Innovation by Facilitating Unlearning</strong>   Karen Becker and Paul Hyland</p><p><strong>People, Scenarios and Innovation</strong>   Oliver Freeman</p>

2009-03-09T14:54:10+09:00

<ul><li>Despite the diversity of size, experience and industry sector, a common feature of born global enterprises is that the whole world is their potential market from the company's inception, bucking the more traditional approach to growth by pursuing success in domestic markets before entering offshore markets.</li><li>Perhaps the approach of these firms is best encapsulated by the advice given by several interviewees to prospective born global firms: ‘Know your industry; know who your competitors are in the world market; work out where you can add value and carve a niche; and do it!'</li><li>As international competition demands greater collaboration and a more rapid absorption of new knowledge, governments can help resident firms to connect to global webs of enterprise.</li></ul><p>Case study companies included different sized firms from four different states across a diverse range of industries:</p><ul><li><div align="left">Aconex Pty Ltd (VIC) – provider of an online document management and web collaboration system for construction, engineering and facilities management;</div></li><li><div align="left">Agenix Ltd (QLD) – a publicly listed company in the market for cardiovascular diagnostic products;</div></li><li><div align="left">BEELINE Technologies Inc (QLD) – pioneer of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technology for hands-free Steering Assist™ in agricultural vehicles;</div></li><li><div align="left">Biota Holdings Limited (VIC) – a publicly listed company involved in the discovery and development of antiviral drugs;</div></li><li><div align="left">Cochlear Ltd (NSW) – a publicly listed company that designs and markets multi-channel cochlear implants for the hearing impaired;</div></li><li><div align="left">CSL Ltd (VIC) – a publicly listed company that develops, manufactures and markets vaccines and medications of biological origin;</div></li><li><div align="left">DSpace (SA) – pioneer of technology for commercial and defence satellite communications;</div></li><li><div align="left">Ellex Medical Lasers Ltd (SA) – a publicly listed company that designs and manufactures laser systems for ophthalmologists to fight blindness;</div></li><li><div align="left">Global Trust Centre (NSW) – an organisation that identifies needs and solutions to overcome security and trust problems in the digital world;</div></li><li><div align="left">Indigo Technologies Ltd (QLD) – pioneer of technology that reduces potentially toxic, fine particles emitted from coal fired furnaces in power stations;</div></li><li><div align="left">Infomedia Pty Ltd (NSW) – a publicly listed company that supplies electronic parts catalogues, primarily for the automotive industry;</div></li><li><div align="left">Micronix Pty Ltd (SA) – a publicly listed company that commercialises biomedical technology which facilitates accurate, inexpensive and real-time placement of a variety of catheters for a range of clinical applications;</div></li><li><div align="left">MYOB Ltd (VIC) – a publicly listed company that designs and supplies business management software, services and support for businesses and accounting practices;</div></li><li><div align="left">NOJA Power Switchgear Pty Ltd (QLD) – designer and supplier of low and medium voltage switchgear products;</div></li><li><div align="left">Rising Sun Pictures (SA) – provider of visual effects services for filmmakers, chiefly Hollywood studios;</div></li><li><div align="left">Technico Pty Ltd (NSW) – an agri-biotech company that provides supply-chain solutions by using proprietary technology to deliver early generation seed-potato products;</div></li><li><div align="left"><strong>tna </strong>Australia Pty Ltd (NSW) – provider of integrated turnkey solutions for food packaging and processing products; and</div></li><li><div align="left">The Wiggles (NSW) – provider of children’s entertainment (music, merchandise and theme parks) that encourages the participation of parents and guardians.</div></li></ul><p align="left"> </p>

2007-10-16T12:34:32+08:00

false

true

false

Born To Be Global: A closer look at the international venturing of Australian born global firms

2007-12-16T12:00:00+09:00

<p>This report focused on charting the experiences of 18 'born global' firms which ventured overseas shortly after their birth.  In examining their successes and setbacks, the researchers were able to identify some key factors relevant to identifying and satisfying new global opportunities more adeptly, including agility, persistency and the ability to manage a range of business functions and risks simultaneously.</p><p align="left">In analysing the business case studies, certain patterns were discerned about the character and further development of born global firms. While these insights do not constitute a template for business success, they do provide an important set of lessons for enterprises that are export ready or seeking other ways to extend their international reach.</p>

<p><strong> CHAPTER 1:</strong> <strong>AIM, METHOD AND STRUCTURE  </strong>          Rationale for the Project       The Contemporary Business Environment            Trends Perpetuating the Born Global Enterprise  Scope and Method   Report Structure         </p><p><strong>CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND ISSUES</strong> The Born Global Literature   What Do We Know About Born Globals?  The Born Global Firm and Extended International Presence       </p><p><strong>CHAPTER 3:</strong> <strong>KEY INSIGHTS INTO DEEPENING AUSTRALIAN BORN GLOBAL FIRM ACTIVITY </strong>Introduction    1.  Business Strategies that are not Cavalier but Confident and Cautious        2.  Born Global Firms are Agile Learning Organisations 3.  Collaborating and Connecting to Global Webs of Enterprise            4.  Building New Markets by Serving Unmet Needs or Specialist Niches         5.  Opportunities in Traditional Markets for Untraditional Enterprises    6.  Geographic Distance can be an Advantage    7.  Business Strategies that take Advantage of Globalisation     </p><p><strong>CHAPTER 4: NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF BORN GLOBAL ACTIVITIES</strong>            Introduction    Analysing National Economic Benefits: Some Relevant Theoretical Issues      Contributions to Employment and Public Revenue           Participating in Global Webs and Facilitating Economically Relevant Knowledge       Sustaining Local Clusters of High Value-Adding Activities         Creating New Global Industries Within the Australian Economy Building up the Skills and Knowledge of Australian Residents   Enhancing the Reputation of The Australian Economy and Australian Residents        Policy Implications    Conclusion      </p><p><strong>CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS</strong>       Aconex Pty Ltd          Agenix Ltd      BEELINE       Biota Holdings Limited         Cochlear Ltd  CSL Ltd          DSpace Pty ltd          Ellex Medical Lasers Ltd      Global Trust Centre   Indigo Technologies Ltd       Infomedia Pty LtdMicronix Pty Ltd         MYOB Ltd      NOJA Power Switchgear Pty Ltd    Rising Sun Pictures  Technico Pty Ltd       TNA Pty Ltd   The Wiggles</p>

2010-02-02T06:36:24+08:00

<p>Some key findings from the study show:</p><ul><li>There was a clear acceleration of growth of labour productivity in Australia in the 1990's and beyond compared to the 1980's.  From 1992-2004 labour productivity grew at an annual rate of 2.32% compared to 1.59% for the earlier period from 1980 to 1992.</li><li>Services sectors have dominated this growth, and the high performers were: <ul><li>financial intermediation (deposit, credit granting, financial leasing, factoring and credit card merchant services);</li><li>wholesale trade; and</li><li>the miscellaneous group encompassing transport, machinery and equipment hire, hotels and catering, R&D, legal, technical and advertising.</li></ul></li><li>Agriculture was a significant contributor to the acceleration between the two periods.</li><li>Mining and quarrying played an important role, but is not a key sector in the productivity surge during the high growth period.</li><li>Communications played a substantial role in between the two growth periods, but its contribution to the overall surge is low because of the decline in influence from 1998 onwards.</li><li>These findings are comparable to an analysis conducted by Professor Solow for the McKinsey Global Institute on aggregate productivity growth for the US</li></ul><p>The implications for productivity growth can be highlighted as follows:</p><ul><li>It is the high technology<em> using</em> sectors rather than the high technology <em>producing </em>sectors that are the key component drivers of productivity growth both in Australia and the USA.</li><li>The development and application of information technologies, together with investment in management capabilities and other organisational and often intangible assets are behind the transformations experienced by the sectors contributing most to Australia's recent productivity growth;</li><li>Examples for each of the highest contributing sectors are: <ul><li><em>financial intermediation/insurance</em> - benefited from major regulatory reforms, but also among largest investors in information and communications technologies;</li><li><em>wholesale trade</em> <strong>-</strong> benefited from the introduction of large scale technologies such as bar-coding and scanning, and increased competition and regulatory reform induced rationalisation through a series of mergers and acquisitions;</li><li><em>communications - </em>benefited from rapid technological advances and increased demand due to falling prices, also a large investor in technology in 1990s.</li><li><em>agriculture - </em>benefited from new technologies in farm machinery, herbicides/fertilisers and genetic modification.  Regulatory reforms also improved performance in several sectors.</li><li><em>mining </em><strong>-  </strong>benefited from GPS technology to locate richer deposits more efficiently.</li></ul></li><li>These high growth contributing sectors are also the important innovators, necessary for the ongoing competitive performance of firms in Australia.</li><li>The authors identified a number of constraints to continued strong productivity growth including: <ul><li>the need for further investment in IT and broadband infrastructure</li><li>labour force skills</li><li>an increasingly tight labour market</li><li>exhaustion of productivity catch up</li><li>limited export potential of the services sectors.</li></ul></li><li><br />Understanding and analysing the drivers of productivity growth, and the potential constraints, are essential for both the performance of companies and their contribution to the economy, and the prosperity of the Australian community at large.  These are matters of vital importance to the current Australian government and community.</li></ul>

2007-11-26T13:17:18+09:00

200

false

true

false

The Contribution of Services and Other Sectors to Australian Productivity Growth 1980-2004

2007-11-16T00:00:00+09:00

<p>This extensive study of 49 sectors in the Australian economy identified two growth periods - a low growth period from 1980 to 1992, then a high growth period from 1992 to 2004.  The acceleration in labour productivity growth in the high growth period can be attributed to the performance of just three service sectors - financial intermediation, wholesale trade and a miscellaneous group encompassing transport, machinery and equipment hire, hotels and catering, R&D, legal, technical and advertising.  </p><p>The productivity dividends came from business transformation  such as enhancing the use of enabling technologies, building management capabilities and capitalising on regulatory reforms, rather than as a result of greater capital investment replacing labour.  These findings, and the constraints to future growth identified by the authors, open the way for consideration of actions to initiate the next generation of productivity surges from Australia.</p>

2008-05-01T13:10:43+08:00

<p><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Probing beyond the obvious to discover fresh insights is the Australian Business Foundation’s stock in trade.<span>  </span>When the Foundation teamed up with Deloitte to look at 50 middle market companies and their experiences of innovation, the result was a number of rare insights into the hidden realities of business innovation in this important and often hard to reach section of the business community.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">The majority of businesses examined reported that they had to innovate to survive.<span>  </span>It was not a choice but rather a business necessity driven by market and/or customer demands.<span>  </span>Competing on knowledge and innovation rather than cost, price and quality has evolved as an alternative competitive strategy which if executed effectively, can create new value for the business either by enabling the company to solve problems better than their competitors or providing some other competitive advantage through greater customer engagement or embedded organisational learning.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">The study confirmed that innovation is more than radical, technological advances in products or services.<span>  </span>Business leaders acknowledged that it is actually more commonly witnessed in transformed business practices such as changing how business is done in a particular market, reorganising organisational work processes or using alternative channels to reach customers.<span>  </span>These less visible forms of innovation have proven to be as effective as radical breakthroughs at creating new value.<span>  </span>More imaginative business models have emerged through these transformations which focus on building learning cultures – ie, where experimentation, exploration and taking managed risks are valued.<span>  </span>This cultural change process is one of the few times that change motivates and engages employees, and this also creates value for the organisation by retaining and attracting sought after employees.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Innovations of the radical breakthrough kind are often achieved only when businesses keep their product development cards close to their chest, but this study confirmed that innovation actually needs partners.<span>  </span>The learnings and insights created from collaboration with customers, suppliers, and even competitors can inform tailored solutions to business problems.<span>  </span>The results of the study demonstrated that collaboration with competitors is possible because innovation is highly context specific and depends on understanding the individual business strategy and capabilities.<span>   </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><span> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Above all, creating value from innovation is all in the execution. Innovation will only create value if it is part of a disciplined, structured organisational process, is focused on outcomes and embedded in the day to day operations of the business.<span>  </span>Creating the processes that foster innovation requires longer term capability building and business leaders need courage to overcome entrenched more traditional approaches to creating value.</span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'">The businesses studied were well aware that in order to sustain their productivity and profitability in the future, they need to continue to compete on innovation, creating knowledge within the business and building collaborative partnerships.</span><span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>  </span><span>  </span></span></p>

2007-10-29T16:34:58+09:00

126

false

true

false

The Reality of Innovation Unzipped

2006-11-16T00:00:00+08:00

<p>This joint venture project between Australian Business Foundation and Deloitte aimed to test the appetite for innovation in middle market firms through a series of focus groups with more than 50 businesses in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.  </p><p>The key findings of this collaborative project demonstrate that these businesses have a strong appreciation that they need to continually innovate to survive, and to compete on knowledge and innovation through business transformation, rather than on cost.    </p>

<h5>1. Introduction - Innovation and Australia’s middle market</h5><h5>2. Key insights</h5><h5>3. Growth: case study - Energising business growth and creating value</h5><h5>4. Business models: case study - Imaginative business models</h5><h5>5. Partnering: case study - Partnering, collaborating and alliances</h5><h5>6. Results-oriented: case study - Doing the hard yards</h5><h5>7. People: case study - Innovation motivates people</h5><h5>8. Market driven: case study - One size does not fit all</h5><h5>9. Performance: case studies - Innovation is multi-faceted and complex needing replicable processes</h5><h5>10. Where to next? - The challenges for the future</h5><h5>11. An executive’s diagnostic</h5><h5>12. Appendix</h5><h5>13. Contacts</h5>

2008-07-11T13:11:07+08:00

<p>The recent research conducted on innovation by and for the Australian Business Foundation confirms a key message about innovation - it is not merely research and development of new products and technologies, but rather the successful application of new ideas in products, processes, organisational practices and business models integrated in such a way to support an organisation's competitive strategy.  </p><p>This study gained insights into a sample of small and medium sized enterprises in the Australian manufacturing sector.  The study identified three particular innovation challenges confronting manufacturers in terms of:</p><ul><li>new technologies</li><li>new internal organisational and work practices for agility; and</li><li>new business relationships and models with customers, suppliers and partners</li></ul><p>Overall, they paint a picture of Australian manufacturers investing in innovation to gain operational improvements in existing businesses, rather than preparing to deal with a shifting competitive environment.</p><p>The innovative practices most prevalent in this sample of firms focused on reducing the costs in production and assembly and balancing the investments in technology and organisational changes needed to respond to customer demands quickly and effectively.  Dodgson and Innes also highlighted the restructuring and redesign of jobs and the encouragement of teamwork and employee consultation as activities conducive to innovation in Australian manufacturing firms.</p><p>The key shortcomings by the sample of manufacturing firms were the short term planning horizons and failure to adopt continuous improvement processes that drive sustained innovation as a competitive strategy.  They saw little evidence of investment in advanced technologies for product design, techniques for organising new product development, effective linkages with innovation demanding customers, and packaging of services around product offerings.</p><p>Unlike their European counterparts, there is little evidence that these manufacturers see innovation as a tool to transform the way they do business or to respond proactively to the problems or the opportunities presented by the increasingly globalised competitive market.</p>

2007-10-16T15:30:24+08:00

false

true

false

Australian Innovation in Manufacturing: Results from an international survey

2006-08-16T12:00:00+08:00

Professor Mark Dodgson and Dr Peter Innes of the University of Queensland Business School conducted an international comparison survey to guage the nature of innovation in small and medium sized manufacturing firms.  This paper presents the Australian experience compared to the European findings.  Although the survey found that some Australian firms adopted innovation practices for process improvement and cost reduction, overall there was a less strategic approach to innovation for longer term competitive advantage demonstrated by the Australian firms than by their European counterparts.   Australian manufacturing firms risk being unable to compete with international competitors who have transformed their businesses to take advantage of market opportunities.

