Wednesday, November 27, 2013
More on Bitcoin....
Volatility continues - Bitcoin hits $1,000 USD.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25120731
U.S. Senate holds hearings on Bitcoin
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies
The Canada government's taxation agency (Canadian Revenue Agency) calls bitcoin bartering.
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/fctshts/2013/m11/fs131105-eng.html?rss
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Policy and legislative velocity database
I am working on a adding a velocity database to this blog. Unfortunately blogger does not yet allow different designs layouts to be applied to different pages.
So as soon as I have reconfigured the design and done some coding for the Database page I will make it live.
Having the database as a separate static page will allow for easier updating.
Monday, September 9, 2013
BITCOIN ATM
It seems the Bitcoin phenomena is gathering a bit of speed.
Today, it was announced that entrepreneurs in Vancouver are creating Bitcoin ATMs. Put cash in to get bitcoins.
This it seems is a bit of a game changer. For me the limitation of this technology has always been its diffusion. Tech savvy criminal elements and other techies may have been interested but general diffusion - not likely. However, an ATM does change that trajectory. Who's awake in Ottawa?
Today, it was announced that entrepreneurs in Vancouver are creating Bitcoin ATMs. Put cash in to get bitcoins.
This it seems is a bit of a game changer. For me the limitation of this technology has always been its diffusion. Tech savvy criminal elements and other techies may have been interested but general diffusion - not likely. However, an ATM does change that trajectory. Who's awake in Ottawa?
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Bitcoin regulation
Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency where the creation and transfer of bitcoins is based on an open-source cryptographic protocol that is independent of any central authority. Bitcoins can be transferred through a computer or smartphone without an intermediate financial institution.[9] The concept was introduced in a 2008 paper by a pseudonymous developer known only as "Satoshi Nakamoto", who called it a peer-to-peer, electronic cash system. (From wikipedia).
From a technological point of view the 'currency' emerged in 2008-2009. The earliest mention I can find on The Economist website is from April 2013.
The local Vancouver TV channel has run a couple of articles on Bitcoin lately.
There is this one on 'how to' and there is this one that ran on prime time news.
In August 2013 Germany recognised it as a form of currency in order to regulate it. http://www.dailydot.com/business/germany-bitcoin-official-currency/
Also in August 2013, a Texas court ruled that Bitcoin was a form of currency as apart of bitcoin fraud case.
An article on the decision can be found here, and the court document can be found here:
I thought it was interesting that Germany was the first to regulate it, it will be interesting to watch for changes in the policies of other countries. If I hear anything I will report it here.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Impact measures and scientific fraud
One of the debates held at DRUID this year is a must watch.
It raised, although not quite head the issue of whether metrics are a factor in driving bad behavior.
The debate was of excellent quality, with some truly stunning examples of fraud.
It is a vitally important issue please watch it here http://www.druid.dk/streaming/ds2013/june18/player.html#course=BE101&unit=1&video=3&language=en-US
Friday, June 14, 2013
The Role of Charities in the Research System
I'm just heading off to the DRUID conference in Barcelona.
The surprising and it seems little known fact is that Charities in about a third of OECD countries spend more on research in universities than the business sector. Astonishing but true.
More astonishing is the lack of recognition for the data rather than the rhetoric of the triple helix.
The paper's Abstract
We have become familiar and comfortable with the idea that the science, technology and innovation (STI) system of countries is constructed around the so called ?triple helix? of government, universities and business. Contrary to the academic interest and government policy, the public is increasingly bypassing this club to impact science funding and innovation outcomes through directly creating and donating funds for research that they want. The charities and foundations coordinating this shift are neither ignorant of strategy or dealing in petty cash. In a significant number of OECD countries, private-non-profits as the statistical category is called, fund the higher education research system at a similar or greater level than business. This result has important implications for how we understand the STI system. This paper explores this gap in the literature, ambiguities in analyzing the phenomenon and suggests a framework for further analysis how charities and foundations are reconfiguring STI systems.
You can get a copy of the paper here.
http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/2p2kleih0x11v4r4fqsoj7r1phj6.pdf
The surprising and it seems little known fact is that Charities in about a third of OECD countries spend more on research in universities than the business sector. Astonishing but true.
More astonishing is the lack of recognition for the data rather than the rhetoric of the triple helix.
