Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Casual Articles - The Vulnerable Research and Innovation Base of South Africa
When I coach my clients on how to get more business and more money, I'm delighted when I see that they spend time creating and building relationships with prospects. This is truly the best way to serve those that we work with.However, I see many of these entrepreneurs overlooking a very important quality of this relationship. As in all relationships, we benefit most when we constantly look for ways that we can grow and change. In business, this is a must (especially when it comes to the prospect relationship); otherwise, we are out of business.The key lies with negotiation.To often we bend, let our boundaries be waved, and go in a direction that we KNOW does not best serve ourselves, our businesses, or our lives. (Maybe dramatic, but true. All actions affect others.) Why do we do this? Often it’s fear that if we don’t, we will be left with nothing or worse—rejected; or even worse—there might be conflict! Or sometimes we simply lack clarity; what do we really want for our business? Whatever it might be for you; doors open wide when you are able to embrace negotiation as a friend, rather than something to avoid at all costs.I invite you to open your mind to embrace all of the moments in your business when negotiation would make a difference. Yes, when signing on a client, but what about when working with a strategic partner? A vendor? An assistant? It’s constant. You can begin to effect magical negotiation right away:Know What You Want and What It’s Worth to YouStart by writing down your intentions. Divide your intentions into three categories:Need: what you must get out of the negotiation or you cannot continue, e.g., you must be paid for your service.Want: can be accepted (but not without getting something in return), e.g. fl
· Provide stronger support to universities to engage in knowledge transfer and commercialisation of inventions;
· Direct the preferred choice of students in the direction of science, engineering and technology education; and
· Form strong partnerships with international organisations known for R&I and with reputable scientists in R&I.
All this should be done in the realisation that that the precise returns in R&I investments cannot be determined and that the real benefits may only be reaped years later.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAIR, J. 1990. The challenge of innovation. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and King’s Lynn.
Baumol, W.J. 2002. The Free-Market Innovation Machine. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Bessant, J., Lamming,R., Noke, H. & Philips, W. 2005. Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation. 25: 1366-1376.
CALOGHIROU,Y., Kastelli, I. & Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?, Technovation, 24:29-39.
Chesbrough H. 2003. Open innovation – The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Massachusets: Harvard business school press. (pg110;pg157;read chapter 8)
Cooke, P. 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring “Globalisation 2” – A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy. 34: 1128-1149.
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. 2002. South Africas National R&D Strategy: The changing face of R&D within South African public sector research. June. Government Printers: Pretoria.
DTI. 2004. Science &Innovation investment framework 2004-2014. HM Treasury: Norwich.
Kahn, M. & Blankley, W. 2005. The state of research and experimental development: www.hsrcpress.ac.za Accessed: 24/02/2006.
Kaplan, D. 2005. Technology and the growth of manufactured exports: Assessing South Africa’s performance and policy. Paper presented at DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, Elsinore, Denmark, 14-16.06.04
Kar. 2004. Constructing a logical framework. 7 July. http://www.kar-dht.org/logframe.html Accessed: 25/02/06
Lechter, M.A. 2001. Protecting your #1 Asset: Creating fortunes from your ideas. New York: Warner Books.
Lorentzen, J. 2004. The noledge of numbers: S&T, R&D, and Innovation indicators in South Africa. School of Development Studies: University of Kwazulu-Natal.
McCalman, P. 2005. International diffusion and intellectual property rights: An empirical analysis. Journal of International Economics. 67:353-372.
MRC Innovation Centre. 2006. Section H: F
Do you remember days back in high school when you got your very first job? Possibly you drove around to every burger, pizza and fast food joint in town, to find out if they were hiring. Sure, we all do it. How else can we make money to supe-up our cars? Its most likely to end up at a local grocery store or serving at the local diner. These are known as jobs for students.A majority of huge corporations don't tend to hire 16 year olds who lack a high school diploma. In fact, this is what drives us to work hard and do well in college. After an experience of these "jobs for students," we're so anxious to move up and away from their crappy hours, and headaches. And not to forget the terrible pay at the end.The first job I ever received was working at a video store. It wasn’t too bad considering some of the horrors out there. Though I must admit how long can you stand to work in customer service? While some may think that cubicle jobs are a bore; trust me, there is much worse. In this case with minuscule office space positions, you sure don't have some crazy customer screaming in your face.When I had reached college, I looked into a range of jobs for students. This included anything from delivering Chinese food, to waiting tables, to working as a lifeguard at the local pool. Though all of these jobs worked out all right and paid the bills, they weren't the be-all end-all to jobs for students. Currently there are much more valuable resources to take advantage of. So toss that local newspaper in the trash, and stop wasting all your gas by driving around from window to window, in search of a "Help Wanted" sign. Yes, it is time to turn to everybody’s preferred electronic buddy; that is your personal computer! Go ahead and check out what the World-Wide-Web has to offer.The best thing about fin
South Africa is facing structural problems in strengthening its research and innovation capacity in order to become and remain competitive in the global business environment. Although greater emphasis is given to strengthen Research and Development efforts in the country and to translate it into commercialization of products, South Africa are lagging behind its competitors on four critical domains of:
· The level of technological exports;
· Funds invested in Research and Innovation activities;
· Capability to transform relevant scientific knowledge and technological inventions into commercial applications; and
· Sourcing for competitive technologies.
