The Smarter Edge | The Tale Of National Innovation Systems 2005-2020

a tale of national innovation systems innovation in so U t H af R i C a 2005–2020

the smarter

a tale of national innovation systems

By Prof Benjamin Anderson

Edited by Cara Bouwer

innovation in south africa 2005-2020

Author: Benjamin Anderson

Editor: Cara Bouwer

Design: Wynand Opperman

Sub-editor: Jane Mqamelo

Research and data analysis: Elizabeth Diaz Zuñiga

First published in 2024 © tt100

Copyright in text, tt100

Copyright in illustrations: tt100, or as otherwise credited

Published by Prof Benjamin Anderson P O Box 87361, Houghton, 2041

E-mail: bennie@tt100.org

ISBN: 978-0-7961-7972-2 (print) 978-0-7961-7973-9 (e-book)

This book is copyright under the Berne Convention in terms of the Copyright Act, No 98 of 1978. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise, nor reformatted and stored in any retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher and copyright holders. All illustrations and photographs are copyright of the authors or institutions concerned. While every care has been taken in compiling this book, the publisher and authors do not give any warranty as to the factual accuracy or comprehensiveness of text or visual elements.

message from tt100 chairman benjamin anderson

This book tells the story of South Africa’s quest to innovate; the breakthrough technological applications that shaped our country between 2005 and 2020, and the challenges we face now in seeking a strong, workable and sustainable approach to ongoing innovative excellence.

Following three previous books in the Edge series, and sponsored by the Department of Science and Innovation, The Smarter Edge reflects the current international debate on idea makers and the institutions that back them, along with the commercialisation of intellectual property.

In attempting to position South Africa’s innovation efforts on the world stage, the book looks beyond our country’s borders, examining what countries such as South Korea, Malaysia and Canada are doing to support their innovators. The authors draw parallels, identify gaps and attempt to distinguish the approaches that work from the many that stumble. They ask hard questions of the entire innovation ecosystem in South Africa – from entrepreneurs and funders to universities, accelerators, the private sector and, of course, government. They examine the policies we have put in place over the years to harness the innovative potential of South Africans from all walks of life and consider the importance of building trust among all the disparate players in the innovation ecosystem. The overarching goal is to see all South Africans pushing forward together, united in a shared vision of making the world a better place through innovation.

What emerges from these pages is a picture of a complex system in which all players need to play their part if ideas are to flourish and if innovative startups are to grow into world-leading organisations. It is clear there is much that stakeholders in our society can do better, particularly when it comes to managing the ideation process, managing people, managing technology and managing the systems that underpin our country’s approach to innovation.

Individual companies and start-ups should also look to their own internal competencies, and consider ways in which to nurture innovation among their ranks.

There has never been a more important time to have an open and honest discussion about building a society that supports progressive ideas and innovation in all its forms. Rather than tearing down the dreamers, we need to build them up. Rather than pushing for financial glory, let’s celebrate ideas. Rather than looking to the big, established economies, let’s look to Africa! With the advancement of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Protocol on Intellectual Property Rights in late 2023, we are seeing concrete steps being taken to support intra-African trade and promote innovation on our continent. This is an important and positive step, opening the door to a potential market of 1.3 billion people across 54 countries. The AfCFTA journey, which began back in 2012 and has been advancing over much of the timeline covered in this book, could mark a turning point in South Africa’s innovation story. South Africa has much to share with our AfCFTA partners, based on our legacy of innovation and the lessons we’ve learned along the way about both pitfalls and potentialities.

South Africa’s innovation ecosystem is filled with committed people who are passionate about seeing our country succeed. The message that comes through strongly in these pages is clear: Let’s align our thinking and turn innovative ideas into action.

Professor Benjamin Anderson Chairman of the tt100 Business Innovation Awards Programme and Executive Director of The DaVinci Institute for Technology Management

list of abbreviations

AI Artificial Intelligence

ASEAN Association of South East Nations

B-BBEE Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment

BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa

CPUT Cape Peninsula University of Technology

CeSTII Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators

DSI Department of Science and Innovation

DFTZ Digital Free Trade Zone

DTIC Department of Trade, Industry and Competition

GCI Global Competitiveness Index

GII Global Innovation Index

GNI Gross National Income

IP Intellectual Property

JSE Johannesburg Stock Exchange

IPO Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia

KIAST Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

KIPO Korean Intellectual Property Office

NACI National Advisory Council on Innovation

NDoH National Department of Health

NDP National Development Plan

NPC Non-Profit Company

NRF National Research Foundation

NRCS National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications

NSO National System of Innovation

NIPMO National Intellectual Property Management Office

nWU north-West University

PTiP Photovoltaic Technology Intellectual Property

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

R&D Research and Development

REIPPP Renewable Energy Independent Power Procurement Programme

RPAS Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems

SAIAMC South African Institute for Advanced Materials Chemistry

SALT Southern African Large Telescope

SAMRC The South African Medical Research Council

SANSA South African National Space Agency

SAPO South Africa Patent Office

SARIMA Southern African Research & Innovation Management Association

SASL South African Sign Language

SKA Square Kilometre Array

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

STI Science, Technology and Innovation

TIA Technology Innovation Agency

TICIPS The International Centre for Innovation Partnerships in Science

TRIPS Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

TRL Technology Readiness Levels

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

UWC University of the Western Cape

VC Venture Capitalist

WEF World Economic Forum

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation

list of diagrams and tables

16

16

Figure 1: Patents filed by Canadian firms 2005–2010

Figure 2: Patents filed by Canadian firms 2011–20156

17 Figure 3: Patents filed by Canadian firms 2016–2020

22 Figure 4: How Malaysia’s economy shifted from agriculture to services (1980–2016)

28 Figure 5: Malaysia’s GNI per capita (US$), 1962–2019

28 Figure 6: Malaysian patents by office and key industries 2005–2020

28

Figure 7: Number of Malaysian-origin patents filed in Malaysia 2005–2010

29 Figure 8: Number of Malaysian-origin patents filed in Malaysia 2011–2015

29 Figure 9: Number of Malaysian-origin patents filed in Malaysia 2016–2020

32 Figure 10: South Africa vs Malaysia, South Korea and Canada: Percentage of GDP expenditure on research and development (2005–2020)

33 Figure 11: South Africa vs the BRICS countries: Percentage of GDP expenditure on R&D (2005–2020)

34 Figure 12: R&D expenditure by the business sector as a percentage of gross expenditure (2009–2020)

34 Figure 13: Foreign-funded R&D in the business sector (2010–2019)

35 Figure 14: South Africa-origin patents filed globally (2005–2020)

36 Figure 15: South Africa: GDP growth (2005–2020)

38 Figure 16: Economic transformation readiness of the BRICS countries

40 Figure 17: South African patents by office and key industries 2005–20200

50 Figure 18: R&D spend as a percentage of GDP per country (2000–2020)

51 Figure 19: Average percentage of GDP spent on R&D per country (2000–2020)

54 Table 1: 2020’s most valuable brands

56 Figure 20: Distribution of R&D spend in South Korea (2015–2020)

58 Figure 21: Commercialised innovations in South Korea (2003–2016)

58 Figure 22: Jobs created by commercialised projects in South Korea (2003-2016)

59 Figure 23: South Korean patent registrations compared to South Africa, Malaysia and Canada (2005–2020)

60 Figure 24: South Korean patent registrations by offices (2005–2020)

65 Figure 25: The ISO 56000 innovation management principles

68 Table 2: The countries behind the TC 279 process

69 Table 3: The ISO 56000 family of innovation management standards

77 Table 4: From industrial market to a creative networked economy

78 Figure 26: Core elements of The TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework

79 Figure 27: The TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework

82 Table 5: Emerging workplace realities

90 Figure 28: Student profile of NID Training 2020–2021

91 Figure 29: NID student demographics for 2020–20211

95 Figure 30: Identifying work-based challenges as per the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework

106 Figure 31: What’s happening to biotech patents in South Africa?

113 Figure 32: Implementing an SDG-aligned policy for science, technology and innovation

118 Figure 33: Share of global hydrogen patents (and technology focus) (2011–2020)

124 Figure 34: South African biotechnology patent trends over time (2005–2020)

127 Figure 35: How South Africa’s National Development Plan aligns to the Sustainable Development Goals

134 Figure 36: South Africa – patents registered at home and abroad (2005–2020)

134 Figure 37: South Africa’s patent publications by foreign office of registration (2005–2020)

135 Figure 38: South Africa Patent Office filings (2005–2020)

135 Figure 39: Rise of biological material patents filed by South Africa vs a decline in other sectors (across all offices, 2005–2010 compared with 2016-2020)

136 Figure 40: South African innovators filing abroad: Leading sectors and laggards (2005–2020)

138 Figure 41: Top applicants by origin applying for patents through the South Africa Patent Office

editor’s note

There is wisdom in the way a company as innovative as Google elected to model creativefriendly working spaces to keep employees happy, engaged and stress-free, as far as possible. Google’s free on-site cafes and canteens, exercise spaces, decompression capsules and massage therapists set the bar for workspaces that support employee wellness and creativity. Google is not the only one. In the 2000s, many big tech companies began to realise the benefits of assisting employees to navigate the complexities of day-to-day living, like going to the doctor or enjoying paid paternity or maternity leave. These open, trusting work environments created elbow room to ponder, play, and innovate. Having the weight of the world on one’s shoulders is hardly conducive to envisaging a new process, a software application or a technical innovation.

What Google and others clearly understood was how a working environment can be moulded to support innovation, reflection and collaboration. This, essentially, is what any country-wide national system of innovation should also hope to achieve.

Unfortunately, despite having a raft of bright ideas and many of the components and mechanisms in place to position South Africa favourably as a global innovator, the country continues to battle when it comes to building the sort of ecosystem in which ideas can thrive.

One would assume that a developed world economy like Canada, a highly regarded global innovator, would have the recipe right by now, but no. Even Canada battles when it comes to keeping momentum high and policies in sync with the ever-evolving demands of the market. Leveraging partnerships also remains a challenge. South Korea, one of the star performers on the innovation stage during the period under review (2005–2020), is finding now that its focus on supporting big family conglomerates is impacting the employment tastes of new generations and potentially stifling small- and medium-sized business growth. So, while the country is still reaping the rewards of its supportive environment for business, the Korean government is now tweaking its highly successful model.

South Africa has found itself less fleet of foot when it comes to managing its innovation journey. This book attempts to understand how a country with South Africa’s potential and innovative legacy was caught napping, and what policies and support structures we need to nurture to get South Africa back in the game.

Partnerships are a big issue. Relationships between business and government have become fractured owing to a lack of trust, with parties continually talking past one another. This lack of trust is perhaps the single biggest hurdle to reaping the benefits of the country’s innovative drive.

In 2022, a few years beyond the official scope of this book, but still drawing on figures derived from this period, the National Advisory Council on Innovation launched the 2022 South African Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Indicators Report. Speaking at the time, private consultant Dr Mziwandile Madikizela1 spoke frankly about the decline in South Africa’s ranking in the global innovation system, and how reduced foreign direct investment and business investment were having ‘a negative impact on the innovation system’. These factors are covered in the pages that follow.

Madikizela also spoke about the inefficiency of the system, especially when it comes to translating innovation inputs (such as human resources, research, institutions, infrastructure,

1 Department of Science and Innovation. (2022, July 29). Launch of the 2022 South Africa Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Report. (Webinar recording) Facebook.

market sophistication and business sophistication) into innovation outputs (such as research papers produced, patents lodged, products and knowledge produced and commercialised). While innovation rankings are highly context dependent, broadly speaking, ranking in the 50s would indicate a competitive country that still has room to improve. A top-40 spot would indicate that definite progress had been made, and a top-30 ranking would be indicative of a solid performance. The top 10, of course, is the preserve of the exceptional performers.

In 2020, South Africa’s innovation inputs ranked 49 out of 131 countries and innovation outputs were 68. In 2021, the innovation input ranking was 55 out of 132 countries with innovation outputs still at 68.

As the STI Indicators Report2 explained, ‘South Africa’s ranking in terms of innovation inputs is far higher than its innovation outputs. This suggests that inputs in South Africa result in a lower yield of outputs than in other countries.’

Expanding on the point, Madikizela noted:

To me, this is a fundamental and a central problem, which means we should focus the strategic direction on driving those outputs. If this was a business, we would actually say this is inefficient, let’s close it down. In this particular case we can’t do that, but more dedicated effort should be directed towards improving the outputs. It means, in simple language, we aren’t getting adequate returns on our investment.

Another point Madikizela raised was the way in which reports like the STI Indicators Report measure innovation inputs and outputs, relying largely on a quantitative approach that does not reveal some of the important qualitative aspects of the system. Understandably, it is easier to focus on the hard numbers, but it is equally important to identify weaknesses in the system. This can only be done by engaging with those on the ground, by collaborating across industries and disciplines, and by recognising that funding alone is not the entire story. This is hard to do, but without meaningful collaboration that builds trust and bridges divides, so much of South Africa’s potential will continue to be squandered.

Our country also has another, more fundamental issue to address: keeping intellectual property (IP) and innovative potential within the country so that South Africa as a whole can benefit from the commercialisation of home-grown innovations. Right now, IP is flowing out of the country – probably due to the trust deficit mentioned above and holes in our current ecosystem.

The data shared in Section 8 of this book, ‘Reflections’, tells a haunting story of local disengagement. This is reflected in dwindling research and development investment by businesses, and the low number of patents filed locally compared to those filed through global offices. It seems South Africans have not stopped innovating, nor are they short on ground-breaking ideas – they are just hedging their bets abroad. This says a lot about our current ecosystem.

This reality is not unknown to experts in the Department of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, many of whom have shared their frustrations and their hopes for addressing the major hurdles standing in our way. Exploring what has worked in other countries, and why, along with the challenges these nations are facing, offers hope for South Africa and can suggest a potential blueprint for the future.

Another consideration is the fact that companies and individuals need to get serious about managing innovation. Da Vinci’s TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework, discussed in depth in this book, recognises that innovation requires a complex interplay of technologies, people and ideas. Using a framework like this is one way to help businesses navigate the various aspects of innovation management without losing focus or dropping a critical ball. This adds a layer of best practice to a complex process and can help guide leaders to successfully capitalise on innovations.

For all of the above reasons, the story of South African innovation from 2005 to 2020 is a mixed bag. There are some marvellous success stories and genuine efforts to foster innovation for good across the economy. There are also many missed opportunities. What is clear, however, is that South Africa remains an innovative, maverick and ambitious nation with brilliant minds and committed people. With the right environment, partnerships, cooperation and vision, there is so much more we can do.

Cara Bouwer

national innovation systems

In the 1920s, academics and thinkers such as Ludwig von Bertalanffy began to view complex problems and forms as interactive systems. Today we think more naturally in terms of systems, making it much easier to appreciate how the destruction of natural habitats affects indigenous people and animal populations, or how pollution and poor dietary habits could cause ill health. As the so-called ‘butterfly effect’ tells us, the world is an interconnected and complicated place, where the flapping of a single butterfly’s wings in the Amazon could, to quote Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett,3 lead to a storm halfway across the world.

Systems thinking is a way of understanding complexity by looking at the interplay of constituent parts, rather than viewing each in isolation. The genesis of this way of thinking can be seen in the work of the great 16th and 17th century scientists, Copernicus, Galileo and Descartes,4 as well as 17th and 18th century English poets John Donne and William Wordsworth. You only need to consider Donne’s famous assertion to get a sense of humankind’s place in the world: ‘No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.’5 Systems thinking tells us that no one is immune from outside influences and we, in turn, influence others and our environment.

More recently, some commentators have started drawing parallels between the indigenous African philosophy of ubuntu and the notion of thinking in systems. Two South African academics, Monicca Thulisile Bhuda and Phemelo Marumo, stressed the quality of interconnectedness that lies at the heart of ubuntu: Ubuntu is a viable alternative to the Western world’s prevailing individualistic and utilitarian ideologies. It is, therefore, best understood as a social ideology that conveys the basic interconnection of human presence and is subordinate to care and collective values, harmony and friendliness, respect and responsiveness.6

Like the ecological interactions that take place in natural environments, the intricate workings of the human body, or the way in which mortgage rates respond to higher inflation, the components that drive an effective national innovation system at the

3 Gaiman, N. and Pratchett, T. (2006). Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch. New York: HarperTorch.

4 Franke, R.W. (2017). Systems Thinking – the historical background. Sustainable Tompkins.

5 Donne, J. (1988). No Man is an Island. London: Souvenir Press Limited.

6 Bhuda, M.T. and Marumo, P. (2022). Ubuntu philosophy and African indigenous knowledge systems: Insights from decolonization and indigenization of research. Gender and Behaviour, 20(1).

country level are numerous and deeply connected. These include, but are by no means limited to, inputs like national spending on research and development (R&D), the relationship between public research bodies, academics, government and business, incentive structures, government policies and the sharing of knowledge.7

While innovation management systems such as the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework outlined in Section 4 of this book provide a much-needed structure and ideology for organisations looking to embed innovative thinking into their structures, there is no single, recognised template for an effective national system of innovation. Instead, in order to continually fine-tune a nation’s support of innovative thinking, it is preferable to seek out examples of what works and what does not work, and learn from the challenges that others have encountered. In this way, we can avoid dead ends and replicate systems that work, with adjustments suited to our situation. Learning from others and fine-tuning one’s own practices is an evolving and continuous process. On this journey, we need to be open to all possibilities. It is just as possible for an established system to falter through lack of care as it is for a young upstart to turn the world of innovation on its head.

In this section, we delve into the national innovation approaches adopted by Canada, South Korea, Malaysia and South Africa. Along the way, we ask you to think about what appears to be working in each country, and why. Each of these nations has important lessons to share with the world on encouraging innovation and building a framework that supports researchers, entrepreneurs and businesses in their journeys from ideation to full-blown execution.89

tracking the top performers

There are several rankings on national innovation performance around the world, including the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)’s Global Innovation Index (GII) and the Bloomberg Innovation Index. These rankings serve a number of purposes, benchmarking best practices and acting as a barometer of countries’ performance relative to others.

The Bloomberg Innovation Index ranks nations based on ‘their overall ability to innovate’ and then distils this down to a top 50 list.8 The GII uses a broad definition of innovation, stating that it ‘may include business model innovations, as well as social and technical innovations’. It places particular emphasis on ‘measuring the climate and infrastructure for innovation’, according to researcher and professor Spyros Roukanas.9

What is interesting in delving into these rankings is how quickly a country can fall out of favour, or rise up the ranks. The lesson revealed by these two rankings over time is that complacency in the world of innovation spells certain doom. For innovation to be relevant, it must be in tune with the times, build on new ideas and systems, and be unafraid to shake things up in order to move forward.

The first edition of the GII was released in 2007, just two years after the first stirrings of this book, while the Bloomberg Index began publication in 2013. Looking into these two rankings for 2007 and 2015, respectively, we see that the most innovative countries in the world were as follows:

7 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1997). National Innovation Systems.

8 Bloomberg. (2015). The Bloomberg Innovation Index.

9 Roukanas, S. (2021, November 30). Measuring Innovation of Countries [Conference Paper]. KnE Social Sciences, Economics of the Balkan and Eastern European Countries.

Of the profiled nations, Canada was ranked 8th by the GII, South Korea was 19th, Malaysia was 26th and South Africa was 38th. In the Bloomberg Index ten years later, South Korea had moved into top position, Canada was 12th, Malaysia was 27th and South Africa was 49th

Five years later there was a notable shift, with traditional innovation powerhouses like the United States and Germany dropping considerably. This is how the leader board looked in 2020:

Global innovation index 2020

Switzerland

Sweden

United States

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Bloomberg innovation index 2020

Germany

South Korea

Singapore

Switzerland

Sweden

Looking at their progression in the GII over this period, South Korea ranked 19th in 2007 and 10th in 2020. Canada was 8th in 2007, dropping to 17th in 2020. Malaysia was 26th in 2007, dropping to 33rd in 2020, and South Africa was 38th in 2007, dropping to 60th in 2020. It is worth noting that by 2022, South Korea had leapt up to 6th position in the GII, and Canada had gained some ground, rising to 15th. Overall, though, Canada, Malaysia and South Africa have dropped position since 2007. South Korea is the only country to have gained ground considerably since that date.

Bloomberg’s rankings are slightly different. Bloomberg shows Canada as 20th in 2019, and 22nd in 2020; Malaysia dipped one position to 27th, and South Africa rose one spot to 50th position, up from 51st in 2019. South Korea, which held the top spot from 2014 to 2019, dropped to second place behind Germany in 2020. Thus, according to Bloomberg, Canada and South Africa rose slightly in one year, while Malaysia and South Korea dropped slightly. At the time, local Korean news was quick to note that this drop was not due to deficiencies in the country’s innovation fundamentals but was rather a result of two external issues: reduced Japanese exports, and trade disputes between the United States and China.10 This, perhaps, is the clearest indication of the seriousness with which South Korea views this standing in the world, and how important innovation is to that society.

canada

Investmentand time. That’s the game plan Canada adopted as part of its approach to innovation output in 2015. By all accounts, until incumbent Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the reins in November of that year, Canada was flagging in its national innovation efforts. Some would argue that Canada still lags behind its southern neighbour, the United States, when it comes to innovation and the ability to harness new ideas to advance economic growth and development. As Philip Cross, a senior fellow at Canada’s Fraser Institute think tank, wrote in 2021:

Too many business models in Canada are based on governments using a thicket of regulations, patents, tariffs, occupational licensing rules, restrictions on foreign investment, and price-fixing to shelter firms from competition.

This swathe of red tape, argues Cross, has resulted in … a significant loss of business dynamism in Canada, resulting in our leading corporations being shunted from the global stage while lower rates of firm entry and exit signal a slowdown in the process of creation and destruction that is fundamental to an innovative, dynamic economy.11

For Cross, what Canada is lacking is the very thing that South Korea focused on so single-mindedly in the 1960s and 1970s – an all-encompassing, nationwide mindset committed to ideas and entrepreneurship. More about South Korea’s journey later in these pages (see Chapter 3). Suffice to say that Cross is in favour of developing a culture of innovation. This means deliberately building societal values that support innovative thinking and dynamic problem-solving.

In an attempt to embed this sort of innovative culture into national thinking, Canada began pumping funds into science and research, appointing a chief science advisor in 2017. The purpose of the chief science advisor – at the time of writing a position held by Dr Mona Nemer, a former University of Ottawa vice-president of research12 – was to bridge the gap between expert scientific advice and policy decision-making. This is an important link in a big government machine that, like many around the world, runs the risk of becoming siloed.

University institutions and academics feature strongly in the Canadian innovation landscape. These institutions and individuals bring a thoughtfulness to Canada’s approach, enabling academic institutions to play a central role in its national innovation strategy. As Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Francois-Philippe Champagne, wrote in 2022: ‘Canadian research is one of the top-cited among international academic peers, and Canadian companies are leading the world in AI [artificial intelligence] technologies. When one thinks of Canada, AI research and expertise are increasingly top of mind.’13

Champagne also highlighted the role of the country’s so-called global innovation clusters, which take innovations out of the realm of academia and onto the streets of reality. While the universities still play a central role, the hope is that work done in five ‘superclusters’ will create usable applications and drive the formation of companies capable of scaling up.

The five superclusters, announced in 2018, focus on:

• marine industries;

• the use of AI to improve supply chains;

• next-generation manufacturing;

• the development of plant-based protein alternatives; and

• ways in which to use technologies like cloud computing and augmented reality.

It is hoped that a more focused and super-charged collaboration framework between universities and companies through these superclusters will help to drive innovation. Alain Francq, Director of Innovation and Technology at the Conference Board of Canada, described this envisaged collaboration as an ecosystem in which ‘researchers [bring] new ideas, and companies

11 Cross, P. (2021, September 29). Canada’s faltering business dynamics and lagging innovation. Fraser Institute.

12 Pope, A. (2017, September 27). Canada appoints Chief Science Advisor. Canadian Geographic.

13 Champagne, F-P. (2022, September 7). Developing Canadian leadership and excellence in science and innovation. Open Access Government.

[figure] out how to implement them’.14

What is clear from this approach is that Canada’s new focus on innovation will take time to yield results. It is a long-term game that requires a long-term view, was Francq’s assessment, expressed in a 2022 article on the website, University Affairs. This might not knock the lights out when it comes to global rankings or yield immediate success stories to shout from the rooftops, but it will probably stand Canada in good stead in years to come. Canada’s approach seems to be structured around creating long-term depth of innovation across future technologies such as AI, the green economy and low-carbon futures.15

In a 2020 article for the website Science l Business, science and technology journalist Janni Ekrem referred to the positive changes noted above, including a funding boost of C$9.4 billion for research, the launch of the superclusters, and the reestablishment of the chief science advisor position. She cited these changes as reasons why Canada’s approach to innovation since 2015 had been well received. Ekrem added: ‘Canada has since revitalised its research policy. In 2017, the government launched its Innovation and Skills Plan, followed by a five-year plan to invest C$4 billion in science, starting in 2018. Of this amount, C$1.2 billion went to basic research.’16

Key components of Canada’s 2017 innovation and skills plan

In the county’s 2017 budget statement,17 the Canadian government laid out its ambitious Innovation and Skills Plan. It was hoped that the plan would kickstart more innovation in the country, leading to increased jobs and economic growth. The intention behind the plan was to cover the spectrum of innovation touchpoints across Canada, helping to entrench innovation in the national culture and, in the process, improve Canada’s standing on the world stage when it comes to innovation. There were a number of aspects to the plan, including the reinstatement of the role of chief science advisor, a long-standing but fluid position that was abandoned under the government of Stephen Harper (Canadian Prime Minister from 2006–2015) in 2008.18

The plan focuses on six sectors: health/bio-sciences, clean technology, advanced manufacturing, agri-food, digital industries and clean resources. The plan establishes the following targets:19

• to grow exports of goods and services by 30% by 2025;

• to increase the value of the clean technology sector to Canada’s gross domestic product;

• to double the number of high-growth Canadian firms from 14 000 to 28 000 by 2025 – specifically in the realms of digital, clean technology and health technology;

• to expand support for jobs training, with a particular emphasis on developing well-paying, export-heavy jobs that pay more than other sectors.

Other important aspects of the Canadian Innovation and Skills Plan include strengthening the support given to research and science agencies; focusing on developing top academic talent in the sphere of AI; rolling out broadband networks in rural Canada; supporting the so-called superclusters; establishing a platform for innovation and science development; launching an independent review of federal funding for fundamental science (completed in 2017); and a commitment to promote inclusive science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) policies.20

When one considers the number of patents filed by companies and institutions in Canada between 2005 and 2020, one must conclude that the government’s new approach to innovation is working, resulting in a steady stream of new ideas and innovations across a range of sectors. This might be an early indication that Canada’s system-wide focus is having the desired effect. While computer systems and digital communication clearly remain key industries, the Canadian ecosystem for innovation in 2020 was far more expansive and representative than in 2005. See Figures 1–3, which show the number of patents filed by Canadian companies in three consecutive time periods.17181920

14 Owens, B. (2022, August 31). What’s happening with Canada’s superclusters? University Affairs.

15 Champagne, F-P. (2022, September 7).

16 Ekrem, J. (2020, February 3). Canada is pitching itself to the world as a high-tech hotbed. Science׀Business.

17 Government of Canada. (2017). Budget 2017: Chapter 1 – Skills, Innovation and Middle Class Jobs.

18 Dufour, P. (2020, September 30). A brief history of science advice and key advisors in Canada. Research Money.

19 Government of Canada. (2017).

20 Government of Canada. (2019, November 21). Canada’s Innovation Strengths and Priorities.

figure 1: patents filed by Canadian firms 2005–2010

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

figure 2: patents filed by Canadian firms 2011–2015

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

figure 3: patents filed by Canadian firms 2016–2020

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

One sector in which Canada remains a frontrunner is the emerging and exciting field of AI. Science writer Ekrem noted in 2020 that ‘Toronto has the highest concentration of AI start-ups in the world’, attracting the likes of Uber, Huawei, Apple, Facebook and Google to the country’s big cities.21

However, according to a 2021 policy document and assessment by Deloitte Canada, more needs to be done to improve the start-up ecosystem in Canada. This would require a more concerted focus on attracting and retaining talent, embedding more inclusivity and diversity across the system, improving the commercialisation of academic research, and focusing on international expansion.22

Back in time: the history of Canada’s innovation system

In 2007, some years before the country embarked on an overhaul of its national innovation system, an opinion piece posted on the Policy Options23 website highlighted the impact that low levels of business expenditure on R&D were having on the country’s innovation standing. Canada was simply not sufficiently focused on commercialising its innovations on the world stage. While good ideas may have been sitting in universities and research houses, they were not receiving the support and access needed to grow into competitive start-ups. Canada had been an innovator in the 1960s and 1970s, but the country had not expanded its portfolio or kept an eye on nascent industries with the potential for long-term development. In short, Canada could no longer rely on the mixture of energy, mining and metals manufacturing that had been its traditional base for innovation. The world had moved on, but Canada had proved sluggish in adapting to a changing world.

However, all was not lost. The view expressed by Policy Options was that with greater collaboration, aligned policy decisionmaking, increased funding in science and technology, and a management approach that supported and embraced innovation and productivity, it was possible to turn the ship around.24

21 Ekrem, J. (2020, February 3).

22 Deloitte. (2021). Innovation at scale: Establishing Canada as a global leader [Policy Brief].

23 Policy Options. (2007, July 1). Upgrading Canada’s national innovation system: More than money required.

24 Policy Options. (2007, July 1).

In its favour, Canada had an established national system of innovation, operational since the early 1990s. This gave politicians, economists and entrepreneurs a sense of something to build on.25 There were already points of connection in the existing R&D system between universities, researchers, public and private corporations and government. Clearly there were glitches in the system, and seemingly Canada had been complacent in responding to the technological shifts over the past decade, but the core of the system was in place. This was a distinct advantage.

As Jorge Niosi noted in 2000: Differences between the Canadian catching-up effort and … [Taiwan, South Korea, Italy and Japan] appear to involve not simply time; it is also a matter of institutions developed, industries chosen, and the relative weight of the policy instruments used to attain them.

In other words, it would be far easier to adapt and modernise an existing system of rules and regulators, public laboratories and university research efforts than to create these from scratch. The Canadian government had already undergone a process of trying to embed and institutionalise innovation in the wake of the Second World War (1939–45), when the allied nations were faced with the challenge of building new businesses amidst a war-ravaged global economy. Canada, along with its peers, learned innovation-related lessons through trial and error, and in the process built a network of policies and institutions that would, in time, become a recognised national system of innovation.

Critically, those early days were notable for two things: a focused and targeted approach to sectors such as nuclear energy, biotechnology and aerospace, and government involvement in fostering the growth of emerging companies.26

A focused approach and government involvement remain key to Canada’s revitalised innovation drive. Another important driver is open innovation. This factor was cited by Dr Babongile Mkhize, Director: Innovation Priorities and Instruments at the South African Department of Science and Innovation (DSI). In her 2018 thesis, she wrote: One of the key things that drive innovation performance in Canada is open innovation. The government has created an environment that encourages individuals and institutions to share innovative ideas openly.

Mkhize noted that ‘believing in open innovation and that innovation is a team effort’ is important to building the sort of entrepreneurial mindset that, for some, had been lacking in Canada since the early days of its national innovation system.27 Bringing public and private players together, and improving opportunities for collaboration and commercialisation, appears to be the essence of open innovation that Canada will focus on in the next decade. If Canada manages the transition and modernisation of its national system of innovation effectively, it is likely to advance its innovation brand on the world stage.

Country marketing focus

Canada may have ranked 17th out of 132 countries in 2020, according to the Global Innovation Index, but it still has a relatively small domestic market of 38 million

25 Niosi, J. with Manseau, A. and Godin, B. (2000). Canada’s National System of Innovation. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

26 Niosi, J. with Manseau, A. and Godin, B. (2000).

27 Mkhize, B.N.J. (2018). A model for harmonising national policy to capitalise on South Africa’s scientific, technological and innovation prowess: Lessons learnt [thesis]. Da Vinci Institute.

people.28 Canada’s innovation strategy must, therefore, look to the rest of the world for opportunities to scale up while also competing against big, established global brands keen for a slice of its middle-class home market.29

A 2021 policy document produced by Deloitte Canada, through its The Future of Canada Centre, highlighted the importance of backing up the country’s ongoing innovation efforts with the firepower of marketing and nation-branding awareness. The professional services firm suggested that in order for Canada to innovate at scale, it should undertake a national branding strategy that ‘aims to link the made-in-Canada brand with innovation, diversity, sustainability, and trust’. Over a year, and with the help of embassies, trade outposts and business and trade bodies, such a campaign would be used to raise the profile of Canadian goods, services and ideas, and would cement the idea of a world-leading country that was globally competitive.30

The missing link in the chain, stated Canadian entrepreneur Brady Gilchrist in 2017, was marketing.31 At a time when considerable attention was being paid to revitalising Canada’s innovation credentials, Gilchrist said: ‘For Canada to become a nation anchored in innovation, [it] needs to embrace and nurture the skills of its marketers.’

Gilchrist argued that without effective marketing, innovative ideas go unrecognised and ‘innovation tends to take significantly longer to develop its place within society, if at all’. He added:

Innovators need to understand marketing as much as they understand the technical nuances of their innovations. Change happens when people accept new ideas. Marketing brings those ideas to people.

Canada does have a positive story to tell. The country has several factors working in its favour, including an abundance of natural resources and the benefit of being a respected member of both the G7 group of nations and the G20. This gives it a seat at the table with the United States, the European Union, China, South Korea, South Africa and the United Kingdom. However, in 2012, the GE Innovation Barometer said that Canada lacked ‘an international reputation in the area of innovation’32 while the OECD singled out Canada’s lacklustre business investment in R&D as a major stumbling block.33 After all, selling a country on the basis of its innovation excellence had to be backed up by realworld examples and success stories. Undoing these perceptions will take time and focus. It will also require additional funding.

In 2015, with the election of sitting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Canadian government began to increase its R&D spending. A notable dip to 1.59% of GDP in 2019 was followed by 1.7% of GDP in 2020. This is an improvement, but the level of R&D spend was still below the 3.1% recorded by Germany or the 3.07% of the United States. Nonetheless, the modest increase had an effect. Science|Business reported in 2022 that the focus on R&D had been well received by most analysts and that ‘the number of Canadian patent filings and scientific publications has jumped’.34 This can be seen in Figures 1–3.

28 Statistics Canada. (2020, September 29). Canada’s population, July 1, 2020.

29 Deloitte. (2021). Innovation at scale: Establishing Canada as a global leader [Policy Brief].

30 Deloitte. (2021).

31 Gilchrist, B. (2017, June 12). Why Canada’s innovation economy can’t exist without marketers. LinkedIn.

32 GE Innovation Barometer. (2012, January 18). Canada needs more creative thinkers – lacks international recognition for innovation GE ‘Global Innovation Barometer’ examines business innovation in 22 countries [Press Release].

33 OECD. (2012, June 13). Economy: Canada needs to boost innovation and human capital to sustain living standards.

34 Hudson, R.L. (2022, January 13). Researchers ask: Can Canada keep up the race for R&D leadership? Science|Business.

malaysia

In1999, academic and researcher Wong Chan Yuan wrote that the success of any national system of innovation can best be gauged by how effectively the system has been deployed.35 Intention without action just isn’t enough when it comes to creating processes that support both innovation, and science and technology.

The interplay between intention and implementation is what sets Malaysia’s innovation journey apart from that of many other emerging nations. So much so that the ethos behind the Southeast Asian nation’s journey is being carefully observed from South Africa. Dr Babongile Mkhize, Director: Innovation Priorities and Instruments at the South African Department of Science and Innovation, praised Malaysia’s national innovation system during a 2022 interview with The Smarter Edge team. She stated: “From where I stand, Malaysia has a very well-coordinated national system of innovation, with government working very closely with the private sector”.

How did they manage to do that? There are various factors, and one is that in previous years, Malaysia’s government invested so much in entrepreneurship and ‘spin-outs’ – companies resulting from R&D that had been conducted by universities and science councils. And later they let them go on to being fully operational. But when [these companies grew] … they remained loyal to government.

Comparing Malaysia’s experience with that of South Africa, Mkhize noted: ‘In South Africa, we don’t have many local-based companies. We are depending more on multinational companies, and they have their own agenda – they are interested in making a profit and there is no loyalty towards government and its priorities.’

Loyalty and trust are, in fact, hallmarks of the so-called triple helix model – university-industrygovernment36 – that Malaysia has adopted since 2007.37

overview of malaysia’s innovation system

The history of Malaysia is inextricably linked to colonialism, fragmentation, cultural dilution and tensions. Moulded first by Indian and Chinese influences, then by Portuguese, Dutch and British rule, Malaysia eventually achieved independence from Britain on 31 August 1957. However, what is today known as Malaysia did not, in fact, emerge until 1963 when Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah joined the territory of Malaya to create the Federation of Malaysia. (In 1965, Singapore was again declared a separate state.)37

As a newly independent nation, Malaysia in the 1970s was primarily an agricultural producer and commodity exporter. Today, Malaysia is one the leading exporters of semiconductor devices in the world, and a globally competitive producer of ‘computer hard disks, audio and video products and room air-conditioners’, according to Kanagasundram et al, in the book Innovation Systems in Southeast Asia (pages 57–58).

35 Thiruchelvam, K., Ng, B-K., & Wong, C-Y. (2013). An overview of Malaysia’s National Innovation System: Politics, intuitions and performance. In Ratanawaraha, A., Chairatana, P-A, & Ellis, W.W. (Eds.), Innovation Systems in Southeast Asia (pp. 53-87). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.

36 Afzal, M.N.I., Sulong, R.S., Dutta, S. and Mansur, K. (2018). An investigation on triple helix model and national innovation systems: The case of Malaysia. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education; Arden 21(2), p:1

37 Watson Andaya, B. and Andaya, L.Y. (2001). A History of Malaysia [Second Edition]. Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press.

The notable transformation that the country underwent between 1960 and 2006 can be broken down into four distinct periods. These time frames represent clear stepping stones in the development of the country’s national system of innovation, from its early days to its current position as a world-class innovator.38 (See Figure 4.)

Period 1: 1960s

The 1960s marked a period of ‘getting the basics right’. During this period, the focus of the system was on building core infrastructure and operational capabilities that could support Malaysia in its vision of developing more labour-intensive activities, notably in the manufacturing sector.

Period 2: 1970s–1980s

From the 1970s, Malaysia began to focus its attention on developing the human capital needed to support the country’s long-term vision of creating an industrialised, innovation-led economy. This period stood out for its attention to learning and human development. During this period, the Ministry of Energy, Technology and Research was established, in 1973, followed by the creation of the National Council for Scientific Research and Development in 1975.39 Thus began the progressive institutionalisation of science and technology in the Malaysian economy.

Period 3: 1990s

By the 1990s the role of learning had advanced to embrace more complex and creative capabilities, research and the skills needed in an increasingly technology-driven world. During this period, a research funding mechanism was established, a Skills Development Fund was created, and attention was given to ways in which to commercialise research outputs.40

Period 4: 2000 onwards

As the economic plan began to centre more on a knowledge-based economy, the Malaysian national innovation system continued to focus on transforming capabilities in support of this emerging, innovation-led economy. This period is notable for an increase in the number of researchers and individuals involved in R&D in the labour force. While still below the OECD average of 61 researchers per 10 000 members of the labour force, Malaysia’s share of researchers grew from 5.1 per 10 000 in 1996 to 21.3 in 2004. University enrolment grew alongside R&D expenditure.41 During this period, policies were drawn up to address biotechnology developments, the shift to a knowledge-based economy and the embedding of a national innovation model.

It is worth noting that 2003 was the first year in which a written description of a national system of innovation for Malaysia appeared, in the Second National Science and Technology Policy document. The country’s first National Science and Technology Policy, which covered 1986-1989, did not contain the action plan outlined in the second document. Thiruchelvam et al note that the National Innovation Model was launched in 2007, but the process of laying the groundwork and embedding essential partnerships and linkages across the system had already been recognised in earlier planning documents.42

In its steady rise to becoming a globally competitive economy, Malaysia has been deliberate, focussed and future orientated. Right from the time it gained independence in 1957, Malaysia has clearly outlined its intentions and vision in a series of five-year economic plans. The OECD mentioned a number of these strategic imperatives in a 2016 assessment of the country, including the 2016–2020 Eleventh Malaysia Plan: Anchoring Growth on People, which focused heavily on social and individual advancement alongside green growth and sustainability. Other sectoral roadmaps included the Third

38 Thiruchelvam, K., Ng, B-K., & Wong, C-Y. (2013). An overview of Malaysia’s National Innovation System: Politics, intuitions and performance. In Ratanawaraha, A., Chairatana, P-A, & Ellis, W.W. (Eds.), Innovation Systems in Southeast Asia (pp. 53-87). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.

39 Thiruchelvam, K., Ng, B-K., & Wong, C-Y. (2013).

40 Thiruchelvam, K., Ng, B-K., & Wong, C-Y. (2013).

41 Thiruchelvam, K., Ng, B-K., & Wong, C-Y. (2013).

42 Thiruchelvam, K., Ng, B-K., & Wong, C-Y. (2013).

Industrial Master Plan 2006–2020; the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025; the Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015–2025; the Financial Sector Blueprint 2011–2020; the Services Sector Blueprint 2015–2020 and the National Commodity Policy 2011–2020.43

figure 4: How malaysia’s economy shifted from agriculture to services (1980–2016)

Source: Ministry of Finance, Innovation Policy in Malaysia44

Going hand-in-hand with the country’s economic transformation was the upliftment of its population of 33.2 million (World Bank, 2020 figures). An examination of the numbers shows that this approach is working. By 2019, Malaysia’s gross national income per capita was US$11,230 versus US$330 in 1962, as Figure 5 shows.

figure 5: malaysia’s Gni per capita (Us$), 1962–2019

Source: World Bank, Malaysia Voluntary National Review 2021

43 OECD Economy Surveys. (2016, November). Malaysia – Economic Assessment. OECD.

44 Narayanan, S. & Yew-Wah, L. (2018). Innovation Policy in Malaysia. Chapter 5 in Innovation Policy in Asean [Masahito Ambashi, ed]. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.

malaysia: a classic triple helix model

In the 1990s, two academics, American Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff, from the Netherlands, outlined an effective three-pronged model for encouraging economic development. This ‘triple helix’ approach, involving an interplay between academia, industry and government, can become ‘a key component of any national or multi-national innovation strategy in the late twentieth century’.45

The approach took into account the evolving role of higher education in society, its increasing collaboration with industry, and the role of government in terms of policy-making and funding.

A well-thumbed example of an effective triple helix model of innovation is the USA’s innovation and technology centre, Silicon Valley. In What Makes Silicon Valley Tick? The Ecology of Innovation at Work, by the late Dr Tapan Munroe and coauthor Mark Westwind, the many elements that go into creating an innovation ecosystem were scrutinised in the context of America’s hub of technology and innovation. Among these were the availability of investment capital, the presence of skilled talent to fuel the workforce, and a steady stream of fresh ideas and entrepreneurial visionaries to sustain the ecosystem. The authors stressed that the strength of an ecosystem lay in the health and dynamism of each of the three pillars of the helix, with each role player properly fulfilling its part of the bargain.

For universities, the output should be unlocking ideas and patents, conducting research, and developing talent. For industry, taking risks, funding new ideas and start-ups, scaling businesses and unlocking the potential of fresh concepts are key. For government, what is required is a social vision, funding, policy support and a healthy education system.46

Arguably, what also makes a triple helix model succeed is a government that is able to step away from dominating the relationship, allowing universities to nurture talent and ideas and industry to monetise innovations. Government’s role should be that of a supporter and facilitator, rather than a director of proceedings. This is not always a comfortable role for governments, but in the case of Silicon Valley it has certainly yielded dividends.