2008-07-11T13:26:18+08:00

The knowledge and innovation that are driving recent economic transformation and business growth may not come from the commonly thought sectors of the economy, according to the latest research by Ketih Smith.  His findings demonstrate that innovation is not only from high technology sectors, informal collaborations within and between organisations lead to greater, more sustainable innovations than formal research and development, and businesses need to transform their structure, culture and processes to set themselves up to compete on innovation.    <h4>Low Technology Industries are Innovators Too</h4><p>The conventional view of the knowledge economy based on high technology industries and frontier technologies, like biotech and nanotechnology, presents an incomplete picture. Smith's research confirms that in Australia low and medium technology industries in services and manufacturing are innovative, knowledge-intensive and growing steadily. </p><p>In Australia, like most advanced economies, high technology or science-based industries and the technologies underlying them are very important, but they are also very small. Such high technology industries account for only around 3 per cent of GNP in most OECD economies. </p><p>More significant to our understanding of the knowledge economy is the way innovation and growth occurs in the low and medium technology sectors, which form the bulk of the economy in Australia and in the OECD. These sectors include food processing, metal products, chemicals, timber products, printing and publishing, transport, mechanical engineering, mining, the hospitality industry, financial services, health and the like. </p><p>Innovation in such industries is not based on investment in formal research and development, but on the painstaking development of new product concepts that either solve consumer problems or meet market demands. The reality of innovation is that it rests not on scientific discovery, but on learning and problem-solving by firms. </p><h4>Not Research, But Learning by Doing</h4><p>Research and development is certainly not the main, nor the most important, ingredient in the production of economically useful knowledge or innovative capabilities in business enterprises.  Unfortunately, much of the analysis of innovation in Australia and elsewhere focuses on expenditure on research and development as the main source of knowledge used by firms to innovate by producing novel products and services. </p><p>Professor Smith's papers argue against research and development being the most important knowledge input to innovation. To the contrary, he identifies two critical dimensions of knowledge creation, neither of which are easily visible in available innovation statistics:</p><ul><li>Non-research and development inputs and expenditures including market research, design skills, engineering development, in-house training and operational skills related to new capital goods.</li><li>Indirect flows of knowledge, including research and development, into firms from a distributed 'knowledge infrastructure' of universities, research institutes, industry organisations, standards bodies, consulting engineers and the like.</li></ul>Innovation comes from learning, experimentation and re-use of knowledge (eg, by prototyping and trial production) not from the discovery of entirely new technical or scientific principles. The installation and operation of new machinery and equipment is knowledge-creating, because it results in new capabilities. Similarly, firms can purchase licences to use protected knowledge created or discovered by others, or can explore and learn about markets and consumer preferences by investing in market research and other intelligence-gathering exercises. Successful innovation can result from firms collaborating to gain new knowledge  for example by engaging in personnel movements, inter-firm cooperation, strategic alliances, links to professional and regulatory bodies and so on. <p>In reality, the knowledge underpinning innovation capabilities in firms is rarely based on direct research and development, but comes from learning by doing, learning by using technology and equipment, and learning by interacting with others. </p><p>These flows of knowledge, not the stocks of knowledge in themselves, seem to be most instrumental in promoting and sustaining innovation. </p><h4>Business Transformation is the Key</h4><p>Transformation in the capabilities of business enterprises is the key to achieving innovation and consequent productivity and performance gains, both for firms and for nations. Professor Smith's analysis results in a more diverse and complex picture of innovation than just the commercialisation of knowledge from research and development. </p><p>This more complex picture of innovation is characterised as: </p><ul><li>pervasive, not just restricted to a small array of high tech industries; </li><li>reliant on collaboration and interactive learning; </li><li>highly uncertain in terms of the risk / return decisions to be made by firms; </li><li>affected by geographical clustering and by the cumulative patterns of industrial and technological specialisations built up over time by regions and nations; </li><li>influenced by a strong interaction between technology and science; and </li><li>systemic, where the innovation behaviour of firms is framed by external factors like social and cultural conditions, regulatory regimes, institutional and organisational governance and infrastructure.</li></ul>Against this backdrop, the cornerstone for achieving innovation outcomes are the investment decisions by enterprises that create greater business value by transforming their capabilities and the way they do business.  More than just entrepreneurial flair, it requires proficiency in sustaining the everyday business systems and management competencies to bring attractive products and services to market, and continually improving and refreshing business offerings in response to market changes. <p>This in turn, rests on deliberate and long term strategies that support investment in the enterprise's tangible and intangible assets eg. training and skills acquisition, risk management, recruitment, organisational design, technology transfer, sales and marketing proficiency, specific production and managerial capabilities and so on. </p><p>Both business strategies and public policies must be framed to address this reality of Australian innovation. </p><h4>Refocus Australia's Innovation Policy</h4><p>Professor Smith's report concludes that Australia's current stance on innovation policy is excessively focused on high tech industries and frontier technologies and the commercialisation of research, at odds with the reality of Australia's industrial base and pattern of business innovation. </p><p>A policy shift is needed towards greater support for alleviation of business risks and obstacles to innovation, and for universities and research institutes in their knowledge support role in business problem-solving. </p><p>The case is made that competing by innovation and knowledge delivers economy-wide benefits, not only advantages to individual enterprises. Therefore, innovation is a key issue both for corporate managers and for public policy makers, as it affects both the business performance of firms and the path of national economic development. </p><p>But, it is argued that current approaches to innovation policy in Australia lack a coherent perspective, appreciating neither the importance of non-R&D activities nor the characteristics of Australia's industrial structure. </p><p>Governments instead should focus and put in place policies to take action on three pivotal policy challenges:</p><ul><li>Helping to mitigate the financial risks taken by innovating firms.</li><li>Re-focusing the role of Australia's 'knowledge infrastructure' like research institutes and universities.</li><li>Establishing a long-range strategic forum for integrated efforts to anticipate, pursue and resource Australia's innovation opportunities.</li></ul>

2007-10-11T11:43:46+08:00

false

true

false

Innovation and the Knowledge Economy in Australia

2006-05-16T12:00:00+08:00

<p>In 2004 Professor Keith Smith researched and reported on how the knowledge economy was creating value in Australian industry, and how companies were innovating to gain a competitive advantage.  His paper <em>The Knowledge Economy in the Australian Context</em> then paved the way for his follow up report in 2005 <em>Promoting Innovation in Australia: Business and Policy Issues </em>in which he looked at the opportunities and challenges facing businesses and governments in fostering innovation to generate business value.</p>

2008-07-11T13:00:28+08:00

<p>The Foundation commissioned Göran Roos and his colleagues at Intellectual Capital Services Ltd to conduct an extensive literary study of the innovation systems of Finland, Sweden and Australia, with a view to isolating the determinants of successful national innovation systems, and making recommendations to governments, businesses and other participants in Australia. Professor Roos presented these findings to business and policy leaders on 27 Novermber 2005 in Adelaide, at an event organized by ABF Director Frank Wyatt.</p><p>Some key characteristics working against a successful national innovation system were identified as follows:</p><ul><li>There is no best practice checklist for the ideal national innovation system - the challenge for policy makers is to establish the innovation system whose character interacts positively with the national and international policy environment, having regard to firm and country specific advantages and disadvantages.</li><li>Australia is not ranked highly as an innovative country on various US and OECD rankings largely due to falling tertiary enrolment rates, business expenditure on research and development as a proportion of GDP and falling intensity in research and development, particularly amongst the private sector.</li><li>Relative to the Finnish and Swedish examples, Australia has poor or non-existent system linkages among public and private agencies, particularly research institutions and industry.</li><li>The large number of SMEs in Australia, coupled with the low investment capacity for research and development by these organisations constrains the level of innovation to be achieved.</li><li>Australia has been relatively poor at commercialising technologies developed through public sector research and development.</li><li>Whilst many Australian managers are good at tactical and operational problem solving, they are less well recognised for developing and sustaining innovation strategies and cultures within their organisations.</li></ul><p>The key lessons from this study for Australian governments include the need to:</p><ul><li>Champion policies and programs designed to drive innovative behaviour;</li><li>If resources are constrained, or countries are small, foster linkages, knowledge flows and technological diffusion within specific industry clusters;</li><li>Foster regional innovation clusters to boost capabilities;</li><li>Engage positively in the policy discussion with a wide range of stakeholders including industry, universities and labour market organisations;</li><li>Remain flexible and benchmark against best performers internationally; </li><li>Change mindset to encourage local suppliers and develop partnership approach to industry development, rather than arms length relationship.</li></ul>

2007-10-11T11:47:43+08:00

false

true

false

National Innovation Systems: Finland, Sweden & Australia Compared

2005-11-16T00:00:00+08:00

Nations need national innovation systems to foster an infrastructure of linkages or networks among firms, universties and governments to gain competitive advantage.  By understanding the strides taken in Finland and Sweden, two showcases for development of national innovation systems, Australian firms and governments can identify what lessons might be applied in improving Australia's national innovation system.   

2008-07-11T13:24:56+08:00

<p>Re-examining the three industries of wine, mining and listed property trusts developed fresh insights into the critical success factors for fostering industry development.  In particular, these industries shared certain industry characteristics and were exposed to transformative events within their industry that gave rise to an 'ecosystem' that was highly self supportinve and with a structure and culture that were strongly oriented towards growth and success.</p><p>Industry characteristics that each industry share include:</p><ul><li>inherent characteristics suited to Australian conditions - including resources, skills and aptitudes;</li><li>a cyclical growth path enabling consolidation and preservation of capital in the downward phase;</li><li>appropriate size - small enough to shape but large enough to matter;</li><li>focused market opportunities - breakthroughs in the structure of the industry;</li><li>'seeding' or fostering support by visionary entrepreneurial champions.</li></ul><p>Events that transformed the industries include:</p><ul><li>release of a seminal document that addressed key problems and focused industry on solutions/courses of action;</li><li>networking supported and encouraged by professional industry associations;</li><li>formal innovation strategies encouraging small company innovation;</li><li>cooperative regulatory environment for framing industry standards and structures;</li><li>the Australian Stock Exchange facilitated development of acceptable forms of investment.</li></ul><p>The result of these developments was a growth oriented industry structure characterised by:</p><ul><li>higher levels of integration, cooperation and clustering within the industry;</li><li>prominent and active industry and professional associations;</li><li>a skilled professional base;</li><li>an innovation mindset;</li><li>access to liquid financial and investment markets.</li></ul><p>Industry leadership and governments can actively intervene in a number of cost-effective and targeted ways to transform an industry including:</p><ul><li>stimulating industry clustering and growth;</li><li>fostering industry associations;</li><li>establishing specialist, industry focused tertiary courses;</li><li>leveraging industry leadership within professional associations;</li><li>supervising self-regulation by professional and financial institutions;</li><li>developing a targeted innovation strategy. </li></ul>

2007-10-16T15:38:00+08:00

false

true

false

Success Factors in Australian Industries: Levers for Fostering & Sustaining Growth Industries

2005-11-16T00:00:00+08:00

<p>In 2005, the Australian Business Foundation and Australian Stock Exchange Limited teamed up to revisit earlier research into three critical industries - wine, mining and listed property trusts.  These industries were selected because each had transformed from being modestly successful and domestically based, to being world class, globally competitive and export based.  </p><p>The aim of this study, conducted by Robert Bladier and Colin Ramsay, was to develop a synthesis of the earlier learnings to formulate some necessary ingredients that must be present or steps that must be taken for successful industry development. Understanding these critical levers that can transform an industry enables investors and investment markets to properly assess the characteristics of the industry which will attract capital investment.  </p>

2008-07-11T12:26:07+08:00

<p>This qualitative study of early stage biotech companies, universities and medical research institutions sought insights into the the critical success factors that they believe need to be in place for further development of this emerging industry sector and the barriers to successful commercialisation of biotechnology research.  </p><p>The barriers identified by these participants focused on three key areas - government support, organisational capability and access to capital funds.  Vitale found that despite the government's efforts to develop the sector, it had failed to appreciate what was needed to do so, and had in fact created policies which  hampered the sector's development.  For example, the government policy encouraged early stage company formation for commercialisation when research was not sufficiently trialled beyond concept stage.  This lead companies to focus on and apply resources to building the company structure and processes, and managing the company compliance needs, and diverting these funds away from the necessary applied research (trialling and testing research).  Institutions did not help themselves in this critical phase by failing to devote sufficient resources to commercialisation within the institition and failing to understand and value the intellectual property.</p><p>This early company formation also focuses companies on establishing the organisational capability to manage the resources and operational needs of the company, as well as to seek additional sources of funding to further the commercialisation process.  A critical factor to success at developing the organisational capability is leadership and a key barrier identified in this research is the sourcing the senior leadership skills required either in Australia or from overseas.  In this age of skills shortages in key areas, and without tax incentives to attract Australians working in these sectors overseas to return home, it seems that capability building in this area will remain a barrier to growth.</p><p> The flow on effect from this diversion of funds, early company formation and constrained organisational capability have made the sector reportedly less attractive to venture capital companies, despite their response that there was plenty of money to invest, but a lack of worthy investment propositions.  Whether or not investors are unrealistic about the expected returns, the fact remains that funds are required to carry the companies or research bodies through the critical applied research phase.  The lack of substantial additional sources of funds in Australia for this stage, in particular philanthropic funds, or institution specific research funds exposes most of these early stage companies to a funding gap which stalls and often stops the commercialisation process.</p><p>Recommendations for change in government policy focus on rethinking whether or not company formation is the only way to deal with the commercialisation phase and looking at tax incentives to attract biotech leaders in this global market for talent.  Recommendations for research bodies include rethinking their policy on commercialisation by holding back from early company formation and seeking appropriate expert opinion to value intellectual property.</p>

