“The purpose of this club is a more open-source ethos club for Melbourne Innovation where the price of admission is ideas, and ideas alone! Race, Gender & Religion don’t matter. A more open, inclusive Generation X & Y club,” said, Christopher Hire, Executive Director of 2thinknow, Organizer of the Club.

“2thinknow call Generation X & Y the Creative Generation – far more positive & reflecting the inherent strength of this generation!” Hire continued.

“Often known as Club-land, Melbourne Establishment often is more interested in your school tie than how good you idea is! We think that America has proven the value of twitter, Social media, Crowdsourcing, Collaboration, Green Tech, Clean Energy, New Ideas, Web 2.0, and in general, INNOVATION!” said, Christopher Hire, Executive Director of 2thinknow, Organizer of the Club.

“The result of Establishment closed door to ideas? Increasing frustration of Generation X & Y being excluded from opportunity and new economic opportunities globally. Global opportunities, 2thinknow believe could be applied locally. Currently, economic benefit of local ideas goes offshore in frustration.”

In covering Melbourne’s Future Summit, social commentator Duncan Riley wrote on leading site Inquisitr (http://www.inquisitr.com) that “we had a lot of old, mostly white people… talk about what has been, and what is happening now.” – capturing much of the sentiment of the lack of opportunity for Generation X & Y to create change in the face of an entrenched views.

“2thinknow’s aim in organizing the Melbourne Innovation Club is to create a generational alternative for Generation X & Y Ideas people from Business, Government & Community to collaborate and change Melbourne,” Hire said. “From a smart business view, we are expanding the market for local innovation and thus 2thinknow products & services. US, Canadian, UK & EU businesses get it! Grow the market, grow the business. Innovation is in ALL our interest!”

About.

The Melbourne Innovation Club has a website: wwmelbourneinnovation.org and is on twitter (http://www.twitter.com/melbourneinnova).

And the Club will initially meet in the 2thinknow boardroom at Level 50, 120 Collins St starting June 15th 2009. And at various boardrooms, creative spaces, member offices and elsewhere around Melbourne.

Organizer, 2thinknow (http://www.2thinknow.com) provides Independent Innovation Analysis. To do this we benchmark & score Innovation Cities, monitor trends & identify Creative Companies. 2thinknow is based on a networked services model, a new type of business model, for a post-GFC world.

Executive Director of Innovation at 2thinknow, Christopher Hire overseas 2thinknow’s research since 2007. Hire has visited 42 cities in 3 years, and worked for 350+ organizations across Australia in analysis, consulting & training over 10 years. Bio: http://www.2thinknow.com/company/Executive-Director-Christopher-Hire.htm

Media or Sponsor? Media Contact:

Christopher Hire,
Executive Director of Innovation, 2thinknow
(Steering Committee Organiser, Melbourne Innovation Club)

Phone 2thinknow: +61 3 9225 5284

Twitter: @christopherhire

I was kindly invited to analyse innovations at the event as a guest of Jackie Taranto of Hannover Fairs, organizers of the Conferences & Exhibitions.

Some Coverage.

Tweets: Also my live tweeting (@christopherhire) attracted quite a lot of attention; especially as twitter-penetration not high in either the AusInnovation or eGovernment forums.

Radio: You can hear a CeBIT wrap-up from Ryan Egan producer of the TechStream Program; for of ABC Radio Australia. My innovation focused analysis is on the final 5 minutes of the MP3:

About ABC Radio Techstream and MP3

Media mentions: Many of the innovative themes & companies (like Daniel Draper’s Net Fox) that I discovered I will be mentioning in future interviews or media.

Articles: It was good to see some familiar faces; but also to meet new innovative stands. In a coming analysis, there will be a list of some innovations you may not yet have heard of.

Whilst there were many more; I selected a few that have global potential.

They will all be posted here where you are reading now: www.2thinknow.com/innovation

More in Print: In addition I’m working on some print magazine articles & a book; and will post here if any of those mention CeBIT themes, speakers & exhibiting innovators.