The role of government

As pointed out in Chapter 1, the advantage that developed nations have in harnessing innovation is that the critical foundation – an interconnected system of policies and institutions – has already been laid. While a country like Canada might need to tweak, change and refresh an established system, the same is not true for emerging nations such as Malaysia and South Africa, which have to develop policies, structures and institutions from scratch.

This makes the role of government more crucial in emerging nations than in developed nations. It is the government, not the private sector, that creates the policies and support mechanisms for innovation, and must implement system-wide reform of institutions and bureaucracies.47 Once this is done, beneficial interactions can begin to take place between government, academia and the private sector.

In a triple helix model such as Malaysia’s, the state adopts a position as an active, engaged partner, fulfilling its role but not exceeding it. The universities and private sector participate by generating and commercialising ideas, and by extracting learnings from the system in operation. This is a crucial function because insights have to be developed and systems have to be constantly tweaked in order to create greater impact and efficiency. Unless there is constant monitoring and tweaking, national systems of innovation will invariably falter.

In the case of Malaysia, which has clearly outlined its policy intentions in a series of economic plans and programmes, and which created the world’s first Digital Free Trade Zone outside China in 2017,48 implementation, rather than a lack of vision, seems to be where the system falters.

A 2019 assessment of Malaysia’s innovation system by the Global Innovation Policy Accelerator49 highlighted various deficiencies in the current innovation ecosystem, including:

• funding: In spite of the availability of funds, most funding was directed towards early-stage businesses and urban areas, with very little going to rural areas.

45 Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix-University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development. EASST Review, 14(1): 14-19.

46 Pique, J.M. (2016). Ecology of Innovation and the Triple Helix: A Tribute to Tapan Munroe. Helice, 5(2).

47 Intarakumnerd, P., Chairatana, P-A. & Tangchitpiboon, T. (2002). National innovation system in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand. Research Policy, 31 (8-9), p: 1445-1457. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00074-4.

48 Harsono, H. (2020, July 25). The China-Malaysia Digital Free Trade Zone: National Security Considerations. The Diplomat.

49 Alpha Catalyst Consulting & Nesta (2019). Understanding Malaysia’s Innovation System.

• Human capital development: The assessment noted the relatively low percentage of skilled workers, stating, ‘The current level stands at 28% of the total workforce of 14.76 million. This has not improved significantly over the last decade, from 25% in 2007.’

• ecosystem support: The assessment noted that internet access and broadband penetration were not being rolled out uniformly across the country.

• institutions: The assessment noted weak implementation of policies and strategies, infighting between various government departments and agencies, and a reluctance to involve the private sector in the government’s innovation efforts.

• Global linkages: There seemed to be a hesitancy to embrace emerging trends such as crowdfunding and new technologies such as ride-sharing apps and cryptocurrencies.

• Another observation concerned the seeming absence of a clear systemic approach to policymaking, which resulted in siloed and at times scattershot policies. This had the potential to favour short-term or knee-jerk reactions to events, which was at odds with the triple helix model’s more holistic outlook.50

A 2018 journal article by Afzal et al, focusing on the connection between Malaysia’s innovation framework at the national level and the triple helix model, noted an increase in higher education achievement in 2017 but a decline in government education spend per learner. While technological infrastructure had improved on the back of telecommunications investment and public-private partnerships, the ‘real GDP of Malaysia has decreased … ranking in economic efficiency is also declining. Therefore, [the] role of government in [the] national innovation system is not satisfactory’.51 5253545556

Boosting institutional innovation through free trade zones

The Digital Free Trade Zone (DFTZ), located close to Malaysia’s busy Kuala Lumpur International Airport, opened in 2017 as a joint creation of the Chinese mega-company Alibaba Group and the Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation.52 Its main aim is to facilitate communication and effective e-servicing of logistics between Malaysia and China. Its broader vision is to support the growth and operation of start-ups, enabling them to make use of digital economy tools such as digital payments.53

China has been Malaysia’s largest trading partner for the past decade, accounting for 18.9% of Malaysia’s total trade.54 Much has been written about the tightening of this relationship through the DFTZ, with global commentators questioning the move in terms of its security and geo-political power implications. Less has been written about the DFTZ’s potential to boost innovation, support start-up businesses and streamline trade.

Streamlined trade invariably boosts innovation. In addition, the digital focus of Malaysia’s DFTZ may also be expected to advance technological updates, boost regional cooperation, and stimulate institutional innovation 55

Institutional innovation – the sort supported by models such as the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework discussed in Section 3 of this book – may not be the sort of breakthrough, headline-worthy innovation that one associates with disruptive new services, products and markets, but it does facilitate learning and the exchange of ideas, enabling ‘smarter institutions that can thrive in a world of exponential change’.56

Smarter institutions ultimately enable the more effective roll-out of innovations. As the Deloitte Center for the Edge noted in a 2013 report, institutional innovation ‘ultimately provides an opportunity to break traditional performance tradeoffs and shift from a business environment of diminishing returns to one that fosters increasing returns … The

50 Alpha Catalyst Consulting & Nesta (2019).

51 Afzal, M.N.I., Sulong, R.S. Dutta, S. & Mansur, K. (2018). An investigation on triple helix model and national innovation systems: The case of Malaysia. Asian Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(3): 306.

52 The Straits Times. (2017, March 28). Malaysia’s new digital free trade zone brings opportunities and challenges: Sin Chew Daily.

53 Harsono, H. (2020, July 25). The China-Malaysia Digital Free Trade Zone: National Security Considerations. The Diplomat.

54 Chew, A. (2022, September 15). Malaysia’s economy doing fine, despite top trade partner China’s zero-Covid fallout and war in Ukraine: analysts. South China Morning Post.

55 Zhao, T. & He, Feng. (2022). Does the Pilot Free Trade Zone Promote the Quality of Urban Economic Growth: An Empirical Research Based on Quasi-Natural Experiment. Sustainability, 14(12). doi: 10.3390/su14127352.

56 Hagel, J. & Brown, J.S. (2013). Institutional innovation: Creating smarter organizations to scale learning. Deloitte University Press.

result of engaging in institutional innovation is that we can begin to unlock the unlimited potential of ourselves and our organization.’

South Africa and Africa can learn from Malaysia’s institutional arrangements as we roll out its own global free trade bloc in the form of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), established on 1 January 2021.57 There is no reason why the AfCFTA should not eclipse the achievements of the DTFZ if participating nations take the opportunity not only to boost intra-African trade, but to apply the sort of institutional innovations that support development and closer economic integration.

The role of universities and higher education bodies57

The role of universities and higher education research bodies in supporting innovation output is widely recognised. In a 2015 study on university-industry research collaboration as a supportive pillar of the Malaysian national innovation system, the authors wrote: ‘Collaboration between university and industry is one of the most prominent institutional interfaces to make their role more beneficial to national economic development and to support the growth of high technologies activities in the country.’58

The authors also noted that while the benefits of university-industry collaboration were generally acknowledged, these partnerships were not always considered in the planning of systems as complex and far-reaching as a national innovation system. They observed a problem: While institutions of higher learning are, by their very nature, long-term in their thinking and intended impact, governments and politicians are inevitably motivated by short-term thinking. They wrote: Policy makers seek decisions that bring short-term results because these are directly visible to them. Solutions with short-term results, however, may reduce innovation activity in the longer-term and increase the problems that originally they were trying to solve.59

This makes higher education institutions both a source of strength for the long-term development of innovation systems, and a source of disconnect with the government of the day, largely because of the vagaries of political short-termism. While boosting patent and IP applications, authoring journal articles and commercialising ideas lies at the heart of the triplehelix model, in the case of Malaysia, this intention has been subverted as a result of reductions in funding to universities since the 1970s. As Iqbal et al observed, this has pushed universities closer to industry (which is increasingly a source of funding), but has the potential to dilute the socio-economic game plan that should be an integral part of any triple helix approach. Nevertheless, Afzal et al noted that in the triple helix model, collaboration between universities and industry was yielding transformational results, and having a positive effect on regional economic advancement.60

The role of industry

As economist Dr Tapan Munroe pointed out in his investigation of Silicon Valley, the role of industry in the triple helix is multifaceted and complex. Businesses certainly play a role in envisaging and developing financially viable start-ups and commercialising innovations, but other stakeholders also play an important role. These include not-for-profit organisations that advance entrepreneurial education and support, and those that seek to equip young, would-be entrepreneurs with guidance, mentorship and training.61 Malaysia had 82 675 registered non-government organisations in late 2021. There is huge scope in terms of leveraging the impact and reach of these organisations so that they more effectively support community and business development. Their role could be expanded to focus more intentionally on programmes that develop entrepreneurship and advance innovative thinking and projects.62

NGOs and community bodies have a role to play, alongside academia and government. Academia provides the talent and an environment that fosters ideas, and government creates the enabling environment and the educational pipeline suited to the needs of the economy in question. However, none of these stakeholders can expect to see a successful culmination of their efforts without the risk taking and commercialisation efforts of industry.

57 Thomas, D. (2022, July 8). What you need to know about the African Continental Free Trade Area. African Business.

58 Iqbal, A.M., Khan, A.S., Bashir, F. & Senin, A.A. (2015). Evaluating National Innovation System of Malaysia Based on UniversityIndustry Research Collaboration: A System Thinking Approach. Asian Social Science, 11(13): 45-60. doi: 10.5539/ass.v11n13p45.

59 Iqbal, A.M., Khan, A.S., Bashir, F. & Senin, A.A. (2015).

60 Afzal, M.N.I.; Sulong, R.S. Dutta, S. & Mansur, K. (2018). P 311

61 Abiddin, N.Z., Ibrahim, I. & Aziz, S.A.A. (2022). Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and their part towards sustainable community development. Sustainability, 14(8), 4386. doi: 10.3390/su14084386.

62 Abiddin, N.Z., Ibrahim, I. & Aziz, S.A.A. (2022).

As entrepreneurship and human capital professor Peter Ester wrote in Accelerators in Silicon Valley: Building Successful Startups:

The business anatomy of Silicon Valley is dominated by a unique combination of a pro-innovation and prostartup culture and the prevalence of institutions that help new ventures to excel.63

Without the support, funding and sheer gumption of committed teams to turn business ideas into viable products and useful services, any innovation model will invariably grind to a halt.

In the case of Malaysia, various studies, including the 2019 Global Innovation Policy Accelerator assessment by Alpha Catalyst Consulting and Nesta, noted an insufficient understanding of the corporate sector and its inner workings by government policy makers.64 This shallow understanding was leading to red-tape-heavy policies that had the effect of stifling innovation, rather than advancing it. The following quote from the report is telling:

The fast pace at which technology is moving has spurred many new startups, however, current policies appear to be stifling the growth of these startups, as archaic legislation is not renewed or reviewed. There is also an equal number of startups who are entering a previously un-regulated space. The absence of clear policies and regulation curtails the growth of these startups, due to the uncertainty, in addition to alienating investment. A clear space for experimentation is needed.65

Challenges, possibilities and the ‘middle-income trap’

In addition to the socio-economic challenges facing Malaysia, the country’s innovation journey is being impacted by its economic structure and history. Diversifying the Malaysian economy, improving productivity and competitiveness, and upskilling its workforce for a digital future are all critical ingredients in attracting sought-after foreign direct investment into the right industries.

This is easier said than done.

A study published in the World Development journal in 2021, authored by Keun Lee, Jongho Lee and Juneyoung Lee, categorised the national systems of innovation in countries such as Malaysia, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil as being ‘stuck in the middle-income trap’.66

What does this mean?

The term refers to the bind that such countries find themselves in when, having rapidly advanced to middle-income status, they find themselves unable to compete on the labour productivity front, since their workforce still lacks capabilities and they are now outpriced on the wage front. This means they are no longer competitive in terms of costs.

Caught in this veritable no man’s land, the advice posited by economics professor Eva Paus in a 2017 working paper for the Asian Development Bank Institute is to harness innovation. She noted:

Analysts agree, irrespective of theoretical framework, that moving from a middle-income to a high-income economy involves the internalisation of innovation-based activities on a broad scale. But they differ in their definition of the middle-income trap, the reasons behind it, and the policy recommendations for escaping it.67

Drawing on the experience of Latin American countries facing this same dilemma, Paus noted: To avoid being trapped at the middle-income level, the development strategy for middle income countries has to focus squarely on the promotion of domestic innovation capabilities in a systemic way. The implementation of such a strategy requires a renewed focus on active policies for productive transformation, for greater innovation in existing sectors and in support of a reallocation towards higher productivity sectors.68

These recommendations align with the triple helix model, in which the state plays its role alongside industry and research/ educational institutions.

63 Ester, P. (2017). Accelerators in Silicon Valley: Building Successful Startups. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

64 Alpha Catalyst Consulting & Nesta (2019).

65 Alpha Catalyst Consulting & Nesta (2019). p 26

66 Lee, K., Lee, J. & Lee, J. (2021). Variety of national innovation systems (NIS) and alternative pathways to growth beyond the middle-income stage: Balanced, imbalanced, catching-up, and trapped NIS. World Development, 144. doi: 10.1016/j. worlddev.2021.105472.

67 Paus, E. (2017). Escaping the Middle Income Trap: Innovate or Perish. ADBI Working Paper 685. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute..

68 Paus, E. (2017).

For Paus, ‘The middle-income trap is not inevitable. Just as policy choice was an important factor behind economies facing the trap, a change in policies is the way to escape the trap.’ She recommends forging coalitions, ‘building the institutional architecture in support of innovation’ and working towards widespread national buy-in.69 These are important considerations for both Malaysia and South Africa, a similarly emerging economy.7071727374757677

Robust intellectual property support

While international patents can be filed by companies in significant markets like the United States or the European Union – thereby giving access to those particular markets – it is sometimes mandated by law that patents first be applied for in the home country. China, the United States, India and France have this requirement, meaning that an innovation has to be registered locally before it may be registered in another jurisdiction (in many instances, the United States). The advantage of this local patent application is that it firmly establishes what is known internationally as the priority date; the earliest patent application filed in respect of the invention or innovation. Having a priority date can prove of strategic importance when taking an innovation to market on the world stage.70

In the case of Malaysia, the laws governing patent applications are the Patents Act 1983, Patents Regulations 1986, Direction of Patents Act 1983, the Patents Regulations 1986, and Practice Notice 1/2022.71 While outside of the timeframe of this book, it should be noted that in March 2022, Malaysia’s lawmakers passed the Patents (Amendment) Bill 2021, which brought the country’s patent laws up to speed with international standards.72

According to Malaysian law, in order to apply for a patent in a foreign country, a resident of Malaysia must either file a patent in the home country – and then wait two months before having the right to file the application overseas – or pay a fee to receive written permission for an offshore patent application from the patent registration office.73 If these requirements are not adhered to, the contravening party could face punishment in the form of a fine, jail time, or both.74

Given that patent law, and its associated protections for inventors and innovators, is advanced in Malaysia, there is an appeal for resident Malaysian companies and individuals to register in Malaysia. Indeed, data from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) also points to a healthy number of non-resident companies that seek to register their patents in the Asian country. In 2018, the number of patents originating from the United States and registered in the Malaysia office stood at 839 out of a total of 3810 – a notable 22.02%.

There are several reasons for this. Malaysia is ideally positioned for markets across Asia, and is a member of the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation, a regional patent-sharing programme that streamlines the process across nine countries, including Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.75 In addition, Malaysia is a signatory to major intellectual property (IP) treaties and agreements, and therefore operates in line with global patent laws, which is attractive to outside companies seeking to patent innovations in the region. Through the Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia (MyIPO), patenting is a relatively smooth process, with protection offered through the country’s dedicated IP High Court, created in 2007.76

For local, resident companies, many of whom are export-driven, the appeal of seeking global patent protection in their target markets – particularly in the United States – accounts for the significant proportion of patents registered by Malaysian companies in other countries from 2005 to 2020. See Figure 6.

The high number of patents being registered by Malaysians is a relatively new development. European and Malaysian patent expert, Dave A Wyatt, noted in a 2019 article that while patents and designs in Malaysia in 2018 were ‘healthy and generally trending upward’, ‘the proportion of new filings from local applicants has somewhat decreased in recent years. As the Malaysian economy is primarily export-orientated, many local applicants remain focused on securing patent protection outside of Malaysia. There is continued strong interest in Malaysia from overseas, albeit with many large corporate applicants focused more on quality than quantity of applications.’77

69 Paus, E. (2017).

70 Crease, D. (2022, July 4). Where should I file my first patent application? Keltie.

71 MyIPO. (n.d.). FAQ. The Official Portal of Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia.

72 Christopher & Lee Ong. (2022, April). The Patents (Amendment) Act 2022 [Client Update: Malaysia].

73 MyIPO. (n.d.).

74 Henry Goh IP. (1994–2023). Malaysia.

75 Ong, C. & Pei Yee, K. (2021, October 7). Patent law development in Malaysia. Asia Business Law Journal.

76 Ong, C. & Pei Yee, K. (2021, October 7).

77 Wyatt, D.A. (2019, July 29). A review of the recent patent and industrial design developments in Malaysia. IP Stars.

Figure the number of Malaysian-origin patents filed in Malaysia from 2005 to 2010, Figure 8 shows the same for 2011 to 2015, and Figure 9 shows the same for 2016 to 2020.

figure 6: malaysian patents by office and key industries 2005–2020

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

figure 7: number of malaysian-origin patents filed in malaysia 2005–2010

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

figure 8: number of malaysian-origin patents filed in malaysia 2011–2015

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

figure 9: number of malaysian-origin patents filed in malaysia 2016–2020

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

south africa

As we’ve seen from the experiences of both Canada and Malaysia, a well-managed and wellgoverned national innovation system is central to a nation’s innovation credentials and business performance output. Organisation and cooperation between the various entities in the innovation ecosystem are critical, as are clear avenues for development, which help to fuel scientific thinking and the eventual roll-out and commercialisation of specific innovations. An effective system of innovation also helps to shepherd new ideas through the pipeline, helping them to progress through an elaborate system of education, funding, and cooperative support.

Good governance should, of course, underpin an effective system of national innovation. All players are, in fact, required to fulfil their role in order to continually unlock doors and overcome hurdles along the way. With close cooperation and equal measures of energy and efficiency, government, academia, industry and NGOs can see innovations move from ideation all the way to execution and, with any luck, scaling up.

On paper, South Africa is up there with the world’s best when it comes to putting in place a system that should – ideally – grease the wheels of national innovation. However, the existence of a system of innovation on its own does not equate to high levels of intellectual property (IP) development and commercially creative output.

While the existing framework is fairly well established, it is becoming increasingly clear to those in the know that South Africa stands at a crossroads in terms of its national innovation system. Across the board, there is a need for the country to double down on its innovation efforts and find effective ways to turn ideas into action.787980

timeline: the development of south africa’s national research and development strategy

• The concept of a formalised South African national system of innovation dates back to the mid-1990s when the 1996 White paper on science and technology was released. The White Paper saw such a system as ‘central to the empowerment of all South Africans as they seek to achieve social, political, economic and environmental goals’. The paper went on to say: ‘The development of innovative ideas, products, institutional arrangements and processes will enable the country to address more effectively the needs and aspirations of its citizens. This is particularly important within the context of the demands of global economic competitiveness, sustainable development and equity considerations related to the legacies of our past.’78 The White Paper was reviewed and updated in 2019 and adopted in its revised form in March 2019.

• In 1998 the national advisory Council on innovation (NACI) was established to advise the Minister of Science and Technology on issues related to the national innovation system.79

• In 2000 the national Research and technology foresight study report was launched, looking 15 to 20 years into the future to determine the shifts and technological trajectory most needed to uplift South Africa’s economic and social development. The study involved consultations with a range of stakeholders, industries and individuals.80

78 Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology. (1996). White Paper on Science and Technology.

79 Government Gazette. (2012, May 31).

80 Government Gazette. (2012, May 31). Department of Science and Technology: Final report of the Ministerial Review Committee on the science, technology and innovation landscape in South Africa. Notice 425 of 2012.

• In 2002 the national Research and Development strategy81 was embraced by the government as an outcome of the 1996 White Paper. The strategy aimed to focus the country’s resources on innovation development, from funding and investment to the development of skills and competencies and the protection of intellectual property (IP). It highlighted the need for coordination among ministries and institutions for the development of innovative products, services and technologies.

• In 2008, the intellectual property Rights from publicly financed Research and Development act 51 of 2008 (The IPR Act) was passed. The Act incorporated the notion of technology transfer into the laws of the country. Technology transfer is one of the objectives of the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),82 to which South Africa is a signatory. Specifically, technology transfer focuses on developed nations incentivising their companies to transfer technology to less-developed countries. In the South African context, technology transfer must also support the national aim of improving the living standards of citizens and ensuring that IP is used to achieve economic gain for the country as a whole.83

• The ten-year innovation plan for south africa (2008–2018) was adopted in 2008 as a means of navigating ‘South Africa’s transformation towards a knowledge-based economy, in which economic growth is led by the production and dissemination of knowledge for the enrichment of all fields of human endeavour’.84 The Innovation Plan was, fundamentally, a decade-long implementation strategy for the 1996 White Paper, according to the DSI’s Dr Babongile Mkhize, speaking during an interview with The Smarter Edge team.

• The revised 2019 White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation outlined new policy intentions, making it necessary to create a new 10-year strategy that would take into account the impact of evolving industries and new technologies. At the time of writing, this revised ‘Decadal Plan (2021–2031)’ had yet to be finalised.

• In 2019 the current Department of science and innovation (DSI) was created, following the merging of the former Department of Science and Technology and the National Research Foundation.

Bumps on the road: the state of innovation in south africa81828384

The 2022 South African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Report, based on data for the 2019–2020 period, provides an overview of the current state of South Africa’s national innovation system. The report highlights several gaps in our current approach. Published on a yearly basis by the National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) on behalf of the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), the report digs into the country’s research and development (R&D) balance sheet and innovation funding efforts.

The report draws attention to some encouraging positives, including visible shifts in the demographics of those employed in the higher education sector. As the report explains: ‘The proportion of female academics at public universities increased from 46.4% in 2010 to 50.44% in 2019, and the racial breakdown of academics in 2020 was 45% African, 40% white, 8% Indian and 6% coloured. The number of female professors increased from 22.05% in 2010 to 30.8% in 2019.’85

In addition, some notable takeaways from the 2022 report include:

• There has been a rise in the publication of scientific papers per million population, from 248 in 2011 to 505 in 2020. This was above average for upper middle-income countries, the authors noted, but it must be pointed out that ‘reduced investments in R&D have resulted in fewer scientific publications, patents granted and receipts from the sale of South African intellectual property (IP). The share of total scientific publications in engineering and technology decreased from 28.2% in 2019 to 22.2% in 2020, while social science publications decreased from 30.2% to 27.5% over the same period.’86

• A particular focus area of South African research publications during the period was nanotechnology, a small sector

81 The Government of the Republic of South Africa. (2002). South Africa’s National Research and Development Strategy.

82 World Trade Organization. (2023) Technology transfer.

83 Kleyn, M. & De Wet, S.J. (2019, June). Technology Transfer in South Africa. Les Nouvelles – Journal of the Licensing Executives Society, LIV(2).

84 Department of Science and Technology. (2008). Innovation Towards a Knowledge-Based Economy: Ten-Year Innovation Plan for South Africa (2008–2018). Republic of South Africa.

85 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022). The 2022 South African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Report. National Advisory Council on Innovation.

86 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

but one that holds tremendous potential for the future in areas such as medicine, agriculture, military intelligence and manufacturing.87 Between 2011 and 2020, South Africa’s global output in this key future industry doubled from 0.25% to 0.57%.88

• South Africa’s digital competitiveness saw a slight uptick from 51st out of 54 countries in 2016 to 48th in 201889

In his foreword to the report, Dr Shadrack Moephuli, chairman of NACI, noted that the Covid-19 outbreak in 2020 had sparked interest in ‘the role of science, technology and innovation (STI) in healthcare, and inclusive and sustainable socioeconomic development’, and had brought a variety of entities together to work collaboratively on initiatives such as ventilator production. However, the pandemic certainly hit the national economy hard and, as a result, set the national system of innovation back.90 The full effects will probably only be felt a few years beyond the scope of this book.

What could not be laid at the door of Covid-19, however, were the already evident trends of minimal STI funding which, when it was available, was being unevenly dispersed in the innovation value chain.91 At the same time, government spending on R&D had increased from R9 billion in 2010–2011 to R19 billion in 2019–2020, with the bulk of state funding (43.4% in 2010/11, 58.6% in 2019/20) directed towards the higher education sector.92

However, as a percentage of GDP, gross expenditure on R&D continues to drop. In 2019/20, South Africa stood at 0.62% GDP to R&D, its lowest level since both 2010/11 and 2013/14, when the ratio was 0.66% GDP to R&D. According to the NACI report, quoting the 2021 UNESCO Science Report, a staggering four of every five countries spend less than 1% of their GDP on R&D.

When it comes to GDP investment in R&D, South Korea stands head and shoulders above the other three countries featured in this book. In 2020, 4.85% of South Korea’s GDP was directed to R&D, according to World Bank figures. This may be compared with Malaysia’s most recent reading of 1.04% in 2018, Canada’s 1.7% in 2020, and our own 0.62% in 2020.

See Figure 10.93

figure 10: south africa vs malaysia, south Korea and Canada: percentage of GDp expenditure on research and development (2005–2020)

Source: The World Bank, UNESCO Institute for Statistics

87 Massimine, C. (2022, September 6). The future of nanotech, the world’s tiniest industry. Entrepreneur.

88 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

89 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

90 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

91 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

92 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

93 The World Bank. (2022, October 24) Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) – Canada, Malaysia, South Africa, Korea, Rep. UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

Among the BRICS emerging nations bloc, India clearly shares South Africa’s struggle when it comes to bringing its GDPto-R&D percentage up to 1%, having recorded 0.65% in 2018/19. Brazil stood at 1.16% in 2018–19, Russia at 1.04% and China at 2.23% (both 2019/20), according to the DSI-NACI report. See Figure 11.

figure 11: south africa vs the BRiCs countries: percentage of GDp expenditure on R&D (2005–2020)

Source: The World Bank, UNESCO Institute for Statistics

South Africa has publicly noted that it is aiming to achieve a target of 1.5% of GDP to R&D by 2030. Getting this right will first require that the country hits the target of 1.1% of GDP by 2024. In a presentation to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, Science and Technology in February 2022, Phil Mjwara, Director General of the DSI, noted that to reach the first target, South Africa would need to increase its annual spend by R20 billion by 2024.94

Achieving this target will depend partly on winning back the confidence of the business sector. Spending by the business sector on R&D has been on a downward trajectory since 2010/11, with the 2022 DSI-NACI report noting: ‘The numbers [of people] engaged in R&D in the business sector are lower than at any time in the last decade.’ The report showed that the business sector cut 947 research jobs in 2018 and an additional 1307 in 2019. Many moved into the higher education sector.95

NACI chairman Moephuli noted in the 2022 report that, ideally, business should contribute more than half of a country’s gross expenditure on R&D. However, in 2019/20, the business sector in South Africa was contributing 31% (Figure 12). This was down from 39.3% in 2018/1996 and 53.2% in 2009/10.97

94 Van der Merwe, C. (2022, February 3). South Africa needs ‘billions’ to hit R&D spending target. Research Professional News.

95 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

96 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

97 Mzekandaba, S. (2022, August 1). SA’s innovation, R&D investment misses targets. ITWeb.

figure 12: R&D expenditure by the business sector as a percentage of gross expenditure (2009–2020)

Source: Simnikiwe Mzekandaba (ITWeb)

Even foreign funding of R&D in the business sector – which rose in 2019/20 – was coming off a low base and remains lower than levels seen a decade ago. In 2010, foreign firms funded in the region of 60% of South Africa’s R&D efforts. By 2018, this had declined to just 10% of gross expenditure, rising to 25.1% in 2019 (Figure 13).98

figure 13: foreign-funded R&D in the business sector (2010–2019)

Source: South African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Report (Department of Science and Innovation)

Figures such as these have caused some at the coalface of South Africa’s national innovation strategy to call for a reset. However, funding alone cannot account for the dramatic fall-off in global patent applications of South African origin since 2011 (Figure 14). Nor can it explain why South African universities continue to have relatively low patent application numbers99

98 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

99 Brant, J. & Sibanda, M. (2018). South Africa: IP management and the commercialization of publicly funded research outcomes. World Intellectual Property Organization.

in spite of increased funding for higher education institutions. That said, according to an interview with the National Intellectual Property Management Office (NIPMO), 100 publicly-funded IP start-up companies were established between 2008 and 2018, 72 of which were still operational at the time of writing.

figure 14: south africa-origin patents filed globally (2005–2020)

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

A 2020 review of South Africa’s higher education and STI landscape highlighted, among other issues, the fragmentation of research activity; a need for a more embedded focus on R&D at government level; poor coordination, coherence and synergy; and the negative impact of corruption.100

The review stated:

South Africa’s national system of innovation (NSI) is at a crossroads. If the status quo is allowed to continue, the NSI will continue to underperform and will remain plagued by incoherence and discordance. In such an instance, the NSI will fail to generate the benefits of the knowledge economy envisaged by the national development plan (NDP).101

Similarly, a review of the 2020 Report of the Presidential Commission on the Fourth Industrial Revolution102 noted the advanced nature of South Africa’s national innovation system but concluded that the system in its current form ‘insufficiently supported a transition from a firm reliance on a resource-and-commodity-based economy to one that would be characterised by value-adding and knowledge-intensive activities’.

Our current system seems to be weighed down by a lack of coherence and integration between stakeholders; the absence of a single coordinating body to marshal resources; the absence of meaningful participation on the part of the business sector in the establishment of the national system of innovation; and a need for more targeted and strategic research funding.103

A 2017 reflection on the country’s national innovation system by researcher Duduetsang Mokoele noted the system’s achievements in terms of embedding science and technology into economic thinking and helping to create synergy among institutions, including government and higher education. Interestingly, Mokoele’s assessment also noted the system’s failure to fully leverage South Africa’s traditional knowledge systems and an over-focus on innovative technologies to the exclusion

100 HESTIIL Ministerial Committee. (2020, September). A new pathway 2030: Catalysing South Africa’s NSI for urgent scaled social and economic impact: A Review of South Africa’s Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation Institutional Landscape (HESTIIL).

101 HESTIIL Ministerial Committee. (2020, September).

102 Government Gazette. (2020, October 23). Summary Report & Recommendations. Commission on The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Department of Communications and Digital Technologies Notice 591 of 2020 (No 43834)

103 Jegede, O. (2021, June 9). Research Report: Assessing South Africa Readiness for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. University of Cape Town.

of indigenous knowledge.104 For more on the potential contribution of indigenous knowledge systems, see the ‘Indigenous knowledge systems: Innovation meets culture, heritage and ancient insights’ sidebar.

Similarly, the Deputy Director General for Technology Innovation at the DSI, Dr Mmboneni Muofhe, has highlighted the potential inherent in Africa’s existing indigenous knowledge systems and insights.105

All of this said, the challenge remains: How do we harness what we have, pulling all strands together to fashion a national innovation system that promotes and commercialises innovation at all levels, and in all sectors, for the upliftment of the entire country? To answer that question, we need to understand the foundations and intentions of the current system.

looking back to 2007: a strong start

In 2007, at the request of government officials, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) conducted a review of South Africa’s innovation policies. The review noted South Africa’s strong capabilities and competencies and highlighted the country’s past achievements. It also made recommendations, outlined challenges, and called attention to policy shortcomings. It is worth noting that the OECD report was premised on a positive economic growth trajectory. In the year of the report, 2007, South Africa, under former President Thabo Mbeki, recorded annual GDP growth of 5.4%, following on from 5.6% in 2006 and 5.3% in 2005. However, by 2009, growth had fallen to –1.5% amidst the global downturn and a change in leadership to the President Jacob Zuma administration. It bounced back to 3% in 2010, the year in which South Africa hosted the Fifa Soccer World Cup, and then declined steadily, hitting a low of –6.3% in 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic hit. (Figure 15).

Source: The World Bank

104 Mokoele, D. (2017, February 16). South Africa’s national system of innovation twenty years later. Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection.

105 Muofhe, M. (2020). Bridging the innovation chasm: How South Africa can retrieve itself from the conundrum. The Da Vinci Institute for Technology Management.

figure 15: south africa: GDp growth (2005–2020)

Post-2007, South Africa faced challenges such as the onset of loadshedding due to electricity shortages, rising inequality and poverty, high unemployment rates, service delivery woes and embedded corruption. However, the OECD’s 2007 assessment still painted a positive picture of innovation in the country, noting that our innovation system had to be sensitive to the needs of the previously disadvantaged while at the same time driving economic growth and development. It highlighted that in order to fulfil these twin goals, innovation needed to be supported by world-class policies, good governance and a global – and specifically African – outlook.

The OECD review made specific mention of the delicate balancing act South African officials had managed to achieve between the transformative needs of the country and the destructive legacy of the past.106 The review noted that the advent of democracy in 1994 did not erase the state-controlled innovation system that was already in place, but it did mark the beginning of a process of ‘reshaping … a relatively strong innovation system serving one set of social, economic and political goals towards another strong system serving a very different set of goals’.107

As a result, South Africa was able to build an innovation model on the ‘nucleus of technologically strong, innovationperforming business enterprises’, together with a respectable GDP-to-R&D ratio of 0.87% in 2009–10 and rising business sector R&D spend. In addition, the country’s small but impactful collection of quality universities and research institutions ensured that South Africa’s research output was highly regarded on the world stage.108

Overall the OECD report offered a comprehensive and encouraging overview of South Africa’s national innovation system, and included clear recommendations for possible policy improvements. The assessment saw value in the structures already in place and acknowledged that South African role players were straddling a unique set of goals, having an eye on both redress and future growth. It also commented on a possibly strong role for public research bodies.

the years since 2007: How does south africa measure up to BRiCs?

While this publication attempts to assess and compare the national innovation systems of Canada, Malaysia, South Africa and South Korea, South Africa has also been scrutinised in relation to fellow members of the BRICS emerging market bloc, which comprises original members Brazil, Russia, India and China, plus latecomer South Africa, which joined in 2010. What makes the BRICS comparison interesting is the fact that all five nations appear to share challenges when it comes to commercialising knowledge, despite the existence of institutions and systems that should be lubricating the innovation wheels.

As Ibrahim Alnafrah of Damascus University wrote in a 2021 paper, existing national innovation systems in BRICS countries appear to fall down in terms of system management and the institutions in place.109 World Economic Forum data shows that all BRICS countries were underperforming in terms of patent investments in research, innovation and invention, and in terms of offering incentives to boost patent applications.110 (Figure 16).

While South Africa was slightly ahead of the pack when it came to ‘more progressive taxation, rethinking how corporations, wealth and labour are taxed, nationally and in an international cooperative framework’, the country was not excelling when it came to creating ‘markets of tomorrow’, especially those requiring collaboration between government and business.111

106 OECD. (2007). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: South Africa.

107 OECD. (2007), p: 10.

108 OECD. (2007).

109 Alnafrah, I. (2021). Efficiency evaluation of BRICS’s national innovation systems based on bias-corrected network data envelopment analysis. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10:26. doi: 10.1186/s13731-021-00159-3.

110 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022). The 2022 South African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Report. National Advisory Council on Innovation.

111 Department of Science and Innovation: Republic of South Africa. (2022).

figure 16: economic transformation readiness of the BRiCs countries

Source: World Economic Forum (Global Competitiveness Report: 2020 Special Edition)

Encouragingly, compared with other countries studied by Alnafrah (including Canada, South Korea, Turkey and Spain), the BRICS nations are putting in a good performance when it comes to the production of scientific and technological knowledge, but their respective systems of innovation are just not managing to commercialise the output from universities and research organisations. Alnafrah attributed this to issues such as economic uncertainty and weaknesses within the respective innovation systems.112

To address this disconnect, Alnafrah suggested that interventions should focus on buoying up weak institutions and compensating for economic uncertainty. Interventions might include: creating a bridging institution to support all actors in the innovation ecosystem; adding incentives to attract foreign investment; building sound industry policies; protecting intellectual property rights; and adding a layer of STI collaboration among BRICS countries. It was also recommended that the five countries look to each other and their existing BRICS relationship to improve the commercialisation of innovative ideas. This, it could be argued, is an approach very much in line with the Department of Trade, Industry and Commerce’s thinking on crossborder innovation (see ‘Cross-border innovation: An important evolution’ sidebar below).

112 Alnafrah, I. (2021).

Cross-border innovation: an important evolution

An area of particular and growing interest to South Africa’s Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) is the potential for the commercialisation of South African ideas and innovations across borders.

During a discussion in 2022 with Joseph Senona, Chief: Export Promotion and Marketing at the DTIC, The Smarter Edge team learned that the DTIC has been applying this thinking on a sector-by-sector basis and ‘exploring ways to commercialise rather than export technology’.

While stressing that ‘the cross-border commercialisation idea is fairly recent and hasn’t been very crystallised’, Senona explained that a cross-border commercialisation working group was convened in early 2020. The working group intends to support local companies looking to take their innovations to the global arena.

Among the questions that the working group addresses include which kinds of innovation management systems should be put in place from a national cross-border perspective.

Good foundations make for good partnerships

‘Quite often innovation management operates internally, but you don’t always see a very clear management framework between two countries that are collaborating with each other around innovation and technology, and which captures the respect for workers in each country and access to markets,’ explained Senona. ‘If not, then eventually, when the commercialisation does take place, it has the potential to become an issue; and those with the upper hand will capitalise.’

Good foundations make for good partnerships

Over the next decade, the DTIC and the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) will be looking for commercialisation partners that open doors to markets driven by demand and opportunity, said Senona. ‘Some of the bigger countries, especially when it comes to value-added services, have little space because they are highly competitive, so our guys are unable to compete. So we then look at emerging markets, those which we know will find our low- to medium-tech products quite attractive.’

On the other hand, the DTIC is always on the lookout for international partnerships that can ‘give us or match us on big research or IP projects’ – those with bigger markets such as the European Union or China.

The DTIC works closely with the DSI and the Technology Innovation Agency, a public entity that acts as a bridge between higher education and industry, helping research and education bodies to advance their commercialisation efforts. It also works with several higher education institutions such as Tshwane University of Technology.

establishing a cross-border framework

Senona explained that, together with its partners, his department was taking a sector-by-sector approach to identify areas of potential that could be promoted internationally.

‘It’s about exploring ways to transfer technology abroad in a way that makes commercial sense, and how do we do it across borders,’ he said. ‘We look at different techniques. One way is to commercialise by selling products with hightech components from South Africa, or you can license the tech and register a patent in that country. There are different avenues.’

Of course, cross-border commercialisation is just one aspect of a broader framework needed to help drive commercialisation efforts on the world stage. Other pillars of South Africa’s approach included the Export Marketing and Investment Assistance (EMIA) programme, which assisted South African companies looking to register IP abroad by providing subsidies. A lack of uptake resulted in the removal of the programme in about 2017. However, South African companies now appear well-disposed to registering patents abroad, as shown in Figure 17.

figure 17: south african patents by office and key industries 2005–2020

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

Given the increased focus on cross-border commercialisation, the EMIA may soon be revived, Senona told The Smarter Edge. He noted that a returning EMIA scheme would benefit from tapping into the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission’s database, and from paying attention to the types of patents being registered. This would enable it to determine which ideas might gain global advantage from being registered abroad. It would also be constructive to involve all the responsible government departments, to ensure effective and ongoing support.

The return of the EMIA scheme would align with the DTIC’s focus on cross-border innovation, and with current global thinking on commercialisation efforts across national borders. At the time of writing, Senona noted that no single country had a clear cross-border innovation strategy. However, by 2022, there was a growing appreciation among researchers and commentators that the complexities of global innovation were demanding a more streamlined cross-border approach.

As Ricardo Rodrigues et al noted in a 2022 paper, cross-border collaborations ‘represent an important opportunity to share knowledge, in which entities should participate to compete in an increasingly interconnected world’. The scope of these partnerships spans ‘knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, organizational learning and networks’, all of which are integral to the innovation process.113

Cross-border collaboration would demand a strong infrastructure for innovation management on the part of both companies and countries, since this level of partnership has the potential to expose weak regulations and (as Senona noted) can undermine the ways in which national knowledge is commercialised.

113 Rodrigues, R., Sampaio, C., Duarte, P. & Hernández-Mogollón, J.M. (2022). Cross-border innovation: assessing concepts, contexts, and content. Sustainability, 14, 15581. doi: 10.3390/ su142315581.

The strengthening of national innovation systems, particularly in the emerging world, and the harmonisation of IP systems around the world are making it increasingly important for countries to have a ‘multifaceted and comprehensive approach’ to cross-border innovation. This was noted in the recently published book, Cross-Border Innovation in a Changing World.114

Author Davide Castellani and his co-editors highlighted that the growing collaboration between countries in the sphere of innovation requires a careful approach on the part of policy makers. Existing national innovation systems, which keep the focus firmly within national borders, should have the flexibility to maximise global opportunities and help companies ‘to “capture the gains” from foreign presence’.115

in the here and now: an honest assessment

It is encouraging that many of the suggestions and observations made by commentators have already been factored in by the South African ministries responsible for driving innovation, and their senior leadership. There is, in fact, a clear sense of realism about the road ahead.

Dr Babongile Mkhize, Director: Innovation Priorities and Instruments at the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) recognises that there is room for improvement. In her 2018 PhD thesis, Mkhize highlighted that the current structure ‘impedes the transformation to a knowledge-based economy, especially when it comes to innovative performance and wealth creation’ and ‘impedes knowledge creation, flow and networks’.116

While the components are largely in place, Mkhize wrote that ‘South Africa lacks an effective and efficient framework to harmonise its STI policy’.117

During a 2022 interview with The Smarter Edge team, Mkhize elaborated on these findings:

A well-coordinated system is something we are struggling with in South Africa, and we are not the only ones. Most developing countries – and some developed ones – are still battling with coordination within the government system. Coordination also talks to and includes information flow within the system, which we are grappling with. We are one government, but we are fragmented.

By way of example, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) and the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) both have roles to play in the South African innovation landscape. The DTIC is responsible for the macrolevel aspects of innovation; it is tasked with creating an environment conducive to innovation through trade, investment and industrialisation, as well as skills development and enterprise development.118 The DSI is charged with the more hands-on, micro-economic role of overseeing, designing and implementing South Africa’s innovation policy and strategies. It falls to the DSI to create a supportive system in which research and development can flourish, and through which people can be developed, knowledge generated and programmes put in place to turn ideas into viable ventures.119

If one department is falling down on its mandate – be it implementation, policies, economic development or systemic support – the effects will ripple into the remit of the other.

The DSI also manages South Africa’s bilateral projects and innovation collaboration on the world stage. However, when projects are approved, it falls to the National Research Foundation (NRF) to step in and provide funding for these initiatives under mandate from the DSI – which can also provide its own funding when required. A disconnect between these bodies can result in funding delays or challenges for innovation projects.

Mkhize added that, even though government and its various departments are aligned on the need to benefit from science and technology innovation (STI), when it comes to key ministries and sectors of the economy, there is often a disconnect between service delivery needs and innovation. This is particularly the case in sectors that have a high need for innovation, such

114 Castellani, D. and others (eds). (2022). Cross-Border Innovation in a Changing World: An Overview and Perspective on Future Developments, in Davide Castellani and others (eds), Cross-Border Innovation in a Changing World: Players, Places, and Policies. Oxford: Oxford Academic. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198870067.003.0001.

115 Castellani, D. and others (eds). (2022).

116 Mkhize, B.N.J. (2018). A model for harmonising national policy to capitalise on South Africa’s scientific, technological and innovation prowess: Lessons learnt. The Da Vinci Institute for Technology Management.

117 Mkhize, B.N.J. (2018).

118 Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. (n.d.). About the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. Republic of South Africa.