2007-10-17T12:10:59+08:00

false

true

false

Commercialising Australian Biotechnology

2004-05-16T12:00:00+08:00

<p>Australian Business Foundation commissioned this research to uncover some of the reasons why there were so few success stories in commercialising biotechnology research despite the depth of research in the field and the government policies in place to encourage the development of a viable and globally competitive industry sector.  </p>

2008-06-27T13:02:01+08:00

<h4>Why and in what circumstances do sustainable development practices contribute to business success? </h4><p>The connection between sustainable development and business success depends on the depth and quality of the sustainable development practices, and their fit with the company's distinctive business strategy and culture. In particular, sustainable development practices are most likely to boost long term performance when they serve to stimulate innovation and foster a competitive business advantage.</p><p>These are the key messages from the Australian Business Foundation's latest research study, undertaken by Suzy Goldsmith and Professor Danny Samson of the University of Melbourne. The study took a thoughtful look at the sustainable development approaches of six diverse companies identified as leaders in this field – <em>BHP Billiton, Blackmores, Eli Lilly, Multiplex, OneHarvest/Vegco and VicSuper</em>. The scope of sustainable development practices covered in this research was based on those listed in the <a href="http://www.globalreporting.org/" target="blank"""><strong><u>Global Reporting Initiative</u></strong></a>, namely economic practices such as those affecting customers, suppliers and employees, environmental practices, and social initiatives like labour practices, human rights, product safety and community involvement.</p><p>Background interviews were conducted with fourteen industry associations to examine industry sector effects. Drawing on careful analysis of the academic and business literature, and on their own expertise and experience, the authors distilled several useful concepts linking corporate sustainable development and business success. These concepts will help business executives to think through the increasing and often conflicting demands for more action by companies on sustainability and social responsibility issues.</p><h4>Sustainable development practices should be deep, well-rounded and high-quality initiatives that offer the best available value proposition for the business, not just window-dressing.</h4><p>Sustainable development practices are more likely to contribute to long-run business success when they are:</p><ul><li>Focused on delivering specified performance improvements or targets in particular areas, like pollution emissions or direct employee involvement in community welfare programs, rather than just compiling an account of effort or budget spend, e.g. donations to charity.</li><li>Integrated with mainstream business practices like health and safety programs or customer service responsibilities.</li><li>Re-shaped over time for depth and effectiveness, noting the progressive results achieved.</li><li>Responsive to evolving stakeholder issues and community concerns.</li><li>Selected to maximise value to the long-term prospects of the business, e.g. a paper recycling scheme in an office environment could improve the balance sheet in multiple ways through waste minimisation, cost savings and greater employee commitment and even, enhanced community reputation and support for the company in some circumstances.</li></ul><h4>Effective sustainable development practices are aligned with, and demonstrably advance, a company's own distinctive business strategy.</h4><p>Information gleaned by the authors from interviews both with specific enterprises and with industry associations indicates that successful sustainable development practices are those that clearly contribute to the company's business strategy.</p><p>The business strategy of any company is influenced both by its position in the industry in which it operates, and by its own unique circumstances and attributes. Not surprisingly, both of these factors need to be considered by business executives in deciding on their approach to sustainable development. For example, companies in mature industries like mining are likely to focus their sustainable development practices in areas which ensure their continuing access to resources and maintain their licence to operate. On the other hand, an emerging industry (like biotechnology or renewable energy) may view sustainable development practices as a fundamental growth opportunity for accessing new markets or customers.</p><p>In the study, consistent connections were detected between sustainable development practices and core business strategies. Those most likely to succeed over the long term made good sense in one or more of the following areas:</p><ul><li><em>Stakeholder Support</em> – where the aim is to increase and strengthen the company's appeal to and involvement with various groups of stakeholders (including shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers and regulators). This might encompass risk management programs for shareholders, product safety and health information to customers, supply chain partnering and support and shared benefits programs to suppliers.</li><li><em>Efficiency</em> – those sustainable development practices that make a direct or indirect contribution to the company's financial performance, e.g. waste minimisation or energy efficiency initiatives.</li><li><em>Market Edge</em> – pivotal to sustainable development practices are those that contribute to enhancing a company's market opportunities, whether through creating new products and services; opening up new markets or being more responsive to existing ones; increasing market share or profit margins; or stimulating innovative new business areas.</li></ul><h4>Leading firms that pursue high quality sustainable development practices share common cultural characteristics – breadth of vision, stakeholder empowerment and being progressive.</h4><p>The sustainable development approach taken by enterprises needs to fit with their culture and ways of working. The researchers developed a new concept, 'sustainability orientation', to describe the deep-seated, high level set of principles that guide the choice of effective sustainable development practices. The sustainability orientation of a company helps business decision makers make the connection between their sustainable development practices and pursuit of the distinctive character and strategic advantage of their business. The researchers consistently found this sustainability orientation in the leading companies.</p><p>The common cultural characteristics evident in the sustainability orientation of leading firms were:</p><ul><li><em>Breadth of vision</em> – big picture thinkers with a reputation for trust and integrity, they view their business in the broadest context, going beyond just compliance to being open to new ideas and mutually beneficial opportunities.</li><li><em>Stakeholder empowerment</em> – fostering relationships that go beyond transactions to share power with stakeholders for mutual benefits, where stakeholders are genuine sources of new ideas and value for the business. </li><li><em>Being progressive</em> – long term outlook, enthusiasm for change and new opportunities, with a commitment to growth, progress and high performance through best practice, business excellence and quality programs.</li></ul><h4>Behaviour leads attitude. Modest, iterative steps with an end goal of creating business advantage and stimulating innovation is the best prescription for connecting sustainable development with long run business success. </h4><p>Motives for businesses engaging in sustainable development practices can be many and varied. Despite some of the public commentary, no motive driving sustainable development is more or less pure than another. Sustainable development does not equate to philanthropy. It is quite distinct in that the aim is to contribute materially to business goals and prospects.</p><p>Companies can gain greatest mileage from their sustainable development practices through 'learning by doing' and by proceeding incrementally - building on, customising and embedding those practices that work best for their particular business and stage of development.</p>

2007-10-16T15:43:49+08:00

false

true

false

Sustainable Business Development: Reaching Beyond The Rhetoric To Superior Performance

2004-03-16T12:00:00+08:00

The connection between sustainable development and business success depends on the depth and quality of the sustainable development practices, and their fit with the company's distinctive business strategy and culture. In particular, sustainable development practices are most likely to boost long term performance when they serve to stimulate innovation and foster a competitive business advantage.

2008-07-11T13:16:54+08:00

2007-10-17T12:13:51+08:00

false

true

false

Knowledge Economy Opportunities for Australian Firms in the Asia Pacific Region

2004-02-15T12:00:00+08:00

<p>This briefing paper was produced for the Australian Business Foundation to stimulate debate and to explore options for engagement in the Asia-Pacific region.  Through a series of industry case studies, this paper demonstrates that there are untapped opportunities for Australian business in high growth knowledge intensive industries in the Asia Pacific region.  Although traditional commodity industries have contributed significantly to exports, the future lies in competing on superior knowledge and skills.  Within these industries there are hidden strengths that could be capitalised on, ie, adding valuable services to traditional products to provide customised solutions and adopting more sophisticated sales and marketing techniques.</p><p>With a few exceptions, SMEs are lagging behind their competitors in adopting knowledge management approaches to capture their share of the export dollar in this rapidly growing regional economy.  These businesses would be better served by government policy which supports the potential for Australian businesses to tap into global production chains through better knowledge management processes and capabilities, rather than focusing on information and communications technology hardware and infrastructure.  </p>

2008-07-10T19:54:44+08:00

<h4>Background</h4><p>This project was commissioned and funded by the Australian Business Foundation and was undertaken by Dr Richard Hall of the Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research & Training, University of Sydney. </p><p>The project was inspired by the Australian Business Foundation's call for research proposals investigating 'the new skills and capabilities essential for business leaders and managers in light of the fundamental changes underway in the broader business environment'. </p><p>In response, this project places knowledge and knowledge management at the forefront of the challenges being faced by Australian business and its leaders. It was reasoned that the rise of knowledge management stands at the intersection of many of the most profound changes currently occurring in the global business environment. It was posited that the ability of Australian firms and their managers to adapt to the new imperatives of managing knowledge more effectively will be a decisive determinant of business success in the future. </p><h4>What We Learnt</h4><h5>Enterprises that manage organisational and individual knowledge well will deal <br />best with the challenges of the new business environment.</h5><p>This is the key message from the Australian Business Foundation's latest research undertaken by Dr Richard Hall of the University of Sydney's Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research & Training (acirrt), entitled <em>Knowledge Management in the New Business Environment.</em></p><p>Knowledge and the effective management of knowledge are seen as critical to an organisation's competitive advantage and ability to respond to the challenges posed by the speed of business imitations, changing organisational structures, advances in information and communications technology and mobile labour markets.</p><p>Many Australian enterprises have realised that there is little future in trying to compete in a globalised fast-paced world economy with high volume, low cost products and services. Their competitive edge must come from new value-added products and services that are more attractive to customers and that can command a premium price.</p><p>This means competing based on superior use of knowledge – of markets, customer preferences and needs, industry trends, product attributes and capabilities, to name a few.</p><h5>Knowledge management is not just about IT systems, but about achieving business goals by building stronger relationships and knowledge flows among key staff and between key staff and suppliers, customers and clients.</h5><p>All of the successful businesses studied here were characterised by the clarity of their strategic business objectives and their appreciation of how better use of individual and organisational knowledge can lead to better business outcomes. IT systems follow, not lead, good knowledge management.</p><p>The type of knowledge needed depends on the type of business. For example, if keeping and servicing customers is key, then information on what your customers think of you and on the quality control of your products and services is crucial; but if you are in a volatile, fast-changing business environment, it is vital that you have up to date information on market and industry trends and the latest product developments and customer preferences.</p><p>The key lesson is that businesses are interested not in storing or protecting knowledge, but in acquiring it, sharing it, and using it to boost their competitiveness.</p><h5>The improved management of knowledge has a major part to play in the business competitiveness of both large and small enterprises in Australia.</h5><p>While there is no single business case or rationale for knowledge management, it can contribute to the enhanced business competitiveness of both large and small enterprises in the following ways: </p><ul><li>providing a better understanding of customers, their needs, preferences and pressures, resulting in improved customer service;</li><li>building stronger, longer term, more profitable partnership-style relationships with customers;</li><li>helping companies to be known as leaders in their field, as innovators on top of emerging trends, issues and new developments affecting their industry;</li><li>allowing organisations to drive out costs from business and production processes and to improve speed and quality; and</li><li>assisting organisations to use the lessons learnt from previous jobs, projects and tasks as a means of improving their future performance.</li></ul><h5>Much of the knowledge needed for improved competitiveness already resides in and around the organisation – but it needs to be turned into distinctive organisational capabilities.</h5><p>Translating individual knowledge held by key personnel into useful, long-lasting organisational knowledge is a key imperative, achieved in various ways, like:</p><ul><li>embedding routine processes and procedural knowledge into standard operating procedures;</li><li>codifying implicit knowledge through 'lessons learnt' programs;</li><li>drawing out 'deep' tacit knowledge through mentoring programs.</li></ul><p>New knowledge was acquired in a variety of ways – incentives programs to encourage new ideas for better products or services, improvement to businesses processes, or securing new customers or markets; using intelligence from national and international industry and professional bodies; accessing R&D, technology or know-how from global parent companies; or learning from suppliers and customers.</p><h5>Knowledge management is not a technical stand-alone activity, but embedded in organisational policies and practices and motivated by inspirational, open and proficient business leaders.</h5><p>Knowledge management is most effective when it is supported by an appropriate 'eco-system' of complementary processes and practices, like: supportive <strong>HR policies</strong> that recognise and reward knowledge-sharing behaviour; the use of <strong>cross-divisional teams</strong> to encourage knowledge flows and communication outside traditional functional groups; and the use of <strong>expert circles </strong><strong>and</strong><strong> </strong><strong>networks</strong><em>, </em><strong>learning communities and communities of practice</strong> for key employees to collaborate on a regular basis, to develop and share new insights jointly and to establish networks that can be relied on in the future.</p><p>Business leaders cannot simply direct their staff to share knowledge or use knowledge to benefit the business, they must motivate them to do so. This may be achieved by reciprocal arrangements where tangible benefits flow to those engaged in knowledge management activities. Or it may rely on business leaders who 'walk the talk' on knowledge management and inspire others to 'learn by doing', share their knowledge and generate new ideas. They do this by being committed, open and accessible and passionate about the better use of knowledge and proficient at establishing workable knowledge organisation, capture and dissemination programs.</p><h5>Knowledge management – the new frontier for productivity?</h5><p>The study speculates that if Australia has reached the limit of its productivity improvement through greater efficiencies and working assets harder, then better knowledge management may be the answer to the future competitiveness and performance of Australian business. </p>

2007-10-17T12:18:30+08:00

false

true

false

Knowledge Management in the New Business Environment

2003-07-16T12:00:00+08:00

<p>Managing knowledge is a key tool of trade for every business no matter how small or large.  But how do organisations use knowledge to gain a competitive advantage, and how canknowledge be managed anyway?  Through case studies, this report identified a number of ways that successful organisations are managing knowledge, not merely through the use of IT systems, but through building stronger relationships and knowledge flows among key staff and between ket staff and suppliers, customers and other clients.  </p><p>Effective knowledge management is predicated on a workplace culture that fosters knowledge sharing and problem solving, a high degree of trust and mutual support and a commitment to individual and organisational learning.</p>

