The talk of incubators and innovation started in the mid to late eighties and continues to date. The gestation period clearly must have a high probability for a permanent place in the Guinness Book of World Records and you need not be a critical thinker to figure that out. Alice would feel at home here.
Recent pronouncements regarding the diminishing state of the energy sector brings into focus, yet again, the urgent need for economic transformation. As a nation, can we bridge the chasm that separates the talk from action? Is there a cohesive, detailed action plan for the creation and fostering of an environment for using innovation as a tool for diversification?
For starters, lofty aims, supported by the current buzz words, do not qualify, nor is talking of innovation innovative. Sure there must be an overarching policy framework to which all sector-driven, specific operational plans conform. But innovation is such a broad and diffuse term that it means almost nothing and thus must be defined within a specific sector.
To elucidate the point, the example of the "innovative university" is examined. What exactly does this mean? Is it one that uses innovative methods of delivery, like using calypsoes to teach grammar or using URP workers as tutors for time and motion studies? Or one in which the emphasis is on using design as a tool for creating new products or innovating existing ones?
Consequent to the definition of innovation, a plan of action needs to be developed, one that includes the primary to tertiary-level education systems and spans the financial, business, supply chain and IP structures and networks. To date, no clearly-defined system that runs the gamut from idea to production is discernible.
The result is several pieces of the innovation chain are being emphasised by various agencies and ministries with little or no linkage between them. If one were to treat the national innovation process as a national business then one would be able to understand why it is not bearing the results worthy of the investment. Picture a business where the design department does not interface with sales and marketing or with the production department. Would such a company be successful?
There is a wealth of creativity that exists in this country but there is little or no financial support for inventors. Nedco and the BDC are still confined to supporting "traditional business" ventures. There is certainly a need for that but there is a huge unfulfilled potential in the area of invention of new and innovative products.
Business plans and ideas competitions both serve a purpose but the follow-through requires engineering support. Regrettably, in T&T's version of innovation, the engineering requirements are not given the kind of support that is critically needed.
There are millions of people with billions of ideas. But ideas are not worth much if they are not developed into products. Some may argue that there is no need to proceed further than the ideas as they can be patented. It is worthwhile to note that firstly, patenting, especially in the developed countries, is a very costly venture and secondly, patents are located in the public domain. One product developed and commercialised may earn billions over its life cycle. A billion ideas may earn nothing.
So this column again calls for a serious attempt at setting up the invention process chain so as to impact positively on the diversification process. It has been said that doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is one definition of insanity.
This time around, individuals, including inventors, engineers, scientists and technologists, in addition to the usual array of economists and lawyers and policy makers, who must have experience and expertise in aspects of the invention/innovation process, should be part of the team.
In this way, a complete view of the entire process can be obtained and a workable national innovation/invention system designed and put in place. To do otherwise would be to continue to spin an expensive top in the mud of hype.