Australia's SERD report, Ambitious Australia, strengthens the research system but treats it as though it were the innovation system. This Innovation Insight argues for two shifts: defining innovation as the successful application of new ideas rather than production of research outputs, and widening the frame beyond science and technology to include creative practice, social innovation and place-based ecosystems. Firms, users and places, not universities alone, should be at th

Australia performs strongly in research, yet struggles to translate this into innovation outcomes. This Insight argues that the SERD report reinforces this divide by treating the research system as a proxy for the innovation system. While funding, governance and capital reforms are well developed, the report underweights management capability, industry structure, demand-side dynamics and place-based ecosystems that ultimately determine whether research delivers economic and s

The Denholm Review presents Australia’s innovation system as a reinforcing flywheel coordinating research, firms, and growth. This Insight challenges that framing. It argues that the central constraint is the absence of strong market formation, capital depth, and global integration. Without these, policies risk improving internal coherence while failing to generate globally competitive outcomes. The question is whether Australia is building a system it can manage, or one that

The Strategic Examination of Research and Development, released 17 March 2026, is the latest review diagnosing Australia's innovation system and proposing reform. The panel's 20 recommendations are analytically sound and deliberately integrated. But the real test is implementation. Systemic reform must navigate sequential budgets, entrenched institutional resistance, and competing fiscal priorities, including defence, health, and cost-of-living measures.

Research and development is moving from laboratory-based models to digital platforms that integrate data, software, and AI. This Insight examines how many global firms now operate as de facto research environments, the implications for Australia’s capability and sovereignty, and the changes required in policy, measurement, and national strategy.

Academic “studies” fields have emerged because complex problems exceed traditional disciplinary boundaries. They create intellectual trading zones that integrate economics, engineering, sociology, and policy. The Insight explains how this shift reflects Boyer’s scholarship framework and why universities and governments must rethink siloed structures.

The launch of the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) in 2015 marked a watershed moment for Australian policy, placing entrepreneurship at the centre of the nation's economic future. This analysis looks at how NISA's initiatives, particularly the overhaul of the Venture Capital Limited Partnership (VCLP) and Early-Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnership (ESVCLP) regimes, successfully stimulated the early-stage funding ecosystem. It also discusses the critical chal

The Handbook of Innovation Ecosystems provides a framework for charting a course for Australia to “move from fragmented, project-based initiatives to a coherent, adaptive, strategically integrated innovation system”. It will be of assistance to the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science Tim Ayres as he is faced with expectations of transformative action in a ‘budget neutral’ funding environment.

University–industry ties are rising, but mainly with foreign firms. The real barrier is domestic absorptive capacity: many Australian SMEs lack R&D talent, systems to use outside knowledge, and resources to scale. Multinationals adopt our research, while local work stalls at TRL 6–7. Stop blaming universities. Industry must invest in skills, universities must back implementation, and government must support transfer agents. Without this, R&D returns will stay weak.

Australia’s innovation system is world-class in research inputs,but falters when it comes to commercial outcomes. This is our long-standing "innovation paradox." What if we could finally solve it? Drawing on the case of Kaiserslautern, a small German city transformed into a global tech hub through the establishment of Fraunhofer Institutes, this Insight makes the case for introducing Fraunhofer-style applied research institutes in Australia.

The tectonic shifts in the global economy—from manufacturing to services, from tangible goods to intangible assets—demand more than incremental adjustments to our statistical and analytical frameworks, Australia, a nation increasingly powered by services and innovation, risks undermining its competitiveness by clinging to an outdated framework. The case for adopting modern, flexible, and globally aligned industry classification systems has never been more compelling.

Innovation has shaped prosperity and progress, yet its virtues are increasingly threatened by political opportunism and corporate betrayal. How can governments, firms, and individuals protect innovation’s role as a force for good? This Insight from Professor Mark Dodgson shows the way

Rajesh Gopalakrishnan Nair 'What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.' - Romeo and Juliet,...

This is the first of a series on what makes good public policy. Further Insights will be published weekly on Tuesdays. Other Innovation...

Australia has research excellence—now it's time to strengthen innovation ecosystems, financing, and pathways to adoption, application & use.

Australia’s innovation policy needs a paradigm shift. There must be a framework to support sustainable growth across all growth businesses

The Universities Accord Report pushed for 'root and branch' reform of the R&D system. But could strategic patience be more transformative?

The history of reviews of research and innovation in Australia follows a predictable and disheartening cycle