2008-07-11T13:15:51+08:00

<h3>Action Research Workshops</h3><p>The central plank of the project's methodology was a series of three action research workshops held in 2001, involving about 30 selected infrastructure and economic development decision-makers and stakeholders from the three regions and elsewhere.</p><h3>Background Reports</h3><p>These workshops were backed up by discussion papers and reports by consultants with expertise in infrastructure and economic development.</p><p>A paper by Denis Gastin of INSTATE Pty Ltd entitled "Infrastructure for Economic Development - the Issues" (Infrastructure Background Report 1, May 2001) is a framework and issues paper to focus attention on the most crucial aspects of infrastructure as it affects contemporary development. </p><p>The second paper was prepared by Graham Larcombe of National Economics, titled "Economic development infrastructure in the Hunter, Illawarra and Western Sydney - a status report" (Infrastructure Background Report 2, May 2001), and provides a summary of the state of play on infrastructure issues and developments in the three regions.</p><h3>Commentary report</h3><p>The old axiom holds that those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it.</p><p>It is a contention based on the other well-worn notion that history repeats itself.</p><p>But equally, it could be contended that those who don't understand the past are condemned to misunderstand the present and the future. The economies of the world, Australian and regions, have all undergone profound changes in the past 30 years. How could the relative strengths, weaknesses and alternative growth options for each be properly assessed outside of the context of where they have come from? </p><p>The Australian Business Foundation has something new to say about some of Australia's oldest regions.</p><p>Western Sydney, the Illawarra and the Hunter are as old as Australia's first colonial settlements. Parramatta, settled in 1788 shortly after Sydney Cove, pioneered much of the colony's agriculture and economic endeavours and for a time was the main administrative centre. The first Europeans to enter the Illawarra were George Bass and Matthew Flinders in 1796 in the 'Tom Thumb' opening up a fertile and resource-rich district. The Hunter, named after the Governor in 1797, became an early industrial stronghold.</p><p>As well as a rich indigenous history dating back many thousands of years, Western Sydney, the Illawarra and the Hunter pioneered Australia's industrial age.</p><p>The Australian Business Foundation recognised that one of the legacies of these pioneering regions was their strong investment in infrastructure underpinning their industrial base and patterns of community development.</p><p>Given the massive economic and social transformation and adjustments being experienced by these established industrial regions over the last two or three decades, we wondered if this past infrastructure investment could be put to better use for their future economic prosperity.</p><p>The end game was to discover how these "old economy" regions could capitalise on their sunk infrastructure to capture their fair share of high growth jobs and industries in today's faster, harsher and increasingly globalised business environment.</p><h4>A new road for old regions</h4><p>The group of infrastructure experts and stakeholders assembled to put their minds to this task concentrated not on technical assessments of infrastructure performance and gaps in the regions, but on the "political economy" of infrastructure.</p><p>High on their agenda for fixing infrastructure to secure better economic outcomes for established industrial regions were issues like:</p><ul><li>Regional identity and control of infrastructure choices.</li><li>New and better ways of paying for and managing infrastructure.</li><li>The mismatch between local community expectations and processes for political and bureaucratic decision making.</li></ul><p>They came down in favour of four key areas for action:</p><ul><li>Investment in 'knowledge' infrastructure, like technology parks, industry clusters and education/business linkages that turn regions into hubs of high performance industries.</li><li>Attention to infrastructure that connects people and places in and between regions, particularly transport and telecommunications, because of their role in stronger business and economic performance.</li><li>Better and more imaginative alignment of State and regional responsibilities for infrastructure planning and use.</li><li>Actions to build more effective partnerships between the public and private sectors for managing and financing infrastructure.</li></ul><p>You can find the full story of the Australian Business Foundation's action research project on regional infrastructure in the publication, Regional Infrastructure. New Economic Development Opportunities for the Hunter, Illawarra and Western Sydney Regions. </p><h4>What's different?</h4><p>So, what's different about this work, and why should we sit up and take notice?</p><p>Underpinning it is a perspective on regional economies and their infrastructure needs that reflects the impact of the revolutionary changes we have seen in the world economy. </p><p>The brief history of the regions described above gives a clue to the most important change. Regional economies 150 years ago had to be largely self-sustaining, with one or at best, two industrial sectors that could be considered integrated into national and international markets.</p><p>While infrastructure in that environment had to connect to the wider economy, it primarily was focused on the needs of the regional economy and community. In other words, in a time when the tyranny of distance defined the Australian experience, regions were first and foremost inwardly focused communities satisfying their own basic economic needs.</p><p>Today, the tyranny of distance is perhaps more accurately described as the inconvenience or comparative disadvantage of distance.</p><p>Yet, ask most people what region they live in and they will have a ready answer.</p><p>Somehow, a powerful identification of people with the regions in which they live has persisted, even as the industries that were the foundation stones of those communities have been transformed and in some cases disappeared.</p><p>Within this context, the role of infrastructure has also changed in ways perhaps not previously deeply explored. In an economy that is strongly interconnected, where regional specialisations are complemented by other economic inputs from outside the regions, infrastructure is about making that connectedness as efficient as possible.</p><p>For regions to remain competitive in their areas of specialisation, infrastructure must be internationally competitive and encourage communities to be externally focussed.</p><p>By taking this perspective, the Australian Business Foundation study strikes a number of notes that are different from the usual.</p><p>Firstly, far from being just the secret business of transport economists or urban planners, infrastructure has a lot to do with whether ordinary Australians can find the jobs, homes, community facilities and lifestyles they aspire to.</p><p>This new look at infrastructure makes connections that haven't been made before. We've always known that good infrastructure can drive economic opportunities. What's new is that not all infrastructure is equal. The vital new ingredient is what's been termed 'knowledge' or learning infrastructure.</p><h4>Knowledge infrastructure</h4><p>Through knowledge infrastructure – like industry clusters, incubators and technology parks, business and education linkages, alliances between SME's and multinationals and connections between research bodies and business enterprises – regions can become hubs for new and revitalised industries with high growth paths and global reach.</p><p>To compete in today's fast-paced global business environment, companies must develop new business offerings, capabilities and innovations which competitors find hard to imitate or which have attributes that are more attractive to customers. Increasingly, such competitiveness depends more on knowledge, skills and creativity than it does on more traditional production factors such as land, labour and capital.</p><p>Ensuring that regions have a critical mass of firms creating and using such intangible knowledge assets is central to boosting innovation and competitiveness in regions. This is particularly the case for established industrial regions seeking to restructure their economic and skills base.</p><p>Investment in knowledge infrastructure is the tool to do this. This means attention to infrastructure that encourages the creation and flow of new ideas, technology transfer, joint learning, collaboration, global market intelligence and skills development. It also means harnassing these to create distinctive capabilities that come to characterise the region and drive its economic prosperity and social development.</p><p>The contribution of knowledge infrastructure to regional economic development is judged by how well it helps companies to learn and respond quickly to changing conditions, rather than either protecting or isolating them from competition or external change.</p><p>So says Analee Saxenian, the regional business development writer, whose description of the eco-system of Silicon Valley in her 1994 book "Regional Advantage – Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128", is a copybook example of knowledge infrastructure in action:</p><blockquote><strong>"</strong><strong>Silicon Valley has a regional network-based system that promotes collective learning and flexible adjustment amongst producers of a complex of related technologies. The region's dense social networks and open labour markets encourage experimentation and entrepreneurship. Companies compete intensely while at the same time learning from one another about changing markets and technologies through informal communication and collaborative practices; and loosely linked team structures encourage horizontal communication among firm divisions and with outside suppliers and customers</strong><strong>."</strong></blockquote><h4>Identity crisis</h4><p>In pondering more imaginative ways for infrastructure to deliver greater economic benefits to the Hunter, Illawarra and Western Sydney regions, the role of a region's own identity, cohesion and capacity for self-help proved to be a potent factor.</p><p>This manifested itself in debates about whether proximity to "Global Sydney" was a help or a hinderance to the three regions, or whether each should look to its own competitive strengths and go it alone.</p><p>Regional identity also featured in the tensions evident between local and regional communities and the various agencies of State Government for the control and direction of infrastructure decisions and budgets.</p><p>Rather than being a battlefield, this provides an opportunity to get above the fray. Regions with strong self-awareness and a sense of identity are more likely to take action to meet their own infrastructure needs and to take charge of their own economic and social futures.</p><p>Such an attitude lends itself to fresh approaches to funding and managing the infrastructure that local communities see as a priority, rather than those regions being a mendicant on a long list of competing priorities for State Government resources and attention.</p><p>You can imagine, for example, a new partnership model where regions invest in and own their own infrastructure by aggregating demand and negotiating competitive private investment deals.</p><p>Paradoxically, this strong self-help stance by regions is likely to show them the value of strategic collaboration with others. It doesn't take long to realise in this age of globalisation and specialisation, that a region of the size and scale of the Hunter, Illawarra or Western Sydney can't be self-sustaining. Markets are needed for goods and services. Skills and components need to be acquired. Capabilities can be leveraged nationally and internationally.</p><p>So, connectivity infrastructure remains a crucial tool of trade. Transport and telecommunications are as vital to the free flow of products, services, capital, people and information in a knowledge-based economy as they were at the outset of the industrial age.</p><h4>Go for 'smart infrastructure'</h4><p>An intriguing concept that can be used to capture the essential messages of the Australian Business Foundation's regional infrastructure project is that of 'Smart Infrastructure'.</p><p>The consultants, SGS Economics & Planning P/L, coined this term to collectively describe nine key drivers of regional competitiveness, which they propose should be used as the basis of Smart Infrastructure Audits by regions keen to boost their economic growth. (For more information on Smart Infrastructure Audits, contact SGS at <a href="mailto:sgs@sgs-pl.com.au).">sgs@sgs-pl.com.au).</a></p><p>SGS defines the elements of Smart Infrastructure as:</p><ol><li>Factors that reduce investment and operating uncertainty, such as transparency in government processes, leadership directions and economic management.</li><li>Infrastructure to support basic production processes such as transport, labour, communications, power, and the like.</li><li>Workforce skills and accessibility to quality education institutions for ongoing skills development.</li><li>Infrastructures/programs that underpin the development and commercialisation of new ideas (i.e. innovations).</li><li>Business cultures that promote competition, collaboration, entrepreneurship, risk taking, and openness to new ideas.</li><li>Connectedness to other members of the value chain, including relevant research institutions and brokers of market intelligence, capital, etc., a characteristic that can be summed up by the term 'clustering'.</li><li>Quality living environments that offer the necessary services for attracting and retaining knowledge workers.</li><li>A strong cultural economy which helps to power the industrial economy with new ideas and keeps knowledge workers engaged with their local community.</li><li>Social cohesion, whereby the various economic and other agents in the community have a strong sense of shared future and a willingness to support each other's ultimate competitiveness.</li></ol><p>In short, to move ahead, the Hunter, Illawarra and Western Sydney regions need a mix of infrastructure that supports the flow of ideas, people and products for these regions to be active and valued players in wider metropolitan and global economies.</p><h4>Three practical initiatives</h4><p>As an end note, if you want some immediate practical initiatives to put this new angle on regional infrastructure into action, try these three ideas.</p><h5>1. Introduce an Innovation Linkages Program.</h5><p>This would provide funds to facilitate a program of industry clustering to support business enterprises and related organisations in metropolitan and rural regions to collectively identify and address their industry's competitive strengths, gaps and opportunities. The program would provide a subsidy to encourage three or more companies or supporting organisations to build on pre-existing linkages to promote innovation and new capabilities in particular industries and regions.</p><p>The activities the Innovation Linkages Program subsidy could be used for would include:  </p><ul><p>(a) to identify and foster the development of new technologies, products and services;<br /><br />(b) to find new markets and growth opportunities;<br /><br />(c) to undertake investigations to add value to meeting market needs;</p></ul><ul>(d) to assist knowledge and technology transfer and risk management decisions made by firms (e.g. connection between SMEs and multinationals);<br /><br />(e) to undertake training and enterprise skills development.</ul><p>Government funding would be used to provide the resources to facilitate the formation of clusters as described above and to assist with identifying gaps, capitalising on linkages and developing and implementing proposals for action.</p><p>Applicants for the Innovation Linkages Program subsidy would need to demonstrate that their proposed clustering activities would improve performance and boost innovation in an industry sector of high economic or regional significance.</p><p>The end goal would be to invest in the infrastructure to support industry clustering through which regions develop new competitive capabilities and industries.</p><h5>2. Create new assets in the form of specialised key learning centres combining research and graduate education in fields critical to the future growth and development of NSW.</h5><p>Knowledge or learning infrastructure also means knowledge institutions, notably the universities and CSIRO, but also hospitals and medical research centres.</p><p>NSW is well-endowed with knowledge assets of this kind and with excellent research institutions and research capacity. Much current effort is fragmented, however and lacks the critical mass that comes from interchanges of ideas and cumulative learning and breakthroughs from joint ventures and collaborations between connected research specialists and graduates.</p><p>NSW's knowledge infrastructure is underperforming on its potential because too few researchers are spread too widely across too many disparate research areas. There is a case for harnessing effort and eliminating wasteful duplication.</p><p>The community could benefit enormously from better linkages between research and postgraduate specialist teaching in concentrated key learning centres of excellence. These would focus on fields of research vital to NSW's future prosperity. This could either be through work towards solving intractable problems or forging new world class capabilities in emerging high-growth industries or technologies.</p><p>Key specialised learning centres would operate either virtually or geographically to bring together the necessary skilled people to create these new knowledge assets for the State. Established industrial regions, like the Hunter, the Illawarra and Western Sydney, would be the ideal location for piloting one or more of such learning centres, as these regions seek to shift into more knowledge-intensive areas of economic activity.</p><p>For example, why not bring together the best researchers in urban development in an urban and regional strategy centre? Why not train medical researchers and hospital administrators in a NSW centre for medical research and advanced training? After all, research in medicine depends greatly on its use in clinical practice, so it makes sense to build this collaboration in early.</p><p>Or, thinking more divergently, a special cross-disciplinary centre in the social sciences for the study of social and community development could take advantage of the huge international interest in the field of trust and social capital building as a mechanism for reducing crime and social problems.</p><p>Similar thinking could apply to a centre for education and innovation, or to a centre for environmental management, salinity or sustainability in resource use.</p><p>NSW already has the researchers. What is needed now is the political will and resources to rationalise and concentrate this research effort into specialised centres of excellence to build substantial new knowledge bases to advance NSW's capabilities and growth.</p><p>The creation of this additional knowledge infrastructure, with critical mass and without duplication, would multiply the benefits across the community, starting with the regions that host the first key learning centres.</p><h5>3. Pioneer a new form of Public Private Partnerships for new infrastructure assets through collaborative 'offers' which aggregate demand at regional level to make it feasible for private sector investment.</h5><p>Much has been said and written about regional demand aggregation in recent times, as communities have become frustrated at seeing the public sector rely more heavily on private financing of infrastructure, at the same time as private investment flows are increasingly biased toward cities. Behind this is something telecommunications expert, Dr Terry Cutler, has recently dubbed the tyranny of density in relation to telecommunications. </p><p>The investment market for new telecommunications infrastructure is global, both at the supply of funds end and the demand for investment end. The fastest and highest rates of return are enjoyed in areas where the most consumers can be reached in the smallest geographic footprint. In situations where there are high up front capital hurdles, such as telecommunications, this results in apparently bizarre situations where investment after investment in made in the same neighbourhoods while other communities receive no new investment at all.</p><p>Telecommunications receives special mention in the Australian Business Foundation report because it is a factor on which better business performance in a knowledge-based economy strongly depends. </p><p>This suggests an acute need for innovative thinking in public/private partnerships in relation to telecommunications. Demand aggregation is an element of this, but it must be matched by an understanding of the needs, abilities and roles of other participants in proposed projects. </p><p>A model that would conceivably work would be one that defines what regional communities need and how they can organise themselves into an attractive economic or investment opportunity. Private investors need to understand and accept the rate of return available to them in regional infrastructure, and to help define the limits of their exposure. This in turn should identify exactly what points of market failure would prevent projects from proceeding without public sector involvement, allowing governments to also make the most focussed possible contribution.</p><p>Again, an historical perspective gives a context to this thinking. Hard infrastructure such as electricity, water and sewage in much of Australia was often built, owned and/or operated at the regional level in the past. The natural owners of infrastructure are always most likely to be best placed to make the case for investment.</p><p>Identifying those natural owners has become more difficult in a globalised economy where sources of investment and markets for production are often remote. </p><p>Rediscovering and redefining the natural owners of regional infrastructure in the 21st century may well be the first step forward to a new understanding of regional infrastructure.</p><p><strong>Narelle Kennedy & David Forman, May 2003</strong></p>

