R&D Programs Aimed at the Spark in the Innovation Engine, Not Just the Fuel

Existing government R&D programs are generally aimed at "moving ideas from university and college labs into the marketplace", to quote the introduction of the consultation paper. Instead, or balanced against this, there should be programs better aimed at the first customer.

The existing government model seems to be simplistically linear: universities create ideas — tech companies commercialize — customers buy. Hence the programs typically fund universities to work on ideas with a tech company partner (who also invests). This typically fails to go anywhere.

The reality is much different. Innovation includes a combination of new and old ideas used in new ways. Tech companies are as good at the new (and old) ideas as universities. What the universities provide are outside fresh knowledge and capabilities, often not available in house, and lower price and risk, but at a much less mature level and much slower pace.

Tech companies don't just create new products from good ideas. They build relationships with potential customers, find out their needs, and only when there is a business case for development do they move ahead. The customer might fund some, the tech company might fund some, and some funding might come from existing programs (e.g., IRAP).

The proof–of–concept idea (internal or from university collaborations) is only the first step, the fuel. The iterative prototyping and requirements development are expensive and a huge risk. But that is the engine that drives innovation. It can't be sparked without the customer involvement, investment money, and risk–sharing mechanisms. That is why most such collaborative work ends up in the exhaust.

While money is certainly necessary for training high quality personnel in universities, and they provide wonderful input, they are the engine of innovation. They are a component of the fuel. We need more focus on the spark, the end customer collaboration, and particularly the risk mitigation. Large companies can afford it all themselves, but most companies are SMEs who would go bankrupt on a single large investment in technology that failed.

IRAP is a good start, but this needs to be expanded.