119 Department of Science and Innovation. (n.d.) Welcome. Republic of South Africa.

as water, energy and health.

What is also clear is that many of the challenges highlighted in the 2007 OECD assessment still stand. A disconnect still exists between identified priorities and their implementation. The system still attempts to address too many priority areas at once, which ultimately leaves resources too stretched to make a meaningful difference to anything. There is a lack of meaningful cooperation and coordination between government departments and a sketchy understanding of the dimensions of innovation among the country’s leadership. Finally, there is insufficient involvement on the part of businesses – both big and small – in supporting and enhancing the national innovation system.120

These are challenging hurdles to overcome. However, Mkhize believes that is possible for South Africa to align policy, intention and systems to support investment in STI. When efforts to this end finally begin to yield fruit, ideas will have a chance of being successfully commercialised, and South Africa may well begin to experience a boom in economic development.

Between the OECD review of 2007 and the DSI’s own 2012 Ministerial Review,121 a number of positive policy initiatives were put in place to address some of the issues and challenges highlighted above. Mkhize pointed to the establishment of the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA), the ‘industrial centres of competence’, the South African National Space Agency (SANSA), the National Intellectual Property Management Office (NIPMO), and the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Act for Publicly Financed Research (Act No.51 of 2008)’122 as examples.

However, two major challenges persist: Poor implementation of strategies and the need for a new generation of leaders who are well versed in science and technology, and able to support innovative thinking and turn ideas into profitable ventures.

‘As the OECD pointed out, South Africa is good at developing good strategies; we are known for that,’ reflects Mkhize. ‘That is a capability on its own and one we should capitalise on to develop good policies and good strategies. But our problem lies in actually implementing those [policies and strategies] and having them yield the results we want; that is where we are struggling. I’d say that is linked to the coordination issue as well. If we can’t put our hands together and our minds to move along together, then I think there’s a problem right there.’

According to Mkhize, there is one clear way to help keep the country on track: the rise of innovation-focused, technologically adept and scientifically friendly leadership.

‘We have leaders who are STI illiterate. They are well-educated, but illiterate around issues of science and technology,’ she explains. ‘This is not the case with other countries, like South Korea. This doesn’t mean countries such as South Korea weren’t previously facing the same challenges, but they addressed these issues by putting in place robust modalities and tools to develop these leadership competencies.’

While Canada and Malaysia certainly hold lessons for South Africa, Mkhize believes that the dynamic and unfolding success of the South Korean economy is well worth emulating.

‘If you read about South Korea [see Chapter 4], and how they approached the challenge of popularising STI in their country, it was even integrated as part of Sunday church services,’ she notes. The South Korean approach popularised the notion of an innovative mindset. The focus was on developing social capital and buy-in by engaging with citizens through platforms such as ‘non-governmental organisations, churches and … social networking forums such as conferences, workshops and seminars’.123 The result was that an entire nation developed an appetite for innovation and a deep understanding of its role in advancing their country.

The approach worked, said Mkhize, noting that ‘years later, the South Korean population has a tacit understanding about STI and what it can do for their economic development’.

South Africa cannot blindly follow the South Korean approach, but it can learn from it. We acknowledge that our situation is different; we are an extremely heterogeneous country in terms of cultures, ethnicities, income levels and educational levels, and the country is still battling the legacy of apartheid and social dislocation.124 Therefore, building the sort of consensus that could be achieved by a more homogeneous nation such as South Korea in which only ‘about 5% of the population is non-ethnic Korean’,125 will be challenging. Nonetheless, South Africa has structures in place to support innovation, although coordination and implementation require attention.

120 Mkhize, B.N.J. (2018).

121 Government Gazette. (2012, May 31).

122 Mkhize, B.N.J. (2018).

123 Mazzarol, T. (2012, September 10). Building a national innovation system: What can we learn from Korea? The Conversation.

124 Du Plessis, G., Saccaggi, C.F. & De Bruin, G.P. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in the character strength of citizenship in South Africa. Psychol. Soc., 48: 22-44. doi: 10.17159/2309-8708/2015/n48a2.

125 All FSI News. (2021, March 11). Gi-Wook Shin on Racism in South Korea. Stanford University.

future focus: Banking on publicly funded intellectual property

Turning to the 2022 South African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Report by the DSI and NACI, we see a steady reliance on funding the higher education sector to drive innovation. Government spending on R&D increased from R9 billion in 2010–2011 to R19 billion in 2019–2020. Of this, 58.6% of state R&D funding focused on tertiary educational institutions. This highlights the important role of South Africa’s existing network of universities and teaching institutions within the national innovation system.

However, data shared across two reports by the DSI, the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association (SARIMA), the National Intellectual Property Management Office (NIPMO) and the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) indicates that there is a great need to work on the pipeline through which ideas are turned into commercial processes, products and services. In addition, more work must be done to ensure the right skills are at hand to help the country to capitalise on good ideas.

The second and most recently available South African National Survey of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer at Publicly Funded Research Institutions, spanning 2014 to 2018, concurs that the crux of the challenge is turning ideas into commercial products and services. For this, IP transactions with commercial partners are essential, since commercial partners can assist in developing concepts to the marketable stage. Some progress is being made, albeit off a low base.

Between 2014 and 2018, 292 new licences (which grant commercialisation rights to a commercial partner) and 40 new assignments (where ownership of the IP is transferred to the commercialisation partner) were concluded.

The Second National Survey (2014-2018) did, however, note the following: For four out of the five years of the survey period [2014–2018], the same five institutions accounted for 80% or more of the licences concluded. If more institutions can achieve these levels of transactions, the potential for economic impact can increase. In terms of revenues generated for the institutions, 238 transactions collectively yielded revenues of over R185 million across 17 institutions … It should be appreciated that the full impact of these transactions is also seen in the commercial partners’ gross revenue, employment created and improvement in the quality of lives from the deployment of the IP.126

A triple-helix approach?

While the notion of publicly funded research and technology transfer was only built into South African law in 2008, a 2019 paper by Dr Madelein Kleyn and SJ de Wet from Stellenbosch University’s InnovUS IP commercialisation unit127 noted that government and various stakeholders viewed the commercialisation of publicly funded research as a priority and that, by 2019, the commercialisation of university research had ‘resulted in revenue to universities of just over R4 million’.

However, as South Africa reviews its existing national innovation system, what is emerging strongly is the potential to develop a stronger role for institutions of higher learning in the innovation and commercialisation value chain, in line with the Malaysian triple-helix model. Despite receiving just over half of government R&D funding annually, universities – with the exception of a handful of perennial performers such as the University of Cape Town, the University of the Witwatersrand, Stellenbosch University and the University of Pretoria128 – are still not delivering the sort of social impact required. This is partly due to a lack of meaningful collaboration with industry and business. The lack of engagement continues to lock academia into a theoretical mould, in which graduates have insufficient skills and business know-how to add value to start-up companies.129

In fact, according to NIPMO, while 92% of South African universities had a technology transfer office in place by 2018, as of 2022, 60% of these institutions felt they were not adequately equipped or empowered to commercialise their IP130 due to barriers such as access to funding, unclear university policies, lack of management support, poor risk management understanding on the part of government and insufficient infrastructure to support new entrepreneurs131. Over the past

126 Department of Science and Innovation, the Southern African Research and Innovation Management Association, the National Intellectual Property Management Office & KISCH IP. (2021, May). South African National Survey of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer at Publicly Funded Research Institutions – Second National Survey: 2014–2018.

127 Kleyn, M. & De Wet, S.J. (2019, June).

128 Patra, S.K. & Muchie, M. (2018). Research and innovation in South African universities: from the tiple helix’s perspective. Scientometrics, 116: 51-76. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2764-0.

129 Patra, S.K. & Muchie, M. (2018).

130 Universities South Africa. (2022, March 17). Intellectual Property creators at universities get to share in the benefits.

131 Bezuidenhout, F.R. (2018). Identifying barriers to commercialization of intellectual property at selected South African universities. [Mini dissertation] North-West University.

decade, NIPMO has distributed R142 million as part of its IP fund, in addition to helping institutions build capacity and creating in excess of 170 positions.132

According to researchers Swapan Patra and Mammo Muchie, the triple-helix approach (which ascribes equal importance to the role of universities, government and industry in the development of innovation) may provide a flexible framework for the transition of South African universities to more industry-engaged spaces. The report goes on to say: This framework can transform the universities from only teaching universities to more entrepreneurial universities. These new and transformed universities can generate their own revenue from the commercialisation of technologies from their own laboratories. Further, they can play [an] active role in the national developmental issues by addressing the technological solution to the pressing local problems.133

With the current national innovation system clearly under the microscope, researchers such as Patra and Muchie argue that universities have the potential to play a far greater role, contributing more to the development strategy of the country. For this, an institutional shift in focus is required. Innovation has to be seen not as ‘government-down’ but as ‘bottom-up’, an approach in which universities would play a central role.134

The implications of such a shift could have profound ripple effects across the African continent as a whole. As Patra and Muchie argue: ‘Universities’ role in NSI [the national system of innovation] of [a] developing country like South Africa may be a possible lesson for other developing countries in Africa as well as [for] countries with similar socio-economic conditions.’135

This approach is also touted by Jaci Barnett, Head of Consulting Services at Oxford University Innovation in the UK, who speaks to the need for linear university models to adapt to serve a more ‘complex institutional landscape with flows of technology, linkages and connections between the actors that can make a societal impact’.136

As 2020 came to a close, it would be fair to say that the custodians of South Africa’s innovation system were battling to fill gaps in the existing national system of innovation. This continues to be a challenge, and the task is not made easier by fastmoving shifts in the landscape, such as an emerging emphasis on cross-border commercialisation. Upskilling leaders, plugging funding holes, turning ideas into action, and finding ways to harness the potential within the country’s universities and higher education institutions all require attention.

In closing this chapter, we take a look at the potential of South Africa’s indigenous knowledge to contribute to the innovation landscape of the country. There is a growing realisation that without support and acknowledgement, Africa’s ancient insights and knowledge systems could get lost in the ongoing technology frenzy.

132 Universities South Africa. (2022, March 17).

133 Patra, S.K. & Muchie, M. (2018).

134 Patra, S.K. & Muchie, M. (2018).

135 Patra, S.K. & Muchie, M. (2018).

136 Tembe, N. (2022, February 22). Creating companies is not all there is to innovation ecosystems and entrepreneurship. Universities South Africa.

indigenous knowledge systems: innovation meets culture, heritage and ancient insights

In 2019 the Protection, Promotion, Development and Management of Indigenous Knowledge Act 6 of 2019 came into being, offering a legislative platform from which to include the wisdom of indigenous knowledge systems into South Africa’s innovation commercialisation approach, and bring these approaches into the mainstream.

Speaking in 2020, MP Nompendulo Mkhatshwa, Whip of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, Science and Technology, said that indigenous knowledge systems could lead to commercialisation through ‘the promotion and registration of indigenous knowledge, recognising prior learning of practitioners in order to ensure the benefit of indigenous knowledge systems within communities, and facilitating R&D on indigenous knowledge systems in communities’.137

From a national innovation and country-development perspective, Dr Babongile Mkhize of the DSI explains that finding ways to derive value from South Africa’s indigenous knowledge systems is an important area of development. ‘We have technology and innovation products which are derived from indigenous knowledge,’ she explains, mentioning traditional African medicine, biodiversity and community fishing and farming practices.

‘Indigenous knowledge is a complicated thing which has to do with families and the community. By putting in place well-benefiting frameworks, we can ensure that we derive value from our indigenous knowledge,’ explains Mkhize.

‘Countries such as Canada and well-advanced countries like Japan are now looking to us because we’ve realised we can make something out of our indigenous knowledge, something they did not pay attention to in the previous years of their development. Now they also want to follow suit.’

The protection of indigenous knowledge systems is increasingly being recognised by the United Nations (UN) as an important part of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs provide a blueprint for global action, establishing goals for countries as they seek to address issues ranging from poverty to environmental degradation. Concerning indigenous knowledge systems, the UN is taking guidance from the Centre in Indigenous Knowledge Systems at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, in collaboration with the Sikh Human Rights Group.138

Botlhale Tema, author of Land of My Ancestors and a former Director of Human Resources: Science and Technology at the African Union Commission in Addis Ababa, addressed the issue of indigenous knowledge systems during a TEDx event in Mahikeng in 2020.139 ‘I believe that is the problem of African education. From day one, it side-lines African knowledge … I believe Africans have unarticulated knowledge … because it has not been written down,’ said Tema. ‘But I believe they must have knowledge … there is knowledge there that makes them survivors. What is it?’

Through the application of the 2019 Indigenous Knowledge Act, it is hoped that ancient insights might find a place in the innovation system and in the commercialisation of national knowledge.

137 Newzroom Afrika. (2020, September 6). Exploring how Indigenous Knowledge Systems contribute to socioeconomic growth in SA. YouTube.

138 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). Integrating Indigenous Knowledge Systems in 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

139 TEDx Talks. (2020, February 18). Africa’s power lies latent in its indigenous knowledge systems / Botlhale Tema / TEDxMahikeng. YouTube.

south korea

As

2020 drew to a close, one country had reason to celebrate: The Republic of Korea (South Korea). For the first time, the small, densely populated East Asian nation of around 52 million people had muscled itself into the top 10 of the Global Innovation Index (GII),140 joining Singapore as the second Asian member of this elite group of techsavvy, innovation-driven economies.

This wasn’t entirely unexpected. After all, South Korea had been steadily building up to the achievement, having ranked 11th on the GII ranking in 2019 and 12th in 2018. Zoom out a little further, and in 2007 South Korea was already just inside the top 20, ranking 19th of the 107 countries assessed in the inaugural report.141

While outside of the timeframe of this book, it is worth noting that at the time of writing, South Korea had catapulted still further up the GII ranking, overtaking Singapore as the most innovative nation in the region, settling in sixth spot behind top-ranked Switzerland, the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.142 The assessment rankings took into account countries’ entire innovation ecosystem, including their institutions, infrastructure, market and business sophistication, technological and knowledge-based outputs and, of course, their human capital and research.

Based on the Bloomberg Innovation Index, by 2020 South Korea was the country to watch, having been placed in top position for seven of the nine years the Bloomberg assessment has existed. Germany overtook South Korea in 2020, claiming top spot in the Bloomberg rankings,143 but by 2021 South Korea was back in the hot seat.

Discussing the 2021 findings144, Bloomberg senior Asian economy reporter Michelle Jamrisko noted that ‘South Korea has been an Asian technology giant and world leader in technology for some time … where they stand out is in cutting-edge technology in terms of semi-conductors, and they have a strong high-tech density, which is one of the seven metrics that we use in our innovation index.145 She added that the South Korean government also prioritised technology initiatives, and attracted a lot of researchers to their shores due to their high R&D spend.

The story of South Korea’s rise to innovation prominence has captured the global imagination, not least that of South Africa, where several parallels may be drawn with the South Korean story. South Africa, too, stands consistently higher than any other country on its continent in terms of GII rankings. Both countries have challenging histories of colonialism and, in the case of South Africa, apartheid. Political instability has been a challenge in both instances, and inequality continues to plague both nations. There are also stark differences. South Africa is roughly 12 times the size of South

140 Global Innovation Index 2020. (2020). Republic of Korea.

141 Dutta, S., INSEAD & Culkin, S. (2007) The world’s top innovators. World Business..

142 Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., Leon, L.R. & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2022). Global Innovation Index 2022: What is the future of innovation-driven growth [15th Edition]. World Intellectual Property Organization..

143 CEO magazine. (2020, March 11). The world’s most innovative countries in 2020.

144 Jamrisko, M., Lu, W. & Tanzi, A. (2021, February 3). South Korea leads world in innovation as US exits top ten. Bloomberg.

145 Bloomberg Asia. (2021, February 7). South Korea leads world in innovation.

Korea and has plenty of natural resources. In contrast, the Asian nation has far fewer minerals of global importance, such as zinc, graphite, tungsten and anthracite coal.146 South Korea’s ageing population is flagged as a concern for the nation. At the same time, South Africa’s youth dividend is regarded by some as an advantage (although by others as a potential problem). In 2020, South Korea’s unemployment rate sat at a decade-long high of 4%147, while in South Africa it stood at 32.5%,148 with both countries battling the effects of the Covid-19 global pandemic on the service and entertainment sectors, among others. Also, in 2020, South Africa was ranked 69th out of 179 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, versus a more favourable ranking of 33rd for South Korea.149

As an indication of what a well-performing national innovation system means for a country and its economy, South Korea saw real gross domestic product (GDP) rise by an annual average of 4.9% between 1988 and 2022, with export growth alone rising by about 8.9% a year over the same period.150 In addition, the country’s gross national income (GNI) per capita moved from US$67 in the 1950s to US$32 661 in 2022.151

By comparison, South Africa’s GNI per capita was US$6 530 in 2021. However, the country continued to battle deeply embedded inequality and a high Gini coefficient, which measures how wealth is distributed within a country. In 2021, South Africa’s Gini coefficient was the highest in the world, at 63.152 South Africa’s GDP growth has been erratic at best, consistently missing the target of 5% or more per annum stated in the country’s National Development Plan: Vision 2030, released in 2015.153 Between 1994 and 2023, the country averaged a 2.42% GDP growth rate, according to Trading Economics.154

In addition, in 2020, South Africa had to share the top African ranking on the GII with Mauritius, coming in 60th out of 131 countries, down from 38th out of 107 countries in 2007. By 2022, South Africa had lost the regional top spot to Mauritius –which came in 45th overall – and slipped to 61st among the 132 countries assessed.155 156157

timeline: pouring time, effort and resources into innovation

South Africa is not alone in looking to the South Korean example as a possible blueprint for how to conceptualise, support and action an effective national innovation system. To understand the successes in the here and now, it is essential to look back at how the seeds of an effective national innovation system were sowed in the past.

While the history of South Korea is diverse, rich and compelling, with early Stone Age (Palaeolithic) settlements on the Korean peninsula dating back to at least 500 000 BCE,156 it is the country’s modern evolution and formalisation that is of particular importance to an understanding of its national system of innovation. For this reason, it is worth examining the nation’s struggle to achieve independence and how its strategic position has embroiled the country in geopolitical tensions and conflicts.

Most notably, the declaration of Japanese rule in 1910 had a negative effect, holding back the development of the South Korean economy. Professor of Korean history, Young Ick Lew, stated that this period had ‘stymied Korea’s modernisation process just as the country was taking steps to implement self-initiated reforms’.157

Lew adds, ‘Some historians who condone Japanese policy towards Korea claim that considerable progress was made in Korea’s economic and educational systems during the colonial period. They argue that the Japanese occupation was beneficial to Korea’s modernisation in the long run. Although it cannot be denied that there was some degree

146 World Atlas. (2023). What are the major natural resources of South Korea?

147 Al Jazeera. (2020). South Korea’s unemployment rate hits 11-year high.

148 Maluleke, R. (2020). Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) Q4:2020. Statistics South Africa.

149 Transparency International. (2021). Corruption Perception Index 2020.

150 The World Bank. (2023, June 30). Republic of Korea: Overview.

151 The World Bank. (2023, June 30).

152 Statista Research Department. (2023, October 26). 20 countries with the biggest inequality in income distribution worldwide in 2021, based on the Gini index.

153 Republic of South Africa. (2015). National Development Plan 2030: Our future – make it work, Executive Summary. National Planning Commission.

154 Trading Economics. (2023). South Africa GDP annual growth rate.

155 Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., Leon, L.R. & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2022).

156 Lew, Y.IU. (2000). Brief history of Korea: A bird’s-eye view. New York: The Korea Society.

157 Lew, Y.IU. (2000). p.23

of economic progress between 1910 and 1945, the main beneficiaries were the Japanese and a handful of Korean collaborators. Most of the Korean populace was reduced to a state of impoverishment and illiteracy’.158

In 1945, when Japan was defeated in the Second World War, Korea was deemed liberated, but ultimately found itself caught in the cross-hairs as the United States masterminded the concept of the ‘38th parallel’ border, according to which the peninsula was divided into two occupied military zones as a means of buffering against full Russian expansion into the region. Russia installed a Communist-aligned government in the North, and the United States set up a Western-aligned government in the South. The natural result was a profound sense of social and cultural dislocation. On 25 June 1950, in an attempt to unite the divided region, North Korea initiated the Korean War.

The United States drew the United Nations into defending the South, committing its forces to a war that would ultimately rage for three years at the cost of millions of lives.159 When the United States-UN forces managed to push the North Koreans out of the South to within spitting distance of the Chinese border, China joined the fight, and the war accelerated. In 1953, when North Korea was again pushed back to the 38th parallel, the war reached a stalemate. An armistice was declared on 27 July 1953, and the North and South remained divided by a demilitarised zone.

Technically, however, no official peace agreement has ever been signed.160

This history lesson sets the stage for understanding the complex context in which South Korea managed to transform itself from a war-ravaged, divided and largely rural economy into a sophisticated and industrial market, underpinned by rapid urbanisation and the uptake of technology.161

Some key milestones marked South Korea’s recovery:

• In 1961 President Park Chung Hee took power in a military coup. Under his leadership, greater attention was paid to developing home-grown labour-intensive industries, such as textiles and clothing manufacturing.162

• In 1962 Park’s Five-Year Economic Development Plan sowed the seeds for South Korea’s strong future R&D focus.

• In 1966 the Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) was established.

• In 1967 a dedicated ministry of science and technology was created, tasked with developing and implementing the country’s science and technology policy.

• In 1971, South Korea founded KAIST – the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology – which today continues to be a leading national research university.

• In 1979, President Park was assassinated.

• In 1982 the South Korean government initiated the National R&D Programme to develop joint technology projects.163

• In 1994 the country established a government-wide committee to support a process of national informatisation, in support of an e-government.

• In 1996, South Korea joined the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the ‘overarching framework for science and technology policies was gradually formulated’.164

• In 1997, South Korea was impacted by the Asian financial crisis, which forced a shift from low-value exports to technology-focused and knowledge-driven solutions, such as the manufacture of semiconductors and mobile phones.

• In 1998 the idea of a national innovation system was first mooted.

• In 2001 the Framework Act on Science and Technology was passed, which required the government to construct a national system of innovation and seek to improve the lives of citizens through the effective application of science and technology.

158 Lew, Y.IU. (2000). p.23

159 According to Young Ick Lew, former chair professor of Korean Studies at the Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University in Seoul, some three million Koreans died in the Korean War, across both civilians and military. Around one million Chinese, who elected to take part in the war, were killed and about 54 000 American soldiers died.

160 Lendon, B. (2021, December 30). Didn’t the Korean War end in 1953? The short answer is no. CNN.

161 Lew, Y.IU. (2000).

162 Dayton, L. (2020, May 27). How South Korea made itself a global innovation leader. Nature.

163 Martin, M. (ed). (2011). In Search of the Triple Helix: Academia-industry-government interaction in China, Poland, and the Republic of Korea. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning.

164 Kim, E.S., Bae, K.J. & Byun, J. (2020). The history and evolution: A big data analysis of the national innovation systems in South Korea. Sustainability, 12(13):1266. doi: 10.3390/su12031266.

• In 2003 President Roh Moo-hyun came to power. As Kim et al note, ‘The Roh government recognised the need for R&D investment to achieve technological innovation at the level of advanced OECD countries and thus rapidly increased its investments.’165

• In 2004 the government began to reform its administrative structure for science and technology to improve cooperation and collaboration.

• In 2008 the administration of President Lee Myung-bak began.

• In 2009 South Korea joined the OECD Development Assistance Committee, becoming the first member to shift from being an aid beneficiary to an aid donor.

• In 2013, Park Geun-hye became South Korea’s president. At the end of the Park administration in 2016, ‘government investment and private expenditure decreased ... and the trend has not been recovered yet’, noted Kim et al.

• In 2014 the country introduced its Three-Year Plan for Economic Innovation to cut red tape and create a more startup-friendly environment.166

Sources: Dayton (2020); Chung et al (2022); Lew (2020); Kim et al (2020); Mahlich & Pascha (2007); Hemmert (2007); The Korea Herald (2014); Martin, M. (ed). (2011).

accelerated innovation and effective management165166

In the 2007 book Innovation and Technology in Korea, edited by Jörg Mahlich and Werner Pascha,167 the editors described South Korea as a ‘newly advanced economy’; in other words, an economy that had moved from ‘being recently industrialised’ to ‘maturing’. This status implied that several issues still needed to be addressed. These included increasing the quality of labour and overall productivity; adapting to changes ushered in through innovation and technological advances; ensuring that policy was in step with global standards and supportive of competition and growth; embedding democratic principles in governance to support individualism; maintaining greater social stability; and keeping a careful eye on national population demographics. In the case of the latter, South Korea is facing the implications of an ageing population.168

In 2012, a few years after making this observation, Mahlich and Pascha169 revisited their exploration of the South Korean innovation story in the wake of the 2008–2009 global economic crisis. They noted that South Korea had not only overcome this ‘baptism of fire’ but maintained – and actually continued expanding – R&D spending as a percentage of GDP over this period. The strategic decision by then President Lee Myung-bak to increase R&D spend by 10% annually from 2009 to 2012 was a direct learning from the implications of reducing R&D expenditure during the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis. The continued emphasis on R&D amid the financial downturn was a positive move, setting the country up to reap the benefits of its ongoing advancements in technology.170

In his contribution to Mahlich and Pascha’s 2007 book, Asian expert Martin Hemmert observed171 that the ‘internal and external conditions under which the Korean economy operates have changed drastically throughout the last two decades’. Having relied for some time on imported technology and relatively low labour costs, South Korea realised this model would not work once the early industrialisation labour pains were over. Therefore, their long-term plan of action pivoted towards ‘the internal generation and development of cutting-edge technology’, which enabled Korean firms ‘to stay competitive in the world markets for such complex and sophisticated goods as semiconductors, digital displays, mobile phones, or automobiles’.172

As Hemmert explains, the evolution of the South Korean national system of innovation can be broken down into three distinct phases:

• 1945 to 1970s: A period of imitation during which foreign technology and ideas were introduced and exploited.

165 Kim, E.S., Bae, K.J. & Byun, J. (2020).

166 The Korea Herald. (2014, February 25). S. Korea unveils 3-year economic innovation plan aimed at raising growth potential.

167 Mahlich, J.C. & Pascha, W. (2007). Innovation and Technology in Korea: Challenges of a Newly Advanced Economy. Physica Heidelberg.

168 Mahlich, J.C. & Pascha, W. (Eds). (2007).

169 Mahlich, J.C. & Pascha, W. (2007). Innovation and Technology in Korea: Challenges of a Newly Advanced Economy. Physica Heidelberg.

170 Mahlich, J.C. & Pascha, W. (Eds). (2012)..

171 Hemmert, M. (2007). The Korean Innovation System: From Industrial Catch-up to Technological Leadership. In: Mahlich, J.C. and Pascha, W (eds.): Innovation and Technology in Korea: Challenges of a Newly Advanced Economy. Physica, Heidelberg. p. 11-32.

172 Hemmert, M. (2007).

• 1980s: The formalisation of R&D capabilities on an industrial scale, led by the country’s so-called chaebols (large industrial companies).

• 1990s to present: A period of developing research capabilities and increasing the level of R&D spend to among the highest in the world.173

While these broad phases highlight the golden thread of R&D investment and ecosystem cooperation in South Korea’s success story, within each of these periods are core areas of strategic development that have played a hand in South Korea’s emergence as an innovation nation. Only by interrogating those, can any nation – developed or emerging – hope to replicate what has been one of the great success stories of management of innovation, people and technology over the past few decades.

So, let’s dig in.

the major success drivers

a) sustained R&D spend

As mentioned previously, pouring money into R&D does not always translate into automatic success and financial gain, whether the entity is company or a country. The entire ecosystem needs to be geared towards making those initial innovations work and giving them traction. However, R&D is a vital component in supporting an effective innovation pipeline. Recognising this, South Korea’s annual investment in R&D globally was US$2.3 trillion (or about 2% of global GDP) in 2019, according to McKinsey & Company. The global consultancy noted that this annual investment had been growing at a rate of about 4% a year for a decade, with nearly half of the investment coming from industry and the other half from government and academic institutions.

As shown in Figures 18, South Korea’s R&D spend as a percentage of GDP has been steadily increasing since 2000.

Figure 19 compares South Korea’s R&D spend to that of other key players. In 2020, Israel was the country spending the most significant portion of its GDP on R&D, at around 5.5%, with South Korea following at 4.8%, according to Statista. The global average that year was 1.9%.174

Data source: The World Bank

173 Hemmert, M. (2007).

174 Statista Research Department. (2022, August 19). Share of GDP spent on R&D worldwide 2020, by country.

figure 18: R&D spend as a percentage of GDp per country (2000–2020)

figure 19: average percentage of GDp spent on R&D per country (2000–2020)

Data source: The World Bank

As an interesting aside, Israel’s high R&D spend of 5.44% in 2020 was more than double its spend of 2.5% in 1996.175 Concerns have been expressed about a lack of diversity in Israel’s innovation sector, its shortage of high-tech human capital, and its over-reliance on sectors like enterprise software (25% of all investments), cyber (17%) and fintech (14%).176 Nevertheless, the Israeli government has followed a strategic path in its innovation journey. In the 1970s and 1980s, it focused on building the research infrastructure to sustain a high-tech state, and in the late 1980s and 1990s, it focussed on R&D subsidies to Israeli businesses to boost growth and start-ups, and began investing in specific companies via targeted clusters.177 As Hideki Tomoshige and Benjamin Glanz explained in a blog for the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the Israeli government has paired this investment with ‘targeted programs designed to boost basic research and maximize economic strengths’.

This mini glimpse into what is one of the world’s most successful high-tech economies, albeit one at the centre of significant geopolitical and human-rights tensions, underscores the fact that fresh ideas and R&D alone do not drive innovation. That is the job of strategy, be it at the corporate or government level.

In 2020, experts from McKinsey & Company wrote:

R&D represents a massive innovation investment, but as companies confront globalized competition, rapidly changing customer needs, and technological shifts coming from an ever-wider range of fields, they are struggling to deliver on R&D’s full potential. A clearly articulated R&D strategy that supports and informs the corporate strategy is necessary to maximize the innovation investment and long-term company value.178 The same can be said of R&D at a country level.

b) a future focus

South Korea has a strongly future-oriented focus, as is evident in its ability to capitalise on game-changing trends. At the time of writing, South Korea was directing its future innovation efforts towards artificial intelligence, crypto, the metaverse179 and biotechnology.180

175 Tomoshige, H. & Glanz, B. (2022, June 23). Sustaining Israel’s innovation economy. CSIS.

176 Orbach, M. (2022, May 11). Israeli government not investing enough in R&D, reveals Innovation Authority report.

177 Tomoshige, H. & Glanz, B. (2022, June 23).

178 Brennan, T., Ernst, P., Katz, J. & Roth, E. (2020, December 3). Building an R&D strategy for modern times. McKinsey & Company.

179 Deloitte. (2022). South Korea.

180 Jung, J-E. (2023, June 20). [Healthcare] Korea’s biotech industry, emerging as a global manufacturing hub of cutting-edge biotechnology. Invest Korea.

The Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 highlighted the importance of the biotechnology – healthcare sector as a growth engine for future innovation. Existing investments plus new R&D spend that had been poured into biotechnology since 2016 positioned South Korea well to increase its biotech output when the crisis hit. According to Invest Korea, ‘The biopharmaceutical industry, which accounts for the lion’s share of the biotech industry, showed average annual increase rates in production amount and export value at 11.7% and 14.8%, respectively [since 2016].’181

Similarly, in the sphere of emerging technologies, at the time of writing South Korea was setting its sights on becoming the fifth largest metaverse market by 2026, according to Deloitte in a 2022 report. The metaverse refers to the computer-generated, virtual-reality space that enables users to interact with images as if in the real world.

Deloitte noted that the metaverse ambitions were driven by the country’s ministry of science, which had set aside US$167 million to boost the industry, aiming to’ activate the ecosystem for metaverse platforms, nurture talent, foster companies, and set up a safe environment’.182 In addition, the country’s chaebols – including Samsung, Nexon and Hyundai – agreed to work together on the development and coordination of platforms, while the government-sponsored ‘metaverse-related technologies and one-stop customised consulting support’. These moves were all part of a roadmap designed to incorporate metaverse technology into a range of sectors, including entertainment, tourism, education, as well as arts and culture.183

Deloitte estimated the economic potential that could be derived from capitalising on its first-mover advantage in the metaverse would reach between US$36 billion and US$67 billion a year by 2035 – or 1.3% to 2.4% of GDP184

While this level of coordinated effort is undoubtedly impressive, not all South Korea’s current innovation successes resulted from such unparalleled foresight and strategic planning. As Jiyoung Kim and Eun Mee Kim explained in a 2006 paper, the semiconductor industry in South Korea was directly responsible for South Korea’s economic transformation from rural to high-tech and capital-intensive.185 This was not, however, entirely by design.

As the researchers note:

Unlike South Korea’s other major industries such as automobiles and steel, semiconductors were not a target industry during the Park Chung Hee government (1962–79). It was not until Samsung’s highly publicised success in developing 256M DRAM [Dynamic Random Access Memory] in the mid-1980s that the state finally started to take the industry more seriously. However, even after Samsung’s remarkable take-off, the role of the state has generally been restricted to coordinating, regulating, and helping the chaebol,186 rather than directing and leading the latter.

South Korea’s innovation success highlights the importance of partnerships in the innovation ecosystem while cautioning against the assumption that state control alone can unlock innovation. As Kim and Kim write, the impressive success of South Korea’s semiconductor industry ‘did not come from the remarkable role of the ‘developmental state’187 188, but was rather the result of complex interactions between the world market, the state, and chaebols’.

We delve more into South Korea’s chaebols in the next point.

c) partnerships, collaborations and chaebols

Partnerships between government, industry and higher education institutions constitute the ‘triple helix’ model favoured

181 Jung, J-E. (2023, June 20).

182 Deloitte. (2022).

183 Deloitte. (2022).

184 Deloitte. (2022)

185 Kim, J. & Kim, E.M. (2006). Erosion of a development state: A case study of South Korea’s semiconductor industry. Asian International Studies Review, 7(2): p.37-59

186 According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word ‘chaebol’ is used to describe a large and powerful South Korean company, usually a family-controlled industrial conglomerate.

187 A ‘developmental state’ is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Human Geography as being ‘a form of government involving direct, concerted, and sustained intervention in national economic development through industrial policies such as export-led growth and labour control.’

188 The term ‘developmental state’ has historically been applied to countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and, in recent decades, has been applied to the structure of South Africa’s public institutions. Source: Lodge, T. (2009). The South African Developmental State? [Review of State of the Nation: South Africa 2005-2006; State of the Nation, South Africa 2007, by S. Buhlungu, J. Daniel, R. Southall, & J. Lutchman]. Journal of Southern African Studies, 35(1), 253-251.

by Malaysia and South Korea.189 The model is characterised by interconnectedness, collaboration and an overlap between knowledge acquisition and real-world applications. Government support in policy, regulation and funding is also an essential component of the triple helix.

It is noteworthy that in 2017, data from Times Higher Education showed that South Korean universities were world leaders in publishing research conducted and completed in association with industry leaders, most notably Samsung.190

To fully appreciate the significance of this triple helix in action, one needs first to drill down into South Korea’s relationship between state and mega-business – a relationship that has genuinely transformed the country’s fortunes.

Chaebols are family-run conglomerates, such as Samsung, LG, Hyundai, SK Group and Lotte, whose power and financial muscle have played a critical role in shifting the country from its rural past towards a sophisticated, high-tech tomorrow. The two parts of the word are chae (wealth) and bol (clan) – thus ‘wealthclan’.191

With the support of the South Korean government around 40 diversified conglomerates have been nurtured for success since the 1960s; although only the five highlighted below wield notable economic power and influence.192 Together, the top five dominate R&D spend in South Korea and, in 2015, accounted for about half the value of the South Korean stock market.193

However, in turn, the chaebols have paid their ‘political taxes’ to the ruling party, which has skewed the power dynamic in South Korea and caused scepticism about their cosy relationship with those in power. According to Kim and Kim (2006), ‘the state – chaebol relationship in South Korea has been, in many respects, cooperative rather than state-dominant. Even during the height of the authoritarian Park regime, the state needed these big business groups to pursue its industrial policies and maintain its political power.’194

As a result, ‘The chaebol grew and diversified their businesses based on favourable state policies, including low interest rates, licenses, and subsidies … The influence of chaebol on the state economic policy-making grew over time as these giant business groups became too big to be controlled by the state.’195

Today, many are questioning the chaebols’ dominance, reach, influence and impact on South Korean society and its economy, particularly with regard to stifling young start-ups and limiting employment opportunities for young Koreans.196 A poll conducted in 2017 showed that ‘about two-thirds of Koreans not only viewed chaebols unfavourably but as a drag on the economy, many citing growing inequality and corruption to back their response’.197

Samsung

Among the most well-known and oft-cited examples of South Korea’s corporate and innovation successes is Samsung, the parent company of Samsung Electronics, the multinational electronics corporation based in Suwon. In 2019, Samsung Electronics was not only the world’s largest maker of electronic chips but also the largest smartphone manufacturer on the planet. A tech giant by market cap, Samsung was well and truly among the top 20 companies in the world.198

In their 2012 book, Jörg Mahlich and Werner Pascha199 wrote about the country being ‘underrated on a global level, resulting in what McKinsey chairman Dominic Barton called the “Korea discount”.’200 At the time, this resulted in the overshadowing of South Korea by its dominant neighbours, China and Japan. However, Samsung, along with LG and Hyundai, had already become household names by the 2010s. As Mahlich and Pascha wrote, ‘Samsung Electronics, for

189 Yoon, J. & Park, H.W. (2017). Triple helix dynamics of South Korea’s innovation system: a network analysis of inter-regional technological collaborations. Quality & Quantity, 51(3). doi:10.1007/s11135-016-0346-x.

190 Schwartz, D. (2017, March 14). South Korean universities lead way on industry collaboration. Tech Transfer Central.

191 Albert, E. (2018, May 4). South Korea’s chaebol challenge. Council on Foreign Relations.

192 Albert, E. (2018, May 4).

193 Pae, P. (2015, January 14). South Korea’s chaebol. Bloomberg.

194 Kim, J. & Kim, E.M. (2006). P.41

195 Kim, J. & Kim, E.M. (2006). P.41

196 Lehrer, E. (2023, March 26). The chaebol: A curse in disguise. Brown Political Review

197 Ferrier, K. (2017, February 6). Is Korea ready to move past its love-hate relationship with chaebols? KEI.

198 Sang-soo, P. (2020, January 12). Samsung Electronics ranks 18th worldwide in market cap. Yonhap News Agency.

199 Mahlich, J.C. & Pascha, W. (Eds). (2012).

200 Mahlich, J.C. & Pascha, W. (Eds). (2012). P.8

instance, has accomplished a stellar rise in two decades, moving from a cheap lower-end producer to one of the world’s leading brands, ranked 19 in 2009.’201

By 2020, Samsung was regarded as the most valuable brand in Asia and the fifth most valuable brand in the world, according to the Brand Finance Global 500 report.202 With a brand value of US$94 billion, Samsung was ranked just below dominant global tech and retail brands Amazon (US$220 billion brand value in 2020), Google (US$160 billion), Apple (US$140 billion) and Microsoft (US$117 billion). (See Table 1.)

Brand value – as opposed to market cap, which considers the value of a company’s stock – is defined by Brand Finance as ‘the capital value of economic benefits brought to an entity through the use of a brand’. The evaluation considers business performance alongside stakeholder equity, reputation and customer loyalty, as well as investment in products, systems and marketing spend.

table 1: 2020’s

most valuable brands

Source: Brand Finance, Visual Capitalist203

Hyundai Motor

Although the Hyundai brand is globally associated with automobiles, it was only in 1967 that the Hyundai Motor Company was formed. The origins of the chaebol, however, date back to 1947 and the construction company founded by Chung Ju Yung. The group began to flourish in the 1960s when it secured a contract to build roads in Thailand, and, in the 1970s, went on to diversify into shipbuilding, electric locomotives, railway passenger coaches, and drilling equipment for the oil industry. By 2020, Hyundai had operations on every continent except Australia, and had a finger in pies as diverse as piano manufacturing and military uniforms, electronics and cement.204

SK Group

The origins of South Korea’s second-largest chaebol, SK Group, date back to 1953 when Chey Jong-gun founded Sunkyong Textiles. The textile business flourished in the 1960s, and although the group has remained close to its ‘petroleumto-fibres’205 roots, it now boasts diversified holdings across pharmaceuticals, logistics, information technology, renewable energy and construction. Its subsidiary, SK Telecom, is South Korea’s largest mobile service provider.206

By 2021, SK had nudged Hyundai out of the number two slot on the chaebol rankings, a position the automotive giant had occupied for 16 years.207

201 Mahlich, J.C. & Pascha, W. (Eds). (2012). Korean Science and Technology in an International Perspective. Physica Heidelberg.

202 Brand Finance. (2020, January) Global 500 2020: The annual report on the world’s most valuable and strongest brands.

203 Jones, K. (2020, January 30). Ranked: The most valuable brands in the world. Visual Capitalist.

204 Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. (2023, June 17). Hyundai Group. Encyclopaedia Britannica.

205 Encyclopedia.com. (2023). SK Group. International Directory of Company Histories.

206 Goings, C. (2023, July 23). 13 facts about SK Group. Facts.net.

207 Hosokawa, K. (2022, June 11). SK overtakes Hyundai to become South Korea’s No.2 conglomerate. Nikkei Asia.

In 2020, The Economist magazine ran an engaging article on LG, South Korea’s fourth-biggest conglomerate, globally recognised for its electronics business, chemicals, health-care products, and cosmetics. The magazine referred to LG as ‘South Korea’s cuddliest chaebol’, in reference to its law-abiding culture and reliability.208 LG maintained its reputation as a trustworthy company in the midst of the 2017 fraud and corruption scandal involving Samsung, which ultimately led to the imprisonment of Samsung heir Lee Jae Yong.209

LG’s story started in 1947 when it was a plastics and chemicals company named Lak Hui Chemical Industry Corporation. Lak Hui established GoldStar in 1958 as part of its business expansion. In 1983, the two merged to form LuckyGoldstar, or LG. Since the 1960s, the Koo family at the helm has focused on developing the consumer electronics side of the business, along with telecommunications, chemicals and cosmetics. In 2005, LG split as part of a generational reorganisation210 to create another chaebol – GS – focussing on construction, energy, retail and sports.211

Lotte

Dating back to 1948, Lotte started life as a chewing gum producer in Tokyo, Japan. Founded by a Korean migrant, Shin Kyuk-ho, the inspiration for the company came from watching American troops who would hand out chewing gum to children. By 2020, Lotte had a global footprint encompassing retail, hospitality and leisure, and was focusing on developing its chemicals industry as a means of unlocking new areas for potential revenue growth.212

Chaebols – economic heavyweights or monopoly monsters?

The chaebols have played a vital role in developing South Korea’s economy and business credentials on the world stage, and have helped drive investment in R&D. However, from 2020 on, concerns have been raised about the monopolistic culture they give rise to, and the avenues they create for corruption. Observers have noted that these massive corporations are utterly dominating the market, squeezing out smaller businesses and innovators. There have been calls for reform, enhanced governance, and a greater focus on equitable and sustainable growth. How the chaebols will respond to these demands remains to be seen; what is clear, however, is that the chaebol system is integrally woven into South Korea’s innovation trajectory since the 1940s.

Professor Linsu Kim noted in a 2001 paper that the existence of large and unwieldy chaebols is increasingly incompatible with the rapid changes and innovations that are springing up as a consequence of wide-spread technological development. ‘Many chaebols [have] recognised the imperative of major changes to transform themselves into innovation-orientated organisations. This requires more decentralised, self-contained, strategic business units that can respond quickly to changing markets and technologies; an organisational climate that nurtures creative individuals and effective teamwork; effective lateral communication and coordination across functions; and bottom-up communications to identify and respond quickly to market opportunities and threats.’213

As Kim noted, ‘There has been a lot of rhetoric on these issues but little action.’

