I am presently busy preparing for a visit to Singapore. I balance my time between Switzerland and Singapore as my business base and as they are ranked 1 & 3 in the WEF’s Global Competitive Index, it is sometimes hard to get even deeper attention to innovation as this sort of ranking gives a certain belief, yet I often wonder why. I think countries often get blindsided in the pursuit of what they know and ignore what they seemingly can’t capture.
Let me be perfectly clear both countries I operate between, take competitiveness seriously; they both have a real need to maintain their attraction to foreign investment for their prosperity, as they have limited resources to call upon if you compare them to the USA, China, India or Germany for example, and do set about creating the right environment for this but they have their blindsides it seems to me still.
The GCI index
Firstly let me explain the GCI. The World Economic Forum defines competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country. Its latest report can be viewed here http://bit.ly/ZRfFf
The GCI covers three main areas (Basic Requirements, Efficiency Enhancers, and Innovation and Sophistication) among a total of 12 pillars against which competitiveness is measured. The twelfth pillar is innovation.
There are a number of measurable ‘hard’ data indicators (e.g. broadband internet subscribers, mortality, infrastructure etc) and a number of ‘soft’ data indicators which are partly taken from the Executive Opinion Survey within these 12 pillars. There is also a weightings of these factors depend on the stage of development of the country.
Needing a deeper attention to innovation still in both
One of the arguments of the recent WEF report is simply: “In the long run, standards of living can be expanded only with innovation”, now that is music to my ears as this is my 100% focus! The report offers this further thought “Firms in these countries must design and develop cutting-edge products and processes to maintain a competitive edge. This requires an environment that is conducive to innovative activity, supported by both the public and the private sectors”
One of the things you always need to look hard at is the factors that drive the ranking and these are sometimes not as ‘focused’ on the innovation activity as we sometimes think. Each country has to dig a little deeper in this innovation pillar to maintain its ranking is how I see it. Let me explain where:
Switzerland
IP protection clearly plays a critical part in the Swiss attraction and in their emphasis on the technology and R&D competencies does seem to dominate the thinking for Swiss innovation. R&D institutions in Switzerland are without doubt among the best; they also do try and create a good collaborative environment between the different parties.
Where I feel it often misses out is in the softer, value enhancing aspects of service and design within innovation and working more closely with small and medium sized organisations.
They make up the economic engine of Switzerland but are not given the innovation recognition and support they deserve. Partly the reason for this is that innovation design and service is often difficult to capture in economic terms but its growing part in Swiss economic activity needs to be captured more, it needs to be seen. It deserves a more thoughtful policy approach as service and design will make up an increasing source of productivity in the years to come.
Singapore
In Singapore they are certainly far more ‘highly’ entrepreneurial and well coordinated in there management of creative innovation to attract foreign investment. There is a dedicated focus on what brings economic activity into Singapore. Their Economic Development Board (EDB) is a formidable extension of total Government commitment to competitiveness and inward attraction.
When they decide on a focus, they put the required resource and commitment to it but sometimes I feel, they are ‘reacting’ and keeping pace with global changes but often innovation does not seem to be deepened enough as they continually move on.
A broader value of innovation and all its different parts needs more adoption appreciation and understanding. As a country it must be the most ‘wired’ society around, it has a very involved and dynamic public sector engaged with society in general, yet it often seems to pull away from the final closure, that deepening of its innovation capability and bridging those gaps. It seems to sustain through change and not through sustainability of innovation.
A deeper recognition is needed.
Innovation needs more recognition and increased emphasis, not just in these two countries that I chose to operate within, but for all others that surround them that have the same equal need to grow their economies after this recent set of tough economic times. Innovation needs a more dedicated resource.
For me this should be a move towards a Ministry of Innovation.
Innovation is far too important not to be well understood, not just to have a dedication policy unit but an ongoing deepening resource that has a ongoing understanding of the broad and deep needs innovation requires to contribute to our economic wealth.
Of course each country will focus on selected areas but it can miss out significantly if it does not evaluate across the entire spectrum that makes up innovation activity and that calls for a different approach in the future, a more holistic one, less opportunistic.
More on this will follow, as I believe innovation shapes our futures and countries need to deepen their understanding of it to thrive. At present I need to get back to my plans for my trip to Singapore. It is a place that is always changing.