This section reports on evidence about innovation activity collected from a small, non- random sample of organisations involved in Australian agriculture (described in Section 1.6). It was found that, for these organisations: there was a focus on technology development and diffusion; that their innovation activities spanned a wide range of new products and process activities; that they were heavily dependent on government funding because private sources of funding played only a small some part; and that a range of diverse factors, including funding and staff issues and cultural norms, constrained their innovation activities.
An empirical investigation was conducted to find the interactions between primary innovators (research organisations and university research centres) and other actors in the AIS using a structured questionnaire. The findings of the survey are summarised below.
In the initial phase of this study a demographic analysis of R&D organisations indicated that the sample comprised a fairly homogenous group. This study has undertaken an empirical investigation into 50 identified research organisations/centres in Australia, which include a number of universities, using a structured survey conducted to determine:
• the kinds of innovation-related activities of the organisation; • the goals of innovation-related activities of the organisation;
• which of the listed behaviours of the organisation is also shaped by organisational/institutional constraints and/or incentives for innovation; and • how does the organisation get funding for your innovation activities.
3.5.1 Types of innovation-related activities
The survey results show that organisations participating in the survey have conducted all (11) types of innovation-related activities in Australia, in varying degrees. Most organisations conducted more than one innovation-related activity. As a result responses do not total 100 per cent.
Table 3.9 indicates those activities in descending order. Almost all organisations surveyed were involved in technology development (93%); and more than half of the organisations were involved in technology dissemination (67%), training (60%) and demonstration (53%). Further, the survey revealed that technology evaluation, integration, use, policy, introduction/selling, acquisition and financing represented less than half of the innovation-related activities of these organisations. These activities are also conducted by other organisations, such as state governments and private companies. This suggests that technology development and dissemination are among the major innovation-related activities.
Table 3.9 Types of innovation-related activities of the organisation, Australia
No. Types (%) 1 Technology development 93 2 Technology dissemination 67 3 Technology training 60 4 Technology demonstration 53 5 Technology evaluation 47 6 Technology integration 33 7 Technology use 27 8 Technology policy 27 9 Technology introduction/selling 20
10 Technology acquisition (local/international) 20
11 Technology financing 13
3.5.2 Goals of innovation-related activities
Table 3.10 reveals the responses relating to the goals of innovation-related activities. Respondents could select more than one option, therefore the responses do not total to 100 per cent. Over 50 per cent of organisations indicated that their goals of innovation- related activities were to provide knowledge and information (87%), introduce new products and services (80%), increase commodity quality (80%), production (73%), reduced environmental damage (67%) and increase market opportunities (60%). This suggests that the most prominent goals of the innovation-related activities of the organisations surveyed relate to information flows and product and process innovation.
Table 3.10 Goals of innovation-related activities of the organisation, Australia
No. Goals (%)
1 Provide knowledge and information 87
2 Introduce new products or processes 80
3 Increase commodity quality 80
4 Increase commodity production 73
5 Reduce environmental damage 67
6 Increase market opportunities 60
7 Improve production flexibility 47
8 Reduce labour costs 33
9 Generate own income 33
10 Fulfil regulation or standards 33
11 Reduce material costs 27
12 Reduce energy consumption 27
Source: Author survey (2005).
3.5.3 Funding sources
Table 3.11 shows responses relating to funding sources for innovation activities in research organisations in Australia. Respondents could select more than one option, therefore the responses do not total to 100 per cent.
Looking at the funding sources for innovation activities of surveyed organisations, reveals a mix of funding. However, most of the funding (more than 80%) was derived from the Federal Government and funding bodies/agencies. This suggests that most agricultural research and development funding comes from public sources for the surveyed organisations surveyed. The reason was that almost all organisations surveyed
are owned by Federal or State Governments. State Governments funded relatively less (13%) for agricultural R&D.
Table 3.11 Funding source for innovation activities, Australia No. Funding source (%)
1 Federal Government 87 2 Funding bodies/agencies 80 3 Collaborative contracts 67 4 Competitive grants 60 5 Non-competitive grants 40 6 Industry levies 27
7 Patents and copyright 20
8 Awards and prices 20
9 Own resources 20
10 State government 13
11 International donor assistance 7
12 Loans and credits 0
Source: Author survey (2005).
3.5.4 Constraints and incentives for innovation
Finally, Table 3.12 indicates responses relating to how behaviours are shaped by organisational/institutional constrains and/or incentives for innovation. Respondents could select more than one option, therefore the responses do not total to 100 per cent.
The majority of respondents (53%) indicated that other issues such as funding, staff, equipment, environment and government policy issues affected innovation in their organisations more than the other behaviours listed. The identified behaviours of the organisations were affected by less than 33 per cent of identified constraints and/or incentives for innovation. The most commonly cited constraint to innovation was difficulty in obtaining funding, followed by deficiency of skilled staff and equipment.
Table 3.12 Incentives or constraints have most affect on the innovation behaviour of organisations, Australia
No. Behaviour of organisation Percentage (%)
1 Other* 53 2 Cultural norms 33 3 Laws 20 4 Health regulations 20 5 Social rules 20 6 Technical standards 13
Note: * Other issues include funding, staff, equipment, environmental, government policy issues, etc. Source: Author survey (2005).