As we wrap up the evidence gathering phase of the Jersey Innovation Review, I thought it would be useful to share some of the emerging themes from our analysis and discussions. We are still dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the conclusions, so the specific recommendations are yet to be finalised. However, the key themes are unlikely to change dramatically. The full report with recommendations will be published in September.
So what have we found? The chart above is an instructive starting point. When asked about barriers to innovation, the vast majority of respondents to the Jersey Innovation Survey highlight skills of the workforce as their main concern. This is coupled with dissatisfaction with acquiring the necessary licences for bringing in talent from abroad and complying with other regulatory restrictions. The same themes came through in our interviews with businesses and stakeholders.
A number of people also felt that there were challenges in gaining access to finance to support innovation. This is by no means unusual: the OECD finds that in most countries, even those with large and long-standing innovation systems and capital markets, financing early-stage innovation is a challenge. This is not surprising, given the risks involved and the fact that the innovating company is often not able to appropriate all of the benefits itself. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons why public funding is often a legitimate complement to private sector money.
Government innovation policy consists of more than providing grants, loans or equity to innovators, though. There is of course the broad set of policies that enable and incentivise setting up, growing and running any kind of business in an innovative way: we call these “policies for innovation”. In addition to sensible taxation and regulations, they also include investment in skills and well developed linkages between business and education. Then there are “innovation policies”, those initiatives that are directly targeted at accelerating innovation in firms.
In the case of Jersey, the States' existing innovation and business support initiatives are few but focused. Together, initiatives such as Locate Jersey, Jersey Business, Jersey Finance, Digital Jersey and the Innovation Fund make for an excellent starting point, while avoiding the over-complexity afflicting many other jurisdictions. (For example, the UK’s innovation agency, has more than 15 separate schemes, in a crowded landscape that also includes other agencies, such as UK Trade & Investment, the British Business Bank and various enterprise support initiatives.)
Having said that, to accelerate innovation and the development of successful clusters on the Island, Jersey will need to develop this “innovation infrastructure” further. One of the first things should be to realign and clarify the existing innovation initiatives. For example, the various sources of access to finance and, very importantly, advice and support on business planning, pitching for finance and building a successful export business, need to be better mapped and communicated.
The report in September will outline more comprehensively the strengths and weaknesses in the Jersey innovation system and recommendations for addressing them. One of the recommendations is going to be to ensure there is clarity about objectives, deliverables and responsibilities in the form of a clear innovation action plan that is regularly reviewed.
The vibrant and collaborative business community in Jersey will be a key asset in designing and implementing the plan and policies in a way that is fit for purpose. Indeed, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has provided input into the review so far: it has been invaluable in shaping these conclusions.
So what have we found? The chart above is an instructive starting point. When asked about barriers to innovation, the vast majority of respondents to the Jersey Innovation Survey highlight skills of the workforce as their main concern. This is coupled with dissatisfaction with acquiring the necessary licences for bringing in talent from abroad and complying with other regulatory restrictions. The same themes came through in our interviews with businesses and stakeholders.
A number of people also felt that there were challenges in gaining access to finance to support innovation. This is by no means unusual: the OECD finds that in most countries, even those with large and long-standing innovation systems and capital markets, financing early-stage innovation is a challenge. This is not surprising, given the risks involved and the fact that the innovating company is often not able to appropriate all of the benefits itself. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons why public funding is often a legitimate complement to private sector money.
Government innovation policy consists of more than providing grants, loans or equity to innovators, though. There is of course the broad set of policies that enable and incentivise setting up, growing and running any kind of business in an innovative way: we call these “policies for innovation”. In addition to sensible taxation and regulations, they also include investment in skills and well developed linkages between business and education. Then there are “innovation policies”, those initiatives that are directly targeted at accelerating innovation in firms.
In the case of Jersey, the States' existing innovation and business support initiatives are few but focused. Together, initiatives such as Locate Jersey, Jersey Business, Jersey Finance, Digital Jersey and the Innovation Fund make for an excellent starting point, while avoiding the over-complexity afflicting many other jurisdictions. (For example, the UK’s innovation agency, has more than 15 separate schemes, in a crowded landscape that also includes other agencies, such as UK Trade & Investment, the British Business Bank and various enterprise support initiatives.)
Having said that, to accelerate innovation and the development of successful clusters on the Island, Jersey will need to develop this “innovation infrastructure” further. One of the first things should be to realign and clarify the existing innovation initiatives. For example, the various sources of access to finance and, very importantly, advice and support on business planning, pitching for finance and building a successful export business, need to be better mapped and communicated.
The report in September will outline more comprehensively the strengths and weaknesses in the Jersey innovation system and recommendations for addressing them. One of the recommendations is going to be to ensure there is clarity about objectives, deliverables and responsibilities in the form of a clear innovation action plan that is regularly reviewed.
The vibrant and collaborative business community in Jersey will be a key asset in designing and implementing the plan and policies in a way that is fit for purpose. Indeed, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has provided input into the review so far: it has been invaluable in shaping these conclusions.