The New Leadership and Nigeria’s Innovation Gap (2)

The President needs a chief innovation adviser, argues Osita Ogbu

The leadership must be entrepreneurial and visionary with a strong sense of purpose. It must have the capacity and the moral authority to change the citizens’ and other layers of governments’ “mental model” including self-doubt, reward for production rather than consumption, resolution of coordination failure between the federal government and states and local governments and their understanding of their role in innovation and job creation, tap into Diaspora knowledge, access and network, and to address cultural traits that inhibit innovation such as risk-averseness, fear of failure, paternalism and hierarchy, gender inequity, poor attitude and work ethics. The leadership must imbue citizens with the right innovation orientation: to grow their insights, to build interpersonal trust and cooperation, to continually learn in order to improve productivity and competitiveness and incentivise and challenge them to dare.

When President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961, stated that America would land a man on the moon, he did not have all the facts. He knew that it was going to be a challenging technological achievement. His goal was to demonstrate technological superiority over the Soviet Union. And leaders set goals. That mission statement from a respected leader galvanised NASA and the American scientific community and mission was accomplished by 1969. Israel has been described as “start-up” centric, with more business start-ups per capita than any other nation, with half of her exports in the high tech sector. They have turned their desert to forest. But the government of Israel including her early leaders such as Ben-Gurion and Shimon Peres worked tirelessly to build the foundation for their technological revolution.

Finland, the home of Nokia, was a natural resource-based economy, exporting forestry based products such as paper a few years ago. Thanks to the foresight of her government and leaders in the 1990s, they created institutions and used active technology policies to transform their economy, moving from investment driven to innovation driven economy. Today, Finland is one of the most competitive in the world and her major exports are in high tech. The story of Nokia, a large technology company, a former rain boot manufacturer is a story of effective partnership between an intelligent government and an innovative private sector.

In his 2012 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama spoke about how to motivate what he called “an economy built to last”, an economy with a strong manufacturing base and an economy that generates quality jobs. But more importantly, Obama outlined strong and intelligent policies that would underpin this economy, and the robust relationship between the government and the private sector that gives birth to this economy. Such government interventions, according to him, include training skilled workers, strengthening education especially in science and engineering and supporting innovation and “using public resources to develop technologies that industries use.” He went further to illustrate this when he said that “it is public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop technologies to extract all this natural gas out of Shale rock… government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground”. It is, therefore, clear that both in developed and developing countries where structural transformation has taken place or is taking place, it is government’s business to support business innovation and competitive edge. But it must be done in an intelligent and strategic manner. And it requires leadership at the highest level.

So what is Nigeria’s model for an innovation economy? What kinds of assets and benchmarks are we building? And what are the institutions that can be used to create an innovation economy – one that would create wealth and spread prosperity? Nigeria has at least four important federal parastatals that can be organised and re-directed to support and accelerate our innovation assets. They are the Raw Material Development and Research Council (RMRDC), National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP), Petroleum Technology Development Trust Fund (PTDF), and Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND). These institutions have quasi-independent sources of revenue and can be galvanised to collaborate and be more strategic. In addition, I would like to suggest that we create an Innovation Fund. The nucleus of such a fund can be all the recovered monies and assets from corrupt acts, including those from corrupt politicians and private sector actors. This would be a classic case of turning evil into good. In order to provide leadership at the highest level, the President would require a Senior Adviser – a Chief Innovation Adviser (CIA). This cabinet level appointee would be responsible for dealing with the issues raised in this piece. Acting on behalf of the president, he or she would coordinate the relevant MDAs and engineer the states to be centres of innovation for the purpose of creating quality jobs and spreading prosperity, work with the private sector to improve innovation at the firm-level, serving as a bridge between public initiatives and generation and use of knowledge capital in the private sector. Above all, he/she would be the constant reminder to the president that on this matter he must provide strong leadership as the Innovation Commander-in Chief. And that the buck stops with him.

––