What’s Next…

My next article(s) will be the series 5 Key Themes for Business & Government from CeBIT.

If you’d prefer to listen: download the MP3 (last 5 minutes, though > I thoroughly recommend you listen to Ryan’s whole Techstream program on your mobile device!)

Hope this is a useful Executive Summary of CeBIT for you all!

As Dr David Skellern, CEO of NICTA, later pointed out the collaboration required is not something Australia has been good at. I’d posit, that in any analysis, the size of the Australian market imposes some important constraints on Australian Innovation.

Enabling Innovation.

From a German viewpoint, Professor Dr Dieter Rombach, is giving a presentation on how to accelerate Open Innovation in ICT. In this case, enabled by the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany (1 hour out of Frankfurt, down near Karlsruhe).

When I spoke with one of Senator Stephen Conroy’s advisers just prior to the 2007 election, I put to her that the 3 key planks of Innovation to be addressed for Australia were:

1) National Broadband Network (of which I was one of many voices)

2) Closer ties & exchange with Germany regarding ICT. [A point I repeatedly emphasized.]

3) Barcelona District 22 & similar – Government Start-Up Innovation Initiatives

In 2007-2008, prior to GFC, I presciently wrote a number of articles on related themes of Keynesian spending on infrastructure & nation-building. Keynesian provides trend support for a move towards Government enabling innovation.

It’s interesting to see that these ideas have bloomed. I wouldn’t presume to claim credit (especially given long-standing ties through CeBIT & NICTA), but I’m glad that the ideas are aligned with what 2thinknow viewed as strategic imperatives.

Particularly 2thinknow applaud the closer economic & research ties with German institutes & business. As independent innovation analysts, we see this, in our analysis, as strengthening innovation in both countries.

(Anecdotally, this has been the observation of many Germans in business & Gen Y Germans I speak with regularly).

Innovation Imperatives

For 2thinknow, I continue to research these forces. Here’s some related observations:

> Government & Universities must work together with commercial forces.

> They must enable bright innovators to come forward, without being stopped by innate conservatism.

> On the other hand, innovations only work when implemented & marketed. A good idea is not enough.

2thinknow have built a number of models to explain innovation.

But innovation faces different opposition in different nations; sometimes opposition strengthens; but more often it weakens. 2thinknow model can explain this process.

Support, Enable, Build.

Regardless Cities, States & National Governments need to support Innovators across all levels of business. Rather than waiting for a big firm to attach itself to the initiative.

That’s a lesson from today’s sessions, and my own observations in Europe & Silicon Valley 2005-2008.

The Shells Story is very interesting, and there are opportunities.

Da Vinci got his ideas from nature. Many designers do.

Where do you get your ideas from?

Manufacturing skills, infrastructure & cars are important.

Rudd’s $6 Billion on the Amex.

The Rudd plan is broadly positive, however it has a large cost. $6 billion to be precise.

One of the problems with Government intervention in the economy is that Governments see costs, and not opportunities. Costs not revenue increase.

It’s unimaginative.

But when I’ve worked for Government that’s what I normally find. Lack of imagination.

Most farsighted ideas will be killed. Or implemented in a ham-fisted all-thumbs way.

An Alternate View.

Governments can instead create the systems for innovation & implementation of business ideas. The tools for entrepreneurs.

Government supplies the infrastructure, sets the rules of the game and umpires.

2thinknow would call that close to the California model. (see some slides here on these concepts). It works.

Our neighbours.

The 2thinknow view is that a healthy manufacturing industry is important to Australia places in Asia, and the world. Cars are a part of this. But only part.

Countries like China use barriers to trade, and protect their industry with subsidised inputs. Tariffs are currently unfashionable. But tariffs are another tool, whereas some countries use dumping or sheer size to enforce their strategic interest.

Cutting the tariff further smacks of naivety.