The paper's Abstract
We have become familiar and comfortable with the idea that the science, technology and innovation (STI) system of countries is constructed around the so called ?triple helix? of government, universities and business. Contrary to the academic interest and government policy, the public is increasingly bypassing this club to impact science funding and innovation outcomes through directly creating and donating funds for research that they want. The charities and foundations coordinating this shift are neither ignorant of strategy or dealing in petty cash. In a significant number of OECD countries, private-non-profits as the statistical category is called, fund the higher education research system at a similar or greater level than business. This result has important implications for how we understand the STI system. This paper explores this gap in the literature, ambiguities in analyzing the phenomenon and suggests a framework for further analysis how charities and foundations are reconfiguring STI systems.
You can get a copy of the paper here.
http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_papers/2p2kleih0x11v4r4fqsoj7r1phj6.pdf
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
'The Australian Miracle' by Thomas Barlow
Yes the title of the book is The Australian Miracle.
This book is a few years old now but it still deserves a big plug. It is a very readable but factual book on the surprising success of Australia particularly during the 1800s. From a penal colony to one of the wealthiest economies in the world in just over a 100 years. That deserves the title 'miracle'. The book is for a popular audience and is rather polemical but as it is trying to act as a counterweight to the current tendencies in science policy worldwide this has a place in a debate which is surprisingly shallow at the moment.
Barlow rightly emphasises that success has been largely but not completely due to technological adoption and then adaption to Australia's particular environmental conditions has been critical to its success.
While he rightly points out that Australian mining and agriculture have relied on science and technological advance for a very long time, my only criticism is that he does not emphasise this enough. Australian agriculture is invented. It should not exist on one of the harshest environments on the planet. What I used to say when I worked for the Australian government was agriculture was a created advantaged in Australia. Certainly the perception from far away (overseas) and even in Australia is to take success for granted. Well of course we would have succeeded - even with the poorest soils and lowest rainfalls.
The other really strong point of the book is that it emphasises that that economies are very heterogeneous, and becoming more so, and thus require a diverse range of science and technology inputs. He points out that want is 'useful' science and technology is often a matter of time and perspective.
This book is a modern take on the traditional perspective that the best people to judge relevance are scientists themselves and the government should stay out of priority setting. I have some sympathy for this perspective.
I have a few disagreements with the book but they were surprisingly minor. It wasn't the purpose of the book to grapple with the political problem of justifying basic research to a public that wants to see more immediate relevance. Nor did the book go into the enormous issue of commercialising university research. I would have liked to have read more on both topics. My biggest criticism is that the book focusses on natural sciences, engineering and medicine and ignores completely the social sciences, humanities and the arts. In the heterogeneous economy that Barlow points to, that is a mistake.
It would also have been nice if there had been a few notes for more sources than the quite limited reference list.
Not all readers will accept the premise of the book that there are 10 myths that Australians hold about their science and innovation efforts but if you accept these as at least valid starting point to have a discussion about policy then it is well worth the read.
The book, although very oriented to the Australian market, should also be read by Canadians.
This book is a few years old now but it still deserves a big plug. It is a very readable but factual book on the surprising success of Australia particularly during the 1800s. From a penal colony to one of the wealthiest economies in the world in just over a 100 years. That deserves the title 'miracle'. The book is for a popular audience and is rather polemical but as it is trying to act as a counterweight to the current tendencies in science policy worldwide this has a place in a debate which is surprisingly shallow at the moment.
Barlow rightly emphasises that success has been largely but not completely due to technological adoption and then adaption to Australia's particular environmental conditions has been critical to its success.
While he rightly points out that Australian mining and agriculture have relied on science and technological advance for a very long time, my only criticism is that he does not emphasise this enough. Australian agriculture is invented. It should not exist on one of the harshest environments on the planet. What I used to say when I worked for the Australian government was agriculture was a created advantaged in Australia. Certainly the perception from far away (overseas) and even in Australia is to take success for granted. Well of course we would have succeeded - even with the poorest soils and lowest rainfalls.
The other really strong point of the book is that it emphasises that that economies are very heterogeneous, and becoming more so, and thus require a diverse range of science and technology inputs. He points out that want is 'useful' science and technology is often a matter of time and perspective.
This book is a modern take on the traditional perspective that the best people to judge relevance are scientists themselves and the government should stay out of priority setting. I have some sympathy for this perspective.
I have a few disagreements with the book but they were surprisingly minor. It wasn't the purpose of the book to grapple with the political problem of justifying basic research to a public that wants to see more immediate relevance. Nor did the book go into the enormous issue of commercialising university research. I would have liked to have read more on both topics. My biggest criticism is that the book focusses on natural sciences, engineering and medicine and ignores completely the social sciences, humanities and the arts. In the heterogeneous economy that Barlow points to, that is a mistake.