2007-10-17T12:20:38+08:00

false

true

false

Regional Infrastructure: New Economic Development Opportunities for the Hunter, Illawarra and Western Sydney Regions

2003-05-16T12:00:00+08:00

How can some of Australia's oldest regional hubs be rejuvenated for improved economic performance?  This was the central question put to a series of decision makers at regional workshops in 2001.  A number of key insights were established which could help revive these regions to capture their share of growth in the increasingly globalised business environment including increasing investment in 'knowledge' infrastructure, like technology parks, industry clusters and education/business linkages that turn regions into hubs of high performance industries and focusing greater attention on infrastructure that connects people and places in and between regions, particularly transport and telecommunications, because of their role in stronger business and economic performance. <p>The report also recommended better and more imaginative alignment of State and regional responsibilities for infrastructure planning and use and actions to build more effective partnerships between the public and private sectors for managing and financing infrastructure.</p>

2008-07-10T11:57:58+08:00

<h4>Background</h4><ul><li>This study was commissioned by the Australian Business Foundation to examine the opportunities and the threats posed by e-commerce to business capability in rural and regional Australia. The study provides a snapshot into rural Australia to determine the reality of the implications of electronic commerce for rural non-farm businesses.</li><li>The study was undertaken against the backdrop of current literature where substantial changes to businesses as a result of e-commerce technologies are predicted. The real experiences of businesses as illustrated in this study, provide a new account of the impact of e-commerce and its significance for rural Australia.</li><li>This report is a starting point that looks at the e-commerce experiences of a small number of non-farm rural businesses. The Australian Business Foundation offers it as an invitation for others to tell their stories, so we can build up a richer picture of the way e-commerce technologies are influencing business life in rural Australia.</li></ul><h4>What We Learnt</h4><h5>E-commerce technologies are changing the business realities of non-farm rural businesses, but this change is incremental rather than revolutionary.</h5><p>The predicted threats and the anticipated boon from the uptake of e-commerce technologies have been overstated for rural businesses. </p><p>Rural non-farm businesses are cautious and experimental in their approach to e-commerce technologies. These businesses are taking small steps and limited investments to learn and to test the possibilities and benefits that on-line tools can bring to their businesses.</p><p><strong>Rural businesses are enthusiastically adopting the simplest, lowest cost applications with the most immediate benefits.</strong> E-commerce technologies are providing significant cost and time savings for rural businesses in mail, banking, information retrieval, document transfer and other administrative and support functions.<br /><br />The businesses that have adopted e-commerce tools have also seen improvements in the quality and efficiency of their business processes.</p><h5>E-commerce tools allow rural businesses to change, enhance and tailor their products to better meet customer needs and to differentiate them from their competitors.</h5><p>Businesses in rural towns are using e-commerce tools to add value to their products and services. This allows them to better meet customer needs and to distinguish themselves by expanding and customising their offerings.</p><p>E-commerce technologies are allowing these businesses to strengthen business alliances and capitalise on their products through the use of: </p><ul><li> relationship marketing</li><li>on-line information and advice </li><li>databases and tracking systems </li></ul><p>For example, some firms tailor offers to customers based on their interests, provide online after-sales services or add to their product range by alliances with other firms.</p><p>For rural businesses with niche or specialist activities or with information-rich goods or services, e-commerce technologies are creating new opportunities to compete and prosper in wider markets.</p><h5>Rural businesses are experimenting with e-commerce tools to test their worth or to pre-empt potential future threats or external pressures.</h5><p>Some businesses in rural towns appear to be getting the best of both worlds with a 'clicks and mortar' business strategy. This response is designed both to forestall on-line threats and to marry local knowledge, existing customer relationships and the value of personal contact with the judicious use of on-line technologies.</p><p>The cautious approach to e-commerce technologies by some rural businesses reflects both natural reticence to the adoption of any innovation and some rural-specific factors, such as barriers to learning about e-commerce applications and the difficulties in locating business-oriented IT skills in rural areas. </p><p>For rural customers and suppliers, personal contact and the 'touch and feel' factor in their buying decisions are an important part of doing business that cannot be replaced with e-commerce tools.</p><h5>E-commerce in rural businesses is being driven by innovators, who are open to experimentation where it clearly enhances their business strategy or operations.</h5><p>Many of the e-commerce pioneers identified by this study were innovators, well disposed to using e-commerce tools. These managers were particularly entrepreneurial, with an intrinsic interest in 'learning by doing.'</p><p>Those businesses that are developing e-commerce beyond simple cost-saving applications tend to be at a critical stage or 'trigger' point in the life of their business, e.g. developing a new product or responding to government regulations. </p><p>Alternatively, these businesses can see that e-commerce readily contributes to achieving current business objectives. For them, e-commerce complements their existing business strategy and offers new opportunities to enhance and add value to the products and services on offer.</p>

2007-10-17T12:22:16+08:00

false

true

false

E-Commerce and its Impacts for Rural Business

2002-11-16T00:00:00+08:00

This study was commissioned by the Australian Business Foundation to examine the opportunities and the threats posed by e-commerce to business capability in rural and regional Australia. The study provides a snapshot into rural Australia to determine the reality of the implications of electronic commerce for rural non-farm businesses.

2008-07-10T11:34:58+08:00

<h4>Background</h4><ul><li>This study was undertaken by the Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies (AEGIS) under the leadership of Professor Jane Marceau. It was funded by the Australian Research Council through a SPIRT grant. The industry partner sponsoring the project was the Australian Business Foundation.</li><li>The study explores the nature and extent of the blurring between manufacturing and services activities in Australia, as a means for firms to secure their competitive advantage in an increasingly fast-paced, more interconnected and customer-focused business environment.</li><li>This investigation involved a mailout survey of 479 NSW manufacturers in July and August 2000 and detailed case studies based on unstructured and semi-structured interviews with 60 companies across several sectors of the Australian economy.</li></ul><h4><br />What We Learnt</h4><ul><li>Contrary to popular belief, manufacturing is not in decline, but is moving increasingly to compete by linking products and services into new business "product-service packages" or solutions.</li><li>While Australia, like most developed countries, has seen recent growth in service industries, this does not herald the post-industrial or service economy. </li><li>Both manufacturing and service firms are blending and bundling together products and services as part of a transformation to a more dynamic modern economy to meet the demands of new markets where the customer is king.</li><li>Such product-service linkages were found to be widespread and diverse in the Australian economy, necessitating a shift in how we characterise both productive activity in Australia and competitive business structures and skills.</li><li>Three key patterns of product-service linkage were identified by this study and are summarised below.</li><li><strong>New manufacturing</strong><strong> </strong>– where manufacturers are increasingly incorporating services into their offerings to customers, both within the production process and at, or close to, point of sale.</li></ul>Examples of new manufacturing, where services are integrated into production typically include engineering, design and testing services to customise products to match client needs. The customers are usually industrial users, rather than end consumers. Installation, training, finance and maintenance services are the most cited after sales services provided by manufacturers to their customers.<br /><br />One case is the pharmaceutical manufacturer of new over-the counter or prescription drugs with which the medical market is unfamiliar, providing help-desk services for medical professionals and consumers with details on the effect of the drugs on different patients and disease states. In short, the manufacturer not only sells the product, but also sells advice on the use of the product.<br /><br />Another example is a local contract manufacturer of information and telecommunications technology products like circuit boards, which supplies to a multinational firm that outsources all its manufacturing to the contractor in favour of concentrating on its core R&D, design and marketing competencies.<br /><br />The contract manufacturer, in an effort to better serve and retain its multinational customer, increasingly provides additional value-added technical services such as prototyping, testing, engineering, calibration, as well as point of sale documentation and configuration services as required by their customer.<br /><ul><li><strong>Service/product bundles</strong> – strategies by service firms taking products produced by others and adding value by bundling them with a vast array of services, and in turn, often stimulating the creation of new physical products.</li></ul>The information technology and telecommunications sector is the classic case of service-product bundling to provide a total "solution" to the customer. For example, the telecommunications company sells mobile telephones produced by a manufacturer in conjunction with its own primary service, access to a telephone line.<br /><br />Typical services offered by ICT firms are customisation, installation, training, maintenance, technical support and upgrades, bundled together pre-packaged and customised software and hardware. These service/product bundles are offered by these firms to differentiate themselves in the market and to respond to consumer demand for tailored solutions.<br /><br />The intelligence and technical capability developed in such bundling has led in some instances, to the creation of new products or expanded suites of services.<br /><br />Another case of service/product bundling occurs with service firms supplying hospitals with surgical supplies; these firms now buy products from others and link them into packages which have just the right number of sutures, instruments and so on for a given surgical procedure.<br /><ul><li><strong>Project-based firms</strong> – complex, unique and highly customised activities where both services are linked to services and products to services to deliver an entire project, like construction of a sports facility or an airport.</li></ul>The projects are typically designed in one-off or very small batches for a unique application, eg providers of post-acute and aged health care in the home for the customised treatment of individual patients.<br /><br />The classic case of project-based firms applies in the building and construction industry where the customer requires more than the building itself, including the finance to buy it, the insurance to protect it, expertise to install it, landscaping to enhance its appearance, advice on how to maximise returns from it and/or expertise in managing it.<br /><br />Project-based firms respond by providing planning, installation, technical support, environmental analysis, design and engineering, systems integration, economic assessments, procurement advice, legal advice, training, and facilities management and operations support.<br /><ul><li>The AEGIS study identified eight key drivers leading to this picture of the convergence of products and services. These are:</li></ul><ul>- customisation and the power of the client (customer demand for greater value and attention to specific needs);<br /><br />- position of the firm in the supply chain of its product (influences both the potential to offer services and the kinds of services offered);<br /><br />- the novelty of the products (novelty creates demands for training and information on product use);<br /><br />- cost considerations (the more expensive a product is, the more likely are clients to request maintenance services);<br /><br />- geographical proximity to final markets (the further away, the more likely are services such as maintenance to be added);<br /><br />- added functionality requirements (demand from customers for additions to basic products);<br /><br />- regulations and standards surrounding a product (which encourage provision of compliance services);<br /><br />- outsourcing (which encourages supplier firms to add services to their product).</ul><ul><li>This blurring of manufacturing and services affects the way enterprises structure their organisations and their relationships external to the firm. Successful product-service linkages are likely to require:<br /><br />- new and unusual mixes of managerial, technical and co-ordination skills;<br /><br />- stronger organisational capabilities in integrating products and services, and in redefining customer service;<br /><br />- movement away from traditional functional divisions based on production, sales, marketing, finance and the like;<br /><br />- increased proficiency in building and maintaining strategies for collaboration and external partnering;<br /><br />- greater cross-sectoral collaboration with the potential for more knowledge-sharing and innovation in the enterprises participating in these alliances.</li></ul><h4>Why is this important?</h4><ul><li>This study allows us to better understand the new business models and industry structures emerging in practice in Australia today, as enterprises seek to compete in an increasingly globalised and volatile business environment.</li><li>It provides a warning against making business strategy or public policy decisions based on a simplistic view of manufacturing in decline and services on the rise. The reality is more complex and blurred, where products and services are coming to resemble one another in a multiplicity of new competitive strategies being adopted both by manufacturing and service firms.</li><li>The convergence between products and services is making both manufacturing and service firms more knowledge-intensive and innovative. Devising new business offerings stretches the technical, managerial and marketing capabilities of firms, resulting in distinctive know-how and intelligence which in turn, drives their innovation and competitiveness.</li><li>This study explores the rich dynamic between manufacturing and services, so that we can better appreciate and foster these new competitive capabilities for Australia as the industrial age morphs into the new knowledge economy.</li></ul>

2007-10-17T12:24:05+08:00

false

true

false

Selling Solutions: Emerging Patterns of Product-Service Linkage in the Australian Economy

2002-02-15T00:00:00+08:00

This study was undertaken by the Australian Expert Group in Industry Studies (AEGIS) under the leadership of Professor Jane Marceau. It was funded by the Australian Research Council through a SPIRT grant and the Australian Business Foundation was the industry partner sponsoring the project.  The study confirmed that successful manufacturers were responding to increased competition in global markets by bundling together products and services into new innovative business offerings focused on solving customers' needs.  In the process, manufacturers and service providers were also generating new mixes of technical, managerial and collaboration skills and capabilities to sustain this competitive edge. 

2008-07-10T12:00:38+08:00

<h4>Purpose and Method </h4><p>This study aimed to provide an evaluation of the contributions made by foreign multinationals (foreign MNCs) to the Australian economy. Foreign MNCs include firms that integrate research, production and distribution across at least two countries but are headquartered outside Australia, as well as "multi-domestic firms" where the Australian subsidiary is simply a sales/marketing outlet controlled by head office. </p><p>The study was conducted during the first half of 2001 and was based on interviews with 30 foreign MNCs and a written survey of 56 smaller suppliers who had both foreign MNC and Australian customers. The key dimensions which were selected for examination were:</p><ul><li>The value chain, comprising suppliers, customers, and research and development (R&D).</li><li>Clustering and local integration.<strong> </strong></li><li>Strategic alliances, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions (M&As). </li><li>Knowledge networks and global knowledge management. </li><li>Decision-making and reporting within MNCs </li><li>E-commerce. </li></ul><h4>Impact of Foreign Firms </h4><p>Overall, we argue that the impacts of MNCs are positive, but there are a number of negative impacts. In summary, the negative impacts are as follows:</p><ul><li>Many sales and marketing MNCs have limited links to Australian firms and a restricted impact beyond direct employment and investment in infrastructure.</li><li>There may be limited R&D and limited links with institutions in the national innovation system.</li><li>Many MNC respondents were reducing manufacturing capacity and had restricted clustering with suppliers. </li></ul>There are some areas where the impacts are not clear. These include: <ul><li>Strategic alliances, restricted by low levels of R&D and limited manufacturing in most sectors. </li><li>The impact of e-commerce on relationships with suppliers and customers. At present MNCs' focus is on finding the right business model and on domestic experimentation with e-commerce projects.</li></ul>There are positive impacts gained from MNCs that have a significant role in product and service development at regional or global level. In summary there are: <ul><li>Benefits in employment and exports from significant RHQs, although these benefits may not persist in the longer term.</li><li>Significant and long term benefit through centres of excellence. These are integral to the global success of the foreign MNC. They require substantial investment and, once established, may be less subject to arbitrary decisions regarding their location. They may also have greater links with the national innovation system and may link Australia's research groups with global expertise. These links may in turn help the foreign subsidiary bid for further regional or global mandates.</li><li>Benefits also accrue when the foreign MNC has sufficient access to internal knowledge flows, especially if they performed R&D in Australia.</li><li>Transfer of knowledge and expertise from foreign MNCs to Australian suppliers. </li><li>Training and skill development for Australian staff of MNCs, through international transfers and formal training programs.</li><li>Testing of new products and services in Australia, providing opportunities for Australian suppliers to increase their technical capacity ahead of roll-out of these systems across the firm globally.</li></ul><p>MNCs that had a regional or global mandate were much more likely to export, work with customers, transfer technology to customers and be in control of product development than local mandate firms. Thus, they are likely to have a greater positive impact on the economy as a whole.</p><h4>Implications </h4><p>It is crucial for Australia to access new technologies and management know-how in order to be internationally competitive. A "go-it-alone" strategy is not an option if Australians are to maintain their current high standard of living. The main implications are:</p><ul><li>Australia must refocus investment attraction in order to increase the size and depth of knowledge-intensive MNC activities. Policy should favour centres of excellence. The key sectors where a focused effort may provide dividends include ICT, pharmaceuticals/ biotechnology, food, education and health.</li><li>Australia must promote a dual business culture to enhance its international competitiveness and promote itself as a site for testing new products and services;</li><li>Australia should focus on expanding the number and significance of MNC centres of excellence, rather than on attracting RHQs. The Federal and State governments should also support Australian-based CEOs wishing to expand the range of products and services of their Australian operations.</li><li>Australia should draw on MNCs for new skills and competencies and make it more attractive for expatriates to help to build Australian firms, by learning from the experience of other countries that have targeted the skills, personal networks and capital of their nationals located overseas</li><li>Australia should capitalise on MNCs as demanding customers and standard setters. Australian suppliers must aggressively seek MNCs as customers, even though the short-term costs of product and service certification may be high. These developments can be mediated through the firms themselves, through industry associations or through MNCs seeking to build supplier competencies.</li></ul>

2007-10-17T16:05:13+08:00

false

true

false

Friend or Foe? Leveraging Foreign Multinationals in the Australian Economy

2002-01-16T12:00:00+08:00

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal">To what degree do multinationals influence, either positively or negatively, the growth, capacity and skills of Australian firms?<span>  </span>This study found that multinationals are more friend than foe but that the relationship is fragile and firms and policy makers need to be smarter about engaging with them to maximise the benefits of access to global knowledge, skills and markets.<span>  </span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal">By being demanding customers, multinationals contribute to better quality products and services which are more sought after in global markets.<span>  </span>If firms and policy makers can encourage multinationals to set down deeper roots in research, innovation and product development here, Australian firms can continue to capitalise on skills and knowledge transfer for their own gain, and this investment will act as a magnet for further investment to encourage more sustainable relationships with multinational firms.</p>

<h5>1 Executive Summary </h5><h5>2 Context and Methodology </h5><ul>2.1 Introduction <br />2.2 Background <br />2.3 Why Foreign MNCs Are Important to Australia <br />2.4 Methodology <br />2.5 Limitations and Strengths of Study </ul><h5>3 Approaches to Measuring Host Economy Integration </h5><ul>3.1 Introduction <br />3.2 Value chain <br />3.3 Clustering and Local Integration <br />3.4 Strategic Alliances, Joint Ventures, Mergers and Acquisitions <br />3.5 Knowledge Networks and Global Knowledge Management <br />3.6 Decision-making and Reporting Within MNCs <br />3.7 The Impact of E-commerce <br />3.8 A Model for Measuring Integration </ul><h5>4 An Overview of Foreign MNCs in Australia </h5><ul>4.1 Introduction <br />4.2 Australia Has More Foreign Investment Inflows than Outflows <br />4.3 Net Inflows Create Jobs <br />4.4 US and UK Dominate as Sources of FDI <br />4.5 Service Sectors are Increasing in Importance <br />4.6 We Know Little About Relationships in the Value Chain <br />4.7 Reasons for Clustering are Unknown <br />4.8 Australia Has a Role in Global Alliances <br />4.9 Acquisitions Appear to Be Major Entry Mode <br />4.10 Foreign MNCs May Be Excluded from Global Knowledge Networks <br />4.11 Internal Competition within MNCs Influences Local Activities <br />4.12 E-Commerce Impacts on Relationships Between MNCs and SMEs is Unknown <br />4.13 Conclusions </ul><h5>5 Impact of Foreign Firms </h5><ul>5.1 Contribution To Building Australia's Capabilities And Critical Mass <br />5.2 Contribution To Australia's Global Reach <br />5.3 Contributions To Skills and Knowledge <br />5.4 Balance of Positive and Negative Impacts <br />5.5 Conclusions </ul><h5>6 Implications</h5><blockquote><p>6.1 Role of MNCs in the global and Australian economy <br />6.2 Refocus Investment Attraction <br />6.3 Leverage Australia's Business Culture Strengths <br />6.4 Create Regional and Global Centres of Excellence <br />6.5 Draw on MNCs for New Skills and Competencies <br />6.6 Capitalise on MNCs as Demanding Customers and Standard Setters <br />6.7 Conclusions <br />7 References </p></blockquote><h5>8 Appendices </h5>

2008-07-11T12:30:15+08:00

<h4>Key Points</h4><p>The Australian wine industry has experienced remarkable change since the mid-1980s. In the mid 1980s, Australia exported 2% of total production and was a net importer of wine. Since this time, industry performance has been spectacular. Exports now total 32% of total production (compared to 17% for the major producers, France and Italy). Australia produces only 2% of world wine, but now holds 2.4% of the world wine market by volume and 3.5% by value.</p><p>Industry collaboration has facilitated, or contributed to, the industry's general engagement with international markets and reinforced its commitment to innovation. In the process, the wine industry has transformed itself. It has ceased to be composed solely of rivalrous, competitive firms. Fierce competitive rivalry between individual producers persists. But this has been supplemented by industry collaboration around matters of shared concern. The industry has raised its level of integration and is developing into a knowledge-driven cluster.</p><p>Natural advantages still count. But humanly created advantages predominate. These have been amplified through collaborative action. A combination of collaboration and competition has replaced solely competitive relationships. This combination has been decisive in sustained success. </p><p>Specifically the study address three questions: </p><ul><li>What are the lessons for other business areas where similar international orientations need to be cultivated? </li><li>What are the lessons for other areas where the transforming application of knowledge and innovation is essential to growth and competitive success? </li><li>Can public policy contribute to these outcomes?</li></ul><p>The Australian wine industry experience demonstrates conclusively the synergies that can be gained, and the energies that can be liberated, through a combination of collaboration and competition. It illustrates the challenge in sustaining collaboration - as a complement to, and facilitator of, competitive strengths amongst producers. </p><p>This experience has important lessons for other Australian sectors - and for government. </p><ul><li>One possibility is for groups of firms to emulate the wine industry approach. Other clusters or industries could act in concert to enhance their own efforts at marketing, innovation and overall industry strategy. </li><li>Another possibility is for industry associations to act as change agents. They could help their member businesses identify the additional competitive synergies available through collaboration and put in place the mechanisms to allow firms to pursue joint endeavours and strategic alliances. </li><li>Finally, the wine industry also suggests a catalytic role for government in encouraging other sectors to collaborate, to identify new opportunities, and to enhance their own performance.</li></ul><p>Well orchestrated collaboration offers a way to create an 'export culture.' It offers a way to identify shared economic interests and to overcome otherwise prohibitive transaction costs. It shows how clusters can ground their continued growth and success on distant markets and on innovation. </p><p>The approach adopted in the wine industry suggests a pattern for other Australian sectors. It shows how static commodity or production focused businesses might be renewed - through the synergies of association that enhance the competitive power of human creativity and ambition.</p>

2007-10-17T16:08:53+08:00

false

true

false

Australia's Wine Industry: Collaboration & Learning as Causes of Competitive Success

2000-05-16T12:00:00+08:00

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal">No one can deny the global competitive success of the Australian wine industry, going from net importer to renowned exporter of high quality wines in just over a decade.<span>   </span>But what are the ingredients of this success?<span>  </span>Paradoxically, the ability to build premium global brands from formerly domestic commodity products has been the result of extensive collaboration among competitors in the industry.<span>  </span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt" class="MsoNormal">Through deliberate strategic planning, the industry shifted orientation towards global markets, evidenced by a large number of firms participating in export markets. <span> </span>By harnessing knowledge within the industry, firms can embrace technical innovations in production, enabling them to respond quickly to changing tastes and demands from the diverse global market.<span>  </span>While strategic collaboration has provided the framework for success, ongoing engagement as an industry of diverse competitors is required to sustain a competitive advantage.<span>  </span><span> </span></p>

2008-07-10T18:51:18+08:00

<h4>Key Points</h4><p>Recognising that economic development increasingly relies on innovation, the Australian Business Foundation commissioned the present study to monitor further Australia's innovation performance, building on the findings of the Foundation's inaugural report, The High Road or the Low Road: Alternatives for Australia's Future?, published in 1997. </p><p>The current report provides a brief overview of key indicators of innovation, with particular emphasis on data that have emerged since the original study. A broad range of indicators is used in order to compensate for the limitations of individual indicators, to emphasise non-R&D measures of innovation and to examine performance in different aspects of the innovation process.<br />The indicators reviewed are: </p><ul><li>innovation propensities and expenditure; </li><li>R&D expenditure and employment; </li><li>training and skills; </li><li>venture capital; </li><li>machinery and equipment investment; </li><li>industry structure; and </li><li>trade patterns. </li></ul><p>Innovation depends on a series of different investments and activities undertaken by businesses and occurs within a framework of institutions and organisations which lie partly in the private and partly in the public sector. These include knowledge-generating and diffusion organisations and regulatory frameworks which together form what has become known as a country's National System of Innovation.</p><p>This report focuses only on innovation investments made within the private sector. The spotlight is on Australian businesses, although this in part relies on a public policy environment conducive to private sector innovation.</p><p>There are four key areas where Australia has performed relatively well over recent years:</p><ul><li>Knowledge-Based Service Industries </li><li>Machinery and Equipment Investment </li><li>Venture Capital Investment </li><li>High Skilled Jobs</li></ul><p>These trends, if continued, will help generate an industry structure better equipped to capture value from Australia's knowledge-base. In respect of these indicators, Australia seems to be developing a more sustainable development path – one more likely to pay higher wages, in return for higher levels of innovation and productivity. </p><h4>This report finds that Australia's innovation performance over the 1990s has been mixed. </h4><p>The report uncovered five particularly concerning negative trends in the following areas:</p><ul><li>Innovation Rates </li><li>R&D Personnel and Expenditure Levels </li><li>Australian Management Skills </li><li>Size of the Manufacturing Sector </li><li>Training Commitment</li></ul>On balance, therefore, Australia's innovation performance has not been up to world class standards over the past few years.