Although it is realised that South Africa as a developing country cannot match the R&D spending of developed countries, the assumption is made that if South Africa can carry out R&I activity levels comparable to that of principle trading partners and competitors, it will be able to sustain its relative competitiveness in the world.
Complicating the situation further is the fact that South Africa is considered an innovation environment in which medium to low technology innovations dominate. Therefore, it is not a strong competitor for attracting research exports from foreign companies. This is due to the fact that this priviledge belongs to environments classified as at the forefront of research efforts, high technology oriented, huge market opportunities and dynamic in nature. Typical countries adhering to these requirements include amongst others China, India, the United States of America, Hungary and Romania (RTDinfo, 2006).
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to describe the vulnerable research and innovation base of South Africa in terms of the three domains mentioned in the introduction.
Technology exports of South Africa as percentage of world exports
According to statistics provided by Kaplan (2005) high technology export of South Africa, 0.3% in 2002, as a percentage of global exports represents indeed a very small proportion of world exports in technology. How poor is only conceived when compared to 2002 figures of other European countries such as Turkey (1.6%), United Kingdom (1.25%), Sweden (13.7%), Switzerland (21.6%), Spain (5.7%), Slovenia (4.9%), Portugal (6.8%), Norway (4.6%) and the Netherlands (18.7%).
Sufficiency of funding for R&I in South Africa
Whilst the aim of the South African Government is to spend at least 1% of its GDP on R&D this objective has never been reaches since 1983 (No survey was done in 1995 and 1999). With a median of 0.76 and currently at 0.806 GERD:GDP too little emphasis is given to R&D activities. Currently only R10.1 billion (+/- US$1.6 billion) is spend on R&D in comparison to a 2005 GDP of R1 250 billion (+/- US$208.33) comparing favourably with levels experienced in a country lie Portugal. However in comparison with other countries in Europe like Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom and the Netherlands which spend two percent and more of their GDP on R&D, South Africa are lagging far behind. Further, of the R10.1 billion available for R&D, only 13% is spend on the advancement of knowledge, whilst the most (60%) is spend on economic development. This indicates that too little is invested on human factors, which is considered a critical element for a successful knowledge based economy. The conclusion is thus that not sufficient funds are allotted for R&I activities in South Africa.
Capability of South Africa to transform scientific and technological inventions into commercial application
The first consideration in determining the capability of South Africa to transform R&D activities into commercial application demands an analysis of human resources availability in the scientific community. The Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (2002) has made a comparison between four countries, South Korea, Malaysia, South Africa and Australia regarding the development of human capital as expressed by number of researchers per 1000 of the population as indicated by Table 1. Although performing better than Malaysia on this component, South Africa are performing weak on the broadening of research literacy in the general population. It is a further disturbing fact that South Africa has an aging research workforce. The Department also indicated that the number of science, engineering and technology (SET) practitioners, will vary between 7 and 11 per 1000 of the population in the years 2002 to 2012 and a university throughput in SET of only 2.7% to 3% during the same time frame. The latter figures compare extremely unfavourable with SET graduate throughput in some of the European countries like the United Kingdom (19.5% - 21.0%), Turkey (5.2%), Switzerland (7.0% - 7.7%), Sweden (13.3% - 13.9%), Spain (12% - 12.6%), Slovenia (8.7% - 9.0%), Portugal (7.4% - 8.2%), Poland (8.3% - 9.0%), Norway (7.7% - 9.3%) and the Netherlands (6.6% - 7.3%) for the same period.
Table 1: Researchers per 1000 of population
Researchers per 1000 of Population
Australia 4.843
South Africa 0.71
Malaysia 0.3
South Korea 2.771
Secondly, of the top 700 firms, by R&D expenditure in the world, only one namely Sasol is located in South Africa with a US$91 million spending during 2003, whilst more than 80% of these firms come from only five countries, spending more than 82.5% of R&D: the United States (42.3%), Japan (22.0%), Germany (7.6%), the United Kingdom (5.6%) and France (5.0%). The remaining 20% comes from Finland (0.9%), Sweden (2.1%), Switzerland (2.9%), Republic of Korea (1.4%), Taiwan (1.1%), China (0.1%), Bermuda (0.4%), Brazil (0.3%), Croatia (0.1%) and South Africa (0.1%). Of these firms more than 50% operates in the high and medium technology environments of information technology, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and automotive. In essence Transnational Corporations dominate the global business R&D and in all of this South Africa plays a relative insignificant role in participation. However, as internationalisation of R&D by Transnational Corporations increased, South Africa benefited from this approach and the amount of US$67 billion spent in 2002 of which US$24 million was allotted to South Africa. This benefit however, does not reveal the fact that other developing countries like China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and the Republic of Korea are the main gainers in the internationalisation of R&D worldwide (World Investment Report, 2005).