It would also have been nice if there had been a few notes for more sources than the quite limited reference list.
Not all readers will accept the premise of the book that there are 10 myths that Australians hold about their science and innovation efforts but if you accept these as at least valid starting point to have a discussion about policy then it is well worth the read.
The book, although very oriented to the Australian market, should also be read by Canadians.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Disruptive Innovation Policy
In recent weeks the newsletter Re$earch Money which covers all things to do with innovation and research funding and policy in Canada published an opinion piece by me on innovation policy.
Here is a taste of what I said.
The point is; in a world that is increasingly being disrupted by innovation we can no longer expect that transitions will be smooth.
The recent economic crisis was as much triggered by conventional macro-economic variables (poor lending and risk practices by banks) as it was technological and innovation related. he banks didn't understand the innovations in risk 'management' and oil prices had hit $150 per barrel which appears to be some sort of trigger point. Yet, the conventional media continues to treat the whole GFC (Global Financial Crisis) as conventional macro-economics. Where are the innovations who can talk in broad terms about what is happening technologically.
I am more and more convinced we need to take Keynes' comment seriously.
• The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again. John Maynard Keynes, A Tract on Monetary Reform (1923) Ch. 3 English economist (1883 - 1946) http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38202.html
• Neo-Schumpeterians (innovationists) set themselves too easy a task if they say that the maximisation of the production of innovation will be good for growth and competitiveness in the long run but can give no guide to governments on transitions in periods of disruption (Brian Wixted)
We need an macro-innov-nomics that worries about transitions – that is the destruction in Schumpeter’s creative destruction equation.
Here is a taste of what I said.
While traditional innovation policy remains
fixed on the production of knowledge and technology it focuses on the creative
Schumpeter, not the destructive Schumpeter.
Innovation policy needs to be Schumpeterian and Rogerian (Rogers – Diffusion of Innovations). When the
longed-for innovations disrupt industries and employment patterns, they become
the responsibility of ministries of health, human resources, employment,
industry etc across federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions. When
governments are controlled by the neo-classical economic worldview which assumes
technology with appropriate transitions, and a legal profession that works on
the basis of precedence – it is hard to craft legislation and policies for
disruptive innovations.
The point is; in a world that is increasingly being disrupted by innovation we can no longer expect that transitions will be smooth.
The recent economic crisis was as much triggered by conventional macro-economic variables (poor lending and risk practices by banks) as it was technological and innovation related. he banks didn't understand the innovations in risk 'management' and oil prices had hit $150 per barrel which appears to be some sort of trigger point. Yet, the conventional media continues to treat the whole GFC (Global Financial Crisis) as conventional macro-economics. Where are the innovations who can talk in broad terms about what is happening technologically.
I am more and more convinced we need to take Keynes' comment seriously.
• The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again. John Maynard Keynes, A Tract on Monetary Reform (1923) Ch. 3 English economist (1883 - 1946) http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38202.html
• Neo-Schumpeterians (innovationists) set themselves too easy a task if they say that the maximisation of the production of innovation will be good for growth and competitiveness in the long run but can give no guide to governments on transitions in periods of disruption (Brian Wixted)
We need an macro-innov-nomics that worries about transitions – that is the destruction in Schumpeter’s creative destruction equation.
Friday, February 1, 2013
7 Grand Challenges for Innovation Policy
For about the last year I have been thinking about how I would categorise the big challenges for science, education and innovation policy and policy oriented research over the coming decade. This is my 2013 list. This is not about answers it is about challenges, the problems are easier to see than the new frameworks.
1. Disconnect innovation policy from science policy.
We still overwhelmingly link science, technology and innovation policy. Innovation policy has essentially become the new language for science policy. Pick up any national innovation policy release, and it will still be overwhelmingly about the production of science, the production of technologies and the production of innovation (whatever that means). It is time to disconnect innovation from production and think more about its wholistic implications as innovations get used. Otherwise we get this. A few years ago the OECD released a series of documents branded 'innovation strategy'. The key findings documents contains comments such as
No word there on job losses, massive industry restructuring, industry location shifts etc.....Let's get serious, innovation has never been all upside, industries decline or transform. If we can break the close nexus of innovation policy from science policy we can better appreciate the 360 degree implications of innovations currently coming down the pipe.
