Blog Layout

Innovation barriers for Australian businesses identified

Jessica Guttridge

Study points to lack of talent, funding and understanding as the top three barriers to innovation in the business space 

Boards that fail to understand the importance of innovation may block business growth opportunities and underestimate the impact of digital disruption, according to a report by the University of Sydney Business School and the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD).

The report, titled Driving innovation: the boardroom gap, identified the top three barriers to innovation: access to talent, financial resources, and a short-term financial focus, with researchers calling for more science and technology expertise within company boards.

The report was compiled from the results of discussions with company directors, along with surveys, balancing quantitative and qualitive data.

Among directors, 31 per cent said access to talent was their greatest challenge, citing a lack of specialist skills and talent to take the lead on innovation activities. 

Source: Driving Innovation: The Boardroom Gap 2019 Innovation Study

Report author Dr Massimo Garbuio, a researcher at the University of Sydney Business School, suggests that businesses need to include individuals with science and technology backgrounds on the board, as well as talent with strong international experience. Another method to address the innovation gap is to establish a specialist committee, or advisory panel. 

"I was surprised to find that only three per cent of the directors said they brought science and technology experience or international experience to their board. Many may need to upskill in order to understand the impact of new technology for their companies and how to use them to compete in a global marketplace."

Dr Garbuio said it was clear that "several companies are too short-term driven, being driven primarily by shareholder needs, and there is not enough investment in R&D and innovation when compared to OECD counterparts."

While 75 per cent of company directors surveyed believed their organisation had an innovative vision or said innovation featured in their strategic vision, almost half admitted that momentum was lost over time. 

Nearly 60 per cent of directors were unaware of the percentage of their organisation's total expenditure that was allocated to R&D and innovative activities.

"We live in a world in which it's often easier and faster for a customer to buy something from a US website and get it shipped than to buy it from a local retailer that hasn't been able to effectively integrate digital and non-digital channels," Dr Garbuio said.

Directors said it was often difficult to engage and motivate staff on innovation - presumably, due to fear of the unknown and perceived threats to job security created by the status quo being challenged.

In the report, Dr Garbuio noted that boards that collaborated with their executive team to set and oversee the organisation’s innovation strategy were much more likely to realise their innovation objectives. This included ensuring innovation features regularly in board meeting agendas.

Based on the outcome of his study, Dr Garbuio recommends board members have two strategic conversations.

"First is a conversation about the need to truly understand customers' needs today as well as their needs in five or ten years. 

“Second is a conversation about resource allocation. Are we investing enough today in order to be relevant and thrive in 10 years?" he said.

The report also cited the ‘golden ratio,’ an idea introduced in Harvard Business Review that created a budget structure based on companies that outperformed their peers, as a suggestion for board rooms on how to allocate funding to innovation. 

In the ‘golden ratio’
  • 70 per cent of resources are put into optimising existing products for existing customers
  • 20 per cent into expanding from existing businesses into “new to the company” businesses
  • 10 per cent into developing breakthroughs and investing things for markets that don’t yet exist 
As Dr Garbuio points out, “If Australian businesses want to compete, they can't just follow what is done elsewhere, they need to lead. Customers have choices.”