Opportunity for manufacturing.

The most pressing issue is with Brumby-Bracks Victoria, and Carr-Iemma-Rees NSW.
As 2thinknow pointed out earlier today, these Governments refuse to support local manufacturing of trains & trams despite problems with imported rolling stock.

The Australian Industry Group are making similar calls, according to The Age, where 2thinknow is also quoted.

It seems typical Kosky-Brumby out-of-date dogma to source further infrastructure from overseas, when companies like Bombardier need local purchasing.

Most importantly, China does this. Germany & the EU do this.

Opportunity & profit is often ‘low-hanging fruit’. Manufacturing your own infrastructure has many economic & skilling benefits. In addition, the skill base makes it easier to repair, rather than relying on overseas suppliers.

Most of the top 10 economies do this. Despite the rhetoric.

Local innovation.

And best of all, local firms can profit in local regional towns in regional Victoria, NSW & South Australia.

The 2thinknow view is that there are opportunities to profit from local innovation, not just subsidise it.

And create winners.

Local innovation, in a broader framework of global idea exchange, is the superior strategy based on trends. We make the case for Local Innovation here.

Innovation can create revenue. Not costs.

But tell that to politicians.

Well done to Serdar Belbag.

The 2thinknow view is that companies seeking to become employers-of-choice, need creative workspaces as an element of their strategy.

What do you think? Would it inspire you to work in these offices?

Or is your work or dream office more creative?

Post the photos in our new flickr group: Creative Companies

About Creative Companies

Creative workplace. Employers of choice. Ethical corporations. Nice seats. Micro-finance projects. Creative Capitalism. Innovation Teams. Inspiring workplaces. Not cubicle farms (unless they are cool). Cool.

The places you work.
The places you’d like to work.
The companies that WOW you.

Think Google, HP, Silicon Valley, Art Co-ops, design firms, Funky London, Apple, Small Business, loose-knit co-operatives.

www.flickr.com/groups/creative-companies/

Or talk below.

But the banking crisis is far broader than the USA. The German economy in Europe is in a few key ways closest to the US model. And German investment banks are close to collapse, according to De Spiegel.

“(Dusseldorf bank) IKB was on the verge of bankruptcy, with its supposed wonderful US investments worth little more than the paper it was printed on.”

De Spiegel International, 20th February 2008

German bank CEOs are not as over-paid as US counterparts, and the banks are often state-backed. Even there various financial people see that they can gamble, and they will always be bailed out.

By the Fed facilitation of the bail-out of Bear Stearns, the US has more or less said the same thing. Take the risks in the good times, the Government will take responsibility in the bad.

People pay for their poor choices, investment bankers are paid for by people.

Germany is a core part of the EU common market, and of Europe. So Germany is an important economic state, equal to the USA on some measures.

As one commentator said, Hope is not a Strategy

The Fed cut interest rates a time 0.75%, in an attempt to stimulate the economy, in the hope it has reached bottom.

It hasn’t. It can’t.

So this cut will not bring even temporary reprieve.

A better strategy would be to stop making it worse by transferring risk from private to public.

And then to ask the question, why do investment banks have so few controls? Even Milton Friedman believed that government needed to act as umpire in business…

“Banks just make money…”

Because basically whilst all the business press gushed over the banks and banking CEOs in the investment bank sector, many of the deals are no better than paper schemes.

Like those 1920s paper pyramids, that Warren Harding, Coolidge and Hoover oversaw.

This happens time and again because many on the far-Right believe that all business needs is for government to get out of the way. This flawed belief, that banks just ‘make money’ if left alone, is naive in the extreme.

It confuses ‘liberty’ with ’safety’.

Banks do make money, as anyone can with unlimited borrowing, but as you’d expect lack of regulation leads to the present uber-high levels of leveraged gearing and risk. If no one tells you ’stop’, greed is a powerful motivator…

I have book here on my shelf, written in 1935 by G.S.Riley in London called “Building Society Practice”. This work simply explains how building society (and bank) loan and customer portfolios work.

