In New Zealand, overall greater co-operative research is necessary between research institutes, and with industry. Smooth operation and development of the NIS is based on good co-operation between the public and private sectors. This aids in technology transfer and
speeds up the cycle of product commercialisation, as well as enabling a communication path for the human capital needs and research direction into the innovation cycle. With such linkages, firms can acquire access to networks of academic experts crucial for their innovative capability. This makes the processes that enable university/industry
collaborations an important consideration to any national strategy. And this is one of the areas in which New Zealand is lacking.
New Zealand requires government run programs which link individual companies with a public research provider. Something along the lines of Australia’s co-operative research consortiums (CRCs) tends to place more responsibility with the users to develop stronger relationships.
Technology incubators and technology parks are good examples of an institution which brings together players from both sectors and enables knowledge transfer and spillover.
While NZ does have a significant and growing number of biotech incubators, it has no established tech parks, such as those in Taiwan. It is important to note though, that the success of the university/industry collaborations such as technology park development also relies on the success of the supporting networks.
Research has become an important driver in some universities, especially in the life sciences (biotechnology). However currently, the full potential of this capability is hampered by the lack of co-operation and comprehensive strategy. A group strategy for universities needs to be devised, with a consolidation of resources. Within this the interest based research of individual researchers needs to complement a strategic direction. This should rationalise resources and strengths. In a more co-operative system, needless duplication of resources, and research doesn’t occur. Networks need to be developed.
NZ has a proliferation of industry associations and societies. These formalised networks can be built on to provide greater cohesion across the sectors. The Royal Society of New
Zealand and the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) are examples of societies which link members through formal and informal networks. A current initiative of both groups is to establish a national network of technologists (NNT) from industry and academia to give a voice to the technology sector.
NZ needs to aim for an efficient open research system which is streamlined and more
cohesive. A consolidation of strengths targeting the Government’s direction is required. The research component of the CRIs and Universities need to be more integrated. The other parts of these institutions – the commercialisation vs. technical research nature of the CRI, and the education vs. research nature of the universities need to be treated as they are – separate but interactive entities.
The main reason the rhetoric from the policy makers is not reaching the lower levels is the lack of linkages in the system. The lack of networks is a serious weakness in the current NIS and has led to duplication, competition and circumvention between individual institutions.
Network formation from local groups, societies and associations need to be encouraged.
There is also a lack of formalized network co-operation efforts in NZ. More tangible networks need to be developed. Incentives to create centres of research excellence
involving universities, industry and research institutes are required. More hard network and explicit structures such as technology parks, technology transfer offices and technology integrators need to be developed. Formalised network structures are a priority.
Finally, transforming New Zealand requires more than just a shift in economic policy. It is also about creating a society that recognises and rewards innovation; that encourages creative thinking and admires and actively supports entrepreneurship. Cultural and societal change needs to be targeted through education. Education needs to be used as a
springboard for disseminating and implementing the knowledge economy strategy. We need to up-skill the educators to allow them to be effective at this task.
In Taiwan, there is a well established infrastructure, with numerous science parks (many now dedicated to biotechnology), and increasing linkages from universities to the private sector. However, there are areas which could be improved.
The buildup of an R&D biotech industry cannot be done in one day. The special
characteristic of this industry calls for an outlay of tremendous amount of capital during the development period. Despite a probable high return in profit, the risk is high. Not only that, but the development period is often vey long.
This situation often discourages VC investors, who look for a high ROI in a short time. The Taiwan Government needs to address this issue, perhaps by offering incentives for investment in the industry.
The advantage Taiwan has in developing the biotech medical industry lies in its active and innovative SME system, the fast growing relationship with the Asia-Pacific market, Taiwan's excellent clinical medical research project, and the vast pool of biotech scientists of Chinese ancestry. However, the weakest point of Taiwan's biotech industry is its limited local market, which can be overcome through international cooperation. It is in this area that Taiwan needs to improve. At present, as far as the biotech industry is concerned, international collaboration is limited. If the country could effectively use its existing resources advantage of precision manufacturing and quantitative engineering, output would not only reduce the development risk for the biotech industry, but would also make Taiwan an indispensable value partner in the world arena.