Related story: 
By By Harley Paroulaksis, CEO Paspalis, CEO Darwin Innovation Hub 20 May, 2023
Getting asked what we look for in deals is one of the most common questions I get as an investment manager.
20 May, 2023
The Small Business Association of Australia is dedicated to supporting SMEs, acting as their voice to government and helping them connect, grow, and prosper well into the future.
By By Shiv Meka 20 May, 2023
Sensibles may sound like science fiction, but this revolutionary technology is making waves in aged-care facilities, and has the potential to transform health monitoring at scale.
28 Mar, 2023
Alice Springs and the deserts of Central Australia don’t sound like a food basket, but they are for businesswoman and bush foods innovator Rayleen Brown.
By Gillian Cumming 28 Mar, 2023
A new report aims to lay the foundations for a deeper and more meaningful and equitable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the mining transition sector.
By Dr Saraid Billiards - CEO of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. 27 Mar, 2023
If the health and medical research sector in Australia is to move forward, it must address gender equity, diversity, and inclusion- which means making the sector a safe and inclusive workspace for all.
27 Jan, 2023
A ground-breaking sheep technology system is bettering the businesses and lives of Australian sheep breeders thanks to a revolutionary combination of software, hardware, and support never before combined into one cohesive unit.
27 Jan, 2023
ANCA took an early view to look beyond Australia’s shores whilst developing advanced manufacturing technologies now viewed as ‘business as usual’
By Andrew Downs 27 Jan, 2023
As Australia grapples with a critical skills shortage, many are now encouraging young people to embrace a career in the trades, where a wealth of opportunities awaits.
By By Ben Kehoe 27 Jan, 2023
In 2016 I published a blog article titled Moonshots for Australia: 7 For Now. It’s one of many I have posted on business and innovation in Australia. In that book, I highlighted a number of Industries of the Future among a number of proposed Moonshots. I self-published a book, Innovation in Australia – Creating prosperity for future generations, in 2019, with a follow-up COVID edition in 2020. There is no doubt COVID is causing massive disruption. Prior to COVID, there was little conversation about National Sovereignty or supply chains. Even now, these topics are fading, and we remain preoccupied with productivity and jobs! My motivation for this writing has been the absence of a coherent narrative for Australia’s business future. Over the past six years, little has changed. The Australian ‘psyche’ regarding our political and business systems is programmed to avoid taking a long-term perspective. The short-term nature of Government (3 to 4-year terms), the short-term horizon of the business system (driven by shareholder value), the media culture (infotainment and ‘gotcha’ games), the general Australian population’s cynical perspective and a preoccupation with a lifestyle all create a malaise of strategic thinking and conversation. Ultimately, it leads to a leadership vacuum at all levels. In recent years we have seen the leadership of some of our significant institutions failing to live up to the most basic standards, with Royal Commissions, Inquiries and investigations consuming excessive time and resources. · Catholic Church and other religious bodies · Trade Unions · Banks (and businesses generally, take casinos, for example) · the Australian Defence Force · the Australian cricket teams · our elected representatives and the staff of Parliament House As they say, “A fish rots from the head!” At best, the leadership behaviour in those institutions could be described as unethical and, at worst….just bankrupt! In the last decade, politicians have led us through a game of “leadership by musical chairs” – although, for now, it has stabilised. However, there is still an absence of a coherent narrative about business and wealth creation. It is a challenge. One attempt to provide such a narrative has been the Intergenerational Reports produced by our federal Government every few years since 2002. The shortcomings of the latest Intergenerational Report Each Intergenerational Report examines the long-term sustainability of current government policies and how demographic, technological, and other structural trends may affect the economy and the budget over the next 40 years. The fifth and most recent Intergenerational Report released in 2021 (preceded by Reports in 2002, 2007, 2010 and 2015) provides a narrative about Australia’s future – in essence, it is an extension of the status quo. The Report also highlights three key insights: 1. First, our population is growing slower and ageing faster than expected. 2. The Australian economy will continue to grow, but slower than previously thought. 3. While Australia’s debt is sustainable and low by international standards, the ageing of our population will pressure revenue and expenditure. However, its release came and went with a whimper. The recent Summit on (what was it, Jobs and Skills and productivity?) also seems to have made the difference of a ‘snowflake’ in hell in terms of identifying our long-term challenges and growth industries. Let’s look back to see how we got here and what we can learn. Australia over the last 40 years During Australia’s last period of significant economic reform (the late 1980s and early 1990s), there was a positive attempt at building an inclusive national narrative between Government and business. Multiple documents were published, including: · Australia Reconstructed (1987) – ACTU · Enterprise Bargaining a Better Way of Working (1989) – Business Council of Australia · Innovation in Australia (1991) – Boston Consulting Group · Australia 2010: Creating the Future Australia (1993) – Business Council of Australia · and others. There were workshops, consultations with industry leaders, and conferences across industries to pursue a national microeconomic reform agenda. Remember these concepts? · global competitiveness · benchmarking · best practice · award restructuring and enterprising bargaining · training, management education and multiskilling. This agenda was at the heart of the business conversation. During that time, the Government encouraged high levels of engagement with stakeholders. As a result, I worked with a small group of training professionals to contribute to the debate. Our contribution included events and publications over several years, including What Dawkins, Kelty and Howard All Agree On – Human Resources Strategies for Our Nation (published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development). Unfortunately, these long-term strategic discussions are nowhere near as prevalent among Government and industry today. The 1980s and 1990s were a time of radical change in Australia. It included: · floating the $A · deregulation · award restructuring · lowering/abolishing tariffs · Corporatisation and Commercialisation Ross Garnaut posits that the reforms enabled Australia to lead the developed world in productivity growth – given that it had spent most of the 20th century at the bottom of the developed country league table. However, in his work, The Great Reset, Garnaut says that over the next 20 years, our growth was attributable to the China mining boom, and from there, we settled into “The DOG days” – Australia moved to the back of a slow-moving pack! One unintended consequence of opening our economy to the world is the emasculation of the Australian manufacturing base. The manic pursuit of increased efficiency, lower costs, and shareholder value meant much of the labour-intensive work was outsourced. Manufacturing is now less than 6% of our GDP , less than half of what it was 30 years ago!
More Posts
Share by: