It takes energy to change a system

There's a bit of a buzz in Sydney at the moment.

Entrepreneurs, tech-heads, digital marketers and even some investors are finally lifting their heads above the parapets, decloaking from stealth mode and sharing their coffee addictions. Although there have been quiet rumblings for a little while, like a flywheel gathering momentum, there is now almost enough energy going into the system to keep it going.

It may need a little bit more to be self-sustaining.

How has this happened?

I can point to two things that have been happening that reflect an input of energy into the system. First, three different groups have kicked off, each addressing different parts of the market and immediate needs, but all in a serious way:

• Sydney's Open Coffee Group has been meeting regularly and has some really excellent tech people there, representing real businesses with real startup needs and challenges.
• Silicon Beach Australia (via Google Groups) has been buzzing with activity and suggestions and a rather full-on crowd on Friday nights. Both of these have contributed to initial the success of Webequity has provided a community-based approach to bring together business and tech people and TechNation has started to act as a hub of publicity and sharing for the tech community.
• The Photon Group (publically listed and also the owners of Precinct, the design team behind MJA's new look) have kicked off Geeksville, a new internet media incubator and agitator (complete with Mayor of Geeksville!). This means that smart starts have access to some top grade resources, deep pockets and the talent that can go along with both of those. Interesting that this has come from the media sector and not the traditional IT space, but hey.

Next, lots and lots of activity has been happening "under cover" and slowly, slowly, slowly entrepreneurs have started letting more and more people know what they're up to. Check out the informative Startup Australia for more information. These aren't the pure R&D-type startups that we've produced historically (though there are some pretty serious projects kicking around in there), they range from ultra-trendy-of-the-moment enterprises like Carbon Free Solutions to online code generation sytems (GENNIT) and the retail voucher community, RetailMeNot.

What can we learn for the benefit of the National Innovation System?

All of this activity is interesting, but what can we learn from it for the purposes of making Australia more productive and pushing the entrepreneurial agenda of future wealth creation? How does it tie back in with the National Innovation System and the Cutler Review, and our domain expertise?

• What's really interesting to me is that all of the activity above has been market initiated and bubbled up within the system, rather than being the response of direct market interventions. In each case, individual entrepreneurs, technologists and companies have seen the opportunity to do something more than where the status quo is at.
• They have accessed tools and technologies on the web to either find, fund or further their business aims (in other words, the current state of the internet is an essential enabling technology for these groups).
• They reflect ad hoc and at times informal networks that enable conversations to create value.
• There is actually some altruism present, as some of the protagonists in the three groups above are not hunting money. They are not being paid for their commitment over and above being part of the buzz.
• The discussions being held reflect a genuine commitment of time and interest, without mention of Non-Disclosure Agreements and Intellectual Property being raised in a fearful way to prevent connections and lock down conversations (though I'm sure i f things advance further there would be a need for some of those tools).
• There is tacit recognition that the ideas are not as important as their implementation, and that the implementation won't happen without the conversations, the sharing of enthusiasm and the altruistic elements of the network.

One of the best things the Cutler Review can do is to Define the National Innovation System, so that the term has true relevance and meaning and that the system (which is also a network) has the opportunity to exist transparently. Another great thing would be the identification of barriers within that System that prevent or inhibit conversations and communication (some of which would no doubt be cultural).

All parties have an interest in this network creating value

Sadly, I see few companies "scanning" the universities, CRCs and other research institutes for conversations about their problems or technologies (this is not easy). I see few companies figuring out how to actively engage with universities on a "no agenda" or possibility basis; the possibility of a fortuitous connection is apparently not a sufficient ROI.

I see few universities actively engaging the business community and even their alumni in a constructive "open" way. They think they are engaging, but there is always a very clear agenda about funding and "our needs" rather than altruistic approaches.

Fundamentally, I don't see enough people having enough coffee with people they wouldn't normally associate with, where the ROI is uncertain and the fear is that they will waste their time.

Coincidentally, it would be really interesting to document how many coffees the members of the Cutler Review and the associates working groups have had. And how many of those are outside the panel, and their normal networks.

Perhaps one of the strongest incentives the Cutler Review could offer the participants in the National Innovation System is a voucher for strong cup of coffee?