This was the status quo as 2020 drew to a close, despite a growing realisation that to remain globally competitive and relevant, the innovation landscape had to shift towards agile start-up ventures (See South Korea: The Way Forward).

d) the government-industry-academia axis213

In alignment with the triple-helix model of South Korea’s national innovation system, numerous parties have worked over the years to create a decentralised network of innovation centres and government-industry-academia collaborations.

208 The Economist. (2020, January 2). LG, South Korea’s cuddliest chaebol, wants a sharper edge.

209 BBC. (2021, January 18). Lee Jae Yong: Samsung heir gets prison term for bribery scandal.

210 Lee, J. & Jin, H. (2020, November 26). LG to spin off affiliates as break-up looms at South Korean conglomerate. Reuters.

211 Albert, E. (2018, May 4).

212 Kang, J. (2020, April 3). South Korea’s ambitious Lotte Chemical looks to acquisitions for growth in coronavirus crisis. Forbes.

213 Kim, L. (2001). Crisis, national innovation, and reform in South Korea. MIT International Science and Technology Initiatives.

Federal programmes have been implemented to coordinate the efforts and competitiveness of the 105 regional innovation centres and 19 networking hubs, or technoparks, that were already in place around the country by 2020. An impressive 2 256 companies had moved into technoparks by 2018, a notable increase from 826 in 2007.214

Academic institutions’ contribution to the national innovation story has been less stellar, partly because the initial focus was on developing public research institutions and only later cementing ties with industry.215 Universities were the last strand of the helix to be added to the system.

In the 1980s, South Korea’s universities played a limited role in the innovation project, effectively being the weakest link in the chain. Since the second half of the 1990s, this began to shift as universities’ share of total national R&D expenditure rose from 8.2% in 1995 to 11.3% in 2000.216 Much of this difference has come from a decrease in R&D outlay by public institutions, which accounted for 18.7% of national spend in 1995 but only 13.4% in 2015 and 11.9% in 2020. Companies, meanwhile, continued to streak ahead in their R&D spend, contributing 73.1% of R&D spend in 1995, 74% in 2000217 and 79.1% in 2020. See Figure 20.218

in south Korea (2015–2020)

Source: Statista

While universities clearly cannot match the mega-conglomerates’ appetite for R&D in South Korea, they do play a vital role in knowledge creation and knowledge and skills transfer.219 However, the move of valuable researchers from academia into the more lucrative corporate space remains a challenge for the sector and the country. This is certainly understandable, given the funds available to the mega-chaebols.220

214 Kang, T. (2020, March 19). S Korea to help Laos build local business technoparks. The Laotian Times.

215 Martin, M. (ed) (2011).

216 Martin, M. (ed) (2011).

217 Martin, M. (ed) (2011).

218 Yoon, L. (2022, August 18). Distribution of R&D spending South Korea 2015–2020, by institution type. Statista.

219 Hemmert, M. (2007).

220 Martin, M. (ed) (2011).

figure 20: Distribution of R&D spend

e) Developing an e-government

In 1987, the South Korean government began working towards a system of e-government, a digitalised platform designed to streamline public sector processes and ensure more robust databases, and more efficiency and trust. The system includes all aspects of day-to-day life, from buying a home or car to registering personal information or details of employment. In the late 1990s, the government supported ongoing digital efforts by improving network infrastructure, creating an information-sharing framework, and connecting government services. In so doing, it managed to reduce administrative siloes in favour of information sharing.

Maintenance and constant improvement have formed part of the model. Since the 1980s, the Korean government has developed and improved all e-government services, partly thanks to the consistent support of top leadership in government, including the presidency. President Kim Dae-jung actively promoted the e-government model during his time in office (1998–2003), striving to create a digital framework that would support a ‘trustworthy government without corruption’221

Keeping e-government accessible and easy to interact with, in 2008 the government began to focus on bringing mobile capabilities into the framework, which ensured that everyone could connect on all platforms.222 This was made possible by the fact that, as other countries began the process of establishing e-government platforms, South Korea already had a system in place. While others were entering the space, South Korea was expanding and refining what it had.

Apart from bringing government closer to the people, the e-government system has facilitated greater cooperation within the government, ensuring greater alignment among departments. In a 2022 journal article, researchers from Kyungsung University and Seoul National University noted:

Implementing digital government requires enormous changes across all areas of the government. Therefore, it is not possible to promote digital government policy through a single department or sub-agency. In order to accomplish such a comprehensive government transformation, a powerful Control Tower is needed to direct various ministries and coordinate tasks among them.223

In a country like South Africa, the lack of intra-government coordination and system-wide collaboration is a particular bone of contention. Therefore, the impact of digital innovation and coordination should be of particular interest to South Africa and other emerging economies like Malaysia, as they seek to bed down effective national innovation systems.224

sticking points and patents

By 2020, South Korea’s national innovation story was the toast of the town; it had become an R&D-fuelled innovation muscle machine that seemed to be on a steady upward trajectory. However, an interesting big data analysis by academics Eun Sun Kim, Kuk Jin Bae and Jeongeun Byun, from the South Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, poked a few holes in the direction the country followed between 2003 and 2016. The study shows that despite sustained R&D investment for over a decade, South Korea had not reaped sufficient economic outcomes, ‘resulting in an imbalance between innovation input and innovation output’.224

This analysis found disconnects between the steady and relatively consistent increases in R&D spending across three administrations and the steady outcomes one might hope to see.

For instance, the number of jobs created as a result of commercialising innovations fluctuated between 2003 and 2016, although the number of commercialised projects maintained a relatively upward trajectory. Figure 21 shows the number of commercialised innovations, while Figure 22 shows the number of jobs created as a result of these projects.

221 Chung, C-K., Choi, H. & Cho, Y. (2022). Analysis of Digital Governance Transition in South Korea: Focusing on the Leadership of the President for Government Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex, 8(2).

222 e-government website of the Republic of Korea. (n.d.). Korea’s e-government development and success factors. Ministry of the Interior and Safety.

223 Chung, C-K., Choi, H. & Cho, Y. (2022).

224 Kim, E.S., Bae, K.J. & Byun, J. (2020).

figure 21: Commercialised innovations in south Korea (2003–2016)

Source: Kim et al (2020)

figure 22: Jobs created by commercialised projects in south Korea (2003–2016)

Source: Kim et al (2020)

The lesson gleaned by the researchers in this study was that viewing a national innovation system, no matter how successful, as a linear investment that just keeps spitting out results is both imprudent and unrealistic. They argue that economic growth and country success are more complex than this. They, therefore, maintained that the South Korean government’s view that increasing R&D is directly linked to economic growth is somewhat naïve.

Therefore, ‘policymakers need to consider the dynamic process of NIS (national innovation systems) in its implementation process’, the researchers argued. Notably, they also recommended that measuring the success of an innovation ecosystem should be based not only on quantitative data but also on qualitative markers225 such as social impacts and the advancement of society as a whole.

225 Kim, E.S., Bae, K.J. & Byun, J. (2020). P.17-18

What should be noted as a codicil to the work of these researchers is that the number of patents for South Korean innovations continued to show a positive trajectory up to 2020. Compared with the other three countries included in this book, and despite the usual variations one would expect to see in a dynamic system, innovations continue to be lodged. (See Figure 23.) More effort may be needed to commercialise these opportunities and put them to work for more significant social benefit.

figure 23: south Korean patent registrations compared to south africa, malaysia and Canada (2005–2020)

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

It is interesting to note that the Republic of Korea registers the majority of its patents in-country (see Figure 24), unlike Canada and Malaysia, which register a significant number of patents in the United States. In 2020, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) received 557 256 applications for patents, trademarks, industrial designs or utility models – 79 054 of which were filed by non-residents.226

This choice of filing office is particularly noteworthy because South Korean patent law does not require inventors and innovators to file a patent application in the country.227

226 Korean Intellectual Property Office. (2021). Annual Report 2020.

227 Choe, M. & Lee, Y-C. (2014, December 15). The challenges of patent applications for international collaborations. Lexology.

figure 24: south Korean patent registrations by offices (2005–2020)

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

According to the KIPO’s 2020 Annual Report, the number of international patents filed in South Korea reflects the country’s high level of global competitiveness.228 The report noted that in 2020, South Korea had the fourth largest number of international patents by country of origin – a total of 20 600 (an increase of 5.2% over 2019). Korean was also the fifth most common language used in filing international patents, noted KIPO.

south Korea: the way forward228

For most of the period under review in this book, 2005–2020, South Korea has been the country storming up the innovation ladder, pushing aside the likes of the United States and Germany and doubling down on R&D to challenge Israeli investment levels. Before 2005, South Korea had focused on building its innovation capacity, leveraging this through the country’s mega-conglomerates and attracting the human capital needed to compete with the world’s best. The OECD described this period as primarily based on a ‘catch-up model’.229

By 2014, when the country unveiled its Three-Year Economic Innovation Plan, the focus was shifting towards reducing its reliance on exports, boosting lagging growth, cutting red tape, enabling entrepreneurs, and creating an internal cushion against the vagaries of the global market.230

However, as the OECD noted in its 2016 report – which marked South Korea’s 20th anniversary as a member of the international organisation – ‘Converging to productivity levels in the most advanced countries requires narrowing the productivity gaps between manufacturing and services and between large and small firms. This, in turn, depends on improving

228 Korean Intellectual Property Office. (2021).

229 Hemmert, M. (2007).

230 The Korea Herald. (2014).

framework conditions, upgrading Korea’s innovation system, increasing human capital and reforming policies for SMEs and venture capital.’231

A few years later, in 2022, the World Economic Forum (WEF) noted that South Korea was ‘now at a critical inflection point’.232 South Korea has skilfully nurtured mega-companies, becoming a technological force to be reckoned with. Still, the shifting global landscape now means that more needs to be done to encourage and support innovative start-ups. Such a move would create a necessary balance between the power of the megalithic chaebols and the dynamism and flexibility of the more promising start-ups.

The WEF noted that there is also a chance to shift mindsets towards greater inclusion and open-mindedness and unlock the employment opportunities for which young Koreans are clamouring. With the ‘number of new jobs created by startups in 2021 surpass[ing] the number of jobs created by the four large conglomerates combined’,233 this is an opportunity that South Korea cannot afford to sidestep.

There is also another dimension to these observations: no matter how advanced or how successful an innovation strategy is, without constant recalibration, even the most forward-thinking system of national innovation can easily fall behind the next rising star.

231 OECD. (2016). OECD Economic Surveys: Korea.

232 Yoon, S. (2022, January 31). This is how South Korea can become a global innovation hub. World Economic Forum.

233 Yoon, S. (2022, January 31).

global standards

an evolving process

Cooperation lies at the heart of the human experience. We are, after all, a social species and despite our squabbles, territorial tendencies and the impact of robust human egos, over the centuries humankind has come to realise that through collaboration, unity and engagement, it is possible to meet complex needs and achieve collective goals. Sometimes cooperation comes at the expense of unfettered flexibility and freedom, but research tells us that such is the value inherent in collective action that human beings will invariably choose to act together where possible to pursue meaningful goals.234

Why africa needs global standards

Of course, working together comes with challenges. The complexities are even more pronounced when the respective parties are sovereign countries with their own legal, political, economic, cultural and historical legacies. This is where global standards have profound value, since they create agreed-to rules and best practices from which individual countries may draw. This enables them to craft their own standards while remaining in step with international norms and thinking, and thus makes collaboration and growth possible. Today, one of the biggest and most recognised bodies setting quality management standards is the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).

With a membership of 167 national standards bodies (the organisations tasked with setting standards at the individual country level) as at 2022, ISO not only creates standards frameworks but works with emerging markets to improve their capacity and infrastructure for embedding standardisation practices. Through the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), South Africa is a member of ISO, alongside fellow African nations such as Kenya, Nigeria, Botswana, Egypt, Ghana and Mauritius.

Professor Benjamin Anderson, chair of The Da Vinci Institute and of the local SABS working group on innovation management systems, explains South Africa’s role in helping to craft the ISO standards: South Africa decided to become part of this global community by sending representation to participate in the development of these guidelines and standards. South Africa, therefore, has an important role to play in facilitating an ongoing awareness among other members from the African continent, who might also consider the possibility of creating an innovation management system.

He adds that South Africa intends to continue playing a facilitator role to enable the inclusion and participation of the rest of its African colleagues”.

This begs the question: Why does Africa need to comply with international standards?

The simple answer is that, like other countries, African nations operate in a globalised world. By adopting agreedupon global standards, countries and companies in both emerging and developed regions of the world can hope to ease commercial barriers to trade across borders. According to some researchers, ‘If property implemented, ISO management standards are likely to increase economic efficiency, reduce costs and promote international trade.’235

The African picture is, however, dominated by only a handful of countries that have ISO-certified companies. In 2016, Tayo et al noted that South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco alone accounted for ‘72% of ISO 9001 and 81% of ISO 14001 certificates found in Africa’. This is partly the result of cultural resistance, corruption, institutional weakness, hesitation to formalise informal company structures in line with ISO management standards, and a lack of cooperation between African governments and the continent’s private sector. However, if Africa is to meet its full potential on the world stage, aligning with global standards such as ISO is a risk management imperative for African companies keen to increase both intra-African and international trade and expansion.

234 Curioni, A., Voinov, P., Allritz, M., Wolf, T., Call, J. & Knoblich, G. (2022). Human adults prefer to cooperate even when it is costly. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 289. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2022.0128

235 Tayo, C., Yuriev, A. & Boiral, O. (2018). Adopting ISO management standards in Africa: Barriers and cultural challenges. In book: ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and New Management Standards, p 59-82. Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-31965675-5_4.

The ANSI Standards Alliance, which is a public-private partnership between the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the United States Agency for International Development, also helps emerging countries in regions such as Africa and South America to support trade relationships on the basis of standardisation. In Africa, the Standards Alliance works in cooperation with the African Union and the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa on issues such as international standards activities, regulatory practices and the harmonisation of African standards.236

a brief history of iso

Some of the reticence among African and other emerging markets to subscribe to the ISO standards may be explained by history. The ISO’s roots go back to the 1930s and the formation of the International Federation of the National Standardising Associations (ISA) in Prague. The ISA halted operations during the Second World War (1939–1945), but following the cessation of hostilities in 1945, ISO began operating on 23 February 1947.237 Its formation was in line with the more globalist thinking that emerged at this time, as epitomised by the foundation of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in 1945 and 1949, respectively.

ISO is by no means the only body devoted to setting international standards. A range of private, regional and intergovernmental organisations exist around the world, with whom ISO cooperates. Regional standardisation bodies such as the African Regional Organisation for Standardisation, the ASEAN Consultative Committee for Standards and Quality, the Pan-American Standards Commission and the European Committee for Standardisation all play an important role in a global cooperation effort.

While each body operates in accordance with its own standards development framework, ISO standards move through a six-stage process: proposal, preparation, committee deliberation, enquiry, approval and publication. Each member country has a role to play in the publication of a new ISO standard, with representatives from the body in question being entitled to sit on the committee working on a particular proposal. All standards are developed by a team of experts in technical committees comprising stakeholders from government, business and society, and the final nod is only given after a consensus vote. This gives national bodies the opportunity to put forward the views of their government, businesses and consumers.

Depending on the timeframe track allocated to the particular proposed standard, it can take anything from 18 to 36 months for a new ISO standard to pass from the proposal stage to fully-fledged publication.

As of April 2022, there were more than 24 000 technical standards under the ISO banner, covering a range of issues from social responsibility standards to food safety, agriculture, anti-bribery practices, healthcare, language and manufacturing standards. Among the most popular ISO standards is ISO 9000, the widely used quality management standard for companies and organisations of all sizes; the highly relevant ISO/IEC 27001 and related standards around information security management, which spans IT security, cybersecurity and privacy protection; the ISO 45000 series of occupational health and safety standards; and the ISO 31000 risk management standard.

What is the iso 56000 series of innovation management standards?

One of the more recent additions to the ISO family is the ISO 56000 series of innovation management standards, a response to the global need to embrace and advance collaboration and innovation.

The ISO 56000 series of innovation management standards, launched in 2014, encompass a range of norms that equip large and small organisations in all sectors with a common framework for the implementation, maintenance and improvement of innovation management systems. While the idea of seeking to manage a fluid and dynamic process like innovation might seem counterintuitive, Dr Rick Fernandez, academic, author and innovation specialist, explains: ‘How do you standardise innovation? You aren’t really going to standardise innovation; you are going to manage innovation.’238

In order to do so, the principles of innovation management laid out in ISO 56000:2020 Innovation Management –Fundamentals and Vocabulary must be adhered to and incorporated into the operating ethos of a business. That is, if value –the ultimate end-goal – is to be extracted. The eight principles are:

1) Realisation of value: Value add, be it financial or non-financial, must be the end-goal of any successful innovation.

236 ANSI. (2020). Standards Alliance supporting U.S. – Africa relations through appointment of new TBTT advisor.

237 Dupendant, J. (2016). International Regulatory Co-operation and International Organisations: The case of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). OECD and ISO.

238 SoftExpert. (2022). The ISO 56000 series of Innovation Management standards [Webinar]. YouTube.

Unless you can put an invention into a process, enter a new market or create a new product in order to extract value, you are not really innovating.

2) exploiting insights: The innovation process feeds on knowledge and insights from internal and external sources, and should build on to address needs.

3) future-focused leaders: Leaders across an organisation should be aligned in their ambition to encourage curiosity and the courage to pursue new avenues. To this end, open and continuous engagement is critical.

4) strategic direction: Business innovation is not for today, but for the future. This requires direction and leadership capable of aligning innovation to strategic intent and being prepared to back this up with the right resources to get the job done.

5) managing uncertainty: Learning from past experience and taking on board mistakes and failures can prove invaluable in the innovation management process, as it ensures that risks are evaluated, leveraged and managed.

6) innovation culture: Without a culture that is supportive of risk-taking, cooperation and creativity, it is extremely difficult for corporations to extract value through innovation in order to advance a shared agenda.

7) adaptability: Uncertainty is part of the business experience, as is risk. The secret is to take note of shifts and changes and then adapt organisational processes, structures and competencies to maximise the innovation capabilities of the organisation.

8) systems approach: To quote ISO 56000: ‘Innovation management is based on a systems approach with interrelated and interacting elements and regular performance evaluation and improvements of the system.’ In short, every organisation is an ecosystem within itself, which in turn operates in a bigger social, national, regional and global system. The secret is to ensure that, at all times, the interplay between ideas, people and processes is front of mind.

Source: Magnus Karlsson, Towards global Innovation Management Principles: International standardization – ICIS 2018 [updated 2019]

figure 25: the iso 56000 innovation management principles

What is innovation? and can it be formally managed?

In 2012, the mid-way point in this book’s focus period, The Wall Street Journal239 published an article highlighting the rise of a single word: innovation. The newspaper regarded the increased use of the word as an indicator of its rising importance, highlighting the following numbers:

• 33 528: The number of times the word ‘innovation’ was mentioned in annual or quarterly reports in the US in 2011.

• 255: Books published on Amazon in a 90-day window with the word ‘innovation’ in the title.

• 43%: The percentage of executives polled by Capgemini Consulting (260 in total) who said their company had a chief innovation officer or similar role.

• 28%: The percentage of business schools affiliated with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (733 as of 2012) that used the following words in their mission statements: ‘innovation’, ‘innovate’ or ‘innovative’.

‘There are various reasons for organisations to innovate,’ says Henra Mayer, CEO of innovation services company Innocentrix and founder of the SA Innovation League Awards. The awards were established in 2014 as a means of recognising, showcasing, and celebrating innovation excellence in South Africa and the greater African continent. Part of the SA Innovation League’s focus lies in working with companies to apply and understand the relevance and importance of the ISO 56000 standards.

‘We innovate to adapt and evolve, to grow and transform as organisations, to compete and win, or to create completely new markets in our industries, and we also innovate because we want to perform better. So the reasons are plentiful, but it’s also becoming increasingly important these days because of the innovation premium,’ says Mayer. She notes that the ‘innovation premium ’– or the value the market ascribes to companies regarded as being innovative – is reflective of investor confidence, as boosted by an organisation’s inherent innovation capability.

Given the value that shareholders and investors ascribe to innovation, it is becoming increasingly important to find ways to demonstrate how organisations manage innovation.

Very few organisations feel equipped to pursue and manage innovation effectively, says Mayer. She points out that while business executives understand the value of innovation for their businesses, both now and in the future, most believe they lack the skills to manage it effectively.

This is where an effective innovation management approach becomes so critical and why the ISO 56000 series of standards has been created. The standards serve as a means of guiding organisations in the ‘establishment, implementation, management and continual improvement’ of innovation, in way that will yield tangible benefits. They help to overcome a number of challenges, enabling companies to implement best practice as they seek to position innovation at the heart of their strategy and operational approach.240

According to the ISO, by using innovation management standards, an organisation can expect to enjoy market, cultural and organisational benefits. Drawing on the work of the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), it is possible to break down the potential advantages of innovation management system into the following categories.241

market benefits

An innovation management system

• provides guidance on how an organisation can fulfil unmet customer needs;

• increases business opportunities and opens new markets;

• leads to a consequent reduction in trade barriers;

• reduces time to market;

• enhances competitiveness; and

• helps identify solutions in both developed and emerging countries.

239 Kwoh, L. (2012). You call that innovation? Wall Street Journal.

240 Mayer, H. (n.d.) The ISO 56000 series of innovation management standards: What is it? Innocentrix.

241 SABS. (2020). Strategic business plan: SABS Committee SABS/TC 279 Innovation Management.

Cultural benefits

• develops open-mindedness with regard to new business models and methods;

• promotes the growth of an innovation culture with a global objective;

• facilitates partnership development and implementation;

• improves collaboration and communication; and

• assists with the social responsibility aspect of the organisation’s innovation process.

organisational benefits

• saves costs and reduces risk when innovating;

• eases collaboration across borders due to the development of standard tools;

• increases the ability of organisations to make decisions by supporting a ‘test and try, fail fast’ capability that supports reasonable risk-taking in the face of challenges and global shifts;

• improves efficiency and performance;

• improves the overall innovation process;

• provides a framework to monitor the return on investments made in innovation;

• helps companies adopt a globally accepted ‘common language’ for innovation management;

• provides a means of evaluating the progress of the organisation; and

• enables companies to identify and share good practices in innovation management.242243

the ‘why’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of innovation management

Mteto Nyati, Group CEO of JSE-listed information and communications technology company Altron Electronics Corporation (Altron), is a leader who values innovation, reflection and action as a means of transforming both companies and countries.

Since joining Altron in April 2017, Nyati was credited with turning a heavily indebted Altron around by focusing on core products, encouraging a transparent and motivated culture, and building a growth mindset. In 2019 he was named Business Leader of the Year at the All African Business Leaders Awards and in 2020 he was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award for Excellence in Management at the South African Professional Services Awards.

In 2020, during an interview with veteran journalist Derek Watts on Carte Blanche,242 Nyati shared how the insights he was exposed to at his former multinational employers, including IBM and Microsoft, and those gained during his MBA studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, continued to inform his approach.

Nyati spoke of the value of scenario planning, a concept introduced to the mainstream world of business by Royal Dutch Shell in the 1960s.243 Today’s iteration of this approach, he said ‘is something that I find so valuable, where you look ahead and look at the likely scenarios, and you start thinking about “What am I going to do if this thing happens, if that thing happens?” And that is some valuable, valuable competence to have in a day like this one now … we need to be thinking about the future and creating a “memory of the future” in the leadership team, so that when they encounter that future, they know what to do.’

Underlining the importance of strategic choices and that broader, future-focused outlook, Nyati also noted that alongside growth, improved profitability and better customer and employee experiences, innovation was critical for achieving success. By late 2022, Nyati had moved on from Altron and taken a 40% stake in technology consulting firm Business Systems Group, as well as the executive chairmanship of the company. However, on 12 April 2022, he addressed a SABS ISO webinar wearing his Altron hat and explained that the approach to innovation he’d championed at Altron was in line with the following definition: ‘To conceptualise brand new products, processes, and ideas or to approach existing products, processes and ideas in new ways.’

242 Carte Blanche. (2020). Innovate Our Way Out: Mteto Nyati Extended Interview / Carte Blanche / M-NetYouTube.

243 Angela Wilkinson & Roland Kupers. (2013, May). Living in the futures. Harvard Business Review.

He gave an example of product innovation at Altron, in the form of the Netstar Connected Car for Toyota. Once Altron pitched the concept to the Japanese carmaker, it developed a life of its own. Subsequently, all Toyotas produced in South Africa were equipped with a Wi-Fi system and a ‘device that is able to track the health of that car, and communicate that back to Toyota on an ongoing basis’.

Nyati added: ‘That’s an innovation that comes from this country, adopted by Toyota Japan and now Toyota is using this globally. And the jobs are created here in this country.’

The importance of value creation through innovation is something Nyati speaks about frequently. During the SABS ISO webinar, he reinforced the idea that a company’s ownership of its own intellectual property is the best way to add value and boost profits. ‘You may be selling a product in South Africa and getting 2%, but whoever you are selling for, say a Microsoft, where they are sitting [owning and creating intellectual property] is at margins of about 55%. So basically the value shifts to outside the country. It is absolutely important that we drive innovation inside our country to keep as much value as we can in our country.’

the standardisation of innovation practices under the iso 56000 banner

The ISO standards for innovation were developed to help organisations embed more innovative, resilient and sustainable practices into their daily operations. According to ISO, the ISO 56000 standards ‘help businesses effectively respond to change in order to maximise opportunities for growth and development while reducing associated risks’. They do this by outlining shared thinking on tools and methods, fundamentals and vocabulary, and ideas management.

The ISO 56000 series was not birthed out of fresh air. What the ISO technical committee 279 (TC 279) put forward drew on standards that originated in Spain and Portugal in 2006 and 2007 respectively. What emerged in Spain as the UNE 166002:2006, and was subsequently revised in 2014 and 2021, took the form of the NP 4457:2007 standard in Portugal, the BS 7000-1:2008 standard in the United Kingdom and the FD X50-271:2013 standard in France.244

By the turn of the century, a number of countries beyond Europe’s borders had published requirements or guidance papers on innovation management, including Mexico, Ireland, Brazil, France, Russia, the UK and Europe. On the basis of these initial forays, 59 countries came together to develop the ISO 56000 series of innovation management standards.

table 2: the countries behind the tC 279 process

CoUntRy stanDaRD

spain UNE 166002:2014, R&D&i Management: R&D&i Management System Requirements

portugal NP 4457:2007, Management of RDI, RDI Management System Requirements

mexico NMX-GT003-IMNC: 2008 Management System Technology Requirements

ireland NSAI Swift 1: 2009 Guide to good practice in innovation and product development processes

europe CEN/TS 16555-1: 2013, Innovation Management – Part 1: Innovation Management System

United Kingdom BS 7000-1:2008 Design Management Systems – Part 1: Guide to Managing Innovation

Brazil ABNT/CEE 130: 2011. PROJETO 130.000.00-01. Guidance for an innovation management system

france FD X50-71:2013 Management of innovation. Guidelines for implementing an innovation management approach

Russia GOST R: 2013 Innovation Management – Part 1: Innovation Management System

Source: Rick Fernandez (The ISO 56000 series of Innovation Management Standards)

For the period explored in this book, five ISO 56000 innovation management standards combined to make up the Innovation Management Model Framework. (See Table 3, The ISO 56000 family of innovation standards). The five standards comprising the series are

244 Lopes, A., Polonia, D., Gradim, A. & Cunha, J. (2022). Challenges in the integration of quality and innovation management systems. Standards, 2(1): 52-65. doi: 10.3390/standards2010005.

• ISO 56002 (high-level structure and systems approach to innovation)

• ISO 56003 (partnerships, open innovation and working with others)

• ISO 56004 (assessment)

• ISO 56005 (intellectual property)

• ISO 56006 (strategic intelligence management), due to be published in 2021.

Innocentrix’s Henra Mayer noted in 2021 that the process remained extremely fluid since the standards were continuing to progress through the various stages at the time of writing. ‘I know people think of standards as boring and elaborate, or that especially in the context of innovation, the word standard in itself constitutes a paradox, but I believe it is extremely exciting because for the first time, at a global level, we are having conversations on what makes innovation successful. We are agreeing on how it should work and what should be incorporated, and South Africa has a voice in this conversation.’

Still in the pipeline at end-2020 was ISO 56010 (illustrative examples of ISO 56000 as a whole, including layman’s terms for innovation management), which was due to be published in 2022, along with ISO 56007 (idea management) and ISO 56008 (innovation operational measurements), due in 2023. Lead countries in these respective working groups included Argentina, Canada, Norway and Germany.

table 3: the iso 56000 family of innovation management standards

stanDaRD

ISO 56000:2020: Innovation management – fundamentals and vocabulary

statUs (as at end – 2020)

Adopted in South Africa as SANS

ISO/AWI 56001: Innovation management – innovation management system –requirements Under development

ISO 56002:2019: Innovation management – innovation management system –guidance

ISO 56003:2019: Innovation management – tools and methods for innovation partnership – guidance

ISO/TR 56004:2019: Innovation management assessment – guidance

ISO 56005:2020: Innovation management – tools and methods for intellectual property management – guidance

ISO 56006:2021: Innovation management – tools and methods for strategic intelligence management – guidance

Adopted in South Africa as SANS

Published In the process of adoption as SANS

Published In the process of adoption as SANS

Published In the process of adoption as SANS

Published In the process of adoption as SANS

ISO/DIS 56007: Innovation management – tools and methods for idea management–guidance Under development

ISO/CD 56008: Innovation management – tools and methods for innovation operation measurements – guidance Under development

ISO/CD TS 56010: Innovation management – illustrative examples of ISO 56000 Under development

Source: SABS, Innocentrix

Recognising that innovation is the key to competing globally, Lars E Jensen from Standard Norway, the national body for ISO in the country, commented after the 2015 meeting of ISO TC 279 in Oslo245: Successful innovations seem to be a result of a fine mix between research, innovation and the market. In fact, we believe the gap between these functions is, in practice, standardisation … The work of ISO TC 279 will empower collaboration in developing new ISO standards, which will provide the tools and guidance to help organisations to think differently, see new opportunities and create creative solutions with impact. We believe that this new tool will impact the innovation management process globally.

245 Standard Norge. (2015). Innovation Management – Meeting of ISO TC 279 in Oslo – Lars E Jensen, Standards Norway. YouTube.

In 2016, during the development of the ISO 56000 series, the convenor of Working Group One, Leopoldo Colombo,246 explained that the standards would apply to ‘all kinds of organisations, no matter the size – big, medium or small enterprises – … public or non-public organisations. But I would say it is the small and medium enterprises that can get the most benefit out of these standards. And also, it is not only a standard that is going to be developed for technological organisations; the idea is to have a standard [that is] useful for improving the efficiency of the innovation processes for technological and nontechnological organisations.’

This applicability of the ISO standards across all organisations, and by extension the SANS standards in South Africa, has also been noted by Innocentrix’s Mayer. ‘From an ISO perspective, in terms of the innovation management standards, it is applicable to all organisations of all sizes, from emerging to small, medium and large. It will just depend on your own context and how you apply it. The guiding standards are not prescriptive. It’s giving guidance in terms of what to consider.’

The general sentiment from others involved in the local SANS committee is that South Africa continues to play an important role in both the local and global economy by enabling business interaction and helping organisations navigate the relevant laws and regulations on innovation output. It is hoped that this guidance will help organisations to accelerate the introduction of innovative products to the market.

Of particular relevance to those involved in the process is the cross-border collaboration it involves. As one commentator close to the process told us: ‘We share our experience with our international allies. We learn from them, they learn from us and then we plough this learning back home.’247248

the role of national standards bodies

In South Africa, the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) dates back to 1945 when it was created as a statutory body. In 2008, a new body called the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) was created within the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) to deal specifically with regulations and compliance. Meanwhile, the SABS remained focused on developing national standards, testing, certifying and training, a role that included cooperation with the ISO. In 2002, the country’s national standards – which had previously carried the SABS name – were renamed the South African National Standards, or SANS.247 As a member of the technical committee known as ISO TC 279, South Africa – through the SABS – has actively participated in developing innovation management standards at ISO since the technical committee’s inception in 2013.

What about the other three countries?

Canada’s national standards body – The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) – was established in 1970. Although partly financed by the country’s parliament, the SCC operates independently of the government, fostering and promoting voluntary standardisation in Canada.

In Malaysia, the Department of Standards Malaysia (DSM) has the mandate to function as a national standards body to maintain standardisation and accreditation in line with global best practice. According to the DSM, its goal is to ‘lead the nation to be an effective global player in standards and accreditation in consonance with Malaysia’s Vision 2020.’

The Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS) is the South Korean government agency responsible for leading the country’s national and international standards drive. KATS builds on a long history of standardisation development in the country, dating back to 1883 when an analysis and testing laboratory for processing and refining metals was established. By 1999, KATS had been formalised under the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy as the national standardisation body of the country. In 2006 and 2013, additional changes were made to strengthen KATS policy activities. Notably, the 2013 shift saw an organisational streamlining to ‘boost efficiency and competence of organisation, under the auspices of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy’.248

246 normeUNI. (2016). Innovation Management: A key to compete at global level. YouTube.

247 Parliamentary Monitoring Group. (2011, October 11). SA Bureau Standards and National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications: Annual Reports 2010/11.

248 Korean Agency for Technology and Standards.

south africa’s sans journey

In2012, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) released a report entitled Black Industrialists Policy. The intention was to draw on the state’s capacity to unlock the potential of blackowned and -managed businesses and to develop a generation of black industrialists.

In the document, the industrialisation policies of South Korean President Park Chung Hee in the 1960s were highlighted, as was the growth and economic importance of South Korea’s large familyowned business conglomerates, known as chaebols (see Chapter 4, South Korea). The growth of these chaebols ‘resulted from the production of a diversity of goods rather than just one or two products, innovation and the willingness to develop new product lines were critical’, noted the report. Initially supported by government-sponsored credit and assistance, by the late 1980s South Korea’s chaebols ‘had become financially independent and secure as a result of their explosive growth in export markets’.

In line with the chaebol model, the South African government hoped to replicate the support given to white-owned South African businesses prior to democratisation in 1994, while also supporting the development of innovative new industries, as the South Korean government had done. Research and innovation support was, therefore, critical.

This turned the spotlight on supporting the growth and development of high-potential businesses across the board, including the ways in which they managed processes, people and innovation.

At that time, there was no global committee dealing with standardisation in the field of innovation management. However, there were already rumblings that this might be the direction in which an increasingly knowledge-based world economy would move. As a result of this global shift, South Africa’s DTIC found itself being invited to various forums in Geneva to discuss the need for and possible scope of a new series of standards. As the only standardisation body in the country, the SABS was also invited. It was in Geneva in 2013 that the suggestion was made to introduce some form of standardisation for innovation management at the ISO level.

Mmakgabo Maheya, a SABS Team Leader: ICT, Telecommunications, Systems and Services, and Da Vinci’s Professor Benjamin Anderson had already been involved with the tt100 Business Innovation Awards Programme (tt100 awards), and were keen proponents of the systemic approach to innovation. They felt this global innovation focus could be harnessed at the local level, and attended a number of international meetings to gauge the feeling on the ground about a country-level standardisation body for innovation, and to assess what was already being done in this regard. As a result of these meetings, they proposed the establishment of a local SANS committee that would mirror the efforts of the ISO, bringing together a number of stakeholders, including Henra Mayer of Innocentrix. The SANS committee started with the framework of the ISO standards. Then it began engaging with multiple stakeholders and determining if there was a need to establish South Africaspecific standards to manage innovation processes.

By the end of 2020, two of the ISO 56000 standards had been adopted in South Africa as SANS standards: ISO 56000 (SANS 56000) and ISO 56002 (SANS 56002). The first two standards were adopted just as they were at the ISO level, without changes or contextual integration.

The formation of the local SANS committee represented one of two ways in which countries have approached the adoption of new international standards.

Anderson, who served as local chair of the SANS innovation management development process, explains that when countries set out to create their own national innovation management standards, they can take one of two routes: ‘You can either start your own standard and then lobby the support of a more global view to work together, write a motivation and then work towards creating a global standard – which I think is the ideal – but you can also reverse engineer it.’

While countries like Portugal, Canada, Ireland, the UK, France and Sweden followed the first route, South Africa has opted for the second option. This means, explains Anderson, that creating a South African standard – SANS – involves ‘almost piggybacking on the ISO standard to create the South African standard’. This may sound simple, but the degree of stakeholder engagement required along the way means the process can take anything from six months to five years. As the custodian of the process, the SABS – through its various working groups and committees – engages closely with the community at large, including business, organised labour, government and as many sectors as possible.

In a 2022 interview, Anderson reflected: ‘We have not progressed in articulating the national standard for innovation management yet. We were waiting for the publication of the ISO 56000 series, which will inform us. We’ll take a deductive approach and then give that to the community at large to agree on.’

the unfolding adoption of the sans 56000 series

The still-unfolding development process around the SANS 56000 series of standards started life as a sidenote in another well-known and internationally recognised standard, the ISO 9001 quality management system.

ISO 9001, which was last updated in 2015, sets standards for organisations with respect to the creation of policies, procedures and processes to ensure that outputs – be they products or services – are designed with quality, consistency and consumer satisfaction in mind. The standards also bring a layer of risk mitigation thinking to the attention of top managers, and place a premium on performance monitoring.249 For this reason, every organisation worth its salt strives to be ISO 9001 compliant and have a quality management system (QMS) in place.

Buried within the wording of the ISO 9001 standard is a clause on innovation management; just a brief mention, appearing alongside references to knowledge management, occupational health and systems. The fact that innovation management was mentioned at all raised questions about where this new concept should sit in the standards lexicon. The view began to emerge that innovation management should be taken out of ISO 9001 and dealt with in depth on its own merits.

After all, if ISO 9001 directs organisations to demonstrate innovation management, then what does this actually mean, and what does it look like in practice? The brief mention needed to be expanded on.

With ISO 56000 coming into its own, the responsibility now shifts to innovation management practitioners and experts to scrutinise the proposed innovation management system and develop it in a user-friendly way, so that individuals and companies can fully understand what it is and how it helps to promote innovation.

In much the same way that ISO 9001 spawned ISO 9002 to offer specific guidance for small-, micro- and medium-sized businesses (SMMEs), so, too, will the ISO/SANS series develop over time. Constant monitoring and adjusting will be necessary if the goal is to offer certification in innovation management for both big organisations and smaller start-ups.

south africa’s focus on entrepreneurship and business incubators

Growing the South African economy inclusively and sustainably is highly dependent on the success of entrepreneurs and small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, start-ups and small businesses operating across the country face a high failure rate – for a number of reasons, including a lack of technical skills, insufficient business and management expertise, and an inability to access finance and appropriate infrastructure. Many rely on the range of incubators and accelerators that operate across the country, but the work of these support agencies is not standardised, which has implications for innovation and embedding effective management processes.

During the process of debating, analysing and lobbying for the adoption of the ISO 56000 standards as a SANS series on innovation management, the local working committee realised that this lack of standardisation in incubators was disadvantaging small businesses and jeopardising developmental efforts.

The incubators and accelerators were being funded by the Small Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA), an agency of the Department of Small Business Development. SEDA began to realise that the absence of an agreed standard that determined 249 ISO. (2015). ISO 9001 – Debunking the myths.

who, or what, could operate as an accelerator was becoming problematic. While incubation was seen as a proven way to support small businesses, the structure and shape of these bodies was cause for concern given the lack of a common vocabulary and agreed standards.

As a result, they began working with the SABS to develop a technical specification for business incubators and accelerators, the first step towards developing a full SANS national standard for business incubators.

The rationale behind the move was that if SEDA had a comprehensive document on the technical requirements of business incubators, it could become a more effective player. For those in the know, it was essential to get the entire business incubation sector operating in accordance with innovation management processes; so developing standards and setting requirements for incubators was important. This, it was hoped, would ensure a more effective breeding ground for up-andcoming entrepreneurial talent.

A business incubator and accelerator technical specification (South African Technical Specification 2234) was published in 2020.250 The aim of the technical specification was to:

• create uniformity in the terminology used, and the establishment, structure and governance of business incubators and accelerators;

• create a predictable quality output level for incubator products and services;

• engender a culture of professionalism and excellence among incubators; and

• provide tools for continual improvement of the services they offered.

In essence, the document aimed to enhance the quality of business incubators and accelerators and ultimately standardise access, operations, management and governance of the business support ecosystem.

In the future, more support for SMEs is likely to emerge, thanks to the role South Africa is playing in the development of the ISO 56000 innovation management standards, which is exposing the country to other successful innovation practices. Sweden has freely shared its insights on SME support as part of the ISO 56000 collaborative approach, and is well aware of the importance of SMEs to the economy. As such, Sweden is driving a strategy that focuses on empowering SMEs, understanding the needs and challenges of both small and big businesses alike, and working to ensure better market access. This SME focus could well prove another potential area of development for the 56000 series.

Early indications are that a link exists between adopting innovation management standards and innovation output at the company level. A study by Brazilian Professor Silvio Bitencourt da Silva published in the International Journal of Innovation in 2021 supports this view, stating, ‘The adoption of the ISO 56002: 2019 standard can improve the firm[’s] innovation capacity based on its determining, yet complementary factors necessary for the constitution of systematic and sustained forms for the innovation process that contribute to the generation of results of more effective innovations.’251 Again, the positive potential extended across both large and small companies.

the ins and outs of practically embracing the sans standards

Henra Mayer, CEO of Innocentrix, is a member of the global ISO 56000 innovation management standards team and a former head adjudicator for the tt100 (Top Technology 100) Awards. Mayer has been quoted extensively in the media and has penned numerous business articles and blogs on the topic. She works closely with companies to help them design innovative strategies, collaborate, embrace technology and new ideas, and successfully execute innovation-related plans.

This position perfectly positions her to answer the tricky question of how best to implement the new ISO/SANS 56000 standards so that they make a practical difference in innovative management and practices in South African organisations.

Unpacking innovation insights

Part of the answer to the above question is derived from the research on innovation undertaken annually since 2014 by Innocentrix, in support of the SA Innovation League.

Mayer explains: ‘We look at organisations from an innovation perspective; innovation in general and innovation management. We used to follow the INSEAD Innovation Readiness Model, because we could compare that across countries, 250 South African National Accreditation System. (2022). Annual Report 2021-2022. 251 Silva, S.B. (2021, May/Aug.). Improving the firm innovation capacity through the adoption of standardized innovation management systems: a comparative analysis of the ISO 56002:2019 with the literature on firm innovation capacity. International Journal of Innovation (IJI), São Paulo, 9(2), 389-413. doi: 10.5585/iji.v9i2.19273.

but we changed that model so that the 2021 assessment could talk to the guiding ISO 56000 innovation management standards – specifically 56002, the standard for a high-level structure and systems approach to innovation.’

Results are packaged in an Innovation League report, with each participating organisation receiving their own company innovation feedback report. This report scores the organisation’s innovation management (as measured against the standard), analyses its strengths and weaknesses, and makes recommendations to enhance innovation in the company. Reports of this nature raise practical questions about how organisations – and possibly countries – can strengthen their innovative behaviours. ‘Hopefully this is something that helps us get to a practical value side, by making it applicable to organisations,” explains Mayer.

Big vs little: yes, it does matter

Early on, when applying the ISO lens to the work of the SA Innovation League, it became clear how different the process is for small and larger companies.

‘The standards say they are applicable to every organisation of every size and in every industry; it just depends on how you apply them. But in reality, although this is true, it is not that simple,’ was Mayer’s immediate takeaway.

