Improving economic output means putting the correct mechanism in place to deliver it, writes JOE PACITTI
Over lunch with an old chum and former colleague, the conversation turned to the somewhat fractious political and business landscape and how great things tend to happen when synergy and shared views are harnessed for the wider good.
We talked about initiatives such as Digital Boost and what impact it had, and how so much more could have been achieved if funding had continued and some of it had been directed differently.
We discussed the help that exists for early-stage companies’ from the likes of Business Gateway and Scottish Edge and how each of these organisations have found a niche in the overall ecosystem that will help achieve the growth and productivity objectives we seek.
Despite this apparent harmony we agreed that the landscape is still a little cluttered with far too many competing offers and initiatives. All too often, organisations are not as complementary or purposeful and shared as they could be. Our discussion suggested that, by not coming together more often, flat productivity would be the inevitable outcome
The other challenge which frustrated our positive vibe was the way many organisations operate initiatives and funding arrangements over a timeframe that is too short term. But it is not always the funding cycles that are responsible for poor outcomes. Sometimes it is the nature of the organisations and their approach. Some organisations flip direction or lose interest in seeing out the approach – initiative-driven rather than the community-of-practice embedded model.
Just because there are loud voices shouting at the centre of an ecosystem, suggesting they are the clear and central agents of change, and so shaping the manner and delivery of support, it does not mean this is always the right or best way – or dare I say a productive way.
The focus and manner for support, all the effort, oxygen and often precious funding may end up being directed to the wrong point, or at least not being balanced in how it is used.
We need organisations to focus less on their own profile as the measure for success. This may seem harsh or controversial, but the funding and support landscape often creates too competitive an environment.
If we genuinely believe that productivity is one of the critical challenges we need to fix in the economy, then we need productive and efficient partnerships pulling the levers. This means the funding and public sector funding approach itself needs to be more productive.
I would love to see that legacy of more balance in economic development, with agile pilots being given more support to get on and do it, not in isolation but delivering in a partnering model with a focus on results, outcomes and impacts rather than the internal inward focus that comes along and blinds the mission and makes it less productive.
Joe Pacitti is managing director of the Centre for Engineering Education & Development (CEED)
This is an extract from an an article on the CEED website. The full version can be read here:
https://ceed-scotland.com/news/productivity-growth-starts-process
>Latest Daily Business news can be accessed here
Leave a Reply