2007-10-17T16:14:20+08:00

false

true

false

Innovation Checkpoint 1999: Innovation in Australian Businesses

1999-12-16T12:00:00+08:00

<p>This report was commissioned by the Australian Business Foundation to check on Australia's innovation performance, particularly since the publication of the Foundation’s inaugural report <em>The High Road or the Low Road? Alternatives for Australia’s Future</em> in 1997.</p>

<h4>Figures and Tables</h4><h4>Preface </h4><h4>Executive Summary</h4><h4>Introduction</h4><h4>Section 1: Innovation Propensities and Expenditure</h4><h4>Section 2: Business Research and Development Expenditure</h4><h4>Section 3: Business Employment in Research and Development</h4><h4>Section 4: Training and Skills</h4><h4>Section 5: Venture Capital</h4><h4>Section 6: Machinery and Equipment Investment</h4><h4>Section 7: Industry Structure</h4><h4>Section 8: Trade Patterns</h4><h4>Conclusions</h4><h4>Appendix A: OECD Technology Classification of Manufacturing Industries</h4><h4>Appendix B: Commonwealth Government Support for Higher Education Research</h4><h4>Bibliography</h4>

2008-07-10T18:54:42+08:00

<p><tbody></tbody></p><h4>Key Points</h4><p>In the Asia-Pacific region, some outstanding successes have been registered in advanced technological fields. The case of Taiwan, which has risen to become the world's third largest producer of IT hardware and fourth largest producer of semiconductors, is striking. Singapore too has grown from a poverty stricken former colony to a technology powerhouse, based on judicious attraction of multinational investment and relentless attention to industrial upgrading. Both these cases in Australia's region are all the more striking in that these countries have come through the recent Asian financial crisis more or less intact, suffering a downturn only due to their regional exposure. This means that their technologically sophisticated firms have come through the toughest test of all -- a major economic recession in the region -- and been found resilient and robust. </p><p>The lesson to be drawn from this is not that these firms were 'special' in some way, but that they drew strength from their institutional environment, which had been created painstakingly, and renovated and upgraded, continuously over the preceding decade. This study draws on the experience of firms in Taiwan and Singapore, within these institutions and policy frameworks, with a view to formulating some general conclusions as to what kinds of industrial institutional frameworks best suit highly innovative firms. </p><p>The study finds that the key to the successful restructuring and upgrading engaged in by firms in Singapore and Taiwan, lies in the institutional environment which shapes their decisions. Both countries have fashioned a set of institutions which drive firms in these economies towards an outward, export orientation and towards endless technological upgrading -- rather than allowing firms to take the easy option of competing on the basis of cost minimisation. The institutions found in these countries shape firms' decisions along the following lines.</p><ul><li>Technology leverage </li><li>Financial leverage </li><li>Nurturing environment for the formation of knowledge-intensive firms </li><li>Industry cluster strategies </li><li>Investment attracting vehicles </li><li>Industrial upgrading incentives and discipline </li><li>Industry self-organisation </li><li>Skills upgrading and technical training </li><li>Market shaping and creation </li><li>Export promotion </li><li>Lead agency</li></ul><p>The key to the overall success of the institutional frameworks in Taiwan and Singapore is that they operate not just as individual elements but in a co-ordinated fashion, with a strategic lead being provided by a lead agency - in Taiwan's case, the Council for Economic Planning and Development and in Singapore's case, the Economic Development Board. It is in this systemic co-ordination that the principal institutional capacity of these East Asian technologically upgrading economies resides. </p><p>In short, it is firms which generate the wealth in Singapore and Taiwan and they do so through making their own strategic decisions. But they operate within an institutional environment which biases them towards investing in strategically important industries, and in technological upgrading, that has the effect of enlarging their strategic options. </p><p>There are no cultural impediments to Australia learning institutional lessons from these successes in our Asia-Pacific neighbours. This study is designed to contribute to the development of such a comparative perspective on the tasks of institution building in Australia in the early years of the 21st century. </p>

2007-10-17T16:51:05+08:00

false

true

false

Encouraging Knowledge-Intensive Industries: What Australia Can Draw From The Industrial Upgrading Experiences of Taiwan and Singapore

1999-08-01T00:00:00+08:00

<p>This report describes and analyzes the industrial and technological upgrading practices of firms and public institutions in Singapore and Taiwan. These two nations are of particular interest because they have weathered the recent Asian financial crisis well. Their institutional strategies are robust and have important lessons for other countries, including Australia.</p>

<h5>Foreword</h5><h5>Executive Summary</h5><h5>1. Introduction: What is there to learn from Asia in 1999</h5><h5>2. Industrial upgrading in Taiwan</h5><h5>3. Case study: Taiwan's innovation alliances</h5><h5>4. Industrial upgrading in Singapore</h5><h5>5. Case study: Singapore's cluster development strategies</h5><h5>6. Common institutional elements: Industrial upgrading and institutional learning</h5><h5>7. Concluding remarks: A way forward for Australian firms and institutions</h5>

2007-10-29T15:28:07+09:00

The Australian Business Foundation chose the scenario planning tool to help make sense of how the future could pan out for businesses, and to assist all those involved to anticipate and adapt to change, whether it is an unpredictable external shock or an as yet unimagined new opportunity.<br /><br />The critical questions addressed by the Australian Business Foundation in this project were: <ul><li>what are the alternative, plausible scenarios for the future of business in Australia? and </li><li>what are the most robust strategies, based on these scenarios, that maximise our ability to generate wealth and jobs, to integrate into global markets and to contribute to a rising standard of living for the Australian community as a whole?</li></ul>The summary report of the <strong>Alternative Futures: Scenarios for Business in Australia to the Year 2015 </strong>details the four alternative scenarios that were developed.<br /><br />After considering many different drivers of change, trends, forces and uncertainties, we came up with four possible worlds. Each worldview, or scenario, is independent from the others, although they all share common ground. The common ground included trends like the growth of information and telecommunications technology, globalisation of financial markets, and the advent of new technologies, as described above. We understood that a precondition for our future was an accelerating pace of change, and change of fundamental significance to business and society. We recognised the power of the complex interactions between people, technologies and the consumer drivers of technology applications, and the ramifications of these interactions for how businesses compete for the customer. We understood the importance of the opening Chinese economy, with its formidable ability to manufacture and supply large volumes of products at low cost and high speed into world markets, and its increasing ability to utilise high technology and achieve high quality. And we factored in demographic changes at home and abroad.<br /><ul>1. <strong>First Global Nation </strong>describes a successful Australia which adapts with flair and flexibility to the globalisation of world business and the challenges of an online knowledge economy. <br />2. <strong>Sound the Retreat </strong>sees a world in which geopolitical instability and cultural and social backlash override the benefits of economic globalisation, forcing Australia to revalue its bilateral business relationships as multilateral ones became impossible.<br />3. <strong>Brave Old World</strong> is a picture of Australia where our comfortable lifestyles, economic performance, adequate social security systems and laconic approach to the future conceal the need for strategic and concerted effort to make the transition to the global knowledge economy until it is too late.<br />4. <strong>Green is Gold </strong>looks at how global agreements on environmental management imperatives play out in Australia for business and the community at large. </ul><p>By 2015, of course, the world will have evolved rather differently from any one of the 1999 scenarios. There is no such thing as an infallible forecast. But understanding each of the worlds created here will help us come to terms with the complexities of living and working in the present.<br /><br />The full report of <strong>Alternative Futures: Scenarios for Business in Australia to the Year 2015</strong> outlines in detail each of the steps used to develop the four alternative scenarios of Australia. The value of the full report is in its intricate account of the systematic process and methodologies used in scenario planning. <br /><br />Fashioning these alternative scenarios is just the first step. The intention is to provoke reactions and thoughtful commentary from the widest possible range of audiences throughout Australia.<br />People are asked to reflect on three key questions:</p><ol><li>How robust or at risk is Australia, given these scenarios?</li><li>What are the critical responses Australia needs to make?</li><li>What do you and your sector/business/organisation/community need to do?</li></ol><h4>Why Scenario Planning</h4><p>Scenario planning is a tool used by many businesses to develop creative responses to existing and future challenges. This project is about looking beyond the bottom line, beyond the end of the next financial year, beyond the annual report to shareholders. It is about Australians, and especially those involved in business in Australia, engaging intellectually with possibilities for the future, and coming up with responses that can shape that future. <br /><br />This project was not undertaken with the aim of removing doubt, nor of predicting the future, nor even of wanting to 'get it right'. Rather, it was designed to help those involved with business in Australia — governments, investors, consumers, the young, educationalists, families and employees — to think more deeply about the role of business in Australia's future and to create sustainable strategies for business and social success. These scenarios on alternatives for business in Australia focus specifically on building views of the future which address the question: <strong>what can we do to maximise our ability to generate wealth and jobs, to integrate into global markets, and to contribute to a rising standard of living for the Australian community as a whole?</strong></p><h4>The Process</h4><p>Developing the scenarios involved research, consultation, analysis and commentary from a wide range of business, social and educational specialists. The scenarios were many months in the making and represent the distillation of material gathered through media monitoring, literature searches, research, opinion sampling, interviews with experts and focus groups.</p><p>To answer the question posed above, a key step was identifying the 'drivers of change', both for Australia and globally. Once these drivers had been identified, we could then move on to look at how these drivers might affect Australia into the future (in this case, 15 years into the future). This brought us to an examination of the four scenarios presented here, and hopefully the development of new ideas and approaches which can enable Australia as a community to achieve not only the most productive future for business in Australia, but the one that delivers the greatest benefits for all Australians.</p><h4>Drivers for change</h4><p>In undertaking this project, we considered many trends, forces for change and critical uncertainties: the 'drivers for change'. These are both factors which are operating now and those which are foreseeable over the next 15 years.</p><p><strong>Australia as a taker rather than shaper</strong><br /><strong>Globalisation and economic reform</strong><br /><strong>Environment and sustainability</strong><br /><strong>Technology and the interconnected world</strong><br /><strong>Knowledge economy and innovation</strong><br /><strong>Australian economic and social policies</strong></p><p>The Australian Business Foundation, in initiating this alternative business scenarios project, sought to achieve the following: </p><ul><li>add more substance to our knowledge about possible futures for Australian business and so enhance our ability to create a more prosperous Australia with benefits for all; </li><li>dramatically expand the debate and the mindsets about the best economic and industry policy settings needed for Australia to compete globally; </li><li>provide business with more knowledge to underpin their risk management and strategic planning decisions and their assessments of opportunities for new markets, technological advances and further market penetration; and </li><li>contribute a thoughtful and cogent business perspective to dialogues in the media and the wider community about the kind of society we want to create as we approach a new century and a new millennium. </li></ul>

2007-10-09T12:29:00+08:00

false

true

false

Alternative Futures: Scenarios for Business in Australia to the Year 2015

1999-01-16T12:00:00+08:00

Four alternative futures for Australian businesses

2008-07-10T19:22:43+08:00

<p>The study is divided into three parts, </p><ul><li><strong>Part One</strong> is a literature review which canvasses alternative intellectual approaches to economic development, based on innovation and knowledge as the drivers of growth.</li><li><strong>Part Two</strong> assesses the shape, structure and dynamics of Australian industry against the factors associated with the "learning" economy, particularly innovation capacity, business linkages, management depth, use and transfer of technology and workforce skills.</li><li><strong>Part Three</strong> draws on the findings of the earlier parts and indicates some directions for public policy which all concerned with economic growth in Australia should urgently consider.</li></ul><p>The study draws heavily on the work of the OECD on innovation-based approaches to economic development. The theoretical roots of this report lie in New Growth Theories, Strategic Trade theory and evolutionary economics.</p><p>The short-hand term we use is the "knowledge" or "learning economy", the features of which are an emphasis on the use and dissemination of information and technological progress as the basis for innovation, competitiveness and growth. The critical factor is a nation's ability to innovate and to do so on a continuing basis.</p><p>The research finds that economic success in the future is more likely with a pattern of economic activity and an industry structure that maximises innovation, learning, knowledge creation and dissemination. Firms in these economies are less obsessed with scale and cost, and more concerned about non-price competitive advantage gained from creative uses of information, technology, strategic linkages and skills.</p><p>Consequently, the policy challenge is to ensure that what we make and what we trade as a nation is well-represented in economic activity that is high return, knowledge intensive, high growth and globally competitive.</p><p>Part Two details a new way of looking at Australia's capability and performance, with particular regard to,<br />Industry Shares, Concentration and Linkages</p><ul><li>Skills, Employment and Wages</li><li>Innovation Performance</li><li>Trade Patterns</li></ul><p><strong>A selection of the main findings follow:</strong></p><ul><li>Australia's manufacturing sector has contracted in relative terms at the fastest rate across the OECD economies and it seems Australian manufacturing is in general not gaining employment in industries with higher R&D intensities, contrary to OECD trends.</li><li>The linkages within and between industries in our economy are shrinking, a trend inconsistent with the characteristics of an innovative, learning economy.</li><li>There appears to have been little net increase in value-adding to our natural resources since the mid 1970s.</li><li>Many of Australia's industries are increasingly concentrated, with already 0.4% of businesses employing nearly 40% of all workers. The position of SME's versus large firms is likely to deteriorate in the absence of greater networking and use of cooperative arrangements, and wages and working conditions in SME's are likely to come under increasing pressure.</li><li>Australian business R&D expenditure is below OECD averages but has grown faster than the OECD countries since the introduction of the 150% tax concession. Most R&D take up has been in the medium-low and low-tech sectors of manufacturing. Australia's services sector R&D rates highest in the OECD.</li><li>Australia's overall internationally poor R&D performance is largely the result of our industrial structure which is concentrated in low-tech industries.</li><li>Manufacturing has been measured as one of the most innovative sectors of the economy. Innovative firms tend to show better performance in sales and export growth.</li><li>Australia's trade structure has serious built-in negative biases, like our poor and deteriorating terms of trade, costs of investment in productive equipment imports, etc. </li></ul><p><strong>There are 10 policy pathways for Australia if we wish to take the high road not the low road. These are:-</strong></p><ul><li>Acknowledge the importance of the structure of the Australian economy. </li><li>Integrate trade and industry policies. </li><li>Shift the economy towards greater knowledge and innovation intensity. </li><li>Improve cooperation and linkages. </li><li>Target key productivity drivers. </li><li>Ensure programs are performance-based. </li><li>Build global distribution channels and capability. </li><li>Invest in education and research infrastructure and training. </li><li>Focus public policy and private sector attention on innovation and knowledge as the bases of competition. </li><li>Deal with real industries and their dynamics.</li></ul>