‘Large organisations can build an innovation management system from a systemic perspective and look at all of the key innovation elements and management principles, but if you are a small organisation with less than ten people, it’s a different story.

‘The small organisations understand the guidance around building a system of innovation, but feel that they need to be innovative in everything they do. For them, innovation starts around culture, how they accept risk, how they collaborate and how quickly they build. So, although everything is applicable to everybody, it has a lot to do with culture. There are certain approaches and elements that, I think, will be important for smaller organisations, and others for larger organisations.’

This observation raises questions about how the new SANS standards will be applied in practice and what companies will do with these guidelines in the real world.252

opportunities for an innovation-education exchange

The Da Vinci Institute’s Professor Benjamin Anderson explains that many efforts will not bear the expected results if innovation is not managed systemically. Taking this approach to heart requires that organisations, whether businesses or educational, consider all the interrelated and interacting elements that influence the organisation’s approach to innovation. These elements include culture, resources, partnerships and cooperation agreements, all of which must be considered when crafting an innovation management system.

In taking a systems view, Anderson asks organisations to consider to what extent their innovation strategy is aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Answers to this question offer insights into a company’s perspective and thinking.

Educational institutions should, for instance, be highly aware of SDG 4 (‘Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning’), and both businesses and educational organisations should be seeking to fulfil SDG 8 (‘Promote sustained inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all’) as well as SDG 9 (‘Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation and foster innovation’).

Quoting Harvard Professor Mark Esposito, Anderson states that collaborative innovation is ‘a true best friend for growth’.252 Innovation is often presented as an opportunity to rebrand or promote a company and its products and services, but is rarely embraced as a true ‘best friend’. In a world where digital advances are disrupting industries, countries and societies, and where artificial intelligence and machine learning are becoming part of our day-to-day experience, innovation must take on a more transformational nature.

The tt100 awards focus on rewarding excellence in innovation and are interested in the extent to which innovation is embedded in an effective innovation management system. They also support the use of a collaborative, coordinated, and cooperative method, as exemplified in the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework. This forms the subject of Section 3, 252 World Economic Forum. (2015). Collaborative Innovation: Transforming Business, Driving Growth.

tips™ managerial leadership framework

what is tipstm?

Innovation does not happen in a vacuum. The consistent development of innovative ideas, products and systems relies on an organisation-wide support system that encourages collaboration and communication. Embedding such a system into the very fabric of the organisation can yield untold long-term advantages, creating the foundation necessary for ideas to move swiftly from ideation to market-ready products – not once or twice, but continuously.

Creating this kind of foundational support for innovation requires the complete buy-in of senior management and boards of directors, and an open, democratic culture in which the ideas of every person in the company are valued, and dialogue on improvements is encouraged. There are a lot of moving parts in this ‘ideal model’ for innovation, which is where a comprehensive innovation framework comes in. A good model positions all the moving parts, showing leaders and employees where all aspects fit in relation to others.

As McKinsey & Company noted in a 2008 article entitled ‘Leadership and Innovation’, ‘While senior executives cite innovation as an important driver of growth, few of them explicitly lead and manage it … How can something be a top priority if it isn’t an integrated part of a company’s core processes and of the leadership’s strategic agenda and – above all – behaviour?’ Bridging the gap between innovation awareness and action is a perennial challenge. Structured innovation support has a role to play in building the muscle necessary to make innovation a habit.

The TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework emerged over time from insights gathered from the tt100 awards programme. It is a model that offers users a deep understanding of the factors that interact to produce innovation, offering insights on how to embed innovation for longevity and future relevance. Dr Marla Koonin, Executive Dean: Strategy and Stakeholder Management at the Da Vinci Institute, describes the TIPS™ framework as ‘one of our critical lenses’, and a method applied across the gamut of the Institute’s educational offerings. The framework offers broad reference points and is sufficiently flexible to be adapted by organisations seeking to make the model their own. Rather than dictating how reality should be constructed, and overruling existing methods and efforts, the framework guides users to better understand what is required to develop innovationfriendly methods.

Armed with a wealth of data on technology application gleaned from years of reviewing tt100 applicants and winners, Da Vinci expanded the programme’s focus in 2007 to include questions specifically on innovation and the management thereof. In 2010–2011, more questions were added to probe the management of people and the level of systemic thinking.

Professor Benjamin Anderson explains that the framework is a true reflection of transdisciplinary thinking. ‘The TIPS™ framework grew as a cooperative engagement with various individuals in different communities; public, private, emerging, medium and large. Da Vinci was fortunate enough to be at the receiving end of that information and had the ability to codify it.’ The model expands on the existing body of work on management and leadership frameworks by drawing on dominant northern hemisphere thinking and merging it with a distinctly Southern African flavour. The result is a flexible, comprehensive conceptual framework that may be applied to companies of any size.

The TIPS™ framework emerged from a longitudinal study comprising both qualitative and quantitative methods spanning almost three decades, and based on more than 150 metrics and a sample size of around 1 900. It took its current form in 2020–2021, when Koonin and Anderson refined the model with the aim of embedding it into all of Da Vinci’s teaching and research output.

the Da vinci institute – custodians of the tt100 awards

The roots of the Da Vinci Institute date back to 2004, when the UK’s Warwick University exited South Africa following revised regulatory requirements for overseas universities operating in the country. Under founder Professor Roy Marcus, the work begun by Warwick in 1992 was continued at the behest of former president Nelson Mandela under the name The Da Vinci Institute for Technology Management. Professor Benjamin Anderson joined the Institute in 2005 as the first CEO and currently serves as executive chair.

In line with Da Vinci’s aim to ‘strengthen the growth of agile, aligned and engaged leaders, who co-create innovative ecosystems and sustainable transformational societies’, the Institute oversees the Technology Top 100 awards (tt100), South Africa’s premier annual business awards programme. Since 1991, tt100 has celebrated organisations for their achievements in the management of technology, innovation, people, systems, research and sustainability. The tt100 awards are endorsed by the Department of Science and Technology, as the major government sponsor of the programme.

Why does tips™ matter?

As we head towards the end of the third decade of the millennium, the development and internalisation of innovation leadership frameworks has never been more important. Globally, the world is seeing a dramatic shift from an industrial market economy to a ‘networked creative economy’, so-named by collaboration consultant Harold Jarche.253 Organisations that set themselves up for success in this new reality must operate on ‘principles and frameworks that reflect our humanity as we live and work in an electric networked society’, according to Jarche.254 This means they need to develop an appreciation for the networks that shape our lives and work. They also need to actively seek out and develop independent workers who display the traits of initiative, creativity and passion.

Unfortunately, this is not how most companies work. Bogged down in old managerial paradigms and organograms, traditional companies are fundamentally at odds with the requirements of a creative networked economy. Table 4 compares the approach of the old industrial economy with that of the emerging creative, network-based economy.

table 4: from industrial market to a creative networked economy255256

Concept industrial economy

Core ideas

• Tangible goods

• Best practices

• Standardisation

Technology • Centralised factories

• Mass production

Organisational model • Centralised and fixed

Knowledge distribution • MBA-focused business schools

• Expert generalists and specialists

Business ideology • The science of management

Creative economy

• Intangible services255

• Emerging practices

• Transparency in changing work practices256

• Mass customisation

• Internet

• Decentralised

• Dynamic

• Professional and networked communities

• Managing complexity

253 Jarche, H. (2013, October 9). Future of work is complex, implicit and intangible.

254 Jarche, H. (2017, June 5). Organizing for the network era.

255 Jarche, H. (2013, October 9). Future of work is complex, implicit and intangible.

256 Jarche, H. (2013, May 16). Shifting work.

Concept industrial economy Creative economy

• Understanding ideology

• Understanding hierarchies and complexity

• Appreciating the need for standardised practices

• Developing a continuous probe-sense-respond muscle

• Specialised tasks

• Engaging workers by enabling autonomy, mastery and a sense of control and purpose

Source: The Da Vinci Institute, adapted from Harold Jarche (2013)257

Building systemic awareness

For any emerging business leader operating in a complex global world, a solid appreciation for the multiple sub-systems at play within society is crucial. Leaders need an understanding of how the changing world of work functions. Developing this understanding requires the ability to draw from existing mental models and to re-think and dissect assumptions about work performance.

This level of systemic understanding and sense-making is not the preserve of leadership teams. In fact, the TIPS™ framework shown in Figure 26 enables individuals at all levels of an organisation to determine their own reality and develop the competencies that support a complex systemic approach to innovation. The ability to handle complexity is an important aspect of the framework. It speaks to the changing skill sets needed in a creative networked reality and an evolving world of work, where both soft (interpersonal) and hard (technical) skills are needed.

The TIPS™ framework comprises seven layers. These can be applied at both the personal and organisational level to help navigate change and shape alternative scenarios for the future.

Source: The DaVinci Institute for Technology Management

257 Jarche, H. (2013, November 7). How to work in the creative economy.

figure 26: Core elements of the tips™ managerial leadership framework

Unpacking the seven layers

Using the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework starts with an understanding of the seven layers. These work together as a multifocal lens through which to explore emerging realities. (See Figure 27).

The seven layers refer to:

1) Systemic perspective (S)

2) Awareness of micro, meso, exo and macro subsystems (the layer just after the S in the centre of the model)

3) The interlinks between the management of technology (T), innovation (I) and people(P)

4) An engaged, agile and aligned workforce

5) Engaged, agile and aligned managerial leadership practices

6) Assessment of managerial leadership competencies

7) An awareness of alternative (emerging) workplace realities

figure 27: the tips™ managerial leadership framework

Source: The DaVinci Institute for Technology Management

layer 1: systemic perspective

In Figure 27, this is the central circle of the model. The Greek philosopher Aristotle observed in Metaphysics, Book 8 Section 1045a), that ‘many things have a plurality of parts and are not merely a complete aggregate but instead some kind of a whole beyond its parts’. Over the years, this has been reduced to the popular notion of ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts’. From a systems perspective, this observation points to the importance of understanding the constituent parts and how they combine to create a unified whole by virtue of their relationships and integration. Only by seeing how the cogs work together is it possible to see where oil is needed to enhance performance.

layer 2: awareness of micro, meso, exo and macro subsystems

In Figure 27, this is the next circle out from the centre. In order to grow, develop and (hopefully) flourish, businesses and

individuals must engage with the environment around them, which comprises micro, meso, exo and macro sub-systems. As systems change, so, too, should human perception in order to encourage development. Failure to do so can limit our responses to a changing world.

The micro level is centred around activities, roles and interpersonal relationships, usually at an individual level, such as family, friends, romantic relationships or professional interactions.

The meso system comprises interrelations between the individual and two or more settings, such as workplace interactions and social gatherings. Both the micro and meso sub-systems include the individual as an active participant. However, in the exo system, the individual is acted upon by events beyond their control, such as management decisions, the demographic contexts of colleagues, and inputs from external networks of influence.

Finally, the macro level is the culture or sub-culture in which all the other levels are situated. It includes the realm of beliefs and ideologies, whether they be mutual political, religious, socio-economic or cultural ideologies.

The TIPS™ framework sits at another level – the meta level which represents the realm of thinking about thinking, and delving into the inner workings of how we plan, assess and improve learning and insights.

At the meta level, there is an awareness that ‘we can’t exist if we do not appreciate that others exist’, according to Da Vinci’s Prof Anderson. ‘I find it concerning that we can be so robust and yet so linear and forget that we are insignificantly small, yet important, in the bigger schemes of things,’ he says.

layer 3: the interlinks between the management of technology, innovation and people

In Figure 27, the yellow ‘T’, the purple ‘P’, and the turquoise ‘I’ reflect the interconnectedness of the management of technology, people and innovation.

The management of technology involves the tools and metrics that organisations use to gain a competitive advantage. Simply put, technology is an attempt to ‘do things better’, involving the use of anything from hi-tech computers to simple hand-held tools, and includes the processes and systems that facilitate the flow of work. For companies, the ‘T’ aspect requires organisations to examine how best to manage their technology to better position products or services and maximise market share.

The management of innovation focuses on how an organisation stimulates and capitalises on the ideation process to develop an innovative product, service, process or system that has either commercial or social value. This level of management hinges on unpacking hard metrics such as income generated from new products, processes or services, as well as success rates in commercialising new offerings.

The management of people involves the human interface – the most complex, changeable and critical component in any organisation’s quest for longevity. It embraces both the employee and the end user. The ‘P’ aspect is about the processes that organisations deploy to engage people, the factors that cause people to choose the levels of engagement they do, the ways in which ideas are generated and shared, and the role of incentives in shaping employees’ behaviour.

layer 4: an engaged, agile and aligned workforce

The threads of engagement, agility and alignment run through Layer 4 (the workforce layer) and Layer 5 (the management layer).

When it comes to employees across the board, engagement is achieved at a systemic level, in which strong links are established between the management of innovation and the management of people, practices and competencies. When this type of interplay is evident, employees tend to become more engaged, be it at a company or societal level. Similarly, agility emerges when the management of innovation and the management of technology work together, while alignment is achieved when technology and people practices are managed in relation to one another.

layer 5: engaged, agile and aligned management competence

As in Layer 4, engagement, agility and alignment are achieved when managerial competence work in concert to achieve technological, human and innovative outcomes. When there is a real desire to embed innovation into the fabric of the organisation, strong ecosystem linkages are needed, which may be achieved though certain management behaviours, attitudes and abilities. Let’s take a look at what they are.

Engagement

To promote engagement, managers need to demonstrate social and emotional intelligence, which enables them to connect with others in a meaningful way. They should be able to ‘sense’ attitudes and stimulate desired reactions and interactions among co-workers and stakeholders.

Developing engagement is part of what John Dewey termed ‘reflective thinking’. In The Later Works, 1925–1953, edited by Jo Ann Boydston, Dewey noted that reflective thinking ‘enables us to direct our actions with foresight and to plan according to ends-in-view, or purposes of which we are aware. It enables us to act in deliberate and intentional fashion to attain future objects, or to come into command of what is now distant and lacking.’258 Reflective thinking creates the necessary distance between actions and responses, enabling managers to view a situation dispassionately to identify where engagement may be lacking. It also loosens the desire to control, leading to a more open attitude, in which employee questioning is welcomed as part of engagement.

When it comes to engagement, working with cultures other than one’s own is tremendously helpful. Such exposure enables one to develop insights into the thinking of others, broadens the reservoir of ideas, and ensures that innovations speak to the hearts and minds of all potential customers or users. It also enhances employee relationships and, in so doing, motivates deeper levels of engagement by all.

Agility

The interplay between technology, innovation and people fuels agility; therefore, management competence that enhance agility include taking the time to probe problems and share experiences in order to create awareness and draw on different insights. Once probing has been used to bring realities to the fore, the use of Ideation Theory helps to build a more comprehensive understanding of the realities impacting individuals and their work performance. Ideation Theory holds that the meaning embedded in words is subjective. Therefore, before one can embark on the process of creatively crafting a range of outcomes, the meanings of words and terms must first be understood and identified. Design thinking also helps on this journey, bringing empathy into the mix, and enabling leaders to harness observation and experimentation to arrive at potential solutions. Agility is built into the system by virtue of the interactions that take place between these different ways of thinking. It is enhanced when leaders draw in a variety of concepts from various disciplines to add layers of meaning to the innovation process.

Alignment

Once alignment is achieved between managing technology and managing people, various managerial competencies tend to emerge. They include

• Becoming a global and digital citizen. This implies openness to co-creating meaning in ethical and responsible ways.

• The ability to apply computational thinking. This is helpful for translating vast amounts of data into new, revised, or alternative concepts and constructs and incorporating data-based reasoning.

• Personal knowledge mastery. This entails a sense-making ability that enables one to draw deeper meaning or significance from seemingly insignificant events. When well expressed, personal mastery enables individuals to ground themselves in the present while envisaging a future self. Thus, to the individual concerned, there is a perception of an uninterrupted ‘golden thread’ through time.

layer 6: assessment of leadership practices

Leadership practices are specific actions taken by organisations and business leaders to establish and manage effective working relationships to co-create results-driven, creative, networked workplaces. In the TIPS™ framework, this is known as a ‘wirearchy’.259

Wirearchies are built on trust, knowledge, personal integrity and a safe-to-fail learning culture in which employees feel free

258 Dewey, J. & Boydston, J.A. (Eds). (1981). The Later Works, 1925-1953. London: Feffer & Simons

259 Consultant and blogger Jon Husband introduce the word ‘wirearchy’ in 1999s, his working definition of the word ‘wirearchy’ is ‘a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority, based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology’ working in a networked environment. Additional information is available via The Network Thinkers website.

to express themselves in their work as best they can. This atmosphere of trust and freedom to be one’s authentic self enables employees to reach their true potential.

There are a number of ways in which to create wirearchies that work. Facilitating conversations is one learning tool, which is as simple as allowing people to be part of the decision-making process that will, ultimately, impact them. This also builds trust. Another option is to engage creative networks, a process which, according to Jarche, enables knowledge sharing, encourages diversity of thought, and promotes experimentation in a safe-to-fail working environment – which in turn stimulates innovation. Within a networked workplace, the roles and functions of the business leader are to improve insights, provide learning experiences, focus on the ‘why’ of work, assist in making better networked decisions, and act as a role model and knowledge manager.

Encouraging an environment that is friendly to experimentation – something David Kolb referred to as experiential learning in the 1980s – is an invariable precursor to innovation. Creating this kind of environment involves the application of principles such as

• divergent thinking (exploring a variety of potential solutions),

• assimilated learning (drawing new knowledge and information into current thinking)

• convergent thinking (bringing dissimilar pieces of information together) and

• accommodation (modifying what we already know to take in new insights).

The best results come when individuals can integrate these different modes of thinking to successfully co-create lasting solutions. Co-creating in this context refers to the creation of value-adding outcomes that align with the purpose of an organisation. The idea of alignment is at the root of this ability – the Japanese concept of ikigai talks to the idea of motivation and reason for being. When the individual’s ikigai and the organisation’s ikigai are in sync, both find value and worth. When the ikigai of team members is aligned, they connect easily, commit to a common vision and work towards it with minimal friction.

Given how the ikigai of individuals radiates out into a team and an organisation, it is not surprising that personal reflection is a critical part of assessing leadership abilities. The competence to promote experimentation and to take risks in a safe-tofail environment encourages self-reflection, stimulates novel and adaptive thinking, and assists in overcoming habits that may restrict thinking. Whether at an individual or team level, the ability to celebrate shared or individual accomplishments is critical to improving performance – as is the ability to both give and take constructive criticism.

Layer 7: An awareness of alternative (emerging) workplace realities

Layer 7 is the outermost ring on the framework – cooperate, coordinate, collaborate. If, like Harold Jarche, we assume that a creative networked reality is opening up before us, then the role of management in such a system must adapt. The TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework assumes a future in which managerial leadership is ultimately focused on facilitating a creative networked learning environment. Critical characteristics of this emerging reality include being results-driven and building on trust, knowledge, credibility and a safe-to-fail work culture.

These characteristics are all conducive to developing a coordinated, collaborative, and/or cooperative workplace. Table 5 lists and describes these qualities, or workplace realities. They are underpinned by an exchange of energy among employees and employers resulting from higher levels of agreement and cooperation.

Most importantly, none of these three possible realities should be regarded as ‘the new normal’. Instead, emerging leaders should prepare themselves to manage in a non-normalised multi-layered tomorrow, in which the coordinated, collaborative and cooperative realities oscillate, depending on the context.

table 5: emerging workplace realities

emerging workplace reality

Coordinated

Defining characteristics

• Task and deadline driven.

• Action is taken based on specialist/expert knowledge, as promoted by an individual in a position of power.

emerging workplace reality

Collaborative

Cooperative

Defining characteristics

• There is a high level of engagement among members of a community.

• Ideas may be introduced by a central figure within the hierarchy and are explored and tested by participation.

• There is an attempt to amend/alter proposed business solutions to complex business challenges.

• Involves a self-directed choice to engage.

• Knowledge workers/artisans choose to engage and learn from others who have also chosen to participate.

• An abundance of knowledge, skills, potential and possibilities allows cocreation to flourish.

• There is a desire to transcend the boundaries of what is thought possible.

Source: The TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework

innovation through systems thinking: Does culture eat engagement for lunch?

Renowned management consultant Peter Drucker is often quoted as saying, ‘Culture eats strategy for breakfast’. His point is that the creation of a robust organisational culture is more likely to achieve success than any number of strategies. Culture is not, however, the only secret ingredient for fostering the collaboration and communication required in highinnovation organisations.

Da Vinci founder Bennie Anderson notes that culture can work against engagement if it is used as a tool to hide fears and insecurities, or as a means of blocking cooperation.

He shares how, in the early days of Da Vinci, a particular colleague preferred to be addressed according to his cultural custom.

‘If you did not address him in the right modality, as an elder, he did not engage. If you didn’t address him correctly and honour him as a senior, then the conversation didn’t go anywhere. So cultural engagements are something that we, as a people, are struggling with because throughout history we have developed cultures – be they at work, church, at home or at country level – to protect what is important to us as a grouping of individuals. So culture almost goes against engagement,’ Anderson notes.

The TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework addresses the potential for cultural loggerheads to form by noting that in order to encourage engagement, it is important to develop cultural fluidity, a sense of enquiry, the ability to accommodate the views of others while still deploying probing, reflective practices that encourage critiquing. Together, the anchoring points have the potential to support engagement.

Listening, which is related to reflection, is part of the process of navigating cultural constraints to innovation. Similarly, restraint is an aspect of emotional intelligence that is so critical in cross-cultural interactions and innovations. Restraint can prevent people from jumping in with opinions and observations just to get others interacting.

‘The intention of the TIPS™ framework is to offer pointers which, if they are played with, discussed and embedded in an organisation, have the potential to draw individuals into a state of engagement,’ says Anderson.

As important as this type of open engagement is within a country as culturally diverse as South Africa, it takes on particular importance when developing collaborations that span continents.

tips™ in action

The process of innovating does not follow straight lines and fixed patterns; it is often an ebb and flow of advancing, rethinking, reflecting, remodelling and adapting to new information and changing market forces. It is, if anything, a dance. That said, any good dance follows a few rules of form and style.

In the case of innovation management, the rules of the dance are encapsulated in the seven layers of the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework. The function and form of the TIPS™ framework were discussed at length in Section 3, but by way of a recap, the evolving competencies required of managerial leaders when leading innovation-driven businesses are listed below. These competencies appear in Layer 5, ‘Engaged, agile and aligned managerial leadership practices’, as shown in Figure 27 (Section 3) and Figure 30.

managerial leadership competencies that drive innovation

• Cross-cultural engagements: Being aware of self, others and the context, and the ways in which these might colour assumptions and responses.

• problem probing: An ability to facilitate the sharing of views and experiences about problems in order to create awareness and shared insights.

• operationalised ideation: The ability to make underlying design-thinking realities come alive.

• trans-disciplinary learning: The ability to understand concepts from multiple disciplines.

• Global and digital citizenship: Openness to becoming part of a global community of compassionate citizens who understand the power of numbers in co-creating a new understanding.

• Computational thinking: The capability to translate vast amounts of data into new, revised or alternative concepts and constructs, and incorporate this information into data-based reasoning.

• personal mastery: Self-knowledge, and an ability to extract deeper meaning from personal exchanges and events.

• probed reflective practice: A questioning approach to problems and the habit of reflecting on why things are the way they are, while envisaging how they could be.

• social and emotional intelligence: The ability to connect to self and others in a deep, direct and meaningful way.

Closely linked to the required managerial competencies are the resulting core leadership practices required of those at the helm. In this outer ring (see Figure 30) lies the magic elixir of leadership actions. Here the conversation turns to the ability to:

• facilitate conversations: Leverage all available talent and interests by consciously involving the relevant stakeholders in the process of problem probing.

• engage creative networks: Build a culture of trust, integrity and safety that provides fertile ground for sharing knowledge, welcoming diversity of thought and promoting experimentation without repercussions.

• promote experimentation: Encourage and support innovative thinking and risk taking in an environment that does not judge failure, but instead celebrates alternative contributions.

• Celebrate synergised accomplishments: Authentically acknowledge the successes and contributions of others (as well as one’s own) as a means of inspiring and invigorating all social actors.

• Co-create meaning: Seek ways in which to create synergy between individual purpose and the reason for the organisation’s existence; in the process, unlock avenues for personal expression, engagement and value creation.

• Co-create direction: Clarity of purpose can infuse an organisation when the vision is shared and lived by leaders. A clear sense of direction acts as a beacon, effectively guiding people towards personal achievement and organisational value.

In an attempt to better understand the real-world impact of these competencies and practices, and interrogate how an innovation journey could be successfully steered and scaled up, the chapters in this section record the experiences

and perspectives of entrepreneurs and innovators who have applied the TIPS™ framework to meet the needs of their organisations.

In Chapter 7 we focused on the theory behind this framework, but, as is so often the case, understanding the applicability of dry models and frameworks in the real world can be challenging to those on the ground, who have to deal with issues first hand.

At the heart of the TIPSTM framework is systems thinking; a discipline or philosophy that requires identifying patterns in events or data to discover the fundamental structures that direct events. Once the underlying structures have been identified and assessed, those that are not working can be changed. In this way, choices can be expanded and more successful processes can be initiated.

Thus a theory of change becomes necessary, in which each stage of a research project is described in relation to the overarching goal of the entire project. Taking the trouble to formulate a theory of change enables role players to determine the expectations of change associated with a given intervention, or series of interventions. The theory of change guides sound and evidence-based strategies when programmes are put in place.260

Following the TIPSTM framework enables a deep level of analysis, in which one zooms in and out to examine the micro, meso, exo and macro factors – with people, and not for them. As we will see from the real-world examples highlighted in this section, the application of the TIPS™ framework is an ongoing process that often happens incrementally as an organisation grows into itself. The successful management of technology, innovation and people is the end goal, requiring that managers develop strong leadership competencies and embed innovative thinking into all organisational activities.

United Nations Development Group. (n.d). Theory of Change: UNDAF Companion Guidance.

systems management – the national institute for the deaf

This chapter explores how the National Institute for the Deaf (NID) incorporated the TIPS™ framework to create a model that spoke directly to the organisation’s training needs, culture and challenges. This case study provides compelling insight into the practical considerations of embedding systems thinking into organisational transformation, highlighting how the theoretical framework applied to a specific set of circumstances in an educational setting.

The reflections on this unique training innovation were contributed by Dr Lientjie Janse van Rensburg-Welling, CEO of NID Training NPC, and Dr Jean Mitchell, Research Specialist at NID Training NPC.

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make inclusion and sustainable development part and parcel of every regional, national, and local endeavour. Against this backdrop, the TIPS™ framework was applied to the National Institute for the Deaf (NID) to make its training component more inclusive and commercial, thereby ensuring that it became a viable, financially sound entity offering relevant, industry-informed training courses to people with a variety of disabilities, not just the deaf. The results were encouraging, demonstrating the applicability of the TIPS™ framework to a range of social, civic and government settings.

The NID was created to tackle social preconceptions and the physical barriers that prevent individuals with hearing loss from finding meaningful employment and becoming active citizens.261 The dilemma facing the organisation in 2018–2019 was how best to facilitate sustainable training and employment pathways for unemployed youth who had hearing loss. This required a very clear understanding of who the NID hoped to help and the unique needs of this audience.

Despite its best efforts, between 2015 and 2018, the NID’s post-school training department for unemployed youth with hearing loss showed a decline in participation and fluctuating enrolment figures. It was evident that the training and business models in use at the time needed to be revised to reverse the decline; a theory of change was

261 Thill, S., Houssemand, C. & Pignault A. (2020). Effects of meaning in life and of work on health in unemployment. Health Psychology Open July-December 2020: 1–11.

needed. It was also clear that any new model had to consider the macro (broader environment), exo (regulatory), meso (sectorial) and micro (internal) factors affecting the NID, or risk diluting the potential impact of a transformed approach.

Using the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework as a guide, a systems approach was applied to make sense of the entire ecosystem impacting, and being impacted by, the NID Training Department. In the process of examining these aspects, the sub-systems at work were uncovered. This information – together with research conducted at the NID’s site in Worcester, South Africa – was used to reshape the NID’s approach to training and development in the context of the real-world challenges facing individuals with hearing loss in South Africa.262263

Hearing loss – an invisible disability

While there is no universal definition or uniform method of measuring disability, it cannot be disputed that people with disabilities are vulnerable and are often among the poorest of the poor.262 In addition to dealing with their physical and sometimes cognitive impairments, people with disabilities often have limited access to education.

Hearing loss is regarded as an invisible disability. Unlike persons using wheelchairs, white canes or guide dogs, people who are unable to identify sound cannot be easily identified, and their problems often go unnoticed. Children born with a hearing impairment are often not identified as having hearing difficulties for the first few years of their lives. By the time the problem is picked up, valuable time in the intellectual development process will have been lost, which may compromise the child’s social, school and working life for years to come.263

Understanding the context of disability and hearing loss in south africa

One of the intentions behind the research project conducted by the NID was to find ways to bridge the gap between the training and employment of young people with hearing loss. The NID was training students, but with little sense of what industry required. The rationale was that if students were offered programmes that trained them for positions that were actually needed in the workplace, they would stand a better chance of securing a job.

In 2019 the South African Human Rights Watch reported that while there were nearly 121 500 learners with disabilities who were attending mainstream schools in South Africa, about 600 000 children with disabilities were not enrolled in school.264 Even if people with disabilities do gain skills and find employment, they are less likely than their non-disabled peers to advance to managerial posts or get promoted.265 266 This seeming exclusion from meaningful employment results in people with disabilities falling into the lowest income groups in the country and being forced to depend on social assistance grants from the State.267

This reality caused the NID researchers to look beyond their micro level to the broader exo (regulatory), meso (partnerships) and macro (broader environment) systems that affected the NID. This required a period of intensive research.

Within the meso and exo systems, there were issues of financial sustainability to consider. It was important that the NID Training Department align its training programmes to the critical and scarce skills as identified by South Africa’s various Skills Education Training Authorities (SETAs), since the SETAs were responsible for disbursing levies collected from employers in their particular sectors and ensuring the quality of training interventions.268 The NID Training Department was mindful that sponsoring companies, which had to comply with various employment equity and skills development Acts, would benefit by knowing that prospective employees had received fit-for-purpose training.

262 World Bank. (2022). Disability inclusion.

263 Camarata, S., Werfel, K., Davis, T. Hornsby, B. W. Y. & Bess, F. H. (2018). Language Abilities, Phonological Awareness, Reading Skills, and Subjective Fatigue in School-Age Children with Mild to Moderate Hearing Loss. Exceptional Children, 84(4) pp 420–436. doi: 10.1177/0014402918773.

264 Human Rights Watch, (May 24, 2019) South Africa: Children with Disabilities Shortchanged: Adopt Free, Inclusive Education for All.

265 Van der Merwe, L., Sutton, L. & Taunyane, S. (2017). Fact Sheet: People with disabilities. SABPP.

266 Republic of South Africa (RSA). (2019). Statistics on Post-School Education and Training in South Africa: 2017.

267 Maart, S., Amosun, S. & Jelsma, J. (2019). Disability prevalence-context matters: A descriptive community-based survey. African Journal of Disability 8(0): a512. doi: 10.4102/ajod.v8i0.512.

268 Rorich, M.A. (2022, June 3). The role of the SETAs in South Africa. Mind Your Business.

At the micro system level, the review process highlighted a number of challenges. These included:

• the medium of learning. At the time, programmes were being run in English, but many students could not speak or read English. In addition, many had poor problem-solving and mathematical skills. Thus, their academic achievement was compromised. It was evident that these skills should not be assumed to exist, but had to form part of the NID curriculum. Teaching skills varied widely among the facilitators. The students valued facilitators who had extensive content knowledge, presented training material in an organised manner, and provided clear explanations in class; those who used or attempted to use South African Sign Language (SASL) during their sessions were especially favoured.

• a teaching strategy aligned to impact. Curriculum differentiation emerged as a necessary teaching strategy to ensure that lessons resulted in meaningful learning. Students had different levels of ability, and a one-size-fits-all approach by facilitators was not working. Facilitation had to be student-centred and clearly move students from one level of understanding to the next. This required different kinds and levels of input, tasks and intended outcomes, so that content, teaching and assessment methods were properly matched with students’ needs. In addition, the curriculum had to include workplace readiness and sensitisation to prepare students for the workplace.

• Building in practical experience. It was determined that introducing students to authentic workplace experiences early on in their training, and involving employers in all aspects of their training, would boost the success of the training programmes. When employers are informed of the characteristics of hearing loss and the effect it can have on an individual, they become more open to employing people with hearing loss and providing reasonable accommodation prior to and throughout the NID Training programme.

• Helping students take ownership of their learning journeys. It became clear that more attention had to be paid to securing the commitment and buy-in of the students themselves. Many students were not aware of their strengths and weaknesses, or of the effect these characteristics could have on their performance. Students needed to work towards creating and achieving their own socio-emotional, educational and career goals.

applying the tipstm managerial leadership framework

The NID research project, as it focussed on creating an entirely new training entity and ecosystem, centred on the following aspects of the TIPSTM model:

• management of technology

• management of innovation

• management of people

In addition, the management of systems also came into consideration due to the broader systemic issues at play in the NID.

Management of technology

Throughout the NID research project, technology was used and managed in order to retrieve and store information and research data. When the original NID College Model was in use, South African Sign Language (SASL) interpreters were easily accessed because the SASL Training Department was situated on the NID campus. However, the new training model meant that students were accommodated at various training sites in the country, where interpreters were not in plentiful supply. To overcome this challenge, technology was harnessed to establish a SASL interpreters’ hub that makes use of internet connections to provide SASL interpreting services to all students with hearing loss at all training sites. It proved to be a cost-effective way to provide SASL interpreting to single students using their own PCs, or to a class via a data projector. The interpreter communicated with the facilitator before the lesson to collaborate on the content and signs for difficult concepts. As the lesson progressed, simultaneous interpreting occurred, and students were able to interact with the interpreter, their classmates, and the facilitator.

This digital innovation made it easier to provide interpreting services to all students, no matter where they were. The broader application possibilities of this innovation are endless; SASL interpreting services can now be provided in the education sector, banks, the South African Revenue Service, South African Police Service, the courts, and medical and emergency services. The innovation could also be built on to create cellphone apps that provide immediate interpreting services to individual users.

Management

Through this intervention, the NID Training Department was able to transform from a social model dependent on donor funding and goodwill to a commercial business support model providing services to the NID and other entities.

The training component of the NID is now able to offer services to corporate South Africa to help companies meet their Employment Equity and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) targets. Thus, a win-win situation has been established, since corporate entities, in return, are also willing to sponsor students to improve their social responsibility obligations.

Management of people

The intervention focussed on the well-being of students, facilitators, employees and employers. Since the results of the research revealed the many requirements for training students with hearing loss, appropriate changes could be made to curriculum content and facilitation styles, which had an immediate impact on the lives of all involved. A new ‘quantification of human capital’ framework was developed as part of the re-skilling of facilitators.

Management of systems

The research highlighted the need to redesign the NID Training Department. Having arrived at that conclusion, the intervention involved the strategic decision to reconstitute the old training department as a new independent, autonomous non-profit company, offering training to a far broader cohort of students. It became inclusive and collaborative, entering into relationships with a number of outside entities.

In 2020, two new training courses were developed in conjunction with two large companies, and a cooperation agreement was entered into with a local Technical Vocational Education and Training college. Unfortunately, the latter relationship was short-lived when the national Covid-19 lockdown was declared in March 2020.

However, undeterred by the outbreak of the global pandemic, the new National Institute for Development and Training (NIDT) was established, offering training opportunities in different parts of the country.

the impact of a new training ethos

As a result of adopting a new, strategic training ethos, the culture of the NID shifted quite dramatically. Instead of depending on donor funding and the goodwill of benefactors, the non-profit organisation changed to a commercialised business model, which helped to address the broader challenge of meeting employment targets and employment equity.

The outlook was broadened; instead of focusing only on people with hearing loss, the new training entity now offered services to students with different types of disabilities, as may be seen in Figure 31. As a result, the NIDT began to address the real needs of far more students as well as corporate entities. Businesses began to provide funds for student training and offered gainful employment once students had completed their training. In return, businesses achieved their skills development and B-BBEE targets.

Using the language of the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework, the following considerations were noteworthy during the transformation journey:

• Cross-cultural engagements increased significantly as students from more areas and with different disabilities were recruited and trained. In response to this shift, the NIDT’s occupational training centre relocated to an area in Cape Town that would enable more students from different backgrounds to enrol.

• The decision to become an independent, autonomous non-profit company, with training opportunities located in different parts of the country, was fraught with problems. Financing for the entity and for students had to be secured, along with office space, training facilities, sponsorships, internships, and a host of other necessities. In accordance with the TIPS™ framework, each problem was interrogated collaboratively with the relevant board members, staff and stakeholders, and solutions were tested before action was taken. Ideas such as that of relocating and transferring students were thoroughly investigated and discussed, and every effort was made to be minimally disruptive. For example, employees whose family considerations meant they could not move from Worcester to the NID’s new location in Cape Town were accommodated in new distance learning offices in Worcester, with improved internet connectivity to ensure

seamless communication.

• The extension of training to students with various disabilities also meant that facilitation and management staff had to learn to communicate and accommodate the various challenges faced by all students. This developed and exercised their social and emotional intelligence

• More programmes on offer in more training sites called for trans-disciplinary thinking as well as learning.

• The facilitators who seemed most affected and challenged were those who were themselves hearing impaired. When all students were hearing impaired, these facilitators could relate to their students because of their shared use of sign language and deaf culture. However, interacting with students with other disabilities has proved difficult for these facilitators, and more investigation and training is necessary to achieve their personal mastery and confidence

• The growth in the number of students, programmes and training venues has increased the need for computational thinking in order to cope with the logistics that this entails.

• Regular reflection on progress and practices aided problem-solving. The process is still underway, and there are times when the pressure of establishing the new entity has meant that decisions have been taken without the necessary time for reflection.

Source: NIDT

As a result of the changes introduced as part of this new, inclusive model, the new NIDT gained access to a larger universe of students (see Figure 32). Since the NIDT’s target student population represented people with different disabilities, it was possible to empower larger numbers of unemployed young people with disabilities by enabling them to access training and, as a consequence, find meaningful employment. The new model also positioned the organisation to interact with business and funding entities in a much more comprehensive way than had been possible under the NID Training Department.

figure 28: student profile of niD training 2020–2021

figure 29: niD student demographics for 2020–2021

Source: National Institute for the Deaf Annual Report 2021

a model for other training institutions

The new ecosystemic model of the NID provides a blueprint for how training providers and employers can collaborate to improve the unemployment rate among youth with disabilities. What has been achieved, however, is by no means final, as the NIDT journey is still underway. New challenges will inevitably surface, and NIDT management and staff will need to be alert to trends among training institutions, students and employers, in order to remain relevant.

The continued focus must therefore be on maintaining and extending close cooperation with other training providers, industry and government entities, with a strong focus on bridging the scarce skills gap. For this, regular, open sharing of information is needed. Ideally, all stakeholders in the NIDT network see themselves as collaborators on a broad mission to address the country’s high unemployment rate, together creating accessible avenues into gainful employment.

The training ecosystem identified and instituted through this research-driven intervention is not unique to the NIDT; it can easily be applied to other training providers.

In the newly developed arrangement, the NIDT is the main training provider, contracting partners to assist when it does not have the teaching capacity or other resources to offer a particular programme. It, therefore, plays a strong coordinating role, managing the process from recruitment to certification of students, mentorship and students’ absorption into the workplace. This end-to-end oversight of the entire process talks to the systemic understanding embedded in the new model. This was made possible by an application of the TIPS™ framework.

fast forward to 2023: introducing south african sign language at Da vinci

When President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the South African Sign Language Bill into law on 19 July 2023, he made South African Sign Language (SASL) the 12th official language in South Africa. This brought to an end a 25-year campaign to have SASL acknowledged as a language. The Da Vinci Institute for Technology had been active in this regard and in 2022 introduced SASL as part of an additional elective for the Higher Certificate in the Management of Technology and Innovation.

From mid-2022, the Da Vinci Institute began working with the National Institute for the Deaf to create an accredited programme that would provide all management students with a basic proficiency in SASL.

Dr Mario Landman, Dean: Design at The Da Vinci Institute, explains that the result was a ‘well-balanced module that has come a long way … It’s truly unique in this country.’

The elective carries 15 credits. Managements students who enrol for this elective can expect to build on the knowledge and skills they gain through further interaction with native users in various social and business contexts.

‘Ultimately, sign language is key to real inclusion in the workplace and can be used not only for engagement and expression but also to enhance the basic human rights of both employees and customers through improved communication,’ explained Landman. ‘This module will also serve as a primer for students seeking to pursue formal development in SASL proficiency in the future.’

on completion of the module students should be able to:

• Utilise appropriate basic grammar, vocabulary, and signing techniques associated with SASL in order to manage and engage with members of the deaf community more effectively.

• Apply the conventions of situational discourse in order to effectively communicate in a variety of social and workplace contexts utilising SASL.

• Effectively interpret signs and gestures associated with the core vocabulary of the SASL.

• Use SASL as a means to promote inclusivity within the workplace.

management of innovation, people and technology –flightscope

Sometimes, innate business acumen and an innovation mindset, coupled with a focus on people and an eye for new opportunities, find their right expression, even without a model or theoretical basis to follow. This was the case for FlightScope, the 2022 tt100 award winner for Management of Innovation in the large enterprises category. Amidst the pandemic lockdown in 2020, the FlightScope team spotted an opportunity to move into sports simulation software for consumers who, barred from the golf course and confined to the house, were yearning to keep improving their golf game remotely. The expensive technologies used by professional golfers were too pricey for the average golfer’s pocket, coming in at between US$10 000 and US$20 000 for a single unit. So the Stellenbosch-based sports performance measurement company adapted its existing simulation software to create a new product line for the recreational golfer. Its solution was around 10 to 20 times cheaper than the professional version.

Reflecting on the response from customers, FlightScope’s Chief Technology Officer, Tom Johnson, said, ‘We have photographs of our customers with setups in their basements, garages, living rooms and gardens; it was fun to see.’269

What defined this win was not only the innovative agility of the FlightScope team, but the fact that they could build on an existing innovation and adapt it to changing conditions. FlightScope had already made waves in the mid-1990s with its speedball system (used in cricket) and with the development of the ‘3D Doppler Ball Tracking Monitor’, a golf ball tracking technology invented by Tom Johnson’s brother, Henry, CEO and founder of FlightScope. In 2003, FlightScope launched its golf simulators; in 2004, its tennis serve speed simulators began being used at Davis Cup events, and in 2011, the company’s X-series wireless, battery-powered golf tracking system with smartphone software was launched. This was a company underpinned by ongoing, steady innovation in a niche field.

In 2008, FlightScope shifted its headquarters to Orlando, Florida, in the United States, although its South African roots remain strong. The company also has subsidiaries in Poland, Japan, the United Kingdom and South Korea. ‘We almost act as one company

269 tt100. (2023, October 23). Flightscope.

but with different operational entities in various countries because, internationally, you need to set up structures so you can export in a legal and proper commercial way,’ Johnson said.

At the time of writing, FlightScope had around 90 staff in South Africa and about 250 internationally.

Intuitively, it seems FlightScope’s development mirrored the multi-touchpoint model exemplified by the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework.

Speaking to The Smarter Edge, Tom Johnson noted that the TIPS™ framework was unknown to FlightScope when they entered the tt100 awards.

‘When we went through the online questionnaire, many of the questions were framed according to the TIPS™ thinking, so we had to map ourselves and our own thinking to that. So we weren’t TIPS™ by design – we had to map ourselves into the TIPS™, and try to answer as honestly as we could about what we do. To be honest, some of the things were natural for us and others we weren’t familiar with. As a company that is entrepreneurial, we didn’t really have a model to work with; we were just winging it, working hard and taking chances. So, when we won the award for being innovative, it came as a bit of a surprise, because we were doing this by accident, rather than by design.’

