Everyone’s talking about bridging the gap, but who are the bridge builders?
Australia’s innovation policy debate has a favourite metaphor: “bridging the gap” between research and commercialisation. The Australian Computer Society calls for us to “…connect the dots…” Dr John Howard advocates for translational infrastructure hubs, CleanTech grants promise to “…bridge research and industry.” Even the upcoming R&D review frames the challenge as connecting our research excellence to commercial outcomes.
The metaphor is compelling, and intuitively the diagnosis seems obvious. Yet something critical is missing from these theoretical discussions… no one identifies who the bridge builders are.
The policy gap stems from a lack of commercial understanding about how innovation translates into economic value. We don’t need to build new bridges, they already exist, in the form of existing Australian companies. These companies are technology vendors, who act as commercial intermediaries, transforming innovation into products and services to serve markets both here and abroad. Some of them have been around for decades, building bridges between innovation and markets.
For policy makers they remain hidden in plain sight, too busy delivering value for their customers to respond to a government call for input. They are getting on with business, and innovation policy is simply not designed to provide support.
The intermediary distinction
The difference between companies that benefit from research and companies that sell to industry isn’t subtle, and for Australia the lack of distinction defines our commercialisation challenge.
End-user companies in our primary industry sectors consume research to improve their operations. They benefit from collaborative industry funding and the innovation it creates, but they’re not in the business of translating technology for others. They participate to solve their own operational problems, not to represent industry-wide challenges.
Commercial intermediaries operate differently. They identify innovation priorities based on key factors like market potential, they invest in creating products and services and sustain themselves selling those solutions to multiple customers across industries. They carry innovation across the valley of death as a business investment to survive, in order to compete in globalised markets.
Sweden’s mining technology ecosystem demonstrates the distinction between supply and demand perfectly. Rather than funding mining companies to solve their own challenges (demand), Swedish innovation policy supports companies like Sandvik, Epiroc, and Atlas Copco, commercial intermediaries that develop (supply) technologies serving the mining industry. These companies work with Swedish researchers, translate discoveries into products, and sell them to mining operations worldwide.
The result? Nine of Sweden’s top 20 companies are industrial technology firms serving international markets. They didn’t become global leaders by consuming research, they built businesses translating research into commercial solutions for others.
Australia funds the valley walls, research institutions producing excellent discoveries, and end-user companies applying them internally. We systematically bypass the bridge builders who would carry innovation to broader markets. It’s hardly surprising to see our emerging innovators being acquired by these global technology firms, a coup for them, but a loss for our national economy.
Recognising genuine commercial intermediaries
Not every company calling itself a technology vendor qualifies as a genuine commercial intermediary. The distinction matters because commercialisation funding should support entities with proven translation capabilities, not aspirations.
Genuine commercial intermediaries demonstrate five characteristics that separate them from other players in the innovation ecosystem.
- First, established market presence. Real commercial intermediaries have existing customer bases, proven distribution channels, and market relationships built over years serving existing customers.
- Second, financial capability with demonstrated revenue generation. These companies already generate profitable revenue from selling products and services with profit-and-loss accountability and commercial risk management.
- Third, technical integration expertise. They navigate product roadmaps, regulatory requirements, manufacturing constraints, competitive forces and market acceptance challenges that researchers never encounter.
- Fourth, international market access. Real commercial intermediaries already serve international customers, understand global market dynamics, and have sales and marketing capabilities across multiple regions.
- Fifth, sustained commercial track record. Companies with five, ten, or twenty years of successful commercial operation have demonstrated resilience through market cycles and proven they can sustain innovation investment through revenue generation.
These characteristics aren’t nice-to-have. They’re essential capabilities that determine whether a company has the capability to deliver outcomes. They have the experience required to carry research across the valley of death, and most importantly no interest in grant funding without investment delivering commercial outcomes.
Australia’s overlooked technology companies
Australian deep technology companies are not hypothetical, they are already operating in Australia, translating technology into commercial value, serving global markets. Innovation policy is unfortunately not designed in a way to support them.
Brambles operates the world’s largest logistics platform, serving customers across 60 countries with supply chain solutions. With $5 billion in annual revenue, Brambles translates supply chain innovations into commercial services sold to manufacturers, retailers, and distributors globally.
James Hardie built global building materials leadership through systematic technology translation from Australian research foundations. With operations across North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific generating over $4 billion annually, the company commercialises fibre cement and construction technologies to builders and construction companies worldwide.
Sonic Healthcare operates diagnostic services across eight countries, systematically integrating new diagnostic technologies into commercial pathology services. With $8 billion in annual revenue, Sonic Healthcare demonstrates commercial intermediary capability in knowledge-intensive sectors.
Lycopodium provides engineering and project delivery services to global mining operations with projects across six continents. The firm commercialises engineering advances, automation technologies, and process improvements into services that mining operators purchase.
MyPass Global developed workforce compliance technology that multiple industries now purchase including mining, construction, healthcare, and government. MyPass demonstrates how digital platform companies can operate as commercial intermediaries, carrying innovation across sectors through technology translation.