Sourcing of competitive technologies in South Africa
The history of South Africa and its political dispensation of Apartheid till 1994 led to international isolation causing the country to adopt an internal innovation approach. Since 1994 however, the country began to participate actively in the global economy and a need exist to source new technologies locally as well as from elsewhere (NSTF, 2001). Lorentzen (2004) provided the following statistics regarding to the sourcing of competitive technologies in South Africa over the period 1999-2001 as indicated by Table 2. According to Lorentzen, the 22% foreign sourcing is primarily for radical innovations, whilst local technological sourcing happens within the domain of incremental innovations. It can therefore be concluded that knowledge resources do not meet the competitive needs of South Africa especially in high technology innovations.
Table 2: Sources of Competitive Technologies
Source Percentage
In-house 57
Local 24
Foreign 22
Further, whilst South African inventors secure around 100 United States patents per year, this represents only 2.5 patents per million of the population per annum. In comparison Japan secured 776 patents per million of the population per annum (Department of Arts, culture, Science and Technology, 2002).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The results reveal that South Africa performed poorly and insignificantly low in the export of high, medium and low levels technologies. The country is therefore poorly positioned globally to compete successfully due to a lack in ability to commercialise the results of R&I in the international markets. This can be partially be attributed to the fact that not sufficient funds are allocated for R&D as indicated by the gross expenditure on R&D. In order to sustain its competitive position South Africa needs to follow a three-tier approach. Import the technology it requires to fulfil in its trading needs by securing access to external sources of technology, establish strong links with the global production system and seek co-operation agreements with international expertise to ensure technology transfer to South Africa.
In order to strengthen the research and SET capacity in South Africa, the throughput at university level should at least be doubled to come in line with developed and developing countries in the European union and to contribute significantly to the formation of SET human capital and technological innovations. South Africa has also embarked on a process of embarking on an incentive approach that provides funding sources to different stages for commercialisation of research innovations.
Due to the fact that South Africa is not performing well in the area of patenting, a better approach could be to focus on trademarks, rather than patents based on the argument that final consumers are less concerned on whether a product has been manufactured solely on the basis of imported or self-develop technology that buying the right product that would satisfy their needs. Trademarks better address the latter component and are focussing more on the licensing of technology as opposed to protecting industrially applicable inventions as in the case of patenting. Whilst patenting is focussing on the supply side of the market to prevent competitors from copying the innovation, trademarks is focussing on the demand side of the market by influencing consumers, which trademark to buy. South Africa therefore could benefit to focus on establishing preferred trademarks in the marketplace in order to grow its competitive base in the global world especially in the field of indigenous technology applications.
From a global perspective South Africa is also performing poorly to attract R&D funds from Transnational Corporations. Funding obtained is primarily intended for the auto industry. The funds invested, represents a very narrow base on which to build the competitive edge through R&I.
It can therefore be concluded that South Africa founds itself on the periphery of global knowledge creation and innovation as well as in sourcing for technological innovations. If South Africa intends to maintain and grow its global competitiveness greater emphasis should be given to:
· Increase the budget for Research and innovation dramatically;
· Provide stronger support to universities to engage in knowledge transfer and commercialisation of inventions;
· Direct the preferred choice of students in the direction of science, engineering and technology education; and
· Form strong partnerships with international organisations known for R&I and with reputable scientists in R&I.
All this should be done in the realisation that that the precise returns in R&I investments cannot be determined and that the real benefits may only be reaped years later.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAIR, J. 1990. The challenge of innovation. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and King’s Lynn.
Baumol, W.J. 2002. The Free-Market Innovation Machine. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Bessant, J., Lamming,R., Noke, H. & Philips, W. 2005. Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation. 25: 1366-1376.
CALOGHIROU,Y., Kastelli, I. & Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?, Technovation, 24:29-39.
Chesbrough H. 2003. Open innovation – The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Massachusets: Harvard business school press. (pg110;pg157;read chapter 8)
Cooke, P. 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring “Globalisation 2” – A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy. 34: 1128-1149.
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. 2002. South Africas National R&D Strategy: The changing face of R&D within South African public sector research. June. Government Printers: Pretoria.
DTI. 2004. Science &Innovation investment framework 2004-2014. HM Treasury: Norwich.
Kahn, M. & Blankley, W. 2005. The state of research and experimental development: www.hsrcpress.ac.za Accessed: 24/02/2006.
Kaplan, D. 2005. Technology and the growth of manufactured exports: Assessing South Africa’s performance and policy. Paper presented at DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, Elsinore, Denmark, 14-16.06.04
Kar. 2004. Constructing a logical framework. 7 July. http://www.kar-dht.org/logframe.html Accessed: 25/02/06
Lechter, M.A. 2001. Protecting your #1 Asset: Creating fortunes from your ideas. New York: Warner Books.
Lorentzen, J. 2004. The noledge of numbers: S&T, R&D, and Innovation indicators in South Africa. School of Development Studies: University of Kwazulu-Natal.