Following the award, the tt100 team met with FlightScope to discuss how they could use the TIPS™ framework to provide even more structure and strategic thinking to their approach. The team took many of the ideas to heart and, at the time of writing, were assessing ways to make their internal processes more efficient.

The company found that it was sometimes hard to reconcile on-the-ground, day-to-day business decisions with an academic framework like TIPS™, especially when one is trying to sort out challenges and problems on the fly. Johnson said, ‘What we try to do, to provide structure, is to get people like myself in the company who are systematic thinkers. We are currently working very hard at designing, improving and automating our internal business procedures. It is a good thing to do; you can’t assume that just by making fewer mistakes, you’ll automatically become more efficient. That’s a general thing for any business, even if you make pizzas.’

That said, Johnson noted that in addition to sticking closely to the ISO 9001 Quality Management System guidelines, FlightScope was continually mapping itself on the TIPS™ framework. This was helping them identify areas of the business – such as people management processes – where more attention was needed. In the world of technology and innovation, talented individuals with high-level problem-solving abilities are in demand, so it pays to find ways of attracting, retaining and advancing them. This means more than just offering a competitive financial package. Employees want to feel valued, but they also want to work in an environment that is interesting and supportive in a variety of ways. Globally, this aspect is receiving more attention.

In terms of the ISO framework, Johnson felt that the focus on achieving quality of processes and products had ‘come a long way from the old days of inspectors in white coats looking at quality’. He praised the 2015 iteration of the ISO Quality Management standard for its clarity. However, the ISO system did not elaborate on ways to handle specific aspects of people management. Fortunately, the TIPS™ framework fills this gap, highlighting the importance of people-centric management capabilities such as collaborating to solve problems, engaging across cultures, applying trans-disciplinary thinking and learning, and regular reflection. These were areas of particular interest to Johnson and the FlightScope leadership team.

As an indication of the seriousness with which the company was approaching the people management aspect of the business, FlightScope introduced the Willis Towers Watson salary survey, which looks at salaries and job ratings, career levels and other factors to determine how well people are operating and at what level. This enabled the company to benchmark itself against the broader industry. ‘The Watson framework impressed me greatly, because you can actually see what people are supposed to be doing,’ said Johnson. It also helps to steer managers away from preconceived notions and assumptions. Johnson noted that frameworks like TIPS™ and the Willis Towers Watson salary survey hold great value for companies wanting to reflect on and improve their systems, and, in this case, establish an even more people-orientated culture.

spotlight on people management

When it comes to the effective management of technology, the TIPS™ framework highlights the management of people as a critical component for success. The starting point, as FlightScope found when they mapped their model to the TIPS™ framework, was identifying the challenge and then evaluating the leadership and managerial competencies needed to support this critical pillar (see Figure 33).

For FlightScope, practical communication among a global team comprising different languages and cultures was a challenge. They were able to overcome this challenge by making extensive use of technologies such as video conferencing, document sharing over the cloud and software-based systems that allowed teams spread across countries to collaborate on specifications and iron out bugs.

Johnson noted that through the use of these tools, tasks could be clearly outlined, roles could be clarified and expectations of roles could be standardised across the group. Having periodic strategic meetings between the marketing and development teams also helped to get everyone on the same page about pending and ongoing projects.

‘So we’ve more or less sorted out how to collaborate across the world,’ noted Johnson, highlighting the fluidity they had tried to build into this approach. ‘Ours are rather multi-disciplinary teams, rather than people working in siloes. Yes, it is specialised, but you don’t see a siloed effect. The lines of communication are clearly established and technically the product has clear interfaces,’ he explained.

To support this multi-disciplinary group of people, the leadership approach and organisational structure had to be geared towards getting employees to take ownership of their roles and, as a result, enjoy greater freedom and flexibility. Explaining their approach, Johnson noted that team leaders were appointed in various roles not to give direction, but to coordinate and ‘unplug any stoppages’. He said, ‘You expect people to be intelligent enough to get on with it. As we get larger, we might need more directed management, but it’s a low level of direction for now. We lean towards less formal leadership, where we

figure 30: identifying work-based challenges as per the tips™ managerial leadership framework

Source: The DaVinci Institute for Technology Management

give objectives and then make ourselves available and visible to staff so they can ask or tell.’

He said this was an open approach aligned to the organisation’s culture and required a good fit between employees and the company. The leadership style was conducive to ongoing innovation, which was encouraged through recognition in the form of an ‘innovator of the month’ accolade, as well as incentives and bonuses of different sizes. Their secret sauce, they say, is an all-inclusive approach to brainstorming.

‘We think up our own products, so often someone will come up with an idea but not necessarily touch on every aspect, since our products are pretty complex. That’s where the brainstorming really helps, as it opens the door to questions like: Where will the power come from? Or how about we do it like this? Or how will this be manufactured? These conversations help us to better define our innovations. Some ideas make it to the starting post and some die because of that brainstorming, but everyone has the ability to speak up. Because of the long experience we have with our staff, we have really great ideas coming together in a pretty informal way. But it’s not a black-and-white process about product specifications. We talk about things and come up with ideas and share thoughts.’

An important consideration in people management is how a company motivates and builds the careers of individuals. This becomes particularly interesting when, as with FlightScope, employees’ talents are highly unique and in demand. What keeps employees engaged at FlightScope is the nature and frequency of the innovations they come up with, and the attractive profit share and bonuses that employees enjoy.

‘We try to reward people for being here, and we don’t have shareholders on the side looking to grab the money,’ says Johnson. ‘There is an opportunity to travel internationally, and our staff love the opportunity to go to Korea or Australia or the United Kingdom. So, this is an incentive.’

However, beyond attractive bonuses, Johnson still wants to embed a culture that becomes the main drawcard for working at FlightScope. ‘I like to come to work in the morning because I’m excited about the interesting things to do and the challenges we face. That is the culture I’d like to get here. To find out what makes people tick. I want people to want to work here because it’s interesting and fun, and they can be proud of the fact that we’ve changed the face of golf in the world.’

flightscope’s take on managing intellectual property on the world stage

As an international company that spans borders and markets, managing intellectual property (IP) remains an essential aspect of the FlightScope business. Chief Technology Officer Tom Johnson says they must consider all stakeholders, from suppliers and staff to customers and shareholders, to keep the company healthy and growing. This means constantly looking to the future to determine where the company’s value will be best protected.

While most of FlightScope’s IP is resident in South Africa, in recent years the company has been funding product development through its overseas subsidiaries, which become the default owners of the resultant IP. From the perspective of a possible sale of the company in the future, there are decided benefits to insulating new IP from the restrictions imposed by South Africa’s exchange control rules. (For more on this, see Section 8, ‘Reflections’).

a two-pronged approach

While IP assets are increasingly established overseas, the company’s development teams are situated in South Africa and Poland. Both countries offer an attractive knowledge development base that is more affordable than a country like Germany or the United States.

Poland and South Africa are remarkably similar in terms of salaries and costs. However, from a manufacturing perspective, South Africa’s niche position as a manufacturer of small- to medium-sized electronics has given FlightScope ‘a very good vantage point’, according to Johnson. ‘It has basically made our competitiveness better than our competitors based in Denmark, the United States and Canada.’

South Africa proved a good springboard for the company when it was small- to medium-sized, but as FlightScope has grown, it has been necessary to adopt a more globally-focused lens. Johnson noted that this need not be true for every South African start-up. ‘When you overcome your anxiety about being far away from [markets like] America, there’s nothing wrong with manufacturing from South Africa. In fact, it’s a benefit.’

macro and exo challenges

Johnson said there was far more that South Africa could do to capitalise on its advantages of cost completeness, skills availability and access to a range of industries operating in a diversified economy. Unfortunately, the combination of macro level policies, culture and international relations issues, coupled with the exo level impact of local regulations, are making this increasingly challenging.

‘As a small-to-medium-sized company in South Africa, doing technology that we almost exclusively export to sell in the rest of the world, we feel very lonely,’ observed Johnson. ‘Maybe we should just be looking more for government cushioning or government support, but all we are faced with on a day-to-day basis is Companies Act legislation, environmental compliance battles, imports and exports challenges, South African Revenue Service stuff and the money laundering legislation. We feel that the structures and systems at the national and provincial government level are not there to support companies like ourselves. We are very much left to our own devices. I don’t know how to fix it – I’m just saying we feel very lonely!’

Tapping into government subsidies had not proved a successful route for FlightScope in the past. ‘We find it isn’t worth the trouble, to be honest,’ said Johnson. ‘So, we fund ourselves and do our best. Regulatory and compliance issues will drive you crazy, and we do these things, but it takes productive time away from innovating, from thinking of new developments, from strategizing, marketing and growing.’

As an exporter, FlightScope finds the red tape and bureaucracy involved incredibly challenging. ‘We get value added tax (VAT) back every period, but because it is such an uncommon thing for South African companies to get VAT back, and because it’s grown quite substantially as we’ve grown, we are audited every time. Every time we need to produce paperwork. They are not making it easy to export and earn dollars for this country. Those are the things that get to you.

‘I’m not going anywhere; I’m going to stay here, but you’re sometimes pushed to the point of thinking about it and talking about it. Somehow things are not made easier for smaller and medium companies, and particularly entrepreneurial companies.’

Conversely, Johnson noted that the United States was ‘fantastic’ as a business destination. ‘This last year, in Florida, the state collected enough tax, so they refunded tax we’d already paid. Have you ever heard of a government giving back tax? That blows your mind and it shows what can be done.’

management of innovation and people –whc solutions

In 2006, Paseka Lesolang, founder and MD of Water Hygiene Convenience (WHC) Solutions, invented the Leak-Less Valve™, a technology designed to plug the widespread issue of toilet leakages. A household with leaking toilets wastes between 30 and 700 litres of water a day – roughly the equivalent of seven bathtubs of water, according to WHC.270 Lesolang’s solution works by preventing water from entering the toilet’s cistern when the level reaches a specific point. During an interview with SABC News in 2015, Lesolang recalled how the idea for the innovation came to him during a visit to his grandmother’s house in Ga-Rankuwa, Gauteng province. Annoyed by the constant noise from her toilet’s cistern, and realising that the noise stopped when the water supply was cut off, he decided to apply his mind to fixing the problem.

The more he thought about it, the more Lesolang began to realise the sheer scale of the problem.

‘Since we are living in a semi-arid country, and according to the Department of Water and Sanitation, by 2025 our water consumption might exceed availability of supply, this was a huge concern to me. So I started doing something about it. Instead of complaining, I found a solution,’ recalled Lesolang. He demonstrated his invention at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research’s 2015 Innovation Bridge Technology Showcase and Matchmaking event in Pretoria.271

Lesolang went on to develop a prototype in his grandmother’s garage, managed to patent the idea and, with financing help from the Industrial Development Corporation, created a thriving business that now collaborates with plumbers and toilet manufacturers, and supplies large South African retailers such as Builder’s Warehouse, Game and Makro.272

The WHC Leak-Less Valve™ has been endorsed by local and global institutions such as the South African Bureau of Standards and the German Development Agency.273

Lesolang’s innovation ultimately saw the establishment of WHC, which has evolved over the years into an award-winning water management solutions company that now spans borders. In 2014, Lesolang was the recipient of the Da Vinci Institute Award for Excellence in the Management of Systems and, in 2015, he was named winner of the Green City StartUp initiative.

As a relatively young business, WHC is still refining its approach to systems management, seeking a balance between managing existing technology, developing innovations, and embedding productive people practices into its operations. Lesolang believes they are doing pretty well in this regard. ‘It’s very intertwined, and I believe we’ve found a fairly decent balance,’ he told The Smarter Edge

a strong internal focus

It helps that the technology for which WHC is known – the benchmark Leak-Less Valve™ – is a straightforward product with the ability to improve lives and save water. This automatically aligns the business and its operations behind a clear mission.

‘We train people in the assembly of our technology all the way to certified plumbing and installation, and we also quantify our impact, by calculating the amount of water people save by installing our technology,’ explains Lesolang. ‘So our people drive the ethos of what we do. Without the technology, we wouldn’t be able to quantify the impact, and without the people, we wouldn’t be able to scale our business.’

270 SABC News. (2015, February 2). Paseka Lesolang has invested WHC – Leak-Less Value™. YouTube.

271 SABC News. (2015, February 2).

272 Qukula, Q. (2018, September 25). How the IDC helped this entrepreneur get his water-saving invention in SA stores. CapeTalk.

273 WHC Solutions. (2022). WHC Water Management Solutions: Your step towards water efficiency.

Lesolang admits that the management of other innovations is slightly less developed, possibly because WHC is focused on driving the uptake and impact of an existing product in line with specific community and sustainability needs. However, he notes that they ‘continuously innovate on matters related to process and implementation, channelling our resources towards the end result. So we are not stuck in a loop of consistently just innovating for the sake of it.’

When they do focus on a new product or innovation, the WHC team has a clear process in place for carrying the innovation from ideation to design, prototyping, piloting, manufacturing and commercialising. ‘That’s the process we manage, and then we start all over again with another product. So most of the resources and activities are channelled to the people and the impact, with the innovation process taking place iteratively,’ explains Lesolang.

leading from the front

The practice of constantly improving and refining the business’s micro systems extends to how Lesolang applies the finer points of management to his leadership style. Having interacted with Da Vinci’s Bennie Anderson, and as a tt100 award winner, he knows that constantly developing one’s competencies as a leader is essential to managing people, innovation and technology.

For instance, Lesolang has embedded a specific approach to problem-solving that aligns all new ideas with the company’s ethos and focus area. Lesolang explains that even within this structure, he still makes space to follow the magic.

‘I have my design team, my research and development team, and then there’s me – and I consider myself an innovator. My team will go through a process which is very structured, but I am more of a “gut feel” person,’ he says.

Outlining the innovation process in more detail, Lesolang explains: ‘Once we have defined a particular challenge to address, we go through a brainstorming session, which I do by myself first. I list all the ways to innovate to create a solution and then hand this over to my research and development team.

‘Then, based on my input, they go through a structured process to determine the disadvantages and advantages of each solution, the cost applications, the timeframe required to develop such a solution, and the viability of one solution versus others. At a high level, I will have considered the other solutions on the market. They follow through on the TRL [technology readiness levels],274 starting from the concept to prototyping, 3D printing and piloting, and so forth, until we get to commercialisation.

‘As the leader of the company, I then move into the commercial side of things: I facilitate the resources, mobilise the resources to get it to commercialisation, interact with the stakeholders, get it to market, and I do the business side of things.’

Developing innovation capabilities in people within this framework is an unfolding story, and one that Lesolang finds challenging from an organisational culture perspective. He believes people from financially insecure communities are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding and implementing innovation management systems. This has implications for the people he hires and how he develops talent in the company.

‘People in those communities are still trying to deal with predominantly bread and butter issues, so it’s hard to introduce innovation to people who are not yet able to embrace it,’ he says. ‘It also seems the older generation is, generally, the least aspirational and open to change.’

These typical cultural aspects pose challenges to some cross-cultural engagements in WHC, and continue to demand Lesolang’s attention. Like many leaders, he finds working with people ‘tricky’, noting that it is sometimes hard to find talented individuals who resonate with the company’s culture and dynamics.

‘Some people back away from a challenge; they are comfortable in their comfort zone and back away. So innovating is not for the faint-hearted,’ says Lesolang. ‘You need a certain personality and a certain attitude. So, the leadership of a company like ours, which constantly has to evolve, requires certain personalities. That’s how I have the conversation with them; I expose them to what I’m exposed to and I gradually increase the intensity. The higher the endurance, the easier it is to hand over leadership responsibilities.’

Until he finds someone ‘who is of a higher calibre than I am’, Lesolang will continue to be hands-on in the business. He makes time to develop his own competencies, reflect on lessons learned and foster a transdisciplinary approach.

‘I’m an advocate of personal development. I mean, if you’re not growing, you’re dying. Besides, I’m very inquisitive – I literally want to know anything and everything,’ he admits. ‘It’s important to keep learning and to keep increasing the capacity and

274 Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) refers to a measurement system used to determine the level of advancement of a particularly technology based on various parameters. A TRL of 1 would be least advanced and a TRL of 9 would be well-developed.

competency in the space of innovation. This means connecting the dots among and between different perspectives, different contexts, and sometimes even seemingly opposing positions.’

Lesolang has completed a variety of courses, including a business crash course with the University of Colorado, an innovation course with Stanford Business School, a project management course with IE University Business School in Spain, and a business leadership and sustainability course with Rutgers University in the United States.

The latter helped him strengthen all-important global connections by opening doors to related sectors. ‘Because of my relationship with Rutgers University, I recently conducted training for a community in agrivoltaics,275 because one professor from the agricultural space and another from the solar or photovoltaics276 space were fascinated by some of the innovations I thought of while I was there. So, we created an agrivoltaics concept with a touch of blockchain,’ says Lesolang.

‘This snowballed after I had been selected to take part in the Rutgers course as a Mandela Washington Fellow, which is an initiative of the United States and South Africa, where they invite young leaders across the African continent to study overseas. More than 700 000 candidates are considered and a pool of 700 are selected annually. I happened to be one of them.’

external (macro and exo) challenges

Having enjoyed this level of engagement and exposure to innovative businesses and thinking outside South Africa, Lesolang is increasingly aware of the disconnect between the micro (internal) drivers of his business and the macro (broader external) system as a whole.

‘I’ve been fortunate enough to be exposed to both the West and the East, as far as innovation, technology and people management goes. I have engaged with my peers from the West and the East on how swiftly they would progress or stagnate on the basis of these dynamics. As a result, I’ve often felt that within a more engaged ecosystem or environment, I would have flourished more. Unfortunately, these dynamics are often worlds apart, and they operate in silos. That makes it very frustrating,’ he admits.

With its strong focus on relieving real-world problems, WHC Solutions takes part in debates and forums, both local and global, to address issues of water scarcity and sustainability. However, Lesolang feels they could play a more significant role in the exo (regulatory) environment.

‘We recently had an opportunity to influence policy and, unfortunately, we didn’t follow through on it as thoroughly as we should have. The reason is it’s a very long process, which requires time and resources. We went as high as engaging with the Department of Water and Sanitation, and we were also invited by USAID277 to participate in influencing policy, but the timeframe and the requirements did not guarantee any outcomes per se.’

The enforcement of by-laws does have a direct impact on the growth of Lesolang’s business – sometimes in their favour and sometime against them.

‘Recently, we spoke to one of the largest water consumers in South Africa – the mining industry. They understand the need to reduce their water consumption based on the by-laws, and we are providing a solution for them to reduce water use outside of their mining operations. This is where the “exo” comes in. The same by-laws that could have worked against us from a manufacturing perspective now work for us as we persuade a prospect to procure our product and our service,’ he explains. Lesolang admits that WHC still responds reactively to regulatory issues, because of limited resources to commit to greater exo engagements.

He says that lack of control over the macro environment can be a source of frustration for a young, patriotic South African entrepreneur.

‘There are individuals like myself, we are still here because we love South Africa. I mean, we could be anywhere,’ says Lesolang. ‘I was in Silicon Valley and I got the opportunity to meet Kimbal Musk, brother to Elon Musk.278 I asked Kimbal what advice he would give to a young South African entrepreneur who is innovative and wants to create an impact around the world. He looked at me with a straight face and he told me: “Get out.” That’s what I battle with daily.’

275 Agrivoltaics is a concept that combines solar farms with agricultural output, often in the forms of berries or fruits that grow on the land, usually underneath the solar panels for shade and protection from the elements.

276 Photovoltaic energy is the technology behind solar panels and renewable energy derived from the sun’s rays.

277 USAID is the acronym for the Unites States Agency for International Development, one of the largest official aid bodies in the world.

278 Kimbal Musk is the owner of The Kitchen Restaurant Group in the United States and the brother of Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX, and the owner of the X social media platform. Both brothers were born in Pretoria, South Africa.

management of technology – analytics advertising

Talifhani

‘Mr Banks’ Mamafha is a man who wears many hats. He is the founder of the Analytics X group, the umbrella technology creation organisation of which Analytics Advertising is a part. Founded in 2017, Analytics Advertising uses technology to analyse data and extract insights. It does so by drawing on large datasets from a variety of sources and integrating the data in such a way that clients can understand trends, spot emerging futures and solve current business challenges.

In 2021 and 2022, Analytics Advertising was named winner of the tt100 Management of Technology Award in the medium enterprise category. The tt100 Awards recognise excellence in innovation practices, technological prowess and the application of the TIPS™ Managerial Leadership Framework. Mamafha was also named BRICS Entrepreneur of the Year in 2022 and, in the same year, won the Empowered Entrepreneur category at Topco Media’s Top Empowerment Conference.

While Analytics Advertising is a data company, Analytics X has an altogether bigger game plan in mind. In 2022, Mamafha stepped back from his hands-on role as CEO of Analytics Advertising, entrusting the role to his wife, Pabalelo. This freed him up to focus on the bigger picture, and what he perceives to be the greatest challenge currently facing Africa: connectivity.

Mamafha wants to solve this problem through technology, both in terms of analytics and hardware. His vision is to be ‘a thought leader in digital inclusion’.

Building technological solutions for africa

Technology lies at the heart of the Analytics X offering. At the time of writing, in 2023, the group was working on a new project in Zimbabwe, a cement stock management solution closely connected to the end-user. The system tracks monthly orders and automates the tracking of rebates and discounts for each client over the month. It also centralises and automates the process of ordering, enabling the cement producer to manufacture on demand. This puts the producer in control of the process. This application, notes Mamafha, is as much about the innovation itself as it is about the effective management of the innovation. Its success arises from the deep level of engagement that preceded it, which enabled Analytics X to understand the client’s needs, and the client’s customers’ needs, to devise a tech solution that addressed both meso and micro problems.

Analytics X also creates and manages other technologies, such as JamiiTrade,279 a platform that enables inter-continental trade. Mamafha hopes to build on the opportunities being unlocked by the establishment of the African Continental Free Trade Area. The creation of this platform speaks not only to Mamafha’s awareness of developments in the macro (external) and exo (regulatory) environments but also his innate ability to draw on transdisciplinary thinking to create technological solutions.

Mamafha explains: ‘We may just be using technology to solve different problems, but for us to be able to solve a problem like continental trade, we have to understand that this is a transactional issue, a logistics issue, an infrastructure dilemma and an issue of competitive advantages for different companies. We have to understand the whole system to create a solution that enables all parts to work together, and then roll it out.’

Rewarding high performers

While Mamafha is an innate innovator and motivator, it was during his time at Da Vinci in 2020–2021 that he was exposed to the TIPS™ framework and began to ‘adapt the learnings, because I started realising all of these things work together – it’s system thinking.

‘You have to make sure the management of the system, the management of technology and the management of innovation is all connected, along with the management of people. I started improving on that, and that’s what made things work. Now, I don’t have to be in this office. I come here once a week, but apart from that I don’t have to be here for Analytics Advertising. It works without me and people work together … so the success of my companies is not based on one person, or just on my energy.’

That said, Mamafha’s high energy and infectious positivity is hard to separate from the culture and ethos of the company. He admits that he’s ‘all about energy in the office and outside’ and that he seeks to hire people who resonate on a higher level. This high-octane approach to the management of people is embedded in the processes Mamafha has put in place to connect his team and get them reflecting on their successes and failures.

‘Every Wednesday we have a one-hour-and-30-minute session, from 11 am to 12:30. It’s a session of innovation and connecting,’ he explains. ‘Everyone is there, connecting and talking about what they’re interested in, what is the new innovation, and what is the new way. That platform is basically to help everyone get to the same level, especially those who might feel they are being left behind. You get to laugh and connect with everyone. It gives that vibration, allowing everyone to feel connected and aware of what we’re doing in different departments.’

These gatherings help entrench the innovative culture of the company and provide a platform to celebrate collective and individual achievements. ‘We absolutely incentivise people who come with new ways of building new technologies that we can use,’ says Mamafha. ‘This pushes people to go hard and solve problems. Plus, we celebrate people who dress well for work, are consistently on time, or who consistently deliver and have a good relationship with clients.’

At the time of writing, those clients spanned African borders, from Botswana and Zimbabwe to Rwanda and South Africa. This is the continental market Analytics Advertising understands best. Its founder sees himself as a true continental leader and influencer.

‘I’ve positioned myself as a continental solutions provider,’ says Mamafha, noting that while his vision is global, he has not –yet – built an advantage on the world stage.

279 Jamii is a Swahili word meaning community. JamiiTrade is a digital application to enable cross-border trade between small- and medium-sized entrepreneurs in Africa. For additional information visit

spotlight on 2005–2010

For

South African innovation, the early years of the 2000s were a mixed bag. On the one hand, progress was being made in the creation of a knowledge-based economy through policy development and R&D funding. On the other hand, there was growing recognition by government that its structures, research and funding for innovation needed to be reformulated as a more strategic and united system.

South African companies were visibly investing less in R&D, the pool of experienced researchers was dwindling, and gaps were beginning to emerge in the advancement of science and technologyfocused talent development.280

It seemed that the solution rested on building a national system of innovation that would create clarity of purpose and roles across government departments and among key economic stakeholders, such as research institutions, state-owned entities, universities, and, of course, business and industry. It was time to assess the future of the South African innovation agenda.

priority innovation areas

Economically, 2005 was a good year for the South African economy, which recorded a growth rate of 5%, its highest since the end of apartheid in 1994.281 Based on data from the South African Reserve Bank and the African Development Bank, the breakdown of GDP contribution by sector saw 22% coming off the back of financial and business services, 19% from manufacturing, 14% from retail (including hotels and restaurants), 10% from transport and storage, 7% from mining and quarrying and 3% from agriculture.

South Africa already had a strong innovation advantage in the form of State-funded research into science, engineering and technology, and had established the National Research Foundation in 1999 to act as an intermediary between the government and the country’s research institutions in order to better align research output, while supporting innovation and research efforts. In the same year, the Innovation Fund was launched to funnel funding to new innovations,282 with a focus on emerging technologies. In 2002 it was decided to focus innovation efforts on the emerging sectors of biotechnology, manufacturing technology, and information and communications technology, with the ultimate aim of reducing poverty.283

Therefore, from 2005 to 2010, South Africa had a clear framework to guide the innovation ecosystem – at least on paper. Based on the Department of Science and Technology’s (DST’s) 2008–2018 ten-year plan,284 the specific areas of focus on the innovation agenda were:

• biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, mostly based on South Africa’s indigenous and natural resources;

280 Flowerday, W.T. (2015). Technology/Innovation history of post-apartheid South Africa. Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development. R4D Working Paper 2015/12.

281 AfDB/OECD. (2006) African Economic Outlook 2005–2006: South Africa.

282 OECD. (n.d.) Science, technology and innovation: Recent Policy Development in South Africa.

283 Flowerday, W.T. (2015).

284 Republic of South Africa. (2007). Innovation towards a knowledge-based economy: Ten-year plan for South Africa (2008 ‒ 2018). Department of Science and Technology.

• space science and the satellite industry;

• clean, renewable energy supply solutions, and the development of the ‘hydrogen economy’;

• global climate change monitoring, prediction, and scenario planning; and

• human and social dynamics, directed at understanding human behaviour, with a focus on palaeoanthropology, evolution genetics, indigenous knowledge systems, heritage legacy and neurobiological studies.

Encouragingly, referencing a Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation paper, researcher Wayne Flowerday noted in 2015, ‘There would also be an increased focus on strategic basic research in areas that fit aspects of industry and social need.’

This was an indication that the South African government was aware of the importance of the link between social development and the support of its industries. The view aligns with the thinking behind the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were formally adopted by member states in 2015 and came into force in January 2016.285

the rise of the knowledge economy

The five focus areas of the DST’s decade-long innovation agenda between 2008 and 2018 clearly align with the emergence of the so-called knowledge economy, which prizes intellectual and technological advances above naturalresource-driven systems such as agriculture and mining.

As a component of the emerging technological world – termed the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) by World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab in 2016286 – the knowledge economy is linked to the development of exciting and innovative new industries and technologies that require a highly skilled labour force and heavy investment. In South Africa, it was envisaged that the payoffs from investing into the knowledge economy would include more robust economic growth and increased wages and job opportunities; they would also boost South Africa’s competitiveness on the world stage.287

However, as early as 2010, South African researchers from the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), William Blankley and Irma Booyens, warned that before the country threw itself fully into the knowledge economy, it should get its house in order. They singled out human capital as a key focus area for developing a strong knowledge economy, and the need to align and improve the country’s educational outcomes. They questioned whether South Africa could hope to achieve an R&D expenditure target of 2% of GDP by 2018, since this would require ‘an extra R1.8 billion’ in 2008 alone. They noted the heavy reliance on business sector spending in R&D, suggesting that either businesses would have invested even more, or government would have to step up and start investing heavily in R&D. They also questioned whether South Africa could compete in this international arena, given the profound developmental challenges the country faced.

‘A knowledge-based economy will not necessarily ensure national economic prosperity, improved health and well-being, ecological sustainability and reduced inequalities,’ wrote Blankley and Booyens. ‘A balance between the expansion of the knowledge economy and the issues concerning sustainability, long-term growth and development are therefore important policy considerations for South Africa. However, current policies in support of a knowledge-based economy in South Africa are too broad and attempt to simultaneously address the objectives of growth and development, while these essentially require distinct and specific policy emphases.’288

Another concern raised by the researchers, echoed in the book Harnessing Public Research for Innovation in the 21st Century (Cambridge University Press), was the issue of patents 289

In Section 8, ‘Reflections’, we examine the decline in South Africa-lodged patents between 2005 and 2020, while noting increased activity in recent years within the five core areas of the DST’s ten-year plan.

286287288289

285 United Nations. (2023). The Sustainable Development Agenda: 17 Goals for People, for Planet.

286 Schwab, K. (2016, 14 January). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond. World Economic Forum.

287 Blankley, W.O. and Booyens, I. (2010). Building a knowledge economy in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 106 (1112).

288 Blankley, W.O. and Booyens, I. (2010).

289 Arundel, A., Athreye, S., Wunsch-Vincent, S. (Eds). (2021). Harnessing Public Research for Innovation in the 21st Century: an International Assessment of Knowledge Transfer Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

innovations with a sustainable twist

While the DSTs 2008–2018 ten-year plan290 highlighted core areas for development, these were by no means the only areas to produce world-class innovations during the period 2005 to 2010.

For instance, in 2005, prolific inventor and engineer Mulalo Doyoyo invented a ‘cementless concrete’ – Cenocell – which is lightweight, strong and does not require any of the usual ingredients associated with traditional cement. Doyoyo’s invention is produced using waste product ash left over from coal combustion, making it a potential – if not entirely green – alternative to cement.291 Doyoyo also invented amoriguard, 292 the non-toxic paint made from recycled industrial waste used on Mamelodi Mall when it was built in 2019, and a low-water Ecocast brick-making machine, which also uses industrial waste products to produce robust bricks.293

The freeplay fetal Heart Rate monitor, another South African innovation, was created by industrial designer Philip Goodwin, electronics designer Stefan Zwahlen and project leader John Hutchinson in 2008. A simple solution, which works off-grid and does not require electricity, the innovation won The Index Project’s Index Award in 2009.

The hand-cranked device was a response to the lack of adequate technology in developing countries to monitor foetal heart rate during childbirth, which leads to about one million deaths annually. In addition, complications during birth kill as many as 500 000 mothers and another million babies within a month, Hutchinson told The Index Project.294

‘The foetal heartbeat is the most important indicator of foetal distress, but less than 1% of foetal heart rate monitors worldwide are available in low-income countries,’ said Hutchinson. ‘About 99% of these deaths occur in the developing world and are preventable with the timely detection of complications.’

In 2014, the FHRM (as the device was then called) featured in the Design Indaba Expo’s ‘Africa is Now’ exhibition, a showcase of African design talent.295 At this stage in the product’s lifecycle, it was managed under the banner of Appropriate Medical Technology (AMT), a company formed to commercialise the FHRM. AMT existed until 2016, with commercialisation of the wind-up product eventually moving over to technology company Philips,296 as part of the multinational’s ‘Every Woman Every Child’ programme.297

Cutting-edge health: Biotech and pharmaceuticals

Two of the DST’s focus areas made some impressive strides during this period – health and pharmaceuticals, as well as space science and satellites.

By 2005 South Africa already had an established South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), which had been formed as far back as 1969. The SAMRC was producing research through six national programmes, including biomedical studies, communicable diseases such as HIV/Aids and tuberculosis, and disease prevention. Over the years, the SAMRC developed deep connections to global health research bodies and collaborated both locally and internationally.298

Building on this existing foundation, the South African government saw value in investing in the emerging bioeconomy, which embraces ‘the use of biological processes, organisms, or systems to manufacture products intended to improve the quality of human life’, according to the DST.299

South Africa released a National Biotechnology Strategy in 2001 and reaffirmed this commitment in the DST’s 2008–2018 ten-year plan and in its 2013 Bio-Economy Strategy. The aim of all three of these policy documents was to ‘develop capability in biotechnology to make South Africa become a global player by 2018’, reflected researchers Swapan Patra and Mammo

290 Republic of South Africa. (2007). Innovation towards a knowledge-based economy: Ten-year plan for South Africa (2008‒2018). Department of Science and Technology.

291 Georgia Tech Research News. (2008, November 25). New use for coal ash: material provides strong and lightweight alternative to concrete – without cement.

292 Yende, S.S. (2019, December 19). How SA engineer Mulalo Doyoyo invested eco-friendly paint ‘by pure accident’. News24.

293 Burger, S. (2016, July 8). Locally developed low-water brickmaking machine uses industrial waste. Engineering News.

294 The Index Project. (2009). Freeplay Fetal Heart Rate Monitor – Index Award 2009 Winner. YouTube.

295 Design Indaba. (2014, May 6). Heart beat.

296 Newswire. (2017, March 2). Maternova, Inc. creates safe obstetric solution kits featuring Philips Africa Innovation Hub Technology.

297 Hutchinson, J. (2023). John Hutchinson – Chief Technology Officer at Project Maji. LinkedIn.

298 Nature Index. (2023). South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC). Springer Nature.

299 Republic of South Africa. (2007). National Biotechnology Audit 2007: Biotechnology use and development in South Africa. Department of Science and Technology.

Muchie in a 2017 journal article.300

A few years into the bio-tech strategy, and the South African government’s National Biotechnology Audit 2007 indicated that there were 78 biotechnology-active companies in operation and 38 core biotechnology firms,301 mainly based in Gauteng and the Western Cape. About a third of these were spin-off companies with their roots in either government agencies (36%) or universities (28%).302 Based on 2006 figures, the biotech active companies reported revenues of R767.6 million, up from R624.4 million in 2004, and core firms recorded a figure of R520 million for 2006.

After this initial flurry of support, no formal follow-up audits appear to have been conducted on the nascent sector, until a 2022 audit was released by the National Advisory Council on Innovation. Among the high-level points made by Dr Mziwandile Madikizela during the audit presentation was the fact that the sector’s contribution to GDP was roughly 8.3%, and it had created 14 to 16 million jobs between 2007 and 2020. As a result, ‘The data suggests that with appropriate support from government, the bioeconomy is a potential earner of foreign exchange.’303

What was also clear was that between 2011 and 2012, the business sector was driving R&D spend in the bioeconomy, but that ‘the implementation of the [South African government’s] bioeconomy strategy did not seem to introduce increases in output’.304 In fact, the much-touted bioeconomy had maintained a flat trajectory in terms of its percentage of GDP. This is in spite of projections from MarketLine and others that the total value of the South African biotechnology market should reach US$1.76 billion by 2020 (from US$1.18 billion in 2015) – largely on the back of the medical and healthcare segment.305

Part of the reason for this may lie in the sharp decline in South African patents filed in the field of biotechnology between 2008 and 2019 compared to overseas patents filed. (See Figure 34.)

Source:

300 Patra, S.K. and Muchie, M. (2017). Role of innovation system in development of biotechnology in South Africa. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 19(1): 3-30.

301 According to the Department of Science and Technology’s National Biotechnology Audit 2007: ‘In the level of a firm, a ‘core’ firm is one that is using at least one biotechnology related technique and whose main economic activity is biotechnology. A biotechnology active firm is one that either performs R&D in biotechnology or produces and sells biotechnology products. Core firms are a sub-set of the biotechnology active firms set.’

302 Republic of South Africa. (2007).

303 National Advisory Council on Innovation. (2022, February 2). Audit of the South African bioeconomy sector. Department of Science and Technology, Republic of South Africa.

304 Republic of South Africa. (2007).

305 Patra, S.K. and Muchie, M. (2017).

figure 31: What’s happening to biotech patents in south africa?

Audit of the South African bioeconomy sector (2022)

Biovac: a missed opportunity?

When the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic struck, South Africa should have been ready to respond. Both the State Vaccine Institute and the South African Vaccine Producer had closed in the mid-1990s, but in 2003 a public-private partnership was formed between the bio-pharmaceutical Biovac Consortium and the South African government. The aim was to ensure continuity of vaccine supply through the manufacture of South Africa-made vaccines,306 and the initiative was to be up and running by 2013. However, problems arose for Biovac regarding ‘the reluctance of the NDoH [National Department of Health] to make funds available, or to dilute its shareholding as a consequence of equity investments from other potential partners’.307 Biovac also faced challenges in raising the additional capital it needed.

As David Walwyn and Adolph Nkolele from the University of Pretoria noted in 2018, ‘The [Biovac] institute was forced to seek commercial loans and grants in order to fund its capital programme.’308

At the same time, by 2015 there were grumblings about the slow progress being made by Biovac, which was 12 years into the agreement and had yet to start local vaccine manufacturing. At the time, Biovac was packaging and labelling formulations received from outside the country.309

In 2020, released from the restrictions of the public-private partnership, although still 47.5% owned by the state, Biovac picked up two important contracts to start production for Sanofi’s Hexaxim childhood vaccine and Pfizer’s Prevar 13 childhood pneumococcal protection jab. Explaining the significance of the move to Acumen magazine in 2020, Walwyn said, ‘Suddenly Biovac was able to earn R200 million, not R10 million, and that meant they could start really trying to raise money off the balance sheet to build that facility to manufacture vaccines.’310

In 2023, South Africa’s Department of Health switched to a cheaper supplier of vaccines to protect children against pneumococcal diseases, India-based Cipla, taking the contract away from state-owned Biovac.

As the University of the Witwatersrand wrote at the time, ‘The switch to a cheaper supplier highlights tensions between price pressure (a saving of roughly R2.4 billion over three years), local production and sovereignty.’311

Another aspect of the DST’s focus on the biotech and pharmaceutical sector was South Africa’s indigenous and natural resources. In 2005, a collaborative research effort known as The International Centre for Innovation Partnerships in Science (TICIPS) was entered into by the University of the Western Cape and the United States-based University of Missouri-Columbia to advance understanding of the use of complementary and alternative medicines by traditional healers. At the time it was noted that South Africa had more than 200 000 traditional healers using many of the indigenous plants from the country such as Sutherlandia (Lessertia frutescens).312

Dr Quinton Johnson of the University of the Western Cape Medical Science Department and co-director of TICIPS presented some of the group’s findings to South Africa’s Parliament in 2011. He mentioned research being done on medicinal plants such as Tulbaghia alliaceae (an indigenous garlic used in cancer research), Artemisia afra (used to treat tuberculosis) and Lessertia frutescens (used in HIV research). He also spoke of the intellectual property rights and protections required to defend indigenous knowledge systems, of which these plants formed a part.313

However, writing in 2021, Peter Ndhlovu of the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Centre at North-West University found that there were still a number of challenges associated with the protection of community-based traditional knowledge and intellectual property rights, and the registration of those working in the medical plant sector. Regulations were still needed to

306 Walwyn, D.R. and Nkolele, A.T. (2018). An evaluation of South Africa’s public-private partnership for the localisation of vaccine research, manufacture and distribution. Health Res Policy Syst.,16(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0303-3.

307 Walwyn, D.R. and Nkolele, A.T. (2018).

308 Walwyn, D.R. and Nkolele, A.T. (2018).

309 Walwyn, D.R. and Nkolele, A.T. (2018).

310 Bouwer, C. (2021, June 7). Cooking up a Covid vaccine. Acumen, Gordon Institute of Business Science.

311 University of the Witwatersrand. (2023, May 2). SA’s short-sighted vaccine manufacture and procurement policy compromises Africa’s development.

312 Science 2.0. (2007, December 6). African traditional medicine gets its first international clinical trial.

313 Parliamentary Monitoring Group. (2011, September 6). From translation of indigenous knowledge to innovation for the bio economy: briefing by the International Centre for Innovation Partnership in Science Phytomedicines.

ensure the equitable sharing of any benefits that accrued from the commercialisation of traditional medicinal plants.314

There were some interesting developments on this front in the same year when, as a result of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic, a phyto-pharma company that emerged from research conducted at Stellenbosch University began to create a stir. The company, Scientia Products, was thought to have the right approach to commercialising Africa’s rich store of medical flora.315

Scientia Products has an impressive list of founders behind it, including botanist Professor Nokwanda Makunga, physiologist Professor Anna-Mart Engelbrecht, and three Stellenbosch University chemists, Dr Catherine Kaschula, Professor Andre de Villiers and Professor Willem van Otterlo. This high-pedigree team aimed to provide scientific validation of natural solutions as a means of promoting and supporting traditional knowledge around natural remedies and plants in South Africa. It is an exciting prospect for the future.316

Makunga, a past president of the South African Association of Botanists, said at the time, ‘Nature is a blessing in so many different ways. It is wonderful to be out in the field and to experience how everything functions and works together.’317

Reaching for the stars: Space science and the satellite industry

The second of DST’s focus areas between 2008 and 2018 was space science and the development of satellites. South Africa received a huge boost to research in this area in April 2002 when billionaire South African-British entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth self-funded a US$20 million 10-day trip into space to become only the second ‘space tourist’ in history and the first South African – and ‘Afronaut’318 – to leave the Earth’s orbit.

Shuttleworth’s achievement was celebrated by then President Thabo Mbeki in a live space-to-land broadcast, as well as by the country’s first democratically elected president, Nelson Mandela. During their 10-minute discussion, Mbeki and Shuttleworth declared that encouraging young Africans to take up engineering, maths and science would help ensure Africa’s rebirth.319

During his time in space, Shuttleworth conducted experiments on stem cell development in zero gravity. The experiments were designed by South African researchers at the University of Stellenbosch, headed by Dr Daniel Barry, whose research ultimately saw the creation of spin-off business lazaron Biotechnologies, a subsidiary of venture capital holding company JDH.

In 2004, Lazaron Biotechnologies announced that it would be establishing the first stem cell bank in Africa, harvesting cells from the umbilical cords of babies for research into the treatment of a variety of diseases.320 In 2011, Lazaron Biotechnologies and the Dutch Cryo-Save Group announced the opening of a second stem cell processing and storage laboratory in Cape Town.321

Shuttleworth, meanwhile, went on to establish the Ubuntu foundation in 2005. An open-source initiative, the Ubuntu project – taking its name from the South African concept of ubuntu, or compassionate humanity – is a free, easy-to-use Linux desktop operating system for computers, electronic devices and servers.322

In 2005, the largest telescope in the Southern Hemisphere – the southern african large telescope (salt) – was officially launched in Sutherland, a remote location in Northern Cape province prized for its favourable conditions for star gazing and astronomy observations.323 With a focus on advancing inclusion in astronomy and creating training opportunities for students across Africa, the US$20 million SALT project (one-third financed by South Africa and the remainder by international partners324) was South Africa’s first major success on the astronomy world stage and a significant boost to the industry.

314 Ndhlovu, P.T., Omotayo, A.O., Otang-Mbeng, W. and Aremu, A.O. (2022). Commercialization potential of six selected medicinal plants commonly used for childhood diseases in South Africa: A review. Sustainability, 14(1):177. doi: 10.3390/su14010177.

