• Knowledge has to be monetised to ensure economic gains
• Design economy more suitable than manufacturing path
• Key deliverable is ensuring improvement of GII standing
• B2P Sri Lanka important in ‘research into rupees’ approach
• Ignoring science and tech a significant failure of Sri Lanka

The National Innovation Agency (NIA) firmly believes in innovation being the most suitable medicine for the economy, asserted NIA Chief Innovation Officer (actg) Prof. Ajith de Alwis, in an interview with The Sunday Morning. “From day one our mantra was on pursuing innovation – looking at whatever we do and the way we do it and believing in being creative and then creating value,” he said.

Speaking on the NIA’s ‘research into rupees’ approach, Prof. de Alwis noted: “Pure research only generates knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge is important, yet the generated and acquired knowledge has to be monetised to ensure gains to the economy.”

In the course of the interview, he also spoke on the national innovation ecosystem, improving Sri Lanka’s standing in the Global Innovation Index (GII), key projects the NIA is working on, and the importance of Science and Technology (S&T) education.

Following are excerpts:

The NIA has now completed one-and-a-half years since it was established in January 2022. What has it done thus far towards fostering innovation?

Yes, NIA has completed one-and-a-half years. Our institutional tagline is ‘Where Only Innovation Matters’ and that is our ethos. Year 2022 turned out to be eventful, perhaps allowing all of us to witness and feel an array of events that I am sure no one would have predicted. It exposed us to the scenario of living in an economy that was declared bankrupt, with inflation running rampant.

Our team is not the biggest and carries an institutional account which was once declared quite lightly as being similar to a piece of coconut husk floating on the Kelani River, in comparing the burden to the Treasury. Mind you, we did not ask for a big allocation anyway and received what we requested. 

NIA firmly believes in the power of innovation in managing internally as well as innovation being the most suitable medicine for the economy. The challenge for us cannot be any bigger. From day one our mantra was on pursuing innovation – looking at whatever we do and the way we do it and believing in being creative and then creating value. 

Challenging the establishment is not easy and our approach is to engage, not confront. The best part of the year was consumed in putting the house in order; that internal journey is not over as the institution itself offers a challenge to the current establishment. However, we embraced being productive irrespective of the internal situation.

One of the first things to complete was to push the concept of intangible assets for our economy. We placed the argument with facts as the first NIA report and met Central Bank Governor Dr. Nandalal Weerasinghe and handed it over. Perhaps as a starter, the meeting with Dr. Weerasinghe was ideal. 

We also placed the ‘Sri Lankan Design’ pathway to be considered. The size of the country and the potential intellectual abilities of our people point us to pursue the design economy option rather than the manufacturing path.

The typical solid wealth generation cycle (basic research – applied research – intellectual property and protection – wealth) of a nation highlights the intellectual property pursuance with protection; developed countries are all too familiar with this. It is important that Sri Lanka demonstrates confidence, which of course was not what 2023 was all about. We thought, however, that this was the best opportunity we had as we were in a situation with almost no options other than to reach out for support.

The NIA understands the importance of the national innovation ecosystem. It is least understood and non-functional and the actors themselves at this stage mostly mind their own business; there is no buzzing ecosystem network to be engaged. The NIA from day one started mapping and engaging with the idea of collaboration; we are not limited to public institutions and players.

With one of our first innovation partners, Centre for a SMART Future, NIA for the first time had the national launch of the ‘Global Innovation Report’. It was an event to savour as Sri Lanka for the second year running showed a small rise in international standing. The presence of a pioneer of the GII scheme, Prof. Soumitra Dutta of the University of Oxford and GII Global Report Chief Editor Dr. Sacha Wunsch-Vincent was an encouragement.

A key deliverable for NIA is ensuring improvement of Sri Lanka’s GII standing. A GII position improvement is certainly an upgrade for the nation and we continue to bring it to the attention of the planning and decision-making community.

The NIA will strive to be the accepted data portal for multiple international ratings through the use of new technology and partnerships. If you speak to NIA, you are always going to hear about innovation!

Is there adequate State assistance, manpower, and brainpower to support the NIA’s agenda?

The NIA is managed through a Steering Council and when I say that it is the Secretary to the President who chairs the council, you know where we stand. The council has senior representatives from the Treasury downward and the private sector. The NIA has established an Advisory Council. 

In order to have a bigger reach and a support network, we launched the NIA Circle, which brings in diaspora support. We believe we have State support as well as sufficient brainpower to support the agenda. The Steering Council is not passive but takes a critical look at everything we are doing. Mentioning the age of the institute does not give us any sympathy! As we speak, the first National Innovation Report is in the making.

Given the NIA’s ‘research into rupees’ approach, could you expand on how it enables turning innovation into income?