Most of those under 35 who are involved in an investment bank should read it. Most only understand recent history, or deals not basic banking. Paper schemes in other words.

Pass-the-Parcel….

Schemes that work in a rising market, as the schemes reinforce the rising trend in a rising market.

But conversely, schemes reinforce the downside trend.

These deals are highly leveraged, and like the mortgage risk industry are about playing ‘pass-the-parcel’. Unfortunately, the parcel of risk gets larger as it groans under the weight of each recipients fees and interest.

Why would you take loans from people who can’t pay, unless you managed to pass-the-parcel of the risk?

Which is what US banks did, but the level of risk in these mortgage-bundle transactions juego gratis pagina internetcasino empire,trucos casino empire,no cd casino empirejugar interactivo portales internetinternet kasinosfaires spielroulette tipsrealistische online spielbankspielen kasinointernet spielbankdeutsche casino onlineroulette online spielenkostenloses online spiel raumvideo poker gameroulette online gameonline casino lastschriftonline casino shopflash games roulettewww casino on net com,www casino on net,casino on netonline baccaratkasino spiele mit echtem geldkostenloses freispielwww casino online deinternet kasino spielenspiel automatenonline roulette spielbaccarat rulescasino online playonline spielautomatenroulette onlinespielcasino online texasonline casino einzahlungsunstar casino netcasino softwarecasino pokerbaccarat online spieletop online kasinosonline kasino slotsvideo poker gratiswww casino net comswiss casino onlinecasino games debeste casino onlineonline spielkasinoonline kasinosonline spielbankkostenloses online casinoplay free baccarat onlineslotmaschine online spielengiochi casino gratisonline slotmaschinen spielen just mirrors the level of risk in many investment bank paper deals.

That’s why it’s unravelling, too much unacknowledged risk in USA & Germany, a sense of inevitability, and a case of what industry people call moral hazard as bank executives do not pay for their mistakes personally.

The leverage, the artificial paper wealth, greed and avarice are why the bankers are creating this whole financial crisis.

But the crisis arose simply because no one is regulating the banks on risk. And those years of excellent returns were artificial as real productivity did not grow in line with inflated profits.

‘Deal’ wealth, not Real wealth

And ultimately labor productivity, gains in economic organization, enabling technology, reduction in costs and other basics create greater wealth.

Real wealth is made in the factory, on the farm, in the lab, in the workshop. Banks must have a social responsibility beyond the deal, to assist in creation of real wealth.

The problem is that recent wealth has been ‘deal’ wealth as outline previously here.

So when people say that fundamental conditions are good in some industries they are telling the truth. Business creates real wealth, banks facilitate business transactions. But US, German and many banks have been watching the ‘deals’ not real business.

The Lesson for Government

But banks perform such a fundamental role in financing business, and funding consumer purchases of business products, that when they get in trouble… we are all in trouble.

Banks perform many investment roles that are of national and global importance.

Banks need regulating with regard to acceptable levels of risk, as those who run them have less to lose from market failures than the ultimate parcel-holder, the taxpayer.

Without regulating banking in the area of risk, this will occur again.

This covert operation started in the 1970s, and has reached it’s peak in this decade.

It’s the operation by some large multi-national corporations to replace real food with fake food, mass-produced food. And corporations are foisting larger-volumes of higher-profit ‘fake’ food on us instead of providing real food.

Fake food products are seen most in countries and markets without sufficient regulation of product quality, most notably many English-speaking and the more corrupt emerging countries.

The answer is regulating locality, labeling, sizes and choice of food products we purchase.

Real OJ

A simple example, this morning I go to the supermarket across the road to buy some Orange Juice. I normally buy the locally produced, squeezed, so-called ‘premium’ orange juice.

In other words, real orange juice. That tastes like Orange Juice.