315 Duvenage, E. (2021, October 25). Harnessing age-old plants to help treat modern-day disease. Stellenbosch University.

316 News24. (2023, September 3). A Stellenbosch phytopharma company emerged during Covid-19 pandemic.

317 Duvenage, E. (2021, October 25).

318 Mail & Guardian. (2002, April 30). Mbeki & Shuttleworth chat, a nation glows.

319 Mail & Guardian. (2002, April 30).

320 Reuters. (2004, September 1). South Africa to open Africa’s first stem cell bank. NBC News.

321 Cryo-Save Group N.V. (2011, September 14). Cryo-Save Opens new stem cell lab in Cape Town. CISION PR Newswire.

322 Ubuntu. (2023). The story of Ubuntu.

323 American Museum of Natural History. (2012, May). SALT: Imaging the Southern Sky. American Museum of Natural History.

324 Whitelock, P. (2010). South Africa: telescopes raise the nation’s sights. Nature, 464(30).

Around the same time as the SALT launch, South Africa applied to be one of the hosts of the global square Kilometre array (sKa) radio telescope project, a highly sensitive collection of linked radio dishes around the world designed to scan and gather data from space.325

In 2012, South Africa and her eight partner countries from Africa, including Kenya, Botswana and Mauritius, were named co-hosts of the SKA telescopes, alongside Australia. In 2014, the first of South Africa’s meerKat antennas was unveiled on the SKA site which will, in time, host 64 such antennae. As science reporter Sarah Wild noted at the time, ‘The MeerKAT is a South African-funded and designed telescope, with 75% of the components sourced locally, and will be the most sensitive radio telescope of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere.’326

South Africa adopted a national space policy in 2009 to give focus and direction to its space activities. This made it one of the few African countries to put such legislation in place.327 In 2010, the year in which South Africa successfully hosted the Fifa Soccer World Cup, then Minister of Science and Technology Naledi Pandor opened the country’s national space agency, the South African National Space Agency (SANSA), an institution designed to grow and develop the local sector.328

One of the outcomes of this renewed focus on space was the R25 million sumbandilasat satellite, developed by SunSpace in conjunction with Stellenbosch University and launched from Kazakhstan in 2009. Sumbandila is the Venda word for ‘pathfinder’ and, before it burned up in the Earth’s atmosphere on re-entry in 2021, the satellite certainly lived up to its name, sending home 1128 high-resolution images for researchers to study.

Stellenbosch University had been commissioned by the DST to design the technology in 2005, with SunSpace emerging as a spin-off company329 tasked with commercialising the technology. In 2013, SunSpace was absorbed into Denel Dynamics, part of the state-owned company, Denel, after running into financial challenges. These challenges were in part due to government’s withdrawal from a cabinet-approved plan to purchase a majority equity stake in the start-up.330 Spaceteq, as the new Denel Dynamics unit was called, was among the loss-making business units singled out by Denel for disposal in 2019–2020 as part of the parastatal’s turnaround strategy.331332

Jonker sailplanes glides into the global market

The invention of flight is one of humankind’s greatest achievements. While the pioneering work of the Wright brothers effectively marked the beginning of the aerospace industry at the beginning of the 1900s, early studies and intrigue around personal flight date back to the 1480s, when famed polymath Leonardo da Vinci created hundreds of sketches for various types of ‘flying machines’. While modern-day aviation is dominated by Rolls-Royce engines, Airbus and Boeing, for some the purity of motorless flight remains the ultimate way to navigate the skies.

The first glider that enabled a man to fly long distance was engineered by German aviator Otto Lilienthal in 1891. However, the motorless plane technology really gained traction in Germany some 50 years later after powered flights were banned in the country in the wake of the First World War. In the 1970s, as the space era emerged, motorless flight technology again found global favour, with NASA using a glider system for the Space Shuttle Enterprise’s test flights for orbiting the Earth.

Fast-forward to what is now being termed the Fifth Industrial Revolution – a period of synergistic partnerships between man and machines332 – and we see motorless sailplane technology being explored as a means of gathering atmospheric data from the planet Mars.

325 Wild, S. (2014, March 28). SA’s first MeerKAT antenna launched. Mail & Guardian.

326 Wild, S. (2014, March 28).

327 Martinez, P. (2016). The development and initial implementation of South Africa’s national space policy. Space Policy, 37(1), p 3038. doi: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2016.10.003.

328 AFP. (2010, December 9). South African unveils space agency. Phys.org.

329 Campbell, R. (2021, December 13). South Africa’s Sumbandila satellite has finally fallen back into the atmosphere. Engineering News.

330 Wild, S. (2013, May 27). SunSpace may find a new home. TechCentral.

331 Parliamentary Monitoring Group. (2020, June 17). Denel turnaround progress report, with deputy minister.

332 Noble, S.M., Mende, M., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (2022). The Fifth Industrial Revolution: How harmonious humanmachine collaboration is triggering a retail and service [r]evolution. Journal of Retailing, 98(2): 199–208. doi: 10.1016/j. jretai.2022.04.003.

a south african footprint

South African company Jonker Sailplanes is increasingly earning its place as one of the leaders in the global glider market. Jonker Sailplanes designs and manufactures high-performance sailplanes and, at the time of writing, claimed to be ‘the third largest glider manufacturer in the world and the only manufacturer outside of Europe’. The Jonker Sailplanes team completed its first successful flight in 2006, but their story began many years earlier, born of a shared passion for gliding by a passionate father and his sons. Since the late 1999s, Attie and Uys Jonker – the Jonker brothers – have been working with their aero-guru partner Johan ‘Bossie’ Bosman and a small team of technicians to create the ‘most sought-after sailplanes in the world’. Jonker Sailplanes successfully entered the competition scene in 2010. Four years later more than half of the World Gliding Championship Open Class entries were flying Jonker Sailplanes designs, with the South African-made gliders having become the choice for major competitions worldwide.

Although Jonker Sailplanes models operate mainly in the recreational market, sailplane technology and spin-off innovations have the potential to break boundaries by entering the wider market, from the commercial and military market to the space industry, with applications such as monitoring and mapping.

Today, the company plays a role in advancing the industry, welcoming many engineering masters and doctoral students. The birth and growth of Jonker Sailplanes is closely tied to the support of the Faculty of Engineering at North-West University, the Technology Aviation Agency and the Department of Trade, as well as its main competitors.

spotlight on 2011–2015

From 2011 to 2015, South Africa’s innovation journey continued to be shaped by the priority areas outlined by the Department of Science and Technology’s (DSTs) 2008–2018 ten-year plan.333 The foundation laid in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry was showing fruit. Despite some mixed messages from government, renewable energy solutions were also making promising advancements. However, cracks in the innovation ecosystem were beginning to emerge.

By 2012, the midway point in the period under review, and in spite of the soundness of the Department of Science and Technology’s (DST’s) ten-year plan to move South Africa towards a knowledge economy,334 the rate of progress was being eroded by a lack of coordination and consultation between all stakeholders in the innovation system.335

South Africa’s top-down, government-led approach was one concern; the other was the decision by the State to base its innovation priority areas on globally agreed priorities336 rather than South Africa-specific challenges that were preventing social and economic development.337 An OECD critique of South Africa’s national innovation system in 2007 noted that the pursuit of mainstream research and big science innovations had resulted in South Africa’s neglect of the role that technology could play in addressing pervasive social issues, such as poverty. The subsequent focus on promoting innovation for inclusive development is testament to the DST’s internalisation of the OECD insights.

In 2016, the DST drafted an ‘innovation for inclusive development’ policy that sought to align South Africa’s innovation strategy with its social and economic development concerns. The objective was to promote innovation ‘that addresses the triple challenge of inequality, poverty and unemployment and enables all sectors of society, particularly the marginalised poor, informal sector actors and indigenous knowledge holders to participate in creating and actualising innovation opportunities as well as equitable sharing in the benefits of development’.338

The role of innovation, science and technology was also recognised for its potential to reduce social ills such as poverty and unemployment in the country’s National Development Plan of 2012, which set bold ambitions to ‘eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2023.’339

333 Republic of South Africa. (2007). Innovation towards a knowledge-based economy: Ten-year plan for South Africa (2008 ‒ 2018). Department of Science and Technology.

334 Republic of South Africa. (2007). Innovation towards a knowledge-based economy: Ten-year plan for South Africa (2008‒2018). Department of Science and Technology.

335 Flowerday, W.T. (2015). Technology/Innovation history of post-apartheid South Africa. Swiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development. R4D Working Paper 2015/12.

336 Gault, F. (2010). Innovation Strategies for a Global Economy: Development, Implementation, Measurement and Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

337 Flowerday, W.T. (2015).

338 Kruss, G., Petersen, I., Rust, J. & Tele, A. (2017, March). Policy brief: Promoting a science, technology and innovation policy for inclusive development in South Africa. Human Sciences Research Council.

339 Republic of South Africa. (2012). National Development Plan 2023: Our future – make it work [Executive Summary]. National Planning Commission.

This internal refocus was also mirrored, at a global level, in the African Union’s strategic blueprint, Agenda 2063, approved in 2013, and in the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015. The SDGs provided a framework around which companies and countries could align their growth and development ambitions, with special reference to SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 4 (quality education) and SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth).340341342

aligning innovation with the sustainable Development Goals

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an interconnected set of ambitions that guide countries in their efforts to eradicate poverty, protect human rights, and safeguard the environment. They are premised on the notion that sustainable development is an overarching concept in which environmental, educational, development and humanitarian concerns can only be advanced in concert with one another.

As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres noted in 2016 when he took his oath of office, ‘We must also bring the humanitarian and development spheres closer together from the very beginning of a crisis to support affected communities, address structural and economic impacts and help prevent a new spiral of fragility and instability. Humanitarian response, sustainable development and sustaining peace are three sides of the same triangle.’340

Humanitarian goals include:

• Goal 1: No poverty

• Goal 2: Zero hunger

• Goal 3: Good health and well-being

• Goal 4: Quality education

• Goal 5: Gender equality

• Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

• Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy

• Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth

• Goal 9: Industry, innovation and infrastructure

• Goal 10: Reduced inequalities

Ecological goals encompass:

• Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities

• Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production

• Goal 13: Climate action

• Goal 14: Life below water

• Goal 15: Life on land

Peace and partnership goals are:

• Goal 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions

• Goal 17: Partnerships

Captured within the 17 goals is a web of 169 targets that guide the journey to fulfilling the 17 SDGs, bearing in mind the systemic impacts and trade-offs that might be necessary on a case-by-case basis.341

In seeking to achieve these goals, the UN identified seven ‘key action areas’ that play an important role in advancing the global agenda. Science, technology and innovation are seen as integral to a country’s sustainable development, and a generator of ‘new strategies and solutions to tackle … complex problems … and to increase the current pace of progress.’342 Therefore, in developing policies on science, technology and innovation, the relevant UN’s Inter-Agency Task Team has advocated an approach that puts the SDGs at the core of countries’ decision-making processes, policy formulation and implementation. (See Figure 35.)

340 United Nations. (2016, December 12). Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ remarks to the General Assembly on taking the oath of office.

341 United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (2022). Science, technology and innovation for achieving the SDGs: Guidelines for policy formulation.

342 United Nations Industrial Development Organization. (2022).

figure 32: implementing an sDG-aligned policy for science, technology and innovation

Source: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (Work Stream 6: UN capacity-building programme on technology facilitation for SDGs)

Two South African innovations that emerged in 2020 clearly show links between the drive to innovate and the desire to fulfil the humanitarian SDGs and solve South Africa’s social problems. The first is stellenbosch nanofiber Company, whose work contributes to Goal 3 (good health and well-being), Goal 8 (decent work and economic growth), Goal 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), Goal 12 (responsible consumption and production) and Goal 14 (life below water).

stellenbosch nanofiber Company: Rethinking biomedical nanofiber solutions

In 2020, the modern, globalised world came face to face with the unprecedented effects of a pandemic. Apart from its devastating social and economic impacts, Covid-19 revealed a worldwide shortage of reliable medical equipment, and resulted in an often-overlooked environmental hazard caused by the disposal of single-use equipment such as disposable face masks. According to OceansAsia, a Hong Kong-based marine conservation organisation, an estimated 1.56 billion disposable masks entered our oceans in 2020,343 with the potential to become more than 6 000 metric tons of marine plastic pollution.

In response to the global shortage of reliable personal protective equipment, the Stellenbosch Nanofiber Company developed the Rethink Reusable Surgical Mask in 2020. The reusable filter was said to increase the lifespan of face masks ten-fold. Having been developed in under 100 days, it was quickly deployed across South Africa. Besides meeting European standards, the innovation prevented 13.5 million single-use masks – an equivalent of 37 tons of waste – from entering South Africa’s waste stream.

Stellenbosch Nanofiber Company, founded in 2011, was recognised for its biomedical contributions by Time magazine, which listed its advanced biomedical nanofiber technology in its 2019 Top 100 Inventions. The company’s innovations include a skin substitute dressing for burn wounds, multipurpose cleanser patches, waterless serums for cosmetic skin care, and tissue engineering for biomedical applications, to name just a few.

The company’s portfolio includes a range of synthetic and natural polymers and biomaterials. Its capabilities are extensive,

343 OceansAsia Foundation. (n.d.). COVID-19 facemasks and marine plastic pollution.

thanks to its highly customised product development and access to a wide range of materials and blends.

Under the leadership of its founder, inventor-entrepreneur Dr Eugene Smit, and with the contributions of a team of dedicated in-house scientists, the company boasts more than a century of combined nanofiber experience. It holds patents in 16 countries. Its innovations are used in a broad array of sectors, including biomedical and healthcare, filtration and separation, energy and environment, electronics and sensors, agriculture, cosmetics, textiles and apparel, automotive and transportation, aerospace and defence, construction and infrastructure, and packaging and biodegradable materials.

In 2020, Stellenbosch Nanofiber Company secured Stellenbosch University’s Spin-Out Excellence Award, and in 2020–2021, it was a finalist in the Innovation Award for small- and medium-sized firms offered by the National Science & Technology Forum.

exatype: south africa’s simple, cost-effective genetic sequencing platform

The second company showing links between innovation and the solving of social problems that came to prominence in 2020 was Hyrax Biosciences, producer of the DNA sequence analysis software Exatype.

Close to 40 million people around the world were living with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in 2020. Another 1.5 million had acquired the virus, and it is estimated that 680 000 lives were lost to HIV in the same year, according to World Health Organisation estimates. While HIV treatment programmes with antiretroviral drugs are available worldwide and include cost-reducing initiatives, in about 10% of the cases under treatment, the virus mutates and reproduces itself. This effect, known as drug resistance, compromises treatment, limiting the drugs’ ability to prevent HIV-related morbidity and mortality.

Halting or minimising the spread of drug-resistant HIV requires medication, optimal adherence to treatment, and constant screening for drug efficacy, a costly and complex process. Over the years, advanced technologies in genetic sequencing have reduced the cost of drug-resistance testing; however, the technology is economically unfeasible for countries such as South Africa, where the expertise to interpret the data generated by these technologies is expensive and often unavailable.

In an effort to find a solution to this problem, Professor Simon Travers from the South African National Bioinformatics Institute at the University of the Western Cape (UWC) assembled a team to make drug resistance analysis simpler and more affordable.

Working alongside then-PhD students Dr Imogen Wright and Dr Ram Krishna, and postdoctoral fellow Dr Natasha Wood, Travers filed a patent in 2012 for a ‘method and system for drug resistance data analysis’. In 2015, the company Hyrax Biosciences was spun out of UWC to develop and commercialise the Exatype software.

The cloud-based Exatype sequencing platform analyses drug-resistance testing data without the need for specialised bioinformatic expertise, simplifying sequencing analysis and making for an altogether more user-friendly analysis. The fully automated genetic diagnostic system provides efficiency, accuracy and a cost-effective tool in the fight against drug-resistant HIV. This game-changing innovation has since been successfully transferred to other critical global health conditions, analysing data on Mycobacterium tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2, the pathogens causing TB and Covid-19 respectively.

The Exatype software clearly contributes to SDG 3 (good health and well-being). Its ripple effects across society may also be seen to contribute to SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities).

forward motion: meerKat … and more

With regard to South Africa’s space science and satellite industry, the second period under review (2011 to 2015) got off to a flying start with the continued development of the South Africa-designed and built MeerKAT, a large radio astronomy project comprising 64 interconnected dishes, each 13.5m in diameter. While MeerKAT was officially launched in 2018, the process got underway between 2011 and 2015. Apart from being a top-rated facility of its own, the project was a precursor telescope to the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) in the Karoo, playing an important role in ‘stress testing’ technologies that would eventually be incorporated into the SKA.344

In 2023, MeerKAT’s observations and contribution to astronomy were recognised with the granting of an award by the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society. At the time, Professor Anna Scaife from the University of Manchester noted, ‘The MeerKAT telescope has demonstrated beyond a doubt the world-leading science that can be produced from this new generation of

344 The University of Manchester. (2023, January 13). The MeerKAT radio telescope in South Africa receives prestigious award of the Royal Astronomical Society.

radio instrumentation, as well as the skill of the African scientists and engineers who have made it possible.’345

In an effort to capitalise on the success of MeerKAT, plans were already afoot in 2008 to establish the governance structures needed to develop the south african national space agency (SANSA), a government agency tasked with developing the country’s space science footprint and supporting related research. The initial plan was to have the agency fully operational by 2012,346 although operations began ahead of this date.

In November 2020, SANSA secured R4.47 billion over three years from the National Treasury to create a Space Infrastructure Hub to support the development of space infrastructure projects. Various research requirements ultimately delayed many of the proposed infrastructure projects,347 but SANSA continued to move forward. Higher Education, Science and Innovation Minister Blade Nzimande noted in a 2022 speech that SANSA’s achievements to date included establishing the Space Infrastructure Hub, providing data to the National Oceans and Coastal Information Management System, mapping South Africa’s informal settlement growth patterns, and supporting the efforts of students in space science disciplines.348

A notable SANSA project, officially launched in 2022, was the R71 million 24/7 space weather centre in Hermanus, Western Cape. Envisaged as a facility for the benefit of the entire African continent, the centre joined a global real-time monitoring network examining weather phenomena such as solar winds, solar flares and magnetic energy, all of which have the potential to impact communication and navigation systems needed by the air transport industry, telecommunications and satellite operators. The space weather centre is recognised by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.349

With partnerships and collaborations high on its agenda, in the years following 2020 SANSA has explored space collaboration with China (cooperation on the development of an international lunar research station350), the United States’ NASA space agency (establishing strategic communication sites to ensure near-continuous connectivity between Earth and NASA spacecraft351), Kenya (collaboration and cooperation352) and Namibia (capacity building and human development353).

In 2018, the agency released its SANSA 2018–2023 Strategic Plan, setting out four goals:

• to develop a suite of space-related products and services;

• to build essential space infrastructure, both on the ground and in space;

• to generate space-relevant insights that support a developmental agenda; and

• to develop the requisite human capital needed.354

Recognising that the ‘expected increase in the demand for satellite services is 11% or more each year from 2013 through 2017’, SANSA has continued to focus on partnerships to achieve this, working with R&D institutions, the private sector and satellite manufacturers to drive small-scale build capabilities.355 Following the launch of the SUNSAT satellite in 1999 and the SumbandilaSat satellite in 2009, South Africa saw the launch of TshepisoSAT in 2013 and ZACUBESAT-2 in 2018.356

promerops: Gliding south africa’s aerial space to ground economic benefits

Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems (RPAS), also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, are increasingly being used for a variety of purposes from surveillance, mapping and inspection to delivery, search and rescue. Applications even extend to agriculture, where drones can cover tasks such as spraying crops, monitoring livestock and surveying land. While the development of the RPAS industry poses regulatory challenges, global demand is growing rapidly, boosting the value of the global market to over US$29 billion dollars in 2022.356 According to research by Custom Markets Insights,

345 The University of Manchester. (2023, January 13).

346 SpaceRef. (2010, October 26). An overview of past and future South African space activities.

347 Brederode, W. (2023, September 9). Analysis: What happened to SA’s R4.4-billion space infrastructure hub? News24.

348 Republic of South Africa. (2022, November 3). Minister Blade Nzimande: Launch of SANSA Space Weather Station.

349 Campbell, R. (2022, December 15). New space weather centre to provide real-time solar storm forecasts. Engineering News.

350 Faboade, D. (2023, September 8). South Africa collaborates with China to establish a permanent moon base. Space in Africa.

351 Manning, C.G. (2022, November 16). NASA, South Africa’s Space Agency renew lunar partnership. NASA.

352 Faboade, D. (2023, August 11). KSA and SANSA discuss collaborative efforts to promote the space sector. Space in Africa.

353 Iderawumi, M. (2023, September 21). Namibia and South Africa explore space collaboration at 7th AfriGeo Symposium. [Press Release].

354 Republic of South Africa. (2018). SANSA Annual Performance Plan 2018/19. South African National Space Agency.

355 South African National Space Agency. (2015). Annual Strategic Plan 2015/2016. Department: Science and Technology, Republic of South Africa.

356 Custom Market In sights. (2023, July). Global Unmanned Aircraft Systems Market 2023–2032.

this valuation could exceed US$100 billion by 2032, which indicates the vast opportunities of this young and booming sector.

South African company Promerops has been an integral part of this exciting drone ‘gold rush’. Promerops blazed its way onto the RPAS market in 2017, operating in the field of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

A proudly Black Economic Empowerment enterprise, the locally owned and operated equipment manufacturer established a manufacturing capability in South Africa, anchored by locally developed intellectual property. The enterprise has its roots in the pioneering work of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, under the Aonyx Holdings umbrella. Aonyx Holdings holds equity in spin-off companies recommended by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology.

Within the South African engineering and aerospace industries, Promerops has a particular interest in creating opportunities that transform the sector. It is driven by localisation commitments that have a ripple effect, striving to meet local demand so that South Africans in need of drones do not have to rely on prohibitively expensive imported technologies.

Localisation also ensures that local end-users receive reliable maintenance and operations support, which contributes to the company’s secure supply model. Promerops’ RPAS applications are capable of servicing several markets, including agriculture, engineering inspections, environmental monitoring and conservation, as well as surveillance. According to Promerops, its key competitive advantages include its quick turnaround time for technology platform development, ease of configuration for specific or multiple applications and mission objectives, and price competitiveness.

Renewable energy and the hydrogen economy

The first significant indication that all was not well with South Africa’s electricity grid emerged in late 2007 when the country experienced blackouts caused, it was explained at the time, by growing demand and a coal shortage. Looking back, the writing was already on the wall when a 1998 White Paper by the Department of Minerals and Energy noted that Eskom’s forecasts for demand growth of 4.2% showed that ‘Eskom’s present generation capacity surplus will be fully utilised by about 2007.’357 In spite of the ‘timely steps’ the department advocated to address the long-term power supply needs of the country, it was a case of too little, too late. Construction of the Kusile coal power station began only in mid-2008, with units coming online in 2017 and 2019. Construction of the Medupi coal-fired station began in 2017 and, at the time of writing, was not yet fully operational. Both projects overran budgets and deadlines.358

What the country’s power supply challenges highlighted was the need to diversify the grid away from a single supplier and distributor that relied largely on the burning of fossil fuels. One avenue open for exploration was renewable energy, which would allow private power suppliers to play a bigger role. In 2009, the government began exploring the idea of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy, which would allow surplus energy to be fed back into the national grid, for which producers would be paid. However, instead of going this route, government decided to focus on a tender programme called the Renewable Energy Independent Power Procurement Programme (REIPPP).

REIPPP was incredibly well received; so much so that one investor was quoted as calling the initiative ‘the most successful public-private partnership in Africa in the last 20 years’. By 2014, 64 projects had been awarded to the private sector. Private capital of US$14 billion had been committed and some of the early projects were already producing power.359

The first round of bidding, in 2011–2012, saw 28 projects awarded. The second round (2011–2013) saw 19 bids picked and the third round (2013–2014) produced 17 successful bids. Two projects got the nod for bid window 3.5 (2014–2015) and 26 were accepted in the fourth round, before window 4.5 was cancelled. For the following four years, the momentum was halted completely as government focused its attention on nuclear as an option. Eskom’s leadership withdrew its support for the programme360 and refused to sign the power purchase agreements that would require the State utility to buy from renewable projects.

What was not dulled, however, was the appetite for renewable energy innovations. Research into batteries and storage

357 Patel, S. (2008). Whistling in the dark: Inside South Africa’s power crisis. Power.

358 Ziady, H. (2023, January 18). South Africa’s energy crisis deepens as blackouts hit 12 hours a day. CNN Business.

359 Eberhard, A., Kolker, J. & Leigland, J. (2014, May). South Africa’s Renewable Energy IPP Procurement Program: Success factors and lessons. The World Bank.

360 Evans, J. & Ngcuka, O. (2023, January 28). How the ANC’s years-long delays on renewables plunged SA into darkness and scuppered plan to end blackouts. Daily Maverick.

of renewable power continued, and there was a renewed focus on electric vehicles and renewable hydrocarbon fuels.361 An assessment in 2020 of some of the emerging renewable technologies being researched or developed that had the potential to be commercialised included:

• ocean wave energy, an attractive option considering South Africa’s long coastline;

• offshore wind – again, the country’s long coastline and the geography of certain areas lent itself to this development;

• Developing smart metres and smart grid infrastructures for use with solar energy systems;

• solar thermal, particularly in the mining sector, where solar thermal could replace fuel use;362 and

• Hydrogen fuel cells.363364365

ptip: super thin solar technology film

In 2005, a thin-film coating innovation for glass was unveiled by Professor Vivien Alberts, a long-time solar researcher and, at the time, professor at the University of Johannesburg. The buzz around the invention was, in part, due to its potential to reduce the cost of solar electricity in South Africa, thereby contributing to SDG targets such as poverty reduction and access to clean energy. The thin metallic film was a notable move away from the more costly silicon-based solar photovoltaic cells used in solar installations.

Alberts found himself the recipient of numerous awards for his innovation, including the Academy of Science of South Africa Young Scientist Award, the Fulbright Scholarship, and the Volkswagen Stiftung Grant. In 2007 he was nominated for the World Clean Energy Award.

Alberts founded and steered a university spin-off company, Photovoltaic Technology Intellectual Property (PTiP), to develop the process and applications of his patented metal alloy. The company went on to win a range of leading awards, including the Frost & Sullivan Technology Innovation Leadership Award in 2014 and the Top Technology 100 Business Innovation Award in 2015.363

In 2014, PTiP partnered with German engineering company Singulus Technologies to open a R180 million, 3 500 m2 plant in Stellenbosch364 as a platform to showcase Alberts’s thin-film solar technology. Engineering News noted at the time, ‘The plant was financed by UJ, as well as government’s Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and Technology Innovation Agency. The IDC also holds shares in PTiP.’365

However, as Engineering News noted, despite the technology ‘being protected by worldwide patents in more than 100 countries’, German car parts manufacturer Bosch launched a challenge to the PTiP patent in Europe in 2013. Ultimately, the ruling went against Bosch, which subsequently exited the solar market.

In the wake of the challenge, Alberts spoke openly about what he perceived to be an attack on South African intellectual property, and a learning opportunity for other South African and African inventors. He told Engineering News, ‘Millions of rands were spent to secure patent protection in the world and to prevent third-party infringement. Ultimately, this was not enough and we had to defend our IP against a licensee – a major, major German company with unlimited resources. This negative action obviously wasted a lot of time and money, which could have been spent on refining and commercialising our technology.’

Alberts also warned innovators looking to commercialise their inventions to ‘choose strategic partners with relevant commercial experience and a genuine desire to implement the technology’.

In 2019, Alberts founded INSOLA, a body focused on building strategic partnerships across Africa and enabling tech transfer and licencing.

The potential for hydrogen fuel cells was already an emerging area of focus under the broad banner of the ‘hydrogen economy’, which had been approved in 2008 as the Hydrogen South Africa programme (HySA). The 15-year initiative furthered the renewable thrust embodied by the REIPPP and the country’s Integrated Resource Plan 2019, and expressed the

361 Republic of South Africa. (2015, October 4-7). South African International Renewable Energy Conference: Conference Report.

362 IRENA. (2020). Renewable energy prospects: South Africa.

363 Independent Solar Africa. (2020). Our story.

364 Barbee, J. (2016, August 31). Africa’s only solar panel manufacturer shines brightly. Daily Maverick.

365 Venter, I. (2016, March 4). SA-developed solar panels beat European intellectual property challenge. Engineering News.

country’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions in line with the targets agreed on in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.366

South Africa’s hydrogen roadmap incorporated social commitments such as undertaking to produce ‘clean hydrogen in a way that is socially just and sensitive to the potential impacts on jobs and local economies’, alongside research commitments and the development of intellectual property, knowledge, infrastructure, supportive policy and regulations. It sought to find ways in which the ‘social benefits of hydrogen as an energy carrier’ could be unlocked.367

Hydrogen can be produced in a variety of ways, from using biological processes to thermochemical or electrolytic means, or by direct solar water splitting. However, to achieve the sort of ‘green’, low-emission hydrogen economy that South Africa is aiming for will require new innovations across the value chain, according to the International Energy Agency.368 This is because ‘green’ hydrogen may only carry this name if it is produced using 100% renewable power sources, such as wind or solar. At the time of writing, less than 1% of global hydrogen was being produced using low-emission technologies. As the International Energy Agency noted, ‘Nearly all hydrogen produced today comes from fossil fuels converted within industrial facilities such as refineries and chemical plants.’

Between 2011 and 2020, the largest share of international hydrogen patents were held by Europe and Japan, followed by the US. Data from 2020 shows that while applications from South Korea and China were ‘modest,’ they were steadily increasing (see Figure 36).

figure 33: share of global hydrogen patents (and technology focus) (2011–2020)

Source: European Patent Office and International Energy Agency

366 Department of Science and Innovation, Republic of South Africa. (2021). Hydrogen Society Roadmap for South Africa 2021. f

367 Department of Science and Innovation, Republic of South Africa. (2021).

368 International Energy Agency. (2023, January). Hydrogen patents for a clean energy future: A global trend analysis of innovation along hydrogen value chains.

South Africa’s ambition with its hydrogen roadmap, according to Minister Blade Nzimande, is to promote ‘rapid development of a green power sector, a domestic manufacturing sector for hydrogen products, fuel cell components, and the creation of an export market for South Africa’s green hydrogen’.369 The country is aiming to capture 4% of global market share as a producer and exporter of ‘green’ hydrogen by 2050.370

Three hydrogen hubs around the country, in Limpopo, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, are designed to coordinate the integration of a future hydrogen economy. With unparalleled access to the platinum group metals needed in the hydrogen production process, South Africa’s natural advantages are evident across the value chain. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that big names like global miner Anglo American are leading the charge with innovations such as a hydrogen-powered mine haul truck, known as the nuGen™ Zero emission Haulage solution

Another innovation of note during the period 2011 to 2020 was a technology dubbed Divergent electrode flow through (DEFT™), which went on to win the Monaco Hydrogen Alliance’s 2022 Best Emerging Technology Award. In his presentation, founder and CEO of Gauteng-based Hydrox Holdings, Corrie de Jager, explained how a membrane-less technology like DEFT was made possible by ‘utilising the flow of electrolytes to keep the hydrogen and oxygen gases separated and pure’. This, he said, ‘reduced the cost and complexity of green electrolytic hydrogen production by simplifying the design and operation of electrolyser cells. Without the limitations imposed by the inclusion of a membrane, the DEFT technology is able to push the boundaries, going beyond the operating realm of conventional electrolysers’. The end result is improved electrical efficiencies and cost savings.371

the emerging fintech sector

While financial technology, which we know today as ‘fintech’, did not find its way onto the DST’s ten-year ‘grand challenge’ agenda for 2008–2018, global events conspired to give the nascent sector a boost in the form of the global banking crisis of 2008–2009. Trust in established financial services companies was at rock bottom following the crisis, opening the way for low-fee, quick, technology-driven fintech companies to move in with alternatives. This did not necessarily go down well among established banks, with a 2018 World Bank policy brief by Juan J. Cortina and Sergio L. Schmuker noting, ‘Despite the potential benefits, fintech services also pose new types of risks. The lack of safety nets in the business models, misuse of personal data, difficulties in identifying customers, and electronic fraud are among the main vulnerabilities of the new digital financial practices.’372

The report noted that, in 2015, 4 000 fintech firms were active. By 2020 Statista put this figure at 20 925, with 8 775 originating in the Americas and 7 385 in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. According to McKinsey & Company, in Africa just under half of the 5 200 new tech start-ups between 2020 and 2021 were fintech businesses. The consultancy noted that ‘African fintechs have already made significant inroads into the market, with estimated revenues of around $4 billion to $6 billion in 2020 and average penetration levels of between three and five percent (excluding South Africa).’373

The reason for South Africa’s exclusion from these statistics was simply that the country already has the most advanced and mature banking system on the continent, accounting for some 40% of continent-wide revenues. It is one of just five African countries that house 50% of the continent’s software developers, the others being Nigeria, Morocco, Kenya and Egypt.374 By 2019, there were already a wealth of exciting fintech businesses and start-ups operating in South Africa. A report by banking group Rand Merchant Bank highlighted names such as its fintech accelerator alphaCode, which launched in 2015.375 Other names that emerged during this time, and which by 2020 had become household names in South Africa, included yoco, an African entrepreneur-friendly payment provider founded in 2015, and South Africa’s first fully digital and branchless bank, tymeBank, launched in 2019.

TymeBank is an interesting and inspiring innovation in this space. The company started life in 2012 as a spin-off from a Deloitte Consulting team, led by Coenraad Jonker and Tjaart van der Walt, later joined by Rolf Eichweber. As the company

369 Department of Science and Innovation, Republic of South Africa. (2021).

370 Salma, T. & Tsafos, N. (2020, April 4). South Africa’s hydrogen strategy. CSIS.

371 De Jager, C. (n.d.). Divergent electrode flow through electrolysis (DEFT). Hydrox Holdings.

372 Cortina, J.J. & Schmukler, S.L. (2018, April). The fintech revolution: A threat to global banking? World Bank Group.

373 Flototto, M., Gold, E., Jeenah, U., Kuyoro, M. and Olanrewaju, T. (2022, August 30). Fintech in Africa: The end of the beginning. McKinsey & Company.

374 Flototto, M., Gold, E., Jeenah, U., Kuyoro, M. and Olanrewaju, T. (2022, August 30).

375 RMB. (2019. The SA Fintech in Motion Report.

relates, the concept behind Tyme (‘Take Your Money Everywhere’) was to be a mobile money remittance operator, helping retailers offer local remittance services for less than their banking counterparts. In 2012, the new company confirmed South African Bank of Athens (today Access Bank) as a banking partner and signed up Pick n Pay as a client. With funding from telecommunications giant MTN, Tyme set about creating a core banking system, launching a low-cost digital bank in Namibia in 2014.

After being acquired by Australia’s CommBank in 2015, Tyme applied for a banking license from the South African Reserve Bank, which was granted provisionally in 2016 and subsequently gazetted in late 2017. South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe’s African Rainbow Capital Investments – which had first acquired a 10% stake in what was now called TymeDigital –acquired 100% of TymeDigital in September 2018, a year before the digital bank launched. By 2020, TymeBank had signed up two million customers and had its eye on international expansion a year later.376

TymeBank remains one of the most exciting and unfolding process innovations to emerge in this period of South Africa’s innovation history. It is a case of seized opportunities, strategic intent and the careful management of both the innovation process and the people and systems needed to advance its cause. Plus, as any good leader will acknowledge, it also took a bit of luck.

Co-founder Coenraad Jonker noted in a 2022 interview with the website Rival:

‘If you believe the research, which I do given my own experience, success is firstly about timing. Secondly about quite a bit of luck, but then it’s about resonance. It’s about creating something that people recognise as something that belongs in their world and that is a good thing in their world. And I think that we were lucky enough to get timing right, but also invested quite heavily in creating something that we believe people would recognise as a good thing in their life and something that will bring them empowerment, will bring them agency and will help them build a bridge between their lives and the former economy that they intuitively knew how to be built at some point.377

376 Founders Sauce. (2021). The Story of TymeBank. /

377 Fulwiler, E. (2022, November 23). How digital banks can cross over to the physical world with Coenraad Jonker, co-founder and CEO, Tyme Bank. Rival.

spotlight on 2016–2020

AsSouth Africa left the first two decades of the 2000s behind, it was unfortunately not with an A + in innovation preparedness but with a worrying C –. The 2020 South African Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Indicators Report,378 produced by the National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI), noted that progress was being made in some areas, such as increased funding for universities, improvements in the mathematics pass rate and school-level physical sciences. However, there were particular areas of concern that indicated an erosion of the enabling infrastructure. These included reduced research and development (R&D) spending by the country’s science councils and a decline in the value of research grants awarded by the National Research Foundation – from R1.72 billion in 2017 to R1.52 billion in 2019.379

Furthermore, graduates were battling to find jobs. South Africa produced fewer scientific publications in 2018 than it had in 2017, and funding for the country’s national innovation system continued to remain below the 1.5% target as a percentage of GDP. In 2017/18, South Africa’s GDP spend on research and development (R&D) was just 0.83%.

Specifically, as the STI report noted, financing the country’s national system of innovation remained a concern. ‘In 2017/18, South Africa’s gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD), as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 0.83%, which remains below the 1.5% target. Business expenditure of R&D (BERD), as a percentage of GERD, also declined from 58.6% in 2008/09 to 41.0% in 2017/18 and as a percentage of GDP from 0.52% in 2008/09 to 0.34% in 2017/18.’380 This meant that, by 2019, South Africa had sunk to fourth place in Africa for R&D spend as a proportion of GDP, behind Egypt, Rwanda and Tunisia.381

Some commentators linked this reluctance on the part of business to fund innovation and expansion to the deteriorating political and economic situation in the country. In 2017, global rating agencies Fitch and Standard & Poor both downgraded South Africa’s sovereign credit rating to sub-investment grade – a status that is often referred to in the media as ‘junk’.382 In 2020, Moody’s joined the troika in also cutting its rating by one notch and noting a decidedly negative outlook for South Africa.383

In a 2021 analysis, authors Pamela Mondliwa and Simon Roberts debunked the idea

378 National Advisory Council on Innovation. (2020, July). 2020 South African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators Report.

379 Department of Science and Innovation. (2020, October 29). South Africa resents report on strength and weaknesses of the country’s science technology and innovation domain. Science ׀ Business.

380 National Advisory Council on Innovation. (2020, July).

381 Nordling, L. (2022, June 9). South Africa drops among Africa’s top R&D spenders. ResearchProfessional News.

382 Joffe, H. (2017, April 7). Fitch downgrades South Africa to junk status. Business Day.

383 Winning, A. & Kumwenda-Mtambo, O. (2020, March 28). Moody’s downgrade to ‘junk’ adds to South Africa pain. Reuters.

that these ratings were the reason for businesses’ reduced funding of R&D, noting:

While firms broadly maintained profit levels in this period, there was limited investment in expanding productive capacity in South Africa. When challenged on this, business argued that the low levels of investment were a result of political uncertainty associated with [then President Jacob] Zuma’s presidency. However, the comparison of investment levels among comparable middle-income countries indicates the relatively lower investment levels in South Africa throughout the whole post-apartheid period.384

Mondliwa and Roberts added, ‘A point often missed in debates about this period is that South Africa’s failure generally to mobilise higher levels of investment in productive industries of the economy materially contributed to the conditions that enabled the brazen clientelism, patronage, and corruption that characterised the Zuma presidency.’385

What was not up for debate was that South Africa could no longer stand toe-to-toe with its global counterparts.

As NACI chairman, Dr Shadrack Moephuli, wrote in 2020:

Recent results from both the Global Innovation Index (GII) and the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) indicate that South Africa has been losing its relative position to other countries that are utilising their capacities, capabilities and competencies in science and technology better. It is therefore essential to deepen our analysis based on high-quality data about the real performance of the NSI [national system of innovation], and to clearly ascertain its inefficacies and contradictions. It is only upon such critical reflections that a betterperforming NSI is possible, and deemed necessary to the development of the people of South Africa.386

an increasingly fractured system

There were worrying signs that South Africa’s innovation system was at odds with itself and that its stakeholders were not aligned.

This was clearly evident in the two global assessments highlighted by Moephuli: the Global Innovation Index (GII) and the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI).

The GII, seen as an indicator of the strength of a national innovation system, measures the inputs and resources being directed towards innovation and the outputs achieved. The 2020 edition of the GII pointed to a system that was not in alignment, a view with which South Africa’s NACI concurred.

‘South Africa performs … far better in terms of inputs than outputs, which strongly suggests that, compared with other countries, South Africa’s NSI is not converting inputs into outputs as effectively as other countries,” said the 2020 NACI report. ‘South Africa is operating less efficiently than other countries. Moreover, the data indicates that the efficiency of the NSI has been declining over time. Accordingly, there is considerable scope for South Africa’s NSI to employ its existing resources more effectively.387

The World Economic Forum’s GCI, meanwhile, recorded an overall improvement in South Africa’s competitiveness, from 67th in 2018 to 60th in 2019 and 2020. In 2020, Mauritius actually overtook South Africa, taking 52nd spot globally and the top spot in Africa.388 In an interesting aside, the 2020 GII noted that South Africa ranked third globally in terms of the ‘internationalisation of inventions’, while the country was 38th among middle-income economies for quality of innovation.389 So, good ideas with international appeal were certainly not lacking.

There was, of course, another dark cloud on the horizon: the emergence of a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which would reach pandemic proportions in early 2020 and result in worldwide lockdowns and the closing of international borders and business. It effectively pulled the plug on face-to-face collaboration. The implications of this challenging period were still being felt at the time of writing, yet economies were opening up, and supply chains and companies were rebuilding.

There were indications from a rapid analysis conducted by African networking and innovation hub AfriLabs and the KTN

384 Mondliwa, P. & Roberts, S. (2021). The Political Economy of Structural Transformation: Political Settlements and Industrial Policy in South Africa', in Antonio Andreoni, and others (eds), Structural Transformation in South Africa: The Challenges of Inclusive Industrial Development in a Middle-Income Country (Oxford, 2021; online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Sept 2021). doi: 10.1093/ oso/9780192894311.003.0014.

385 Mondliwa, P. & Roberts, S. (2021).

386 National Advisory Council on Innovation. (2020, July).

387 National Advisory Council on Innovation. (2020, July).

388 Dutta, S., Reynoso, R.E., Lanvin, B. Wunsch-Vincent, S., Leon, L.R., Garanasveli, A. & Bayona, P. (2020). The Global Innovation Index 2020 (chapter 1). World Intellectual Property Organization.

389 Dutta, S., Reynoso, R.E., Lanvin, B. Wunsch-Vincent, S., Leon, L.R., Garanasveli, A. & Bayona, P. (2020).

Global Alliance that the innovation ecosystem in South Africa had been badly hit in terms of funding, with funding for small businesses and innovation in general being rerouted to food supply for the vulnerable, along with healthcare needs. ‘The immediate impact on innovators was far less funds available, especially to the already struggling early-stage startups,’ noted the analysis. Another deficit that emerged was in digital literacy and the support needed for businesses to switch to digital methods.390

There were bright sparks, too, as journalist Sarah Wild noted in her 2015 book, Innovation: Shaping South Africa through Science. In a 2015 interview, Wild highlighted a few noteworthy innovations at the time, including the ishack project, a social enterprise that provides solar energy to under-served communities. Started in 2013 and based in the Sustainability Institute near Stellenbosch in the Western Cape, iShack spoke to both the social needs of a community and the need for distributed power. ‘It is an electricity distribution mechanism using solar panels. None of that technology is an invention per se, but the way it is being used is inventive,’ noted Wild.391

Biotech: still on the radar

Notably, the focus on biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, as laid out in the Department of Science and Technology’s (DST’s) 2008–2018 ten-year plan,392 reflected in some of the data gathered between 2016 and 2020. Unfortunately, the data showed a strong trend of biotech and other patents being registered abroad rather than in South Africa. This development is examined in a little more depth in Section 8, ‘Reflections’.