McCalman, P. 2005. International diffusion and intellectual property rights: An empirical analysis. Journal of International Economics. 67:353-372.
MRC Innovation Centre. 2006. Section H: Fu
Businesses with employees to monitor were the largest purchaser of security cameras prior to the 9/11 attacks in New York City. Up until that time all kinds of businesses were interested in protecting themselves from employee theft of valuable items or even more valuable, sensitive information. Employees in businesses where theft of any kind was a problem were used to security measures in place all the time of which business security cameras where only a small facet of the total system. Obviously, banks and other businesses with public exposure were used to having security cameras in place since their inception.But businesses without exposure to the public were getting into the game and hiring security companies to install, maintain and monitor state of the art surveillance systems to keep even the latest toy prototypes from being stolen out of research and development departments.Especially active in purchasing business security cameras were Las Vegas casinos. Casinos had even more state-of-the-art business security camera systems in place behind the scenes, inside the counting rooms where the constant flow of cash was brought in by armed guards and then separated and counted by squads of personnel. Even a high roller table in a private casino doesn’t see the kind of action that flows through the counting rooms and that’s where the casinos invested heavily in business security cameras.
Capability of South Africa to transform scientific and technological inventions into commercial application
The first consideration in determining the capability of South Africa to transform R&D activities into commercial application demands an analysis of human resources availability in the scientific community. The Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (2002) has made a comparison between four countries, South Korea, Malaysia, South Africa and Australia regarding the development of human capital as expressed by number of researchers per 1000 of the population as indicated by Table 1. Although performing better than Malaysia on this component, South Africa are performing weak on the broadening of research literacy in the general population. It is a further disturbing fact that South Africa has an aging research workforce. The Department also indicated that the number of science, engineering and technology (SET) practitioners, will vary between 7 and 11 per 1000 of the population in the years 2002 to 2012 and a university throughput in SET of only 2.7% to 3% during the same time frame. The latter figures compare extremely unfavourable with SET graduate throughput in some of the European countries like the United Kingdom (19.5% - 21.0%), Turkey (5.2%), Switzerland (7.0% - 7.7%), Sweden (13.3% - 13.9%), Spain (12% - 12.6%), Slovenia (8.7% - 9.0%), Portugal (7.4% - 8.2%), Poland (8.3% - 9.0%), Norway (7.7% - 9.3%) and the Netherlands (6.6% - 7.3%) for the same period.
Table 1: Researchers per 1000 of population
Researchers per 1000 of Population
Australia 4.843
South Africa 0.71
Malaysia 0.3
South Korea 2.771
Secondly, of the top 700 firms, by R&D expenditure in the world, only one namely Sasol is located in South Africa with a US$91 million spending during 2003, whilst more than 80% of these firms come from only five countries, spending more than 82.5% of R&D: the United States (42.3%), Japan (22.0%), Germany (7.6%), the United Kingdom (5.6%) and France (5.0%). The remaining 20% comes from Finland (0.9%), Sweden (2.1%), Switzerland (2.9%), Republic of Korea (1.4%), Taiwan (1.1%), China (0.1%), Bermuda (0.4%), Brazil (0.3%), Croatia (0.1%) and South Africa (0.1%). Of these firms more than 50% operates in the high and medium technology environments of information technology, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and automotive. In essence Transnational Corporations dominate the global business R&D and in all of this South Africa plays a relative insignificant role in participation. However, as internationalisation of R&D by Transnational Corporations increased, South Africa benefited from this approach and the amount of US$67 billion spent in 2002 of which US$24 million was allotted to South Africa. This benefit however, does not reveal the fact that other developing countries like China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia and the Republic of Korea are the main gainers in the internationalisation of R&D worldwide (World Investment Report, 2005).
Sourcing of competitive technologies in South Africa
The history of South Africa and its political dispensation of Apartheid till 1994 led to international isolation causing the country to adopt an internal innovation approach. Since 1994 however, the country began to participate actively in the global economy and a need exist to source new technologies locally as well as from elsewhere (NSTF, 2001). Lorentzen (2004) provided the following statistics regarding to the sourcing of competitive technologies in South Africa over the period 1999-2001 as indicated by Table 2. According to Lorentzen, the 22% foreign sourcing is primarily for radical innovations, whilst local technological sourcing happens within the domain of incremental innovations. It can therefore be concluded that knowledge resources do not meet the competitive needs of South Africa especially in high technology innovations.
Table 2: Sources of Competitive Technologies
Source Percentage
In-house 57
Local 24
Foreign 22
Further, whilst South African inventors secure around 100 United States patents per year, this represents only 2.5 patents per million of the population per annum. In comparison Japan secured 776 patents per million of the population per annum (Department of Arts, culture, Science and Technology, 2002).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The results reveal that South Africa performed poorly and insignificantly low in the export of high, medium and low levels technologies. The country is therefore poorly positioned globally to compete successfully due to a lack in ability to commercialise the results of R&I in the international markets. This can be partially be attributed to the fact that not sufficient funds are allocated for R&D as indicated by the gross expenditure on R&D. In order to sustain its competitive position South Africa needs to follow a three-tier approach. Import the technology it requires to fulfil in its trading needs by securing access to external sources of technology, establish strong links with the global production system and seek co-operation agreements with international expertise to ensure technology transfer to South Africa.