Pure research only generates knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge is important, yet the generated and acquired knowledge has to be translated or specifically monetised to ensure gains to the economy. Over the years, Sri Lanka’s contribution of a portion of its GDP to R&D has been falling and quite significantly too in the past years. 

Yet we faced the question of ‘what have we realised by the money spent anyway?’ In most situations, we cannot give a compelling and convincing answer. What we have set out doing is trying to establish frameworks to ensure this process. Some templates deal with selecting research as well.

You invest in research with the end in view and that end is commercialisation. We cannot be happy just completing a research project. Again, it is not the researcher who has to take it to commercialisation. The ecosystem should be there to achieve that, which highlights the value of the national innovation ecosystem.

Today our universities have University-Business Linkage Cells (UBLCs) and they are mandated to drive that. The NIA proposed a similar structure to be implemented in research institutes – Institutional Business Linkage (IBL) cells – and the first IBL was opened last week at the Sugarcane Research Institute. The leadership given by the Ministry of Plantation Industries to this process was tremendous.

NIA is also working towards a National Technology Transfer system and will soon launch an important portal – B2P Sri Lanka – which will be a single window to showcase research, product, process, and business plan developments. The site will indicate the Technology Readiness Level of all presented. We expect bankers and investors to use this platform to channel their investments. B2P Sri Lanka is an important action towards research into rupees.

We have also highlighted national innovations as Sri Lankan case reports with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). So far WIPO has published seven stories on Sri Lanka. One hundred significant innovations (innovations mean those which have been monetised) from 2018-2022 are going to be present in the National Innovation Report. One can start to gauge the economic value of these innovations and the institutions that stand alongside them. 

Could you explain the five pillars on which NIA works on innovation?

The NIA expects to work on innovation through five pillars and partner with a domain agency or institute for each. Partnerships are key to making progress as innovation is a team sport whereas invention and research could be work done in solitude. The five innovation pillars of NIA are Science and Technology, Service, Social, Eco, and Defence. 

S&T innovation expects knowledge, both developed and acquired, to be infused with resources as an important first step. It is all about moving away from commodities to value-added competitive products – fusing resources and knowledge. 

Service innovation immediately embraces digitalisation and understands the importance of creative destruction. Social innovations are to improve the quality of life; not all innovations should be carried out with the purpose of return on investments in monetary value.

Eco innovations understand that the current planetary health demands a higher level of understanding when innovating; transforming linear economies to circular economies, nature-based entrepreneurship, blue-green economic pathways, and biomimicry, learning from the biodiversity hotspot that Sri Lanka is. So much untapped potential awaits in this segment. 

Finally, Defence is not always ‘guns and bullets’ with ‘men and orders’. Singapore is showing ‘Total Defence’ and that is innovating the concept itself. 

Coupling the innovation pillars and the possible synergy, we see huge opportunities.

I would like to have an extra mention of S&T innovation. One significant failure of Sri Lanka had been in ignoring science and technology and its transformative potential. In 1947 Pandit Nehru had focused on science for India from the first day of independence. You know what we did – or rather did not do – for 75 years! We consistently fail to have a permanent Cabinet post for Science and the first time that happened also took a long time. It is S&T that has brought the world to where it is now; how can we ever think of progressing without embedding S&T into our plans and decision-making? This is a front where NIA advocacy will be quite direct and strong.

As examples of partnerships for driving developments in specific pillars, with eco innovation, NIA is partnering with the Sustainable Development Council and for social innovation, with the Citra Social Innovation Lab of UNDP Sri Lanka. Partnering with the Centre for Defence Research and Development (CDRD) for the Defence pillar is taking shape now. We hope to leverage these partnerships and work through and across pillars to move inventions and research to commercialisation.

Look around in any developed economy: it is the creative changes that moved across society that resulted in growth. When you play with Harvard’s Atlas of Economic Complexity, you soon realise what we have failed to do as we traverse 75 years of the export basket of Sri Lanka. As you change to countries like Vietnam in the atlas, you realise the folly of our decision making. With time, if the desired changes take place, this atlas has to project a different image. Let us see and we will continue to act.

What are the key projects the NIA is currently working on?

Projects are developed and nurtured with the view that innovation is the central driver for economic growth, development, and better jobs. An institutional example that we observe across many countries from India and Israel to Kenya is having innovation agencies facilitating this. 

Countries like India and China consider the GII evaluation quite seriously as a useful framework for internal planning. International development agencies have enabled established innovation agencies in countries too – e.g. Serbia. 

I would note the following as some of the key activities taking place: working towards an open innovation platform – Solve Sri Lanka, which will complement B2P Sri Lanka in terms of driving towards solutions to identified issues; ensuring IBLs across the research landscape and the active presence of a Technology Transfer Network; and definitely linking research with innovation actors, which requires constant dialogue. 