Today, the shelf where all real juices were was cleared out. At $5.69 or more for 1.5L, they are not cheap.

The product is Original Juice, Black Label Premium. With real juice from real Australian oranges, without being reconstituted.

This scene of declining shelf-share of ‘real’ products, is repeated in beverages worldwide, from USA to Australia to less-regulated European economies. With dumping, it is worse in emerging markets.

Fake OJ

But on the underneath shelf, the cheap juices are virtually untouched, despite being on special. At around $3.69-3.99 for 2L, up to $2 cheaper for 0.5L more.

Brands like Spring Valley, Fruitopia, Berri (in the bottles) – are not real OJ.

They are non-local, imported OJ. Or a mix of Australian & imported.

And/or fully reconstituted (Australian or otherwise) or a mix of reconstituted and/or part concentrate. There’s no pulp.

Not one of them states which country the contents come from (unless Australia), and none of them state what measures they take to ensure the safety of the food.

Management By Remote Control to Make Fakes

Now having worked at many corporations, I do not trust that some guy or gal on a conference call to China or Argentina is going to be able to control quality on the ground in the juicing plant in another far-away country.

Especially when all the factory does is place a label on a pre-made bottle of juice.

Language, distance, local regulation or corruption are all problems for any corporate in-country manager, exarcebated by budgetary pressures for cost-cutting inside corporations.

This management by remote control cannot control quality as well as a manager on the ground. Even so, a sole country manager or regional manager cannot be expected to control quality in the face of pressures and rewards for meeting his or her budget.

Global corporations neglect local cultural behaviors.

The real issue: Consumer Choice

The real issue, is when some far-Right politicians, and other people with no common sense in the application of Economics, talk about free markets they don’t understand how corporations implement free markets.

Free markets only actually work when the people in corporations are ethical, or when corporations are regulated. Particularly in the matter of ensuring competition.

Duopolies like beverage companies Coca-Cola and Schweppes have similar effects on society as monopolies. And reality is they own most beverages of convenience that we buy.

The issue: Consumers prefer (buy) the real OJ. Yet we get sold in greater quantity the (fake).

Beverage Industry Practises – Against Competition

One reason is because of a beverage industry practise I observed at 20 as an employee of Mason Duflex, POS-printing specialist, working on point-of-sale and shelving systems for Coca-Cola.

The beverage industry practise is to stack the shelves with set quantities of beverage flavours – in Coke’s case, Coca-Cola, Diet Coca-Cola, Sprite, Fanta, and various varieties.

Of course, Coca-Cola sells first, and most widely; but many people have a second preference they will purchase. Say, Sprite.

The other industry practise is something that started with small shops — free beverage fridges in return for stocking Coca-Cola or Schweppes products. Fair enough, and inarguably of benefit to small shop-owners.

But in most countries where these corporations are not regulated, increasingly exclusivity agreements prevents consumers having any choice. In many cases, the shop is prevented, or persuaded, not to stock other beverages.

You can see this in your supermarket today. Esepecially in Australia. Shelves stocking huge expanses of one product, say only in 1 or 2 (generally large sizes) sizes. Maybe there are only 2 choices in a category.

I remember Coca-Cola’s number one marketing priority was up-selling consumers on ever-larger soft-drink packs. The 2L in packs of 4, or the 600mL ‘Buddy’ instead of 375mL can.

So go to another shop? We’ll see how that works…

More insidious are events, like horse races or sports. Where you pay to enter, yet when you enter the only beverages you have a choice of are one company.

Even more insidious is the dubious practise of extending this to the railways station, or shops within a ‘1 mile’ radius.

These are the sort of deals Schweppes appear to have at major race events in say Caulfield, Melbourne. Even on the train station, or in the venue, not a Coke machine in sight.

What we have then are duopolies appearing to agree not to compete, whether implicit or not.

In my opinion, logically it appears to be anti-choice, anti-competitive behaviour.