In order to strengthen the research and SET capacity in South Africa, the throughput at university level should at least be doubled to come in line with developed and developing countries in the European union and to contribute significantly to the formation of SET human capital and technological innovations. South Africa has also embarked on a process of embarking on an incentive approach that provides funding sources to different stages for commercialisation of research innovations.
Due to the fact that South Africa is not performing well in the area of patenting, a better approach could be to focus on trademarks, rather than patents based on the argument that final consumers are less concerned on whether a product has been manufactured solely on the basis of imported or self-develop technology that buying the right product that would satisfy their needs. Trademarks better address the latter component and are focussing more on the licensing of technology as opposed to protecting industrially applicable inventions as in the case of patenting. Whilst patenting is focussing on the supply side of the market to prevent competitors from copying the innovation, trademarks is focussing on the demand side of the market by influencing consumers, which trademark to buy. South Africa therefore could benefit to focus on establishing preferred trademarks in the marketplace in order to grow its competitive base in the global world especially in the field of indigenous technology applications.
From a global perspective South Africa is also performing poorly to attract R&D funds from Transnational Corporations. Funding obtained is primarily intended for the auto industry. The funds invested, represents a very narrow base on which to build the competitive edge through R&I.
It can therefore be concluded that South Africa founds itself on the periphery of global knowledge creation and innovation as well as in sourcing for technological innovations. If South Africa intends to maintain and grow its global competitiveness greater emphasis should be given to:
· Increase the budget for Research and innovation dramatically;
· Provide stronger support to universities to engage in knowledge transfer and commercialisation of inventions;
· Direct the preferred choice of students in the direction of science, engineering and technology education; and
· Form strong partnerships with international organisations known for R&I and with reputable scientists in R&I.
All this should be done in the realisation that that the precise returns in R&I investments cannot be determined and that the real benefits may only be reaped years later.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAIR, J. 1990. The challenge of innovation. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and King’s Lynn.
Baumol, W.J. 2002. The Free-Market Innovation Machine. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Bessant, J., Lamming,R., Noke, H. & Philips, W. 2005. Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation. 25: 1366-1376.
CALOGHIROU,Y., Kastelli, I. & Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?, Technovation, 24:29-39.
Chesbrough H. 2003. Open innovation – The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Massachusets: Harvard business school press. (pg110;pg157;read chapter 8)
Cooke, P. 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring “Globalisation 2” – A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy. 34: 1128-1149.
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. 2002. South Africas National R&D Strategy: The changing face of R&D within South African public sector research. June. Government Printers: Pretoria.
DTI. 2004. Science &Innovation investment framework 2004-2014. HM Treasury: Norwich.
Kahn, M. & Blankley, W. 2005. The state of research and experimental development: www.hsrcpress.ac.za Accessed: 24/02/2006.
Kaplan, D. 2005. Technology and the growth of manufactured exports: Assessing South Africa’s performance and policy. Paper presented at DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, Elsinore, Denmark, 14-16.06.04
Kar. 2004. Constructing a logical framework. 7 July. http://www.kar-dht.org/logframe.html Accessed: 25/02/06
Lechter, M.A. 2001. Protecting your #1 Asset: Creating fortunes from your ideas. New York: Warner Books.
Lorentzen, J. 2004. The noledge of numbers: S&T, R&D, and Innovation indicators in South Africa. School of Development Studies: University of Kwazulu-Natal.
McCalman, P. 2005. International diffusion and intellectual property rights: An empirical analysis. Journal of International Economics. 67:353-372.
MRC Innovation Centre. 2006. Section H: F
As a newbie on the Internet twelve years ago, I was full of ambition and bursting with energy. I was going to find the perfect program that sold the perfect product so I could retire to a perfect lifestyle with plenty of income. I had been fed so many motivational videos I was addicted… which led me to my greatest failures and most profound lessons.Fortunately, a reality check halted my financial freefall. After years of frustration and nothing to show for my efforts except a debt approaching thousands of dollars, I began to realize that there is no such thing as the marketing success formula. But there was a clue -- something called USP, or Unique Selling Proposition/Point.The difficult thing to understand about USP is that no one can hand it to you; not even me. Nobody can direct you to it; you have to discover it for yourself. USP is about making your offer different from and more valuable than, your competitors’ offer, and then, planting that idea in the minds of a targeted group of prospects.The population in general is on advertising overload. They hold on to an idea of their own until some slogan or headline breaks through and persuades them to change. Position reflects your unique selling proposition, and that’s what makes your offer more valuable than what’s being offered by your competition.Let me use FedEx for an example. They were competing with United Parcel Service and postal Priority Mail, but their slogan had two very important words that magnetized customers: “When your package absolutely, positively has to get there tomorrow”. Ahh, absolutely, positively -- used alone, neither one has the same punch as both used together!While you can’t be all things to all people, your business should be perceived as different from your competition in the minds of your prospects. It’s
Sourcing of competitive technologies in South Africa
The history of South Africa and its political dispensation of Apartheid till 1994 led to international isolation causing the country to adopt an internal innovation approach. Since 1994 however, the country began to participate actively in the global economy and a need exist to source new technologies locally as well as from elsewhere (NSTF, 2001). Lorentzen (2004) provided the following statistics regarding to the sourcing of competitive technologies in South Africa over the period 1999-2001 as indicated by Table 2. According to Lorentzen, the 22% foreign sourcing is primarily for radical innovations, whilst local technological sourcing happens within the domain of incremental innovations. It can therefore be concluded that knowledge resources do not meet the competitive needs of South Africa especially in high technology innovations.