The value of creativity, the invention, is usually 10% of the innovation supply chain; 90% more effort is needed in innovation. Actually, the NIA core team (nine) is engaged in 56 activities and almost all are partnerships. Visit our website, www.nia.gov.lk and our social media links for more information.

What are the main challenges the NIA faces?

Though we indicated that it is not big money that we need to roll out our programmes, we need some key resources to be efficient and effective. It is difficult to move forward when other countries deploy key productivity tools and we do not use them. These tools are on data and we have specifically highlighted this need and hope to receive a positive response from the Treasury.

We have also requested the filling of our approved cadre (16) through transfers. Of course, the finalising of the internal organisational structure with relevant approvals is still waiting on a couple of positions. These are all internal issues and definitely can be resolved soon. 

Externally, and this is what matters, there is gaining acceptance of the innovation process. This has to start with the basic definitions too. The public and decision-makers to some extent are ignorant of the ‘invention’ and ‘innovation’ difference. Innovation value chain actors need to understand their roles and responsibilities. Acceptance of status quo, the usual resistance to change, failure to critically look at doing things differently and doing different things… the list can go on – these are the challenges. As we are quite aware of these issues, we are not overly worried about fulfilling our mandate. 

With a fair exchange of views, we have seen the progress possible and such interactions make us happy in our work. We think that we have generalised our negatives too much across the landscape; the real picture is not that bad.

How should the national education curriculum be updated to place emphasis on innovation and how can a pipeline of talent be nurtured? 

First and foremost, the national education curriculum should have Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) specifically and now Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM). It is encouraging that, after years of planning, the Ministry of Education finally took the bold step of launching STEAM education transformation.

Then the element of science education comes in. Today it is all about how you engage in that task; are we to look at sciences separately and get into silos? Then what about humanities, arts, etc.? This blended experiential problem-solving skill imparting education carried out more holistically is STEAM. A serious mindset change is required in driving these important elements in a national context. The good news is that the process has started, even though quite late.

The world of work today seeks out STEM/STEAM personnel. Our ratio of science to arts and commerce stands at 30:70 – a seriously worrying data point. It has been indicated that 60% of the future global job market will be filled by STEM-educated personnel; the grave situation facing the products from the current system is obvious. We need to flip this ratio on its head; we need 60:40 as a goal and must act fast. 

Again, there is a direct economic return with this transformation and if we keep to the status quo, there will only be an economic liability. We see that happening under our noses right now. Blaming the products of the faulty system is not right as they are basically ignorant about their own limitations. 

NIA has been contributing to the STEAM dialogue for a long time and significantly in its former incarnation, the Coordinating Secretariat for Science, Technology, and Innovation (COSTI). As an addition to the Ministry of Education’s current STEAM development, NIA has developed and will be launching an ‘Innovator’s Diary’ for school children. The idea is to get the process communicated to children in their formative years – as early as possible!

STEAM considers integrating STEM subject areas into various other relevant educational disciplines. With STEAMing STEM, a broader community with STEM awareness is the likely output. Sri Lankan society will be so much better and they will see stars as stars and not as entities that yield influence over them.

Also, remember that our innovation talent pool is severely affected today by the brain drain. Brain drain is not exactly foreign to us, but today the rate is significant and much more debilitating to the economy. You cannot produce a STEM graduate easily and we appear to make almost no effort to get any return from investments made in them.

Could you explain the urgency of prioritising innovation in Sri Lanka?

The NIA is an agency responsible for innovation and it is the first time an institution has been established specifically with such a mandate. Considering that there is a gross misunderstanding of nomenclature from research, invention, and innovation, perhaps the following provides a quite succinct explanation: research is when money is used to generate knowledge and innovation is when the knowledge so developed is used to generate money.

An invention is similar to research where inputs are carried out in developing something novel – again, an expenditure. This process of turning knowledge or inventions into cash has been almost non-existent as we learn and depart while the rest simply engages in following set routines; there are no real positive returns on the investments to the national economy – definitely for some external economies there are returns at quite low costs. Inventors, we all know and hear, mostly exist with serious lamentations over issues in translation. 

The presence of the institution does not necessarily mean that the value of innovation has been accepted across decision-making and that our pathway is clear, precise, and ready to accelerate. There are still significant mindset issues to be addressed by the young institute. With the tagline ‘Where Only Innovation Matters,’ NIA indeed has its work cut out in pushing this message.

Advocacy cannot occupy its attention all the time. Innovation is made possible through the innovation ecosystem. There is the immediate imperative of identification of all stakeholders and energising the ecosystem. The model for innovation is part of the NIA logo – Triple Helix Model (University, Industry, and Government).

Innovation ecosystem productivity should be constantly addressed and the system catalysed with new tools and mechanisms. Sri Lanka does not lack institutes; what is mostly absent is working together with a common purpose. Innovation is a result of purpose. An economy that we can be proud of is the result of innovation!