In effect, perhaps at these events, we have an ANTI-COMPETITION ZONE. An area where the corporate contract supercedes the rule of law or regulation. And this is becoming ever more frequent…

If I am in that event venue or even that area do I have a choice? Not really. Sure there may be a few rebel stores, but they will be squeezed out.

So why does this matter?

Because, simply, the corporations, often a duopoly, then set the quality and specifications of the product. And, in accordance with law, these corporations act to maximise profit. It is the role of Government to umpire, and regulate the industry, as occurs in the EU.

Food standards are far higher in the European Union than USA or Australia.

In Australia or the USA if your corporations wants to import concentrate from China (which one Australian beverage company does very quietly according to rumours) and mix it in? Fine.

But who checks the safety of that concentrate. And taste. Doesn’t taste matter?

Do we trust you to check that the beverage concentrate is healthy? Probably not. It may comply with watered down standards, it may not, but the reality is most food is only fixed after a complaint by consumers. It’s all on the consumers shoulders. Caveat Emptor, indeed!

But how can consumers complain if they do not know what is causing their upset stomach? So answers start with labeling…

Self Regulation fails,long-term

As it stands, in unregulated zones, increasingly corporations choose for us what products we buy. This is the big problem. More insidiously they stamp out competitors in an environment where there conduct is self or industry regulated. Or unregulated, if you prefer.

Light-regulation creates grounds for collusion against consumers, implicit or otherwise.

And it leads to pretend or watered down-products that charge the same price for the lesser quality substitute, as in our orange juice example.

Substitution and poor quality is worse in emerging economies where large global monopolies and duopolies dump product at prices that drive out local producers.

Time and again: Orange Juices, Soft Drinks, petrol, wine, beer, chocolate, and many other product in the shopping trolleys of ordinary people.

A Question: Wither Regulation?

So where’s your free markets, now? Where’s innovation? Unless Coke Cherry Cola is innovation?

Free markets, people, don’t remain free except with regulation.

If you look at food products of multi-nationals like Kraft & Nestle in heavily regulated countries like France they are undoubtedly of superior quality than Australian or US food products.

Ethics can remove the need for regulation, but in larger global markets, based on experience and multiple cultures a common set of Christian ethics cannot be assumed.

Regulation is required to prevent corporate control of our choices in global markets.

Like sneaker-collector and custom sneaker decoration scene in Melbourne, another scene. With a local, but soon to be even more international, vertical-niche magazine.

The magazine, created by and crafted for T-shirts enthusiasts, T-world highlights global T-shirt culture.

T-world is a new niche publications with a cult status already, after only the 3rd edition.

It can be ordered online, or via MagNation in Melbourne or New Zealand. Try this link to have a look and order.

What’s the broader significance?

The innovation significance is another vertical niche, that could be ignored locally, can become a global phenomenon.

Off the back of threadless and other t-shirt producers, looks like a potent short-term trend. Both the collectible, and participatory aspect. And also serving the vertical niche community aspect.

And long-term, vertical niche publications, addressing this Long Tail are here to stay.

Disclosure: This is an independent review rewarding innovation agents, like T-World who are part of broader trends or social change. The author received no compensation for this review.

The basis is a French botanist using a light material on the skin of a building, on which various plants can be grown.

From the site:

“Mass Studies was founded in 2003 by Minsuk Cho in Seoul, Korea, as an investigation of architecture in the context of market-privileged culture of mass production and intensely over-populated urban condition. Mass Studies explore building materials/techniques, space matrixes and building typologies on a wide range of scales to focus on a vision specific to each project.”

www.massstudies.com

What do you think about this design?

Could it be practical? Do you see environmental benefits of better integration into the landscape?

Does it just make us ‘feel more’ green, or are their practical benefits? Such as reduction in use of chemical-intensive outdoor paint? Is this just a ‘nice design’? Or not?

There’s more at their website. Let us know your thoughts!

PETER BERGER