Table 2: Sources of Competitive Technologies
Source Percentage
In-house 57
Local 24
Foreign 22
Further, whilst South African inventors secure around 100 United States patents per year, this represents only 2.5 patents per million of the population per annum. In comparison Japan secured 776 patents per million of the population per annum (Department of Arts, culture, Science and Technology, 2002).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The results reveal that South Africa performed poorly and insignificantly low in the export of high, medium and low levels technologies. The country is therefore poorly positioned globally to compete successfully due to a lack in ability to commercialise the results of R&I in the international markets. This can be partially be attributed to the fact that not sufficient funds are allocated for R&D as indicated by the gross expenditure on R&D. In order to sustain its competitive position South Africa needs to follow a three-tier approach. Import the technology it requires to fulfil in its trading needs by securing access to external sources of technology, establish strong links with the global production system and seek co-operation agreements with international expertise to ensure technology transfer to South Africa.
In order to strengthen the research and SET capacity in South Africa, the throughput at university level should at least be doubled to come in line with developed and developing countries in the European union and to contribute significantly to the formation of SET human capital and technological innovations. South Africa has also embarked on a process of embarking on an incentive approach that provides funding sources to different stages for commercialisation of research innovations.
Due to the fact that South Africa is not performing well in the area of patenting, a better approach could be to focus on trademarks, rather than patents based on the argument that final consumers are less concerned on whether a product has been manufactured solely on the basis of imported or self-develop technology that buying the right product that would satisfy their needs. Trademarks better address the latter component and are focussing more on the licensing of technology as opposed to protecting industrially applicable inventions as in the case of patenting. Whilst patenting is focussing on the supply side of the market to prevent competitors from copying the innovation, trademarks is focussing on the demand side of the market by influencing consumers, which trademark to buy. South Africa therefore could benefit to focus on establishing preferred trademarks in the marketplace in order to grow its competitive base in the global world especially in the field of indigenous technology applications.
From a global perspective South Africa is also performing poorly to attract R&D funds from Transnational Corporations. Funding obtained is primarily intended for the auto industry. The funds invested, represents a very narrow base on which to build the competitive edge through R&I.
It can therefore be concluded that South Africa founds itself on the periphery of global knowledge creation and innovation as well as in sourcing for technological innovations. If South Africa intends to maintain and grow its global competitiveness greater emphasis should be given to:
· Increase the budget for Research and innovation dramatically;
· Provide stronger support to universities to engage in knowledge transfer and commercialisation of inventions;
· Direct the preferred choice of students in the direction of science, engineering and technology education; and
· Form strong partnerships with international organisations known for R&I and with reputable scientists in R&I.
All this should be done in the realisation that that the precise returns in R&I investments cannot be determined and that the real benefits may only be reaped years later.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAIR, J. 1990. The challenge of innovation. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and King’s Lynn.
Baumol, W.J. 2002. The Free-Market Innovation Machine. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Bessant, J., Lamming,R., Noke, H. & Philips, W. 2005. Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation. 25: 1366-1376.
CALOGHIROU,Y., Kastelli, I. & Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?, Technovation, 24:29-39.
Chesbrough H. 2003. Open innovation – The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Massachusets: Harvard business school press. (pg110;pg157;read chapter 8)
Cooke, P. 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring “Globalisation 2” – A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy. 34: 1128-1149.
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. 2002. South Africas National R&D Strategy: The changing face of R&D within South African public sector research. June. Government Printers: Pretoria.
DTI. 2004. Science &Innovation investment framework 2004-2014. HM Treasury: Norwich.
Kahn, M. & Blankley, W. 2005. The state of research and experimental development: www.hsrcpress.ac.za Accessed: 24/02/2006.
Kaplan, D. 2005. Technology and the growth of manufactured exports: Assessing South Africa’s performance and policy. Paper presented at DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, Elsinore, Denmark, 14-16.06.04
Kar. 2004. Constructing a logical framework. 7 July. http://www.kar-dht.org/logframe.html Accessed: 25/02/06
Lechter, M.A. 2001. Protecting your #1 Asset: Creating fortunes from your ideas. New York: Warner Books.
Lorentzen, J. 2004. The noledge of numbers: S&T, R&D, and Innovation indicators in South Africa. School of Development Studies: University of Kwazulu-Natal.