2. Better knowledge investment statistics. We still use R&D data as the gold benchmark, but in many industries traditional R&D is not where they spend their knowledge investment dollars. We have known this for a long time but as manufacturing splitters around the globe and product architecture gets more centralised, the numbers become more meaningless. Further, a number of countries do not classify at great detail where the R&D is going anyway (in the university system for example), so the numbers do not tell us much. We cannot even cross classify research done in universities with research done in business as there are different classifications. Beyond R&D we have developed a classification of innovation (new product, new process etc), but what of developing an adoption based classification (innovation changeover costs, savings, job savings etc....)
3. The PhD system is broken. There is more and more evidence of this. In a zero growth university sector such as being experienced in many 'developed' economies then the continued assembly line production of PhDs trained for academia makes no logical sense at all. They are good labour for research grants but that seems a flawed relationship. PhDs could be more useful to society if the goals of their training were tweaked or overhauled to be more directed to being more valuable to non-profits, government agencies, business and starting their own businesses. For more reading on this see Nature 21 April 2011, vol 472 or a recent report on PhDs in Australia prepared by Toss Gascoigne and Associates (2012) 'Career Support for Researchers: Understanding Needs and Developing a best Practice Approach'.
4. Higher Education and Research. Disruptive change is headed for the university system. Lets accept that fact first. What those changes will look like it is very hard to say. That is the nature of disruptive innovation - technology change may have particular trajectories but their implementation is getting harder to predict. First, agree that change will happen and that what works today will probably not withstand the entrepreneurs of the next 15 years unchanged. That said, it is a massive system, with massive invested capital human and physical, with inherent location advantages so I am not saying it will all come crashing down. But we need to bring change conversations in from the fringe and begin to debate the future.
5. Reboot thinking on commercialisation. Commercialisation as currently typically defined is the transfer of knowledge (not people) from the universities to business. Our metrics are abysmal on proving or disproving this. So my point is simply takes a different approach. If commercialisation is such a problem is so many countries and has been for so many years then maybe its the concept that is bust. Put differently, if the treatment does not work there are two choices - the treatment is wrong or the diagnosis is wrong. I have been thinking for a number of years it is the latter and we are actually do the patient harm.
6. Embrace the role of failure. Failure is fundamental to learning and creativity. let us embrace it, so long as it leads to learning. Failure or knowing what does not work can be as big competitive advantage as knowing what does work. Can we work on incorporating failure into our schools and higher education more.
7. Macro-innonomics. The global financial crises has not abated yet, and this should give everyone in the innovation game pause to think. Old style economics of interest rates, savings, consumption and boring things like regulation still matter. How can we better integrate new thinking on innovation, with old economics alongside new imperatives such as sustainability. Such Macro-innonomics would be very useful for policy makers.
1. Disconnect innovation policy from science policy.
We still overwhelmingly link science, technology and innovation policy. Innovation policy has essentially become the new language for science policy. Pick up any national innovation policy release, and it will still be overwhelmingly about the production of science, the production of technologies and the production of innovation (whatever that means). It is time to disconnect innovation from production and think more about its wholistic implications as innovations get used. Otherwise we get this. A few years ago the OECD released a series of documents branded 'innovation strategy'. The key findings documents contains comments such as
- Ensure that framework conditions are sound and supportive of competition, conducive to innovation and are mutually reinforcing.
- These factors require rethinking innovation policy in order to move beyond supply-side policies focused on R&D and specific technologies to a more systemic approach that takes account of the many factors and actors that influence innovation performance, including demand-side policies. The policy objective should not be innovation as such, but its application to make life better for individuals and society at large. This is no easy task, especially as the scope for policies for innovation broadens. Effective policies will require priority setting and strategic decisions, safeguards against favouring a particular firm or region for political as opposed to economic or social reasons, and recognition that striving for “whole of government” co-ordination involves transaction costs. The objective of the OECD’s work to develop a strategy for developing policies for innovation is to support this process, avoid these pitfalls and provide guidance to achieve these goals.
- A more strategic focus on the role of policies for innovation in delivering stronger, cleaner and fairer growth.
- Broadening policies to foster innovation beyond science and technology in recognition of the fact that innovation involves a wide range of investments in intangible assets and actors.
- Education and training policies adapted to the needs of society today to empower people throughout society to be creative, engage in innovation and benefit from its outcomes.
- Greater policy attention to the creation and growth of new firms and their role in creating breakthrough innovations and new jobs.
- Improved mechanisms to foster the diffusion and application of knowledge through well-functioning networks and markets.
- New approaches and governance mechanisms for international cooperation in science and technology to help address global challenges and share costs and risks.
- Frameworks for measuring the broader, more networked concept of innovation and its impacts to guide policy making.
