A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

The title here is taken from the Shakespearian tragedy Romeo and Juliette. But is relates to a more obscure tragedy in the making. Recently, 15th December 2011 the Israeli government has decided to change the name of two ministries. The former ministry for national infrastructure would become the Water and Energy Ministry, and the former ministry of transportation would become the ministry for transportation, national infrastructure and road safety.
The second part of the change is intended to place all the design and executive organs regarding land water and air transportation, including safety and infrastructure investment in one place. But look at the following ironic scenario:
In order to save on land use (Israel is a small crowded country) a suggestion to place communication lines next to the train tracks, and to similarly provide a venue for electrical power conductance is presented. Such a suggestion would have to be approved by the ministry for transportation (blab la bla), the Public Utility Authority (energy) which is part of the Water and Energy ministry, the national planning committee (belongs to the ministry of the Interior), the Land Management Bureau belonging to the Housing ministry and the ministry of communications. All of which would fit, in a sane place under the heading of Infrastructure.
The reality is, that if such a suggestion would be tabled it would require the Finance ministry as well, but that would probably be the only one with a comprehensive look at the project. Sadly the list of agencies (perhaps justified) and ministries (probably not justified) is the reason so many projects are discarded mid-way in Israel. The different ministries, under ministers from different parties, with conflicting social agendas, would find it hard to cooperate. Further to that, in the lack of valid policy, every such project suggestion would require each ministry /agency to make a separate decision approving the project. It is enough for one to disapprove for the project to be rejected.
Unfortunately our lives are not mono-disciplinary or mono-ministerial, but moe complex than that.
Instead of changing the name, how about merging the ministries and agencies, into a real national infrastructure ministry and placing the responsibility for the management of national infrastructure there?
At least create a body to coordinate the decision making of all the infrastructure bodies.

Portugal Bail-out request from the EU

The Portuguese Government has asked for the EU for assistance when it realized that borrowing was becoming unsustainable (NYTimes). That Portugal needs to be bailed out is evident, and in fact that step has been anticipated for some time now. Earlier in the year there were some hopes that China may be able to help Portugal, but it would seem that this was not enough. Portugal of course is not alone in its current crisis. Last May 80 Billion Euros were approved for Greece by the EU with additional 30 Billion Euro from the international monetary fund. In November Ireland had 85 billion approved for its own bailout. The exact amount to bailout Portugal is estimated between 75 billion Euros and 110 billion Euros – with 80 Billion Euros approved for three years. The crisis in Portugal is complex in the fact that the prime minister resigned last week (country going to general election in June after an election in January this year), a record high rate of un-employment and an economy that according to the national bank is going to contract this year. In Ireland the interest was kept high for the bailout as the government refused to raise its corporate tax percentage. What will be the price for this help in Portugal? This request for help constitutes a clear admittance of failure to navigate the national economy towards a safe haven. For those who had hopes that the government will save them, find them work, protect their interests and make the economy grow, that dream is over. It is now up to the Council of finance ministries to show that the eurozone can protect the unified monetary unit. As some experts argue the bailout deal offered by the EU is a heavy burden for many years and assures low economic growth rates and slow recovery. It is claimed that the poor are helping bailout the assisting banks – paying in future taxes and reduced economic growth to save the banks (external banks mostly) from losses at this point. There are two questions that are normally asked in such events: 1. How did this happen (sometimes phrased as "who is to blame?") 2. What can now be done to get out of this mess As an outsider, the first question holds no interest whatsoever, and therefore I would rather focus on the second question. This can be viewed as Portugal's finest hour. This is the time for the individuals in the country to get up and take action. It is well that the EU will probably assist in bailing out, but it is up to the people – more than the government, to see that the situation turns out for the good in the end. This should not be a narrow escape, but rather a step towards a much brighter future. When asked on several occasions: What is the secret behind Israeli Innovation? I used to answer: "the background of No-Alternative". The Portuguese people need to realize that one cannot expect others to bail it out, and that it is up to them to find ways, each one in his / her small way. This is the time to come up and: 1. On individual level take responsibility for one owns economic situation, without expecting others to provide for you. If you do not have a job thinks of ways to create jobs. Start your own business; cooperate with others who may be able to help and to be helped. 2. On national level – use the funds that will be coming in once the debt are being paid, and divert as much as can be towards the creation of tools that will allow anyone following number 1 above to do so. Use this opportunity to foster innovation and entrepreneurship. To create opportunities for small businesses to survive and grow. Create monetary tools, legal environment and general attitude that encourage such actions – via education, approach etc. 3. On international level – assure that the work the local citizens do, is not wasted on paying back loans at extortionist rates with internal prices of increased taxation leading to reduced growth. Demand to see the threatening inflation that requires higher interest rates – you are foreseeing a retracting economy, where is the inflation? To all that think that these are just slogans, or that this cannot be done, please look at Israel as an example. Insolated on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea, Israel managed to create opportunities for venture capital, for start-ups and technology parks, to increase the rate of technology transfer to industry and more. In the late 1980's Israel was not much different than Portugal (except for the crisis) is today. It was much worse, it had just come out from a huge inflation, had problems exporting its goods (mainly agro production) and had no venture capital, no technology incubators no start-up support mechanisms. It did have a good education system – and no other choice. Today, Portugal can benefit from its EU connection and learn from other EU best practices per each tool it chooses to develop. In a way the relative small size of Portugal is its main advantage. It is easier to make big changes in a smaller country than in a big one. It is up to its people, its real treasure, to show their true metal.