McCalman, P. 2005. International diffusion and intellectual property rights: An empirical analysis. Journal of International Economics. 67:353-372.
MRC Innovation Centre. 2006. Section H: F
Buying a place to live in is not just merely purchasing a house. It's one big step in building a home. Making a wise decision in buying a house is not only spending your money the right way, it is more of building a strong pillar of a family and stable life.To many, they assess the value of a particular investment in terms of its market value or prevailing market price. Others consider practicality, while some are way too willing to spend on whatever seems investment-worthy. There's really no hard and fast rule on how to make the perfect investment. We can only come as close as making the wisest and most practical decisions balancing risks and profitability. Sadly, a lot lack the aptitude in making investment decisions that can best work for them. They pattern their decisions to others'; they make decisions on the basis of envy to people they know whose investments have worked well for them.Making an investment demands a great deal of personal decision making. Personal, familial, or organizational needs are what should lead to closing or withdrawing a deal. Knowing what exactly you need, how available investment options can address these needs, which among them is the best, and how much you can afford for that option are the underlying key factors to be kept in mind in making investment decisions.Actually, honing your skill in making the right investments does not only result to sound, practical personal decisions. Having the ability to map out the often confusing mazes of investments can land you in one of the most lucrative and in demand career there is in our country today. From being a wise decision maker, you can turn yourself into a good real estate agent.While on your current career, gearing up to be a real estate agent will not ask you to drop and leave your childhood dreams. For those still search
In order to strengthen the research and SET capacity in South Africa, the throughput at university level should at least be doubled to come in line with developed and developing countries in the European union and to contribute significantly to the formation of SET human capital and technological innovations. South Africa has also embarked on a process of embarking on an incentive approach that provides funding sources to different stages for commercialisation of research innovations.
Due to the fact that South Africa is not performing well in the area of patenting, a better approach could be to focus on trademarks, rather than patents based on the argument that final consumers are less concerned on whether a product has been manufactured solely on the basis of imported or self-develop technology that buying the right product that would satisfy their needs. Trademarks better address the latter component and are focussing more on the licensing of technology as opposed to protecting industrially applicable inventions as in the case of patenting. Whilst patenting is focussing on the supply side of the market to prevent competitors from copying the innovation, trademarks is focussing on the demand side of the market by influencing consumers, which trademark to buy. South Africa therefore could benefit to focus on establishing preferred trademarks in the marketplace in order to grow its competitive base in the global world especially in the field of indigenous technology applications.
From a global perspective South Africa is also performing poorly to attract R&D funds from Transnational Corporations. Funding obtained is primarily intended for the auto industry. The funds invested, represents a very narrow base on which to build the competitive edge through R&I.
It can therefore be concluded that South Africa founds itself on the periphery of global knowledge creation and innovation as well as in sourcing for technological innovations. If South Africa intends to maintain and grow its global competitiveness greater emphasis should be given to:
· Increase the budget for Research and innovation dramatically;
· Provide stronger support to universities to engage in knowledge transfer and commercialisation of inventions;
· Direct the preferred choice of students in the direction of science, engineering and technology education; and
· Form strong partnerships with international organisations known for R&I and with reputable scientists in R&I.
All this should be done in the realisation that that the precise returns in R&I investments cannot be determined and that the real benefits may only be reaped years later.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAIR, J. 1990. The challenge of innovation. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and King’s Lynn.
Baumol, W.J. 2002. The Free-Market Innovation Machine. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Bessant, J., Lamming,R., Noke, H. & Philips, W. 2005. Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation. 25: 1366-1376.
CALOGHIROU,Y., Kastelli, I. & Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?, Technovation, 24:29-39.
Chesbrough H. 2003. Open innovation – The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Massachusets: Harvard business school press. (pg110;pg157;read chapter 8)
Cooke, P. 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring “Globalisation 2” – A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy. 34: 1128-1149.
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. 2002. South Africas National R&D Strategy: The changing face of R&D within South African public sector research. June. Government Printers: Pretoria.
DTI. 2004. Science &Innovation investment framework 2004-2014. HM Treasury: Norwich.
Kahn, M. & Blankley, W. 2005. The state of research and experimental development: www.hsrcpress.ac.za Accessed: 24/02/2006.
Kaplan, D. 2005. Technology and the growth of manufactured exports: Assessing South Africa’s performance and policy. Paper presented at DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, Elsinore, Denmark, 14-16.06.04
Kar. 2004. Constructing a logical framework. 7 July. http://www.kar-dht.org/logframe.html Accessed: 25/02/06
Lechter, M.A. 2001. Protecting your #1 Asset: Creating fortunes from your ideas. New York: Warner Books.
Lorentzen, J. 2004. The noledge of numbers: S&T, R&D, and Innovation indicators in South Africa. School of Development Studies: University of Kwazulu-Natal.
McCalman, P. 2005. International diffusion and intellectual property rights: An empirical analysis. Journal of International Economics. 67:353-372.