2007-10-17T17:50:22+08:00

102

false

true

false

The High Road or the Low Road: Alternatives for Australia's Future

1997-08-16T12:00:00+08:00

<h3>SUMMARY REPORT: Table of Contents</h3><p><strong>Background<br />Introduction</strong></p><h4>Part One: Economic Growth in Modern Western Economies</h4><p><strong>Theoretical Background</strong></p><ul><li><div>The Neoclassical Approach</div></li><li><div>The Evolutionary Approach</div></li></ul><p><strong>The New Economy</strong></p><ul><li><div>Learning Economies</div></li><li><div>Learning Firms</div></li><li><div>Networking</div></li><li><div>National Innovation Systems</div></li><li><div>The Importance of Industrial and Trade Structures</div></li><li><div>Summary of the Main Points From the Literature</div></li></ul><p><strong>The Importance of Industrial and Trade Structures<br />Summary of the Main Points From the Literature</strong></p><h4>Part Two: Australia in a High Tech World</h4><p><strong>Australia's Industrial Composition and Linkages</strong><br />The Role of Manufacturing<br />Industry Concentration<br />Cooperation and Networking<br />Industrial Structure and Input-Output data<br /><strong>Human Capital: Skills, Wages and Employment</strong><br />Management Skills<br />Scientists and Engineers<br />Trainaing<br />Employment and Wage Trends<br /><strong>Australian Industry Innovation</strong><br />R&D Expenditure<br />Other Innovation Measures<br /><strong>Productivitiy Growth<br />Australia's Trade Patterns<br />Summary of Australia's ProblemsPart Three: The Way Forward</strong></p><p><strong>Path One:</strong> Acknowledge the importnace of the structure of the Australian Economy<br /><strong>Path Two:</strong> Integrate trade and Industry policies<br /><strong>Path Three:</strong> Shift the economy towards greater knowledge and innovation intensity<br /><strong>Path Four:</strong> Improve the operation of business networks<br /><strong>Path Five: </strong>Target key productivity drivers<br /><strong>Path Six:</strong> Ensure programs are performance-based<br /><strong>Path Seven: </strong>Build global distribution channels<br /><strong>Path Eight:</strong> Invest in education and research infrastructure and training<br /><strong>Path Nine:</strong> Focus attention on innovation and knowledge as the bases of competition<br /><strong>Path Ten:</strong> Seal with real industries and their dynamics<br /><strong>Concluding Remarks</strong></p><p><strong>Figures and Tables</strong></p><p><strong>Figure 1</strong> Percentage Change in Manufacturing Share of GDP, Various OECD Countries, 1970-90<br /><strong>Figure 2</strong> Industry Employment Growth 1985-95 v. Industry Innovation Propensity<br /><strong>Figure 3</strong> Industry Employment Growth 1985-95 v. Industry Wage Rate<br /><strong>Figure 4</strong> Industry Employment Growth 1985-95 v. Industry Training Commitment<br /><strong>Figure 5</strong> Industry Employment Growth 1985-95 v. Industry Productivity<br /><strong>Figure 6</strong> Australian Business R&D as % GDP<br /><strong>Figure 7</strong> Australian Machinery & Equipment Investment as % GDP<br /><strong>Figure 8</strong> Change in Equipment Capital Stock* per Worker 1965-90<br /><strong>Figure 9</strong> Non-Manufactures Trade Surplus v. Manufactures Trade Deficit % GDP<br /><strong>Figure 10</strong> Australian Manufacturing Trade Balance by Knowledge Intensity (% GDP)<br /><strong>Figure 11 </strong>Manufactures Trade Deficit by Technology Classification Various OECD Countries, % GDP, 1992</p><p>Table 1 Growth in Australian Employment by Beoad Occupational Group, 1986-96</p><h3>FULL REPORT: Table of Contents</h3><h4>Part One Dynamics and Capabilities of Modern Western Economies</h4><p><strong>Introduction</strong><br /><strong>Chapter One: Summary of Traditional Approaches To Economic Growth and Trade</strong></p><ol><li><div>The Traditional Growth Model</div></li><li><div>Problems with the Traditional Model</div></li><li><div>New Neoclassical Growth Theories</div></li><li><div>Implications of the New Growth Theories for Public Policy</div></li><li><div>Limitations to New Growth Theory Approaches</div></li><li><div>Classical & Neoclassical Theories of Trade</div></li><li><div>Problems with the Standard Trade Models</div></li><li><div>Strategic Trade Theory</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><p><strong>Chapter Two: Innovation-Based Approaches to Industrial Development</strong></p><ol><li><div>Background</div></li><li><div>Evolutionary Analysis</div></li><li><div>Models of the Innovation Process</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><p><strong>Chapter Three: Knowledge Generation, Diffusions and Use</strong></p><ol><li><div>Background</div></li><li><div>Networked Nations</div></li><li><div>The Generators of Innovation: Firms & their National Support Systems</div></li><li><div>Path Dependence, Cumulative Change & Industrial Structure</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><p><strong>Chapter Four: The Learning Economy</strong></p><ol><li><div>Background</div></li><li><div>Knowledge & Learning</div></li><li><div>Complementary Assets</div></li><li><div>Learning & Management</div></li><li><div>Knowledge Distribution Power</div></li><li><div>Technological Infrastructure</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><p><strong>Chapter Five: Internationalisation & Human Resources</strong></p><ol><li><div>Trade Liberalisation and the Learning Economy</div></li><li><div>Human Resources: Knowledge, Employment & Wages</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><p><strong>Chapter Six: Conclusions: Industrial Structure & the Learning Economy</strong></p><ol><li><div>The National Level</div></li><li><div>The Industry Level</div></li><li><div>The Firm Level</div></li><li><div>Moving to a New Economic System</div></li><li><div>Where to Next?</div></li></ol><h4>Part Two Australia in a High Tech World</h4><p><strong>Introduction</strong><br /><strong>Chapter Seven: The Industrial Structure of the Australian Economy</strong></p><ol><li><div>Industry Shares</div></li><li><div>Employment Shares</div></li><li><div>Cooperative Business Linkages</div></li><li><div>User-Producer Relations</div></li><li><div>Industry Concentration</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><p><strong>Chapter Eight: Human Resources: Skills, Employment & Wages</strong></p><ol><li><div>Management Skills</div></li><li><div>Science Skills</div></li><li><div>Employee Skills, Wages & Employment</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><p><strong>Chapter Nine: Australian Industry Innovation</strong></p><ol><li><div>Business Research & Development</div></li><li><div>Other Measures of Innovation</div></li><li><div>Innovation and Firm Performance</div></li><li><div>Australian Innovation Compared</div></li><li><div>Australian Productivity Growth</div></li><li><div>Machinery & Equipment Investment</div></li><li><div>Infrastructure</div></li><li><div>Human Resources Management Programs</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><p><strong>Chapter Ten: Australia's Trade Patterns</strong></p><ol><li><div>Trade and the Learning Economy</div></li><li><div>Australia's Trade Patterns Described</div></li><li><div>Australia's Trade Patterns in a 'Learning Economy' Context</div></li><li><div>Conclusions</div></li></ol><h4>Part Three The Way Forward</h4><p><strong>Chapter Eleven: Policies and Pathways</strong><br /><strong>Pathway One:</strong> Acknowledge the importance of the structure of the Australian economy<br /><strong>Pathway Two:</strong> Integrate trade and industry policies<br /><strong>Pathway Three:</strong> Shift the economy towards greater knowledge and innovation intensity<br /><strong>Pathway Four:</strong> Improve cooperation and linkages<br /><strong>Pathway Five:</strong> Target key productivity drivers<br /><strong>Pathway Six:</strong> Ensure programs are performance based<br /><strong>Pathway Seven:</strong> Build global distribution channels and capability<br /><strong>Pathway Eight:</strong> Invest in education and research infrastructure and training<br /><strong>Pathway Nine:</strong> Focus public and private sector attention on innovation and knowledge as the bases of competition<br /><strong>Pathway Ten:</strong> Deal with real industries and their dynamics</p>

2007-10-29T17:56:13+09:00

The Australian Business Foundation sought to assess and report on the following issues: <ul><li>analyse the extent to which investments in high value added, knowledge intensive industries can generate higher economic growth and sustainable employment opportunities, both directly and indirectly; </li><li>assess Australia's potential for creating more and better jobs from a greater investment in knowledge intensive activities; </li><li>examine why Australia may fall short of our potential in these areas, given our skill endowments and market characteristics; and </li><li>derive some implications which could assist policy makers.</li></ul>The study provides an input into the development of a policy environment which can maximise the creation of sustainable jobs in more modern, high value added industries. Such a policy approach is required to meet community concerns about jobless growth and rising levels of unemployment fuelled by the tendency in the more mature parts of industry for productivity growth to outrun output growth leading to higher output but few jobs.<br /><br />This study draws out from a reasonably broad based survey of companies operating in high growth and knowledge intensive industries, a better understanding of the potential these industries have to grow and provide high quality sustainable jobs. <br /><br />The research concentrates on high growth firms and knowledge intensive industries, and examines their performance with respect to growth in output, exports and jobs. It also sought to identify the factors underlying competitive advantages; potential for future growth and sustainable job creation; and the elements in the policy environment which nurture growth in these industries. The industries we have concentrated on are:<br /><ul><li>information technology (including software) and telecommunications; </li><li>pharmaceuticals; </li><li>medical and scientific instruments; </li><li>machine tools and tooling; </li><li>automotive (including design); and </li><li>shipbuilding (specialist vessels). </li></ul><p>These industries are all relatively knowledge-intensive and have primarily grown through export growth and provide high quality jobs. In general these industries employ highly skilled people not just in their product development, engineering and design, but also increasingly in production. They account for over half of total business expenditure on research and development (R&D) and over one third of exports of elaborately transformed manufactures (ETMs).</p><h3>The Winning Companies</h3><p>Within these industries we have focused our attention on a group of companies which demonstrated 'winning companies.' They share a set of common characteristics: </p><ul><li>they operate in fields characterised by high returns and growth; </li><li>they have demonstrated a high capacity for innovation; </li><li>they rely on technology and 'brainpower' as a source of competitiveness; and </li><li>they have shown that they can succeed in global and regional markets.</li></ul>The companies we surveyed have a very distinctive view of the basis of their competitive advantages. The emphasis is on delivering greater value to customers than their competitors rather than producing standardised products at low prices. They gave top rating to the following four factors: <ul><li>technology; </li><li>R&D; </li><li>quality; and </li><li>workforce skills.</li></ul><p>Low costs were important, but were not seen as being a key source of sustainable competitive advantage. The winning companies have adopted a high focus niche market approach. They have sought leadership through concentrating their efforts on mastering a small number of products, services and processes. </p><h3>Winning Companies - key characteristics</h3><p>High focus - niche strategy</p><ol><li>Innovation - rapid product development</li><li>People are the key resources</li><li>Close relationships with leading edge customers</li><li>Strategic alliances for technology, manufacturing and marketing</li><li>Close linkages to the science and technology base</li><li>Capturing the value chain</li><li>Mandates for MNCs subsidiaries</li><li>Growth through exports</li><li>Exploiting opportunities in Asia</li></ol>On the basis of our survey and interviews with the winning companies, we consider that a set of policies is needed to nurture the winning companies and the high growth and knowledge intensive industries of which they are such an important part in order that they can achieve their full potential as contributors to economic growth and job creation. Some elements of such a policy framework are already present but others are either inadequate to the task or are not present. <br /><br />The measures needed include: <ul><li>A Vision for the Development of High Growth and Knowledge Intensive Industries </li><li>Support for R&D and Innovation </li><li>Support for Investment </li><li>Support for Exports</li></ul>

2007-10-17T17:48:36+08:00

101

false

true

false

Winning Companies and Jobs

1997-07-16T12:00:00+08:00

2007-10-29T17:43:47+09:00

<h4>Key Points </h4><p><strong></strong>In commissioning this paper, the Australian Business Foundation was keen to learn from the experience of governments outside Australia in mounting efforts to grow jobs and investment in their economies in the face of poorly performing industries, record job-shedding and crises of competitiveness. This research paper critically analyses the Jobs and Investment Strategies of the Canadian governments of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario.</p><p>The investigations undertaken by Professor Drache on the jobs and investment strategies of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario were seen as appropriate source material, not only because of the similarities in the economic and social base of Australia and Canada, but also because they provided one of the few insights into actions taken by sub-national, or State, governments on those issues. </p><p>The hypothesis of this report is that how a government proceeds to plan and invest has become as important as any set of dedicated measures it adopts to enhance job and employment creation.</p><p>The case presented is that British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, three of Canada's leading provincial governments and accounting for almost eighty percent of GDP, have developed highly contrasting policy approaches to skills training, investing in infrastructure and innovation systems and building private-public partnerships. Moreover, their recent experience contains <strong>valuable lessons for other State governments that want to </strong><strong>innovate and strengthen their economic performance</strong>. The study also explains that a jobs and investment strategy remains an essential tool to help communities and sectors of the economy cope with new competitive pressures.</p><p>Finally, this study assesses the effectiveness of these policy instruments. The author contends that<strong> jobs and investment strategies are not instant policy panaceas</strong> that can reverse long-term problems found in the industrial fabric of a regional economy overnight. </p><p>The first issue to be addressed is how effective has Ontario's, Quebec's and British Columbia's jobs and investment strategy been? Next, what has worked in each model and what shortcomings have emerged once these policies have been adopted? Finally, what lessons can be drawn for other jurisdictions such as Australia, that share with Canada a similar resource-based economy, a small but mature industrial sector, a growing technology deficit and a long-standing commitment to trade liberalisation? For instance, is it possible to identify some of the most important conditions of a successful jobs and investment strategy that other public policy-makers would find instructive if they were to engage in a similar exercise? Why do these policies run the risk of going off the rails? Is there an optimal model? The place to begin, however, requires examining the new circumstances that are causing States to commit public resources for big picture employment and investment initiatives. </p><p>The experience of the Canadian authorities teaches three lessons,</p><ol><li>First is that government programs are never sufficient to protect a region from industrial decline and the loss of competitiveness.</li><li>Secondly, the success of a jobs and investment program depends to a very large degree upon the dominant firm's regional strategy and the way sectors are organised at the industry level.<strong> </strong></li><li>Thirdly, faced with these radically altered circumstances, governments have to learn to do more with fewer resources. </li></ol>

2007-10-17T16:54:04+08:00

100

false

true

false

Jobs and Investment Strategies: The Challenge for Policy Makers

1997-07-01T00:00:00+08:00

This research paper critically analyses the Jobs and Investment Strategies of the Canadian governments of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario.

<h5>Preface</h5><h4>Executive Summary</h4><h4>Introduction</h4><h4>1. Jobs Strategies: Investing in the Future</h4><ul><li>What's Included in a Jobs and Investment Strategy?</li><li>Choosing the Right Model</li></ul><h4>2. Regional Jobs and Investment Strategies in Canada: Three Contrasting Models</h4><h5>A. The British Columbia Jobs and Investment Strategy: Democratising Rents</h5><ul><li>Context and Background: Where the BC Economy is Headed</li><li>BC21: Core Elements and Policy Instruments</li><li>"The Crowns": Another Powerful Instrument</li><li>Forest Renewal</li><li>Strengths and Weaknesses: The Challenge to Diversify</li></ul><h5>B. Quebec: A Cluster Competitiveness Strategy</h5><ul><li>Context and Background</li><li>Quebec's Cluster Strategy: Principal Elements</li><li>Science and Technology Initiatives</li><li>Investing in the Information Highway</li><li>Tax Credits: Are they Worth the Money?</li><li>Job Creation: An Uneven Record</li></ul><h5>C. The Ontario Model: Going Global - A Hybrid Market Strategy</h5><ul><li>Context and Background</li><li>Core Elements and Policy Instruments</li><li>Bailouts and Buyouts</li><li>A Broad Sector Strategy</li><li>Private Sector Partnerships</li><li>jobsOntario - A Program of Community Development & Labour Market Outreach</li><li>Public Infrastructure Investment</li><li>Costs and Benefits</li><li>Competitive Deregulation: Another Element in Ontario's Strategy</li></ul><h4>3. Jobs and Investment Strategies: The Challenge for Government</h4><h4>Conclusion</h4>

2007-10-29T15:40:52+09:00