No word there on job losses, massive industry restructuring, industry location shifts etc.....Let's get serious, innovation has never been all upside, industries decline or transform. If we can break the close nexus of innovation policy from science policy we can better appreciate the 360 degree implications of innovations currently coming down the pipe.
2. Better knowledge investment statistics. We still use R&D data as the gold benchmark, but in many industries traditional R&D is not where they spend their knowledge investment dollars. We have known this for a long time but as manufacturing splitters around the globe and product architecture gets more centralised, the numbers become more meaningless. Further, a number of countries do not classify at great detail where the R&D is going anyway (in the university system for example), so the numbers do not tell us much. We cannot even cross classify research done in universities with research done in business as there are different classifications. Beyond R&D we have developed a classification of innovation (new product, new process etc), but what of developing an adoption based classification (innovation changeover costs, savings, job savings etc....)
3. The PhD system is broken. There is more and more evidence of this. In a zero growth university sector such as being experienced in many 'developed' economies then the continued assembly line production of PhDs trained for academia makes no logical sense at all. They are good labour for research grants but that seems a flawed relationship. PhDs could be more useful to society if the goals of their training were tweaked or overhauled to be more directed to being more valuable to non-profits, government agencies, business and starting their own businesses. For more reading on this see Nature 21 April 2011, vol 472 or a recent report on PhDs in Australia prepared by Toss Gascoigne and Associates (2012) 'Career Support for Researchers: Understanding Needs and Developing a best Practice Approach'.
4. Higher Education and Research. Disruptive change is headed for the university system. Lets accept that fact first. What those changes will look like it is very hard to say. That is the nature of disruptive innovation - technology change may have particular trajectories but their implementation is getting harder to predict. First, agree that change will happen and that what works today will probably not withstand the entrepreneurs of the next 15 years unchanged. That said, it is a massive system, with massive invested capital human and physical, with inherent location advantages so I am not saying it will all come crashing down. But we need to bring change conversations in from the fringe and begin to debate the future.
5. Reboot thinking on commercialisation. Commercialisation as currently typically defined is the transfer of knowledge (not people) from the universities to business. Our metrics are abysmal on proving or disproving this. So my point is simply takes a different approach. If commercialisation is such a problem is so many countries and has been for so many years then maybe its the concept that is bust. Put differently, if the treatment does not work there are two choices - the treatment is wrong or the diagnosis is wrong. I have been thinking for a number of years it is the latter and we are actually do the patient harm.
6. Embrace the role of failure. Failure is fundamental to learning and creativity. let us embrace it, so long as it leads to learning. Failure or knowing what does not work can be as big competitive advantage as knowing what does work. Can we work on incorporating failure into our schools and higher education more.
7. Macro-innonomics. The global financial crises has not abated yet, and this should give everyone in the innovation game pause to think. Old style economics of interest rates, savings, consumption and boring things like regulation still matter. How can we better integrate new thinking on innovation, with old economics alongside new imperatives such as sustainability. Such Macro-innonomics would be very useful for policy makers.
Friday, January 18, 2013
What is the velocity of policy
In the article by McCarthy, Lawrence, Wixted and Gordon - Academy of Management Review 2010, we defined velocity not only as the rate of change but also the direction of change. In the article we were concentrating on the characteristics of for profit organisational environments and thus defined the dimensions of their environments as technology, demand, regulation, competition and products.
It seems that our velocity concepts and analytics are perfectly suited to 'innovation policy'
But we need to come up with new dimensions.
We could ask.
So we could take as an example Napster and online file sharing really took off around 2000 and while existing copyright laws were somewhat useful they could not deal with digital realities.
The new Canada copyright laws were passed in 2011 and received ascent in 2012. Thus there was a time interval of 12 years. That is a reasonably slow velocity for the legislation. I make no observation regarding whether the new legislation actually is the correct direction - there is huge debates over that.
It seems that our velocity concepts and analytics are perfectly suited to 'innovation policy'
But we need to come up with new dimensions.
We could ask.
- when were broad innovation policy reviews were conducted
- when were particularly disruptive technologies first introduced into the market
- when did the technology noticeably disrupt?
- when was legislation introduced?
So we could take as an example Napster and online file sharing really took off around 2000 and while existing copyright laws were somewhat useful they could not deal with digital realities.
The new Canada copyright laws were passed in 2011 and received ascent in 2012. Thus there was a time interval of 12 years. That is a reasonably slow velocity for the legislation. I make no observation regarding whether the new legislation actually is the correct direction - there is huge debates over that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)