Australia ranks 105th of 145 countries in economic complexity. International firms pay billions to acquire successful Australian technology companies, while Australian industry policy funds research institutions while starving local vendors of scaling support to do more onshore.
Institutions claim innovation risk but face no consequences when commercialisation fails. Companies face risk across market access, technical integration, financial infrastructure, organisational capability, and reputation. Policy credits institutions for the returns companies deliver.
Commercialisation exists across Australia, from SME’s to global corporates. 3ME Technology, IMDEX, Ampcontrol, and James Hardie systematically showcase the capability policy makers try to create through institutional coordination. The question is why policy makers can not recognise this capability already exists.
Great products fail in weak companies. Mediocre products win in strong companies. Current policy obsesses over Technology Readiness Levels while ignoring a critical truth: innovation success operates on two dimensions, not one.
Australian innovation policy designs bridges between research institutions and end-user companies, bypassing the bridge builders; Australian technology companies with proven capabilities to carry innovation to global markets.
Research excellence, investment expertise, and commercial translation require fundamentally different professional competencies. Expecting research institutions to develop commercial capabilities is like expecting commercial companies to conduct academic peer review. Both skills are essential. Neither can substitute for the other.
The UK invested £2.5 billion in Catapult centres with academic leadership. While Fraunhofer achieves 70% industry revenue; Catapults managed 40%. Australia risks repeating this expensive mistake by funding research-led commercialisation instead of commercial-led translation.
Innovation policy roundtables include academics, researchers, and venture capitalists. Missing are commercial leaders with decades competing in global technology markets, building research relationships, and scaling Australian innovations internationally. No wonder policy reflects institutional perspectives rather than commercial reality.
Germany doesn’t have a monopoly on brilliant scientists. The secret to Fraunhofer’s success lies in something Australian policy makers consistently overlook: commercial discipline, not research relevance.
Project funding lasts two to three years. Commercial translation requires sustained company development over decades. 3ME Technology needed six years to breakthrough. TechnologyOne invested 37 years building enterprise software leadership. Companies carry innovation across the valley of death, not projects.