MRC Innovation Centre. 2006. Section H: F
Imagine for a moment that you have created a wonderful product. You are excited at the possibilities of attaining name, fame and wealth marketing this product. You create a business plan and a marketing plan. You plan an excellent packaging and a presentation that would do justice to the benefits the product offers to the world and you get all set to market it.Let us get back to reality. You are that wonderful product. You have created the product after years of studying, qualifications and building up your personality.Aren’t you excited about marketing it!Your resume is the place to start with which needs to be an excellent presentation – Your Sales Page. It needs to be presented with all the benefits that it offers to the customer – your employer. Then you as the product is all set to achieve a dream run.Do you get the picture? Your resume is your advertisement, your presentation is your sales letter and your packaging is what gives the world the first impression of you as the product.Here are a few of the important aspects to focus while creating your resume.Writing a powerful objective in two short lines which will explain clearly what you are seeking. It should be a statement about your career direction. This is the headline of your advertisement.A well formatted list of your qualifications and certifications in reverse chronological order gives your resume a sense of organization.Properly presenting your skills and accomplishments can make the difference in getting an interview call or not. This is the key to your appointment for the interview as the interviewer is more interested in what you can do for them than your qualifications.Using powerful words in your resume makes it more energetic and exciting. Using powerful words also projects your abilities a
· Provide stronger support to universities to engage in knowledge transfer and commercialisation of inventions;
· Direct the preferred choice of students in the direction of science, engineering and technology education; and
· Form strong partnerships with international organisations known for R&I and with reputable scientists in R&I.
All this should be done in the realisation that that the precise returns in R&I investments cannot be determined and that the real benefits may only be reaped years later.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAIR, J. 1990. The challenge of innovation. Great Britain: Biddles Ltd, Guilford and King’s Lynn.
Baumol, W.J. 2002. The Free-Market Innovation Machine. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Bessant, J., Lamming,R., Noke, H. & Philips, W. 2005. Managing innovation beyond the steady state. Technovation. 25: 1366-1376.
CALOGHIROU,Y., Kastelli, I. & Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?, Technovation, 24:29-39.
Chesbrough H. 2003. Open innovation – The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Massachusets: Harvard business school press. (pg110;pg157;read chapter 8)
Cooke, P. 2005. Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring “Globalisation 2” – A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy. 34: 1128-1149.
Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. 2002. South Africas National R&D Strategy: The changing face of R&D within South African public sector research. June. Government Printers: Pretoria.
DTI. 2004. Science &Innovation investment framework 2004-2014. HM Treasury: Norwich.
Kahn, M. & Blankley, W. 2005. The state of research and experimental development: www.hsrcpress.ac.za Accessed: 24/02/2006.
Kaplan, D. 2005. Technology and the growth of manufactured exports: Assessing South Africa’s performance and policy. Paper presented at DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development, Elsinore, Denmark, 14-16.06.04
Kar. 2004. Constructing a logical framework. 7 July. http://www.kar-dht.org/logframe.html Accessed: 25/02/06
Lechter, M.A. 2001. Protecting your #1 Asset: Creating fortunes from your ideas. New York: Warner Books.
Lorentzen, J. 2004. The noledge of numbers: S&T, R&D, and Innovation indicators in South Africa. School of Development Studies: University of Kwazulu-Natal.
McCalman, P. 2005. International diffusion and intellectual property rights: An empirical analysis. Journal of International Economics. 67:353-372.
MRC Innovation Centre. 2006. Section H: Funding for commercialisation of research. http://innovation.mrc.ac.za/section.htm Accessed: 24/02/06
NSTF. 2001. SET Awareness – Growth and Innovation Study. http://www.nstf.org.za/activities/projects/set_study/set_awareness_study.asp Accessed: 25/02/06
RTDinfo. 2006. When R&D relocates. RTDinfo. January. 47:29.
Sajeva, M., Gatelli, D., Tarantola, S. and Hollanders, H. 2005. Methodology report on European Innovation Scoreboard 2005. European Trend Chart on Innovation. 1-146.
Schneider, P.H. 2005. International trade, economic growth and intellectual property rights: A panel data study of developed and developing countries. Journal of Development Economics. 78:529-547.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). 2000. Types of Patents. Technology Assessment and Forecast data base. 1 June. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/patdesc.htm Accessed: 21/02/06
UTTERBACK J.M. 1996. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard business school press.
World Investment Report. 2005. Transnational Corporations and the Internationalization of R&D. United Nations: New York.
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.casualarticles.com/article/17977/casualarticles-The-Vulnerable-Research-and-Innovation-Base-of-South-Africa.html">The Vulnerable Research and Innovation Base of South Africa</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.casualarticles.com/article/17977/casualarticles-The-Vulnerable-Research-and-Innovation-Base-of-South-Africa.html]The Vulnerable Research and Innovation Base of South Africa[/url]
Related Articles:
India Outsourcing Accounting Is The Ultimate Solution To Excess Workload
Banner Stands - Versatile Displays for Many Situations
How Do You Get on Your Client's Speed Dial?
Bookmark it:
|