More wise words on innovation

Agree that the aircraft example is an extreme one (business justifications
aside) and everyone who buys Airbus still wants products assembled in
Toulouse, not Tianjin. Who knows? Could be that Airbus Tianjin produces
for domestic customers? Given the stringent engrg specs that guide the
industry, should be fine. The point is: what are we doing with all this
know-how we have amassed over time, have we found the means to cast it in
different ways. Do we even aspire to? I suspect the answer is not
resoundingly affirmative. Most Singaporeans are quite content to be Google
engineers, not Google founders (present company excluded, of course :-))

Maybe what we need is a mega project a la China's space program or Egypt's
pyramids to capture the imagination of a nation, inspire a generation and
spur innovation.

In our discussions with various EDB groups, we've invariably hit the same
wall: Singapore is an excellent spot to set up an MNC outpost, RHQ or rep
office, etc, We supply a good, reliable, dependable, knowledgeable
workforce, adept at timely flawless execution, but we are still somehow
unable to make that leap into the big league, ie. to be that location where
the next big must-have gadget, fashion-piece, inter-galactic aircraft, gene
therapy, LED TV, etc. is created. Is it because we have relied on a
strategy to import capability, rather than create it locally? Not that
that is a bad approach. Good jobs are created, FDI secured. Then when we
incrementally move up the value chain into the realm of R&D, the picture
becomes much less coherent.

We need the full plethora of R&D activities:
(For sharing:) (See attached file: R&D Classification
Matrix(af).xls) (adapted and modified from my past life... :-)

If you look at the matrix, Singapore does have most of the ingredients,
except that there is no single organisation with the entire value chain.
Most technology MNCs will have all R&D types from Type I through to Type
VI, in-house en suite. In the Singapore context, Type I is with the
Universities, Type II with the RIs, Type III absent or totally weak (but an
important central link to translate ideas into products), Type IV & V with
private sector (to serve their own P&L-driven needs), and Type VI can be
anything from Tech Svc to Patent Attorneys. So in our approach to import
capabilities, we have ignored developing our own.

And let's please further define entrepreneurs beyond the Ya Kuns, OCKs,
Breadtalk, C&K, 77th Street, Qianhu. Let's move into the league of
Nokias, Boeings, Apples, Googles... Granted we do have some shiny examples
too (e.g. SQ, Banks, ?), and even some technology offerrings like Creative,
Trek and Chartered (all three have seen better days). To add more color to
this, as at 2006, Singapore has a mere 7 companies with annual revenue
>S$1B per million population. Other similar small economies like Finland
(20) and Norway (26) have far more. We can do better. We need
technopreneurs.

Marrying the interests of inventors and investors, either thru a web portal
or a coffee joint, is definitely the way to go. Smart & hungry people
talking to other smart & hungry people will light flames. The key is to
create a thriving product (could even be as lame and expensive as a swanky
pink handbag) that generates more revenue than the coffee joint that
facilitated the union. :-)