Italian Israeli Conference – regarding Technology Transfer

The workshop taking place last week 23-24 of November 2010 was a most interesting event.
The conference opened (following the usual political speeches) with a discussion regarding the transfer from the lab to the industry of research results. The panel composition was most interesting. While the Israeli part was represented by Technology Transfer Companies managers and CEOs (Bar-Ilan R&D, BGN Technologies, Ramot at Tel Aviv University, Yeda etc.), the Italian part was represented by managers and Presidents of National Research Institutes (CNR, ISS, ISA ENEA etc.).
There were other very significant differences between the two country models. It seemed that the Israeli companies represented smaller organizations in comparison to the Italian organizations represented in the panels, the numbers of invention disclosed; patent applied for and approved, were larger for the Israeli firms. It would also seem that in most cases the Israeli Technology Transfer firms have been active for a longer period than the Italian counter parts.

Another interesting difference was regarding the performance data of the organizations. The Israeli Technology Transfer Companies, are private organizations, and their financial and therefore performance reports are confidential. The workshop served as an opportunity to discover some of the performance data. The Italian National Institutes are public organizations and their information is therefore public.

The Italian organization cited proudly the number of spin-offs they accumulated over the years, and lamented the scarcity of venture capital, which was, according to them, a barrier to further increasing the number of spin-offs. The Israeli technology Transfer companies while citing similar data mentioned (Yeda) preference to licensing over spin-offs.
That point was not discussed (I had asked the question, but Dr. Naiberg from Yeda was not given the chance to answer), but what is the difference between the two venues?
The biggest difference is in the overall employment impact. A spin-off creates measurable new employment positions. Licensing to a large organization, while it may add employment opportunities is harder to measure as a result of the TT effort. Thus governments and government organizations prefer this option. For commercial organizations, licensing has less risk embedded and can generate a cash flow more rapidly than spin-offs.

My New Book - Coolaborative Research in Management - inside out

This post is going to be different than the other posts in the past. This month after a long process my first book came out in print. The book deals with collaborative research (CR) focusing on Academy-Industry collaboration on two levels.

The first is the academic-research-education oriented level, setting the definitions, the models and the theory behind the activity. It relates also to the role of the third main player the Government. In that aspect the book or that part of the book, is a good starting point (I am very modest as you can see) for beginners, or for practitioners seeking to organize their concepts.

The second level is a practical level, dealing with the practicalities of lunching a CR program, participating in it, and what to do when being left out. This part of the book is practical and is meant for practitioners from Industry, Academy government and consultants active in the field.

Writing the book has not been easy, and has been lengthy. The process speeded much when Prof. Shlomo Maital introduced me to Sage publications and the people working there. It was their expertize and competent management that brought us to the end of the process in a relatively short time.

This is a good opportunity to thank those that helped me, Prof. Maital and the wonderful people in Sage publication.

The publication leads to the next stage - getting people to actually read it. The book was not intended as a check point - another thing done, but rather in order to have some impact. This is where you, the readers come in.

Any Ideas?