The decline in locally registered patents shows, perhaps, that championing this sector was a good and insightful move but that the process of shepherding an innovation through the commercialisation phase was sometimes lacking. One has only to recall the case of Biovac in the period 2005 to 2010 to see how great ideas without the necessary support can fail abysmally. Because of restrictions on intellectual property ownership transfer, in South Africa, many companies prefer not to register their valuable insights locally. This, in effect, means that the money poured into R&D at the country level does not always have the full flow-through effect into South African society, thus failing as a means of boosting the economy, developing the sector and achieving growth. Patents in the technology sector are a key indicator of innovation at the country level.

As Márcio Nannini da Silva Florêncio and colleagues noted in a 2020 research paper, ‘The protection of biotechnological inventions is an important tool to stimulate and ensure a return in a segment that has high investments in research, development and innovation associated with a market of risks and uncertainties.’393

Figure 37 highlights the drop in the number of biotech patents being approved by the South African Patent Office. This compares to the steady rise in regions such as the US, Europe, China, Canada and, interestingly, Brazil. Since around 2007, Brazil has been focusing heavily on becoming a bio-industry competitor on the world stage, aligning policy to this vision. It is paying close attention to capitalising on and conserving its ‘immense natural resources and biodiversity, transforming them into bio-businesses and wealth’.394

390 Innovate UK KTN. (2020, October 9). The impact of Covid-19 on the South African innovation ecosystem – AfriLabs.

391 GIBS Business School. (2015, August 24). Sarah Wild – Innovation, Shaping South Africa Through Science.

392 Republic of South Africa. (2007). Innovation towards a knowledge-based economy: Ten-year plan for South Africa (2008 ‒ 2018). Department of Science and Technology.

393 Da Silva Florêncio, M.N., De Souza Abud, A.K., Gomes Costa, B.M. & Martins Oliveira Jnr., A. (2020). The sectoral dynamics of the protection of biotechnology in Brazil. World Patent Information, 62. doi: 10.1016/j.wpi.2020.101984.

394 Da Silva Florêncio, M.N., De Souza Abud, A.K., Gomes Costa, B.M. & Martins Oliveira Jnr., A. (2020).

figure 34: south african biotechnology patent trends over time (2005–2020)

Data source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

In fact, the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) accounted for 25% of global biotechnology patents by 2014, compared with just 3% in 2000. As of 2014, 96% of these BRICS biotech patents were coming from China and Russia.395

While South Africa had been very much part of this BRICS drive to develop and patent new biotechnologies, an analysis of BRICS biotech patents between 1994 and 2014 reveals that both South Africa and India generally had a more global focus when it came to registering patents. A reviewer offered the following interpretation of South Africa’s situation, ‘Inventors in South Africa have critically low trust in the domestic system of intellectual property protection, while Indian applicants pursue global commercial interests, with private companies taking the lead in this field.’396

south africa’s bioeconomy ambitions

The South African push to capitalise on the bioeconomy, which it had identified in 2008 and approved as part of the South African Bio-economy Strategy in 2014, was showing dividends as 2020 approached. More biotechnology research was being published from South Africa, with a 23% increase in publications between 2018 and 2019. Although this dipped again in 2020, the data shows that since the adoption of the bioeconomy strategy, South Africa has been contributing to the field on the world stage.397 This shows a positive link between the support provided by policy and output on the ground. What might explain a reluctance on the part of government to keep pushing the industry is the fact that while output is increasing, the number of people employed in the bioeconomy has been consistently dropping since 2015. Employment in the South African bioeconomy remained at around 10.9% of total South African employment in 2020 and 2021.398

Biotechnology innovations that emerged from South Africa during the 2016–2020 period included agriprotein, which

395 HSE University. (2018, May 4). BRICS countries look for their place in biotechnology market.

396 HSE University. (2018, May 4).

397 National Advisory Council on Innovation. (2023). 2023 South African Science, Technology & Innovation Indicators Report. Republic of South Africa.

398 National Advisory Council on Innovation. (2023).

was once tipped as a future pioneer in the insect protein industry. Founded in 2008, the company launched in Cape Town in 2014 and liquidated in 2021. Based on Lux Research’s analysis, the company was undone by expectations. Despite a keen reception and ample capital, the company was unable to scale at the speed required and also found itself blown seriously off course by the 2020 pandemic.399 Opting for a large employee headcount, instead of automation, also put the company under severe financial pressure in the wake of the global pandemic.400

BioCertica, which launched in 2020 and is still operational, was another local biotech start-up with global ambitions. A direct-to-customer genetic testing platform, the innovation allows for more accurate diagnosis of genetic susceptibility for ailments such as obesity, heart disease, hypertension and cholesterol. The company is the first genetic company based in Africa to offer DNA test results.

In 2022, BioCertica raised US$1.6 million in seed funding, bringing the company’s total funding to US$2.3 million. At the time, founder and CEO Gert van Wyk noted:

This technological innovation will enable African healthcare practitioners to obtain a greater understanding of their patients’ DNA via the BioCertica Practitioners Platform. This contributes to the advancement of preventative care and precision medicine. At BioCertica, we think that prevention is preferable to cure; by utilising Bio-Fintech tools, we empower our clients to make more informed lifestyle and health-related decisions daily. Meanwhile, our technological ecosystem safeguards our consumers’ privacy with bank-grade security standards and encryption.401

Both agriprotein and BioCertica were aligned to key SDGs. AgriProtein addressed SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture), SDG 3 (ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages), SDG 12 (ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns), SDG 13 (take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts), and SDG 15 (protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems). BioCertica continues to align with SDG 3 (good health and well-being) and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities).

mzansi meat, Africa’s first cultivated meat company, was launched in 2020 by Brett Thompson and Tasneem Karodia to create legitimate options for meat-free consumption. In an interview with AgFunderNews, the foodtech co-founders explained that it had taken two years for research to produce their first fake-beef burger, with the majority of the team engaged in R&D. Karodia noted that the laboratory used by the team was a public-private partnership, and that having access to this facility had been critical to their success in producing a viable prototype. However, she also noted that ‘there are other regions in the world that have more grant funding for this industry. One issue with grant funding [in South Africa] is that it is quite onerous to get and sometimes it takes a while … It’s sometimes easier to get funding from private VCs [venture capitalists] or other investors.’402

Karodia’s observation is borne out by the numbers. The 2023 South African Science, Technology & Innovation Indicators Report noted that despite the tremendous potential of the sector, funding was just not flowing in: R&D expenditures in the field of biological sciences have been on a consistently downward trend since 2012/13. In 2020/21, there was a significant decline (13.8%) in real expenditure. In 2020/21, expenditures were 24% lower than in the base. Biological sciences’ share of research expenditures in all fields has also tended to decline. It declined further in 2020/21 and was substantially lower than in the base.

Like AgriProtein, the approach taken by mzansi meat (now Newform Fords)403 is well aligned with the SDGs, specifically SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture), SDG 3 (ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages), SDG 12 (ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns) and SDG 13 (take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact).

399 Krishfield, L. (2023, July 5). What happened to AgriProtein? Lux Research.

400 Krishfield, L. (2023, July 5).

401 Magnitt. (2022, April 15). South African biotechnology startup BioCertica secures $1.6M SEED [Press Release].

402 Ngige, L. (2022, September 23). Meet the founder: Mzansi Meat’s co-founders on building a global foodtech company with African roots. AgFunderNews.

403 Vegconomist. (2023, August 16). The era of the alt protein rebrand: yet another cell ag company reveals new identity.

Biotikum: south africa’s response to the threat of drug-resistant infections

Drug-resistant infections were predicted to cause 1.27 million deaths in 2019, surpassing HIV/AIDS and malaria as the leading cause of death in the world. In 2019, it was estimated that antimicrobial-resistant infections were linked to 4.95 million deaths,404 with an article in The Lancet observing that ‘the highest rates of antimicrobial resistance burden are in sub-Saharan Africa’.

Antibiotics are widely used in the farming industry as a treatment and as a preventative measure. Regulation of their use is poor. According to a 2018 survey405 by the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and the World Organisation for Animal Health, less than 42% of 64 countries around the world had restricted the use of antibiotics as growth promoters. Not surprisingly, the majority (39) of these countries were classified as high-income, with more than half located in Europe. Conversely, only a few countries in Africa (three) and the Americas (seven) had taken similar steps.

This was despite the fact that resistance to microbial treatment is increasingly deemed a threat to human and economic development. As a result, pressure has been building on the global agricultural industry to find alternatives to promote animal health while avoiding the negative trickle-down effects on humans.

In 2018, PhD student Deon Neveling set out to tackle the challenges facing the agricultural industry and the health of Africa’s population by developing a sustainable solution. The aim was to reduce the need for antibiotics in chicken farming. After extensive research, Neveling developed and patented a water-based probiotic additive for chickens. ProbiGal™ comprises a carefully selected combination of microbial species found in the guts of healthy free-range chickens.

This game-changing product spoke directly to three of the SDGs: SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SFG 10 (reduce inequality within and among countries) and SDG 12 (ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns).

In 2020, Neveling and his team incorporated Biotikum (Pty) Ltd, Africa’s first animal probiotics company, as a spin-off company from the University of Stellenbosch. The new partnership aimed to expand the reach of sustainable farming practices and develop innovative solutions to meet the needs of the agricultural industry. With a wealth of expertise in microbial research and development, the Biotikum team hopes to create new animal probiotics that will benefit farmers and consumers alike.

As Neveling noted in his nomination for the Royal Academy of Engineering Africa Prize for Engineering Innovation 2023,406 ‘Antibiotics should only be used to treat pathogens which are already present, and never as a preventative measure. We are the first African producer of animal probiotics, and we hope to extend our reach into the continent to assist farmers with sustainable agricultural practices to protect animals and humans from super drug-resistant bacteria.’

The team is continuing its R&D efforts with the goal of becoming Africa’s leading microbial manufacturer. They envisage a day when sustainable farming practices will become the norm, with antibiotic use limited to only the most necessary situations. By providing a sustainable alternative to the overuse of antibiotics, they have the potential to make a huge contribution to the health and well-being of animals and humans.

sustainable living: agriculture, renewable energy and the hydrogen economy

An idea that rose to prominence towards the end of 2020 was that a combination of research, innovation and business was the most likely route to attaining the SDGs. At the time of writing, this interplay was still very much at the forefront of business thinking in Africa, both among business leaders and higher education institutions.

In 2022, a White Paper by the Dean of Henley Business School Africa, Jonathan Foster-Pedley, traced a link between the SDGs and the production of relevant research that spoke directly to the challenges facing Africa. A participant in his study

404 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. (2022). Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. The Lancet, 399(10325): 629-655. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0.

405 World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & World Organization for Animal Health. (2018). Monitoring global progress on addressing antimicrobial resistance: analysis report of the second round of results of AMR country self-assessment survey 2018. World Health Organization.

406 Royal Academy of Engineering. (2023). Dr Deon Neveling, South Africa, ProbiGal. Africa Prize for Engineering Innovation.

observed: ‘The opportunities for research that can transform society and impact policy is much, much higher when it comes to Africa than the other countries.’

The comment reflects a growing understanding that addressing the SDGs in the African context is not just the preserve of governments, but also companies and research institutions. African businesses should be looking beyond profits, recognising both their economic potential and their social responsibilities.407

The SDGs provide a framework for achieving sustainable development at the country level. By identifying SDG-related challenges and seeking innovative solutions, businesses can find new and exciting ways to use technology to solve social and environmental challenges, and a focus for their research efforts in the future.408

Recognising this – as well as the interconnectedness of the country’s national ambitions with addressing fundamental social issues such as eliminating poverty and reducing equalities – in 2019 the South African government released a Voluntary National Review Report. The report affirms the country’s commitment to implementing the National Development Plan’s Vision 2030 in sync with the global SDGs and the African Union’s Agenda 2063. It also highlights South Africa’s intention to ‘harness innovative technology solutions to improve access to basic services, such as safe drinking water, sanitation and electricity’ and to encourage businesses, government and society at large to view the internationally agreed SDGs through a South African lens and within an African context.409

figure 35: How south africa’s national Development plan aligns to the sustainable Development Goals

Source: United Nations Development Programme410

Professional consulting firm PwC noted in 2019 that 68% of South African firms were already aware of and aligning their strategies with the SDGs.411 The United Nations also noted the natural alignment between the SDGs and South Africa’s longterm policies (as shown in Figure 38). Therefore, it is to be hoped that in the coming years, the golden thread of sustainability and deep social awareness will continue to run through South African innovations, particularly those aligned with the goal of achieving a more inclusive South Africa. Already, in the period 2016–2020, an SDG focus was evident in several innovative outputs.

407 Foster-Pedley, J. (2022). Amplifying the impact of African business schools. Henley Business School Africa.

408 Azmat, F., Lim, W.M., Moyeen, A., Voola, R. & Gupta, G. (2023). Convergence of business, innovation, and sustainability at the tipping point of the sustainable development goals. Journal of Business Research, 167. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114170.

409 Republic of South Africa. (2019). South Africa’s Implementation of the 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development: Solving complex challenges together. 2030 NDP.

410 Leigh, F. (2021, June 18). The release of the report on mapping of the National Development Plan (NDP, Vision 2030) to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 2030) and the African Union’s Agenda 2063. United Nations Development Programme.

411 Republic of South Africa. (2019).

Below, we review the efforts of several South African innovators to fulfil specific SDGs.

SDG 3: ‘Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages’

Monitor-T

Digital Infantometer: Fighting childhood malnutrition with a low-cost digital solution

Poor nutrition is the root cause of about 45% of deaths among children globally. The World Health Organisation estimates that in 2020, 149 million children under the age of five were too short for their age (stunted growth), while 45 million were too thin for their height (wasted). In addition, almost 40 million children globally were overweight or obese – many of them malnourished. More than half of South Africa’s children live below the poverty line, and one in three children are regarded as being underdeveloped.

Despite massive efforts on the part of governments and organisations around the world, this reality persists, with efforts stymied by various political and infrastructural challenges. One focus area has been improving the regular assessment process needed to identify and monitor the nutritional status of a country’s children. Human error and the unavailability of skills means that many cases are detected too late, with malnourishment in the early years causing physical and cognitive stunting. Many cases of ongoing childhood malnourishment could be prevented by timely identification and treatment.

A pioneering South African solution, the Monitor-T Digital Infantometer, was born in 2020 out of the Faculty of Engineering at North-West University (NWU). The innovation was formalised under the banner of low-cost, high-impact digital health solutions by med-E-Hive, a company with its roots in NWU. Med-E-Hive develops and commercialises a range of digital health innovations, including remote ventilator monitoring, a portable breastfeeding pod, robotic-assisted knee and hand rehabilitation, a system for drug supply management, and the Monitor-T Digital Infantometer.

The woman driving the creation of the Monitor-T Digital Infantometer is NWU professor Leenta Grobler, who heads a team united by its commitment to solving child welfare issues through technology. Grobler explains, ‘In the world that we helped to create through Monitor-T, we hope that malnutrition will be better managed and understood.’

An automated baby scale, the Monitor-T, can be added to existing infantometers, thereby offering a low-cost solution for flagging and automatically escalating cases that are outside healthy ranges to the medical practitioner. This digital infantometer can reduce the time spent on assessment by 80% if one considers the measuring and weighing of babies and the input, analysis, and interpretation of data. It also increases accuracy by 60%. Removing full reliance on the human eye and skills is just one of the benefits.

Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy

HySA Systems: The multi-dimensional power of hydrogen fuel cell technology

Meeting social challenges associated with climate change and the increasing demand for energy are defining considerations for future-proofing the economy. While green innovations continue to advance across the world, foreign technology often comes with financial and logistic complexities, delaying the crucial leap into sustainability.

Aiming to address these challenges, in 2016 the University of Western Cape (UWC) and Impala Refining Services (Implats) introduced South Africa’s first hydrogen fuel cell for use by forklift vehicles as well as hydrogen refuelling stations, among other real-world applications. The innovation was the result of a R6 million investment by Implats into UWC’s HySA Systems research centre. Fuel cell technology, which uses electrochemical processes rather than combustion to generate energy, can significantly lower emissions, while increasing reliability and scalable capacity.

UWC’s South African Institute for Advanced Materials Chemistry (SAIAMC) and Implats’ technology came together to improve productivity, thanks to the extended operational capacity of hydrogen fuel cell technology, and find ways to reduce the frequency and time required for refuelling. The system also lowers maintenance requirements, operating costs412 and noise levels. Speaking in 2016, SAIAMC Director Professor Vladimir Linkov praised the partnership with Implats and the broader ecosystem of innovation that supported this approach to innovation.

‘With Impala Platinum becoming a partner to SAIAMC, UWC has achieved the long-term goal of entering strategic research, development and innovation partnerships with an absolute national leader in one of the pillars of energy generation

412 Kruger,

N. (2021, June 21). HySA Systems Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles: showcased to the world through World Hydrogen Technology Convention 2021. University of the Western Cape.

for current and future needs of the South African economy,’ said Linkov. ‘This partnership is unique in the national system of innovation, unparalleled by any other university laboratory or institute in South Africa.’413

Underlining the compelling case for hydrogen fuel cell technology, SAIAMC also focuses on ‘building local skills in the development of hydrogen and fuel cell products’. With platinum being such a key component in fuel cell technology, and with South Africa accounting for close to 90% of the world´s platinum reserves, a local fuel cell industry has the potential to boost production capacity and competitiveness.

As then-Implats CEO Terence Goodlace noted in 2016, ‘Developing a viable fuel cell industry in South Africa has several advantages for the country – such as economic development, sustainable job creation and social good … The development and implementation of this technology provides an important opportunity for South Africa to play a role in reducing global greenhouse emissions, thus diminishing urban pollutants and contributing to reduced healthcare costs and an improved quality of life.’414

This approach showed an appreciation for tackling additional SDGs, specifically SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 3 (good health and well-being).

At the time of writing, HySA Systems had unveiled hydrogen fuel cell prototypes for UAVs (drones), scooters, power modules for heavy-duty vehicles and forklifts.415

Dr Cordellia Sita, Director of HySA Systems, noted the challenges that needed to be overcome before the full benefits of this technology could be felt:

Fuel cell-powered forklifts are gaining significant traction worldwide and are now entering mainstream commercialisation. However, the limited availability of refuelling infrastructure, coupled with the challenge of finding the most appropriate on-board hydrogen storage technology remains a big challenge. Through this demonstration project, HySA Systems has addressed both challenges through the use of a novel metal hydride material for both hydrogen compression and storage.416

Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources

Aequorea Coastal Observer: Understanding South Africa’s vast ocean resources

As of 2019, the total value of the annual world shipping trade had reached more than US$14 trillion, according to the International Chamber of Shipping. In South Africa, marine transportation accounted for more than two-thirds (67%) of the country’s trade value in 2022.417

In 2020, South Africa ranked as the fourth-largest fish exporter on the African continent. With a coastline of approximately 4 000 km and an Exclusive Economic Zone of 1.5 million square kilometres under its jurisdiction, South Africa has access to a rich marine resource, rich in biodiversity, with the potential to boost the country’s economy and job creation.

Operation Phakisa, a strategic initiative of the South African government, was launched in 2014 to unlock the full potential of the ocean in line with the National Development Plan’s 2030 ambitions. Aequorea, a technology solutions provider developed by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, also positioned itself to play a significant role in the ocean economy by providing localised technology solutions.

At the heart of Aequorea is the Coastal Observer, a smart buoy system with capabilities to deliver real-time data through wireless telemetry from various sensors mounted and powered by the platform. The system was designed to withstand South Africa’s severe ocean conditions and to fulfil both commercial and scientific purposes.

The innovation is of value in diverse markets, including marine transport and manufacturing, offshore oil and gas exploration, aquaculture, forestry and fisheries, marine protection services and ocean governance, small harbour development, coastal and marine tourism, and marine consulting. Its potential does not end there. Aequorea has continued to seek out ways in which to enhance its capabilities in ocean measurement and monitoring. Some of its innovations during the period under review include an underwater glider and an autonomous/pilot-operated underwater vehicle. In addition to supplying ocean

413 University of the Western Cape. (2016, March 31). UWC’s HySA and Implats develop South Africa’s first hydrogen fuel cell forklift and refuelling station.

414 University of the Western Cape. (2016, March 31).

415 Kruger, N. (2021, June 21).

416 University of the Western Cape. (2016, March 31).

417 Placek, M. (2023, May 17). Trade value distribution of South Africa in 2022, by mode of transport. Statista.

measurement and monitoring devices, Aequorea provides service and maintenance support. An Aequorea spin-off company, falling under the umbrella of Aonyx Holdings, was registered in January 2020.

At a broader, strategic level, Aequorea is committed to helping unlock the economic potential of South Africa’s oceans by providing access to live ocean observation data. This proudly South African innovation is playing a role by contributing to economic growth and job creation, contributing to SDG 9 (build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation), SDG 10 (reduce inequality within and among countries) and SDG 12 (ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns).

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, promote sustainable agriculture

Aonyx Foods: The Bambara groundnut

In 2019, more than 135 million people faced acute food insecurity. According to The World Bank, this number would increase twofold by mid-2022. Among the variety of factors affecting food security, climate change was considered the main threat to food supply across the world in the period under review. Rising temperatures, droughts, floods, spoiled soils and disruptions to entire ecosystems were poised to damage farms and deplete harvests.

In response to these challenges, Professor Victoria Jideani from the Food Science and Technology Department at Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) became an advocate for the Bambara groundnut, a leguminous crop widespread across Africa. Also known as the round bean, the Bambara groundnut is a sustainable climate-smart418 nutritional solution that could help fight malnutrition and contribute to healthier diets.

Among the many advantages of Bambara groundnut production are the legume’s natural resilience to drought and its low water consumption. Not only is the Bambara groundnut rich in nutrients, making it ‘ideal for preventing chronic illnesses’, according to Jideani, it is also a versatile raw material for ‘gluten-, lactose- and cholesterol-free value-added products’, with applications that span dairy and meat substitutes, baked goods and beverages.

Marketed by Aonyx Foods, CPUT’s spin-off company formed to commercialise the innovation, the Bambara groundnut feedstock has the potential to contribute to the entire food industry value chain. It opens up opportunities for farmers and food manufacturers, both locally and internationally.

In 2019, Aonyx landed a place in the Foodtech Programme, an initiative designed to support start-ups and small businesses operating in the agriculture and food production space. Run in partnership with the South African Innovation Summit, the Foodtech Programme showcases African innovations, supports emerging businesses and offers support and opportunities to connect.

Rising stars: Drone technology and digital innovation

Two sectors that deserve a nod as the next stage of South Africa’s innovation journey kicks in are digital innovation and drones, as part of the wider UAV industry.

In 2020, the South African government gazetted a National Digital and Future Skills Strategy,419 focused on developing a society of digitally skilled South Africans with capabilities to meet the challenges arising from the increasing deployment and adoption of digital technologies in economy and society, understanding that the digital revolution (using cloud technologies that enable big data; bringing virtual and augmented reality into a real world environment; introducing autonomous vehicles and drones; making Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, robotics and 3D printing part of everyday life) occurs within the context of the broader Fourth Industrial Revolution (working with advanced materials, biotechnology innovations, and the wider landscape of scientific innovation).

The strategy recognises that young South Africans need key skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking to compete on the digital world stage, and that educational institutions have an essential role to play as sites of research and innovation. This aligns with the national innovation system model already established in South Africa and globally. The strategy document also speaks to the need to involve all stakeholders in society, from private training institutions and digital technology incubators

418 The World Bank. (2023). Climate-smart agriculture.

419 Government Gazette. (2020, September 23). National Digital and Future Skills Strategy. Republic of South Africa, Department: Communications & Digital Technologies.

to the private sector and investors. Again, we see a nod to fostering an ecosystem of cooperation and partnerships in support of innovation.

Encouragingly, South African organisations have not been shy about driving digital transformation projects that could yield social and economic benefits in the future. The Digital Transformation Index 2020, released by Dell Technologies, noted that 79% of organisations in South Africa have ‘fast-tracked some digital transformation programmes this year (on par with the 80% reported globally).’420

Commenting at the time on how South African organisations were shaping up to global contemporaries, Dough Woolley, the MD of Dell Technologies South Africa, noted, ‘In many cases South African organisations surveyed are ahead of the global average and can be seen to be advocating digital transformation initiatives.’ In total, 79% of South African organisations had ‘fast-tracked some digital transformation programmes’ in 2020, and 84% were revisiting their business model (ahead of the global average of 79%). However, there was a definite focus on investing in artificial intelligence locally (44% compared to the global average of 33%) rather than in virtual reality technologies (23% of South African organisations compared to 16% globally).421

Innovations to watch in 2020 were e-commerce start-ups such as Qwili (founded in that year to address the needs of micro-merchants), Rentoza (founded in 2017 as a subscription-based retail model giving consumers access to new technology and devices at affordable prices), Khula (founded in 2016 to provide small-scale farmers with direct access to formal markets) and yaga (founded in 2017 to facilitate the sale of pre-owned fashion goods).422 Each of these companies has a social development aspect that aligns with the SDGs, addressing targets such as SDG 10 (reduce inequalities) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production).

Similarly, drone technology companies have a social and environmental component to many of their applications. As the largest drone market in Africa, South Africa is already deploying drone technology in sectors such as mining, agriculture, security and medicine.423 Agritech company Aerobotics, for instance, was founded in 2014 and uses drone technology, robotics and artificial intelligence to help farmers make reliable estimates about yield and harvest schedules through data collection and analysis.424 The start-up contributes to SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) and SDG 15 (life on land).

Other drone applications include surveillance and security, a service provided by Drone Guards, which falls under the UAV Aerial Works group and uses drones equipped with thermal cameras to provide day and night imaging. Drone Guards is being used to protect mines, farms, and residential estates.425

Similarly, Uav & Drone solutions partners with ground teams to provide night surveillance to address issues such as cable theft, railway infrastructure damage and wildlife poaching.426

Encouragingly, with funding from the Small Enterprise Development Agency, an accelerator programme was rolled out in 2020 by Mzansi Aerospace Technologies to share the skills and tools needed to capitalise on good ideas, and develop the sector. As of 2020, 13 start-ups had successfully graduated from the programme, including two film production firms that use drone technology (fade Communications & video services and extol Jireh), an inspection and maintenance concept for cell phone towers (Ziyakhipha projects), a crop-spraying agritech start-up (Kurai) and drone training services (Kasielabs).427

With any number of potential applications for new and emerging technologies such as drones, robotics, artificial intelligence and digital innovations, the sky is often regarded as the only limit for South African innovation. However, as the story of some South African innovations shows us, there are countless hurdles along the way that can derail even the brightest of ideas.

In the case of drones, South Africa was quick to put laws in place to regulate the use of drones – not to hold the innovation back, but to protect citizens from the implications of a technological free-for-all.428

420 Bowen, M. (2021, March 12). Global pandemic accelerates digital transformation in South Africa. Intelligent CIO.

421 Bowen, M. (2021, March 12).

422 AU-Startups. (2023, August 1). 12 Southern African startup companies redefining ecommerce to watch.

423 Drone Industry Insights (2019). The South African Drone Market Report 2019–2024.

424 Kene-Okafor, T. (2021, January 21). South African startup Aerobotics raises $17M to scale its AI-for-agriculture platform. TechCrunch.

425 Martin, G. (2019, July 2). Drones are patrolling South African residential estates. DefenceWeb.

426 Flood, Z. (2016, July 27). From killing machines to agents of hope: the future of drones in Africa. The Guardian.

427 Ventureburn. (2020, July 2). Graduates of Africa’s first drone accelerator programme announced.

428 Bouwer, C. (2019, December 9). Regulating emerging technologies. Acumen.

The balance between rules, repercussions and human creativity is tricky to get right at times. Still, one thing is clear: with technology and technological systems evolving at breakneck speed, the most valuable commodity in the innovation space over the next 20 years could be the human ability to collaborate. Collaboration is vital to unlocking the potential of nascent ideas, making development, expansion and commercialisation possible. Collaboration needs to take place in the entire innovation pipeline, from policymaking to education and research, business development, funding and marketing. Collaboration is needed across borders and between sectors.

The irony is that as South Africa steps into a digital future, the sticking point for innovation does not lie in any lack of ideas, applications and potentialities, but in addressing the central issue of trust, and ensuring the delicate and critical management of people and partnerships.

reflections – where to from here?

Whilequalitative research in the form of listening to individuals, businesses and stakeholders is of great value, the hard numbers also have an important tale to tell. Unfortunately, facts and figures can sometimes get drowned out in the noise, hype and rhetoric of grand ambition. By reviewing the numbers, we gain perspective, and through close analysis we can pick up interesting nuances that tell us where South Africa stands in relation to the world’s leading national innovators. Within these insights are the clues and cues South Africa should consider if we are to improve our approach and ecosystem.

Looking back on the research process that supported the writing and editing of this book, what proved perplexing at first was the reluctance of government institutions across all the countries discussed – Canada, Malaysia, South Korea and South Africa – to share information on patent applications, successful commercialisation, and cross-border innovations. It proved even harder to get representatives from the various countries to provide an honest assessment of their innovation systems – what was working, and what was not. Perhaps this is understandable. When a country is soaring in the innovation stakes, it has no special interest in sharing its ‘magic elixir’. When a country is floundering, it hardly wants to bear its failures to the world; unless it has a sound plan to rectify them.

Fortunately, global bodies such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation offer unrestricted access to their extensive datasets, enabling The Smarter Edge team to dig into data without bringing preconceived notions or biases into play. We’ve shown some of the results of this digging in numerous graphs and tables in this book. As any statistician knows, though, numbers have to be interpreted. Extensive reading, interviewing and observing enabled us to map the numbers to events, grasp the deeper issues at play and present a comprehensive picture of South Africa’s innovation landscape in relation to the world, or at least a part of it.

So, let’s look at a few key takeaways, as revealed in patent numbers. It is worth noting that data for the graphs below was accessed in 2021 and again in 2023 to update the information, but on neither occasion was complete data up to 2020 available. However, it is still possible to observe the emerging trends between 2005 and 2020.429

Key takeaways

As is evident in Figure 36, the numbers show a steady decline in South African entities registering their patents in South Africa. Between 2005 and 2020, South Africa registered 13 500 patents in other offices and 6 092 in South Africa. Between 2016 and 2020, the global numbers were 3 492 versus 13 in South Africa (although data from the final years in the review period may not yet have been processed at the time of writing).

429 When reading the charts, it is important to note the language of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. For instance, figures by filing office show where protection for intellectual property (IP) is being sought, while figures by origin indicates who is seeking protection. ‘Resident’ refers to applicants seeking protection in their home patent office, while ‘non-resident’ indicates foreigners filing in an office that is not their own.

figure 36: south africa – patents registered at home and abroad (2005–2020)

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

What was clear was that by 2020, the US had become the main office for South African patent applications, with Europe coming in second, followed by Brazil (Figure 37).

figure 37: south africa’s patent publications by foreign office of registration (2005–2020)

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

South Africa was, of course, not the only nation registering patents around the world. Looking at patents filed with the South Africa Patent Office (SAPO) between 2005 and 2020 (Figure 38) one sees that the US consistently registered the

highest number of patents with SAPO, followed by Germany. South Africa followed in third place until 2014 when Switzerland took over as the third biggest filer of patents with SAPO, as South African numbers declined. This downward spiral has continued since 2015, with South Africa’s local patent filings falling sharply behind both Switzerland and the UK. When figures from 2016 become available a different story might emerge, but up to 2015 a trend does appear to be evident.

figure 38: south africa patent office filings (2005–2020)

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

Of all the patents filed by South Africa around the world, and in all offices, only ‘analysis of biological materials’ saw an overall increase of 138% from the first timeframe (2005–2010) to the last timeframe (2016–2020).

figure 39: Rise of biological material patents filed by south africa vs a decline in other sectors (across all offices, 2005–2010 compared with 2016-2020)

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

Looking at industries broadly, of South Africa’s ten leading sectors for patent registrations between 2016 and 2020, almost every single patent was registered abroad. That is, with the exception of three industries, each of which recorded a single patent in South Africa; namely, transport, chemical engineering and civil engineering.

As Figure 40 shows, the top industries in which South Africa was filing patents abroad were: Analysis of biological materials (a 210% increase from 2005 to 2020), optics (up 113%), other special machines (28%), biotechnology (15%) and macromolecular chemistry, polymers (6%).

figure 40: south african innovators filing abroad: leading sectors and laggards (2005–2020)

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

Of the patents filed by South African entities in the South Africa Patent Office, none of the industries reported an increase in volume over the period, with the exception of semiconductors, which saw a slight increase from the first cycle (2005–2010) to the second cycle (2011–2015).

Digging deeper

The data clearly shows that South African innovators, be they corporates or individuals, are increasingly looking to register their patents abroad, mostly in the US. This is hardly surprising as the United States Patent and Trademark Office is one of the big five patent offices, alongside the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the European Patent Office, the Japan Patent Office and the China National Intellectual Property Administration. Any worldwide company with a global patenting strategy would seek protection in the world’s largest consumer market by spend.

In some ways, South Africa is shooting itself in the foot through the constraints imposed by the country’s exchange control laws, which limit possibilities for selling intellectual property (IP) internationally or commercialising IP. Since transferring the ownership of IP offshore requires approval from the South African Reserve Bank, and since the asset’s disposal could attract capital gains tax,430 many companies with an eye to global expansion might look abroad before applying for a South African patent.

As attorney Stephan Viollier wrote in a 2022 opinion piece for BrandLaw: By creating and holding IP outside of South Africa, you can avoid the barriers and restrictions imposed by exchange controls, allowing you to focus on maximizing the potential of your IP. It may not be the most beneficial choice for South Africa’s economy, but protecting and promoting your own interests should be a 430 Adams&Adams. (2023, May 22). Thinking about moving intellectual property offshore? Here’s what you need to know.

priority.431

Another factor to consider is that the South African Patent Office is a non-examining authority. This means applications don’t have to be examined for novelty and are issued when all necessary formalities are concluded. This system is completely open to abuse with foreign patent applications able to take advantage of our lack of oversight to obtain a patent that might not make it through an examination at another authority.

As Michael Kahn noted in the book Harnessing Public Research for Innovation in the 21st Century: Although the cost of obtaining a patent is low [in a non-examining authority like the South African Patent Office], the patent system leads to a proliferation of low-value domestic patents, provides protection to foreign intellectual property, and creates extra costs for firms that need to monitor non-novel patents. The system is also likely to reduce the domestic use of formal knowledge transfer based on patents. The potential economic value of South African patents is therefore best assessed through patents granted in foreign jurisdictions with a patent examination system.432

Fortunately, and very much in line with the African Union Development Agency’s focus on leveraging IP rights across Africa in order to help “Africans to create, sell and secure income from their cutting-edge goods and services”, greater attention is being paid to giving innovators and businesses from the African continent peace of mind when trying to commercialise their IP.433

However, the United Nations noted that in 2020: Africa accounted for only 0.5% of the world’s patent applications, compared to 66.6% for Asia, 19.3% for North America and 10.9% for Europe. Furthermore, the number of applications from residents constituted only 20.7%. This demonstrates that most of the applications were submitted by non-residents, indicating that Africa’s local innovations were either limited or not fully protected by the patent systems.434

Other interpretations of Africa’s low filing of patents include the cost of patent registrations435 or, as seen in South Africa, the fact that legislative challenges or restrictions are forcing companies to seek their protections abroad.

On a positive note, in 2023, just as the finishing touches were being put to this book, the South African Patent Office issued a Practice Note (21 of 2023) that sought to tighten the patenting process. The new regulation requires companies to submit supporting documents to prove that the application meets patentability requirements if applicants are trying to expedite faster acceptance. The move, explained IP experts Spoor & Fisher in 2023, was both ‘bold and proactive’ on the part of the South African Patent Office, which has found itself being used as a pawn in a global game. Countries like China and India offer financial rewards and government rebates to companies based on the number of “granted patents obtained by their nationals.436

As Spoor & Fisher noted

The China State Council, in the most recent plan of its National Intelligence Property Law Strategy, targets 12 invention patents per 10 000 people by 2025 and incentivises nationals to achieve this goal. The Indian government, through its Patent Facilitation Scheme, also aims to encourage innovation and provide financial support to those who seek to protect their intellectual property through patents. In some instances, an Indian national can be awarded INR 10 lakh for granted foreign patent rights (equivalent to about R200 000).437

Figure 41 shows patents filed by foreign companies in South Africa from 2010 to 2021.

431 Viollier, S. (2022, December 16). Maximizing your IP’s potential: Benefits of holding IP outside of South Africa. Brandlaw.

432 South Africa. (2021). In Arundel, A., Athreye, S. & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (Eds.), Harnessing Public Research for Innovation in the 21st Century: An International Assessment of Knowledge Transfer Policies (Intellectual Property, Innovation and Economic Development, pp. Vii-Ix). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

433 AUDA-NEPAD. (2023, April 24). Strengthening Africa’s Intellectual Property capacity to enhance innovation and commercialisation. African Union Development Agency.

434 Kagawa, K. (n.d.). Towards effective intellectual property ecosystems for sustainable development. United Nations.

435 AUDA-NEPAD. (2023, April 24).

436 Grant, T. (2023, April 18). The Registrar of Patent Law South Africa takes steps to prevent abuse of patent systems. Spoor & Fisher.

437 Grant, T. (2023, April 18).

figure 41: top applicants by origin applying for patents through the south africa patent office

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation

Notes:

* Data prior to 2010 is only available for SA applicants and is, therefore, not included in the chart.

* The top 10 applicants are based on total applications over the timeframe.

* Note must also be made of China’s increase in applications through the South Africa Patent Office.

More changes could also be on the horizon if, or when, South Africa introduces ‘substantive search and examination’ of patents. This would ensure that ‘market exclusivity is only granted when appropriate’, that rights are ‘rigorously assessed’ and that patent owners have ‘greater legal certainty’.438 To this end, the draft Intellectual Property Policy was published by the Department of Trade and Industry in 2018, having first been proposed by the ministry back in 2013.

In recent years, a growing consensus has been building that, by and large, strong IP rights have a positive impact on a country’s growth and innovation output. However, this does not always apply in developing countries, which may have fewer innovation activities and less infrastructure to support these efforts.439 However, in 2002 a UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights report noted that stronger IP protection in developing countries could be linked to higher trade flows and foreign investment.440

This begs the question of why supporting and protecting IP rights and innovation at the country level has not been more actively prioritised. As Anthipi Pouris and Anastassios Pouris noted in a 2011 research article,441 ‘It is important that the relevant authorities take action to bring the patent system up to international standards.’ In particular, these researchers noted the important role played by IP in the broader innovation system, and the need to do everything possible to protect homegrown innovations.

438 Republic of South Africa. (2018). Intellectual property policy of the Republic of South Africa – Phase 1. Department: Trade and Industry.

439 Neves, P.C., Afonso, O., Silva, D. & Sochirca, E. (2021). The link between intellectual property rights, innovation, and growth: a meta-analysis. Economic Modelling, 97: 196–209. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2021.01.019.

440 Pouris, A. & Pouris, A. (2011). Patents and economic development in South Africa: Managing intellectual property rights. S Afr J Sci, 107(11/12). doi: 10.4102/sajs. v107i11/12.355.

441 Pouris, A. & Pouris, A. (2011).

The warning was clear:

It becomes apparent that not only does the current regime not support the national innovation system but that it facilitates exploitation by foreign interests and creates substantial social costs. We argue that the country’s IPR [intellectual property rights] regime rewards the patent holder at the expense of consumer welfare. As patent holders and patents are not always legitimate, neither producers nor users of IP benefit. The uncertainty related to the validity of disclosure and the lack of online information about the granted patents lead to the same consequences. Inventors have to spend valuable resources ‘playing’ a system that does not promote innovation and is detrimental to public good.442

So where to from here?

Over the next two decades, the task for South African policy makers and stakeholders will be to agree on a clear and straightforward set of priorities for innovation, and then work towards creating an environment that supports it. This will mean removing blockages and red tape and actively looking for areas in which to partner and collaborate. Entrepreneurs, financiers, researchers, universities, companies, inventors and industry experts are all needed in this collaborative effort.

The world of innovation is fast-moving and dynamic. The world of legislation, on the other hand, is slow-moving and, by nature and intent, methodical. While these two worlds clash at times, they do need each other.

It is possible to infuse a national innovation system with the agility it needs to keep pace with technological advances. This will involve digitising laborious processes, using technology to spot synergies and bring people together, lots of collaboration and coordination, sound incentives, and a continued focus on the broader needs of society and the planet.

Policy support is needed to make registering patents within South Africa attractive to South African companies, so that the country benefits from the trickle-down effects of innovative companies. We could make greater use of so-called regulatory ‘sandboxes’443 to enable policy makers to test new approaches and technologies that could support the broader national ecosystem and ensure oversight without stamping out innovation.

The coming years will be crucial for South Africa’s innovation story.

442 Pouris, A. & Pouris, A. (2011).

443 Attrey, A. Lesher, M. & Lomax, C. (2020). The role of sandboxes in promoting flexibility and innovation in the digital age. OECD Going Digital Toolkit, Policy Note.

The Smarter Edge

A Tale of National Innovation Systems

Innovation in South Africa 2005–2020

With thanks

Many people played an important role in bringing this book to life. From conception, through research, writing and editing, The Smarter Edge has been an exercise in the kind of collaboration advocated for in these pages.

Particular thanks must go to the team from the DaVinci Institute for Technology Management, specifically Professor Benjamin Anderson, Professor HB Klopper, Sushie Padayachee and Lizo Poswa.

From the tt100 Business Innovation Awards, particular thanks go to Dr Dzingai Katsamba and Victor Litshani.

Support was generously given by leaders in the Department of Science and Innovation, specifically Dr Phil Mjwara, Director General at the DSI, Dr Mlungisi Cele, Acting Head: National Advisory Council on Innovation, and Dr Babongile Mkhize, Director: Innovation Priorities and Instruments.

Invaluable input was also generously given by Joseph Senona, Chief: Export Promotion and Marketing at the Department of Trade and Industry, Henra Mayer, CEO of and Editor in Chief at the Future Shapers, Mmakgabo Maheya, Team Leader: Systems and Services Standards at South African Bureau of Standards, and Mike Morgan, CEO at the Southern Africa-Canada Chamber of Commerce.

From the National Intellectual Property Management Office, Jetane Charsley, Naomi Ngoasheng and Anna Moetsela provided the research team with invaluable introductions to South African universities that were invited to share their innovation success stories over this period. Many of their profiles and stories appear in this book.

Special thanks to Dr Lientjie van Rensburg-Welling, CEO of NID Training NPC, and research specialist Dr Jean Mitchell for a joyful and positive collaboration. Also, to Tom Johnson, Chief Technology Officer at FlightScope, Paseka Lesolang, founder and MD of Water Hygiene Convenience (WHC) Solutions, and Talifhani ‘Mr Banks’ Mamafha, founder of the Analytics X group and Analytics Advertising – thank you all for sharing your insights and your innovation journeys to date.

To Jane Mqamelo, thank you for the text edits, checks and invaluable inputs. Finally, profound gratitude goes out to Elizabeth Diaz Zuñiga for contributing compelling copy, providing sound guidance and for the hours spent transforming raw data into more digestible visuals.

Ultimately, this book and the entire South African national innovation ecosystem would be nothing without the innovators, the inventors, the entrepreneurs and – to quote poet Arthur O’Shaughnessy – “the dreamers of dreams”. You continue to inspire us all with your vision, tireless energy, pursuit of excellence and the profound creativity with which you frame the world.