These companies share critical characteristics: existing customer bases, substantial revenue generation, international market access, technical integration expertise, and sustained commercial track records. They’re genuine commercial intermediaries with sustainable businesses. Yet innovation policy consistently flows to research institutions and end market operators, bypassing Australian vendors who translate research into broadly marketable solutions, and then banks on incentives for startups to defy the odds and create new companies.
What policy makers are missing
Current policy proposals miss the commercial intermediary distinction entirely. Calls for hubs, precincts, and translational infrastructure assumes a theoretical bridge-building capability through institutional arrangements. We see policy makers searching for buckets of money, like accessing Australian Superannuation funds, then try to lure investment into funding startups. This ‘treasury approach’ fundamentally misunderstands the challenge (not to mention the purpose of Superfunds and risk appetite of their fund managers). The consequence of this misunderstanding results in department calls for programme ‘consolidation’, rather than targeted ‘specialisation’.
Purpose matters. Different skills are required for different jobs. Research excellence does not automatically result in commercial translation. International evidence shows academic leadership struggles with commercial accountability requirements regardless of funding levels or institutional restructuring.
Commercial organisations are designed for a different purpose, with differing performance metrics and organisational structures. While innovation hubs do create important coordination infrastructure, by design they bypass local companies with proven translation capabilities, almost competing for public investment and attention.
The alternative seems almost too obvious to state… support companies already doing commercial translation successfully! Provide incentives (not rebates) to encourage Australian companies to participate as intermediaries to commercialise research. Successful Australian technology companies do not need institutional coordination, but they do need appropriate incentives. They are living in the ‘real’ commercial world and will need very good reason to redirect their scarce resources towards anything other than survival. It will take incentives to even consider working with Australian research institutions, as it requires time and effort to translate discoveries into products and scale them globally.
Preserving commercial incentives
The commercial intermediary gap isn’t because we are missing companies; it is the gap in incentives that make commercial translation systematically unattractive. When government funding allows end-users to access research directly, commercial intermediaries lose their market position.
Australian innovation programs systematically create this dynamic. The Australian Economic Accelerator, National Reconstruction Fund, and Future Made in Australia all inadvertently bypass technology vendors. Each program is well intentioned, but the consequences compound over time. Commercial companies continue to be overlooked as vehicles for innovation investment. Industry associations try to fill the gap with support programs and network events. Researchers develop fewer relationships with local translation partners and partner with global firms. End-users find themselves with stranded innovations, designed for internal use rather than industry-wide advancement.
International models preserve commercial incentives differently. Canadian mining technology companies generate billions in export revenue by supporting intermediaries to work with researchers. Israeli innovation policy requires commercial intermediaries before research funding. Germany’s Mittelstand companies thrived because policy systematically supported mid-sized commercial firms to become technology translation engines, not through institutional coordination but through sustained commercial support.
Australia needs equivalent frameworks supporting companies that already demonstrate commercial intermediary capabilities.
Bridge builders, not bridge designers
The innovation policy conversation needs to shift from designing bridges to supporting bridge builders. Designing bridges leads to theoretical institutional solutions, hubs, precincts, coordination mechanisms.
Supporting bridge builders requires focus on technology companies with proven capabilities. We need to incentivise Australian companies to participate as commercial intermediaries. Companies like Brambles, James Hardie, Sonic Healthcare, Lycopodium, MyPass Global possess the commercial capabilities successful international models demonstrate. Incentives for companies include systematic policy support enabling sustained research collaboration through multi-year funding, aligned with commercial timelines and international market access support leveraging their existing capabilities.
What comes next
The upcoming R&D review presents an opportunity to move beyond “bridge the gap” rhetoric toward specific commercial intermediary support. This requires three fundamental shifts in how policy makers approach innovation commercialisation.
First, recognise that commercial intermediaries already exist in Australia. Stop exclusively focussing on research spin outs and start-ups as the institutional bridges, and start supporting existing Australian companies big and small with proven translation capabilities. Brambles-scale logistics firms. James Hardie-type building materials companies. Sonic Healthcare-style diagnostic intermediaries. Lycopodium-type engineering firms. MyPass-style digital platform companies.
Second, implement identification frameworks that distinguish genuine commercial intermediaries from other players. Australian vendors with existing sustained revenue, established customer bases, international market access, technical integration expertise, and proven commercial track records. Don’t bank it all on high risk research startups hoping to make it on their own. We do not need to place all of our hopes on research spin-offs seeking initial customers. We can leverage existing Australian companies with proven translation capabilities.
Third, design support mechanisms aligned with commercial realities rather than academic project cycles. Multi-year sustained funding enabling technology development over market-responsive timeframes. International market development support leveraging existing commercial relationships. Performance accountability through revenue generation and export development, not publication metrics.
The R&D review will receive numerous submissions calling for hubs, coordination, and institutional solutions. These proposals will sound sophisticated. They’ll reference international examples. They’ll promise to bridge gaps through structural arrangements.
They’ll miss the point entirely.
The bridge builders already exist, but most of them will be too busy to write a submission to a process that ignores their existence. They are willing and able, we just need to start supporting them.