Take the survey: Published response
Published name
What objective criteria should determine eligible innovative SMEs? For example, annual turnover of $20 million or less, employee cap and/or net asset cap?
Eligibility should be based on innovation and potential for growth rather than strict financial criteria. For example, SMEs that have developed prototypes, received positive feedback, and have signed letters of intent from future clients should be considered. However, a cap on annual turnover and/or employees could be used to ensure the program is targeting SMEs.
What level of grant matching is appropriate? Should there be a variation for earlier stage Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) programs and the size of the grant?
A higher level of grant matching for higher risk venures and lower level of grant matching for lower risk would be beneficial for early-stage SMEs that are in the prototype phase and need significant funding to move to full product development and commercialisation. The level of grant matching could be varied based on the stage of the SME and the size of the grant.
Are there barriers beyond pre-profit stage that the program should consider supporting?
Yes, one of the main barriers is securing the necessary funding to move from the prototype phase to full product development and commercialisation. The program should also consider supporting SMEs in the patenting process.
Should Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) be used to determine eligibility of a project? If so, what are appropriate TRLs for commercialisation and/or early-stage growth phases?
TRLs could be a useful measure, but they should not be the sole determinant. The innovative potential and market impact of the project should also be considered. For Flex Motion Technologies, we are at a stage where we have developed prototypes and are ready to move to full product development.
How should we determine which projects have the most potential for future growth and market impact?
Projects that are innovative, have a unique business model, and have received positive feedback from potential clients should be considered as having high potential. The project's alignment with industry trends and needs should also be considered.
Should it be necessary that the applicant has the legal ownership, or effective ownership, of the know-how, intellectual property or other similar results arising from the project?
Yes, it's important for the applicant to have legal or effective ownership to ensure they can fully benefit from the project outcomes and to protect their intellectual property.
Is ‘need for funding’ (i.e. why applicants are unable to access sufficient funding for the project from other sources) a useful merit criterion for assessing grant applications? If so, how should this be measured?
Yes, 'need for funding' is a crucial criterion. This can be measured by the gap between the SME's current resources and the funding required to move from the prototype phase to full product development and commercialisation.
What are the potential barriers to accessing the Industry Growth Program?
One potential barrier is that some innovative SMEs may not fit exactly into any of the NRF priority areas. However, they may align with the broader goals of the program.
How can we help overcome these barriers to expand the reach of the program?
The program could consider expanding the priority areas or providing more flexibility in how they are defined. This would allow more innovative SMEs to be eligible for the program.
Should the program consider more specific merit criteria for traditionally underrepresented groups?
Yes, this could help to promote diversity and inclusion in the industry.
What core capabilities and resources would be most useful from industry partner organisations to improve commercialisation and early-stage growth performance for participants of this program?
Industry partner organisations could provide financial support, advisory services to review product designs, and legal services for the patenting process.
What services and support should industry partner organisations provide to participants?
In addition to the above, they could provide networking opportunities, mentoring, and access to industry expertise.
Are there other skills and expertise that should be represented on the committee?
The committee could benefit from members with experience in start-ups, product development, patenting, and the health and fitness industry.
What other design elements could be considered to ensure a quality, positive business experience and outcomes?
The program could provide ongoing support and advice throughout the grant period, rather than just providing funding. This could include regular check-ins, access to resources and training, and opportunities for networking and collaboration.
Are the proposed project periods (up to 24 months) reasonable?
Yes, this seems reasonable given the time required to move from the prototype phase to full product development and commercialisation.
How should we measure the success of the Industry Growth Program, for the economy and for participating businesses?
Success could be measured by the number of SMEs that move from the prototype phase to full product development and commercialisation, the number of patents secured, and the market impact of the products developed.
What information would be important to seek during the follow-up (post-grant or post-advice) period?
Information on the progress of product development and commercialisation, the impact of the grant on the SME's growth, and any challenges encountered would be important.
Over what timeframe should the program follow up with grantees and advise recipients to collect data on their business?
A follow-up period of 12-24 months after the end of the grant period would allow for a thorough assessment of the impact of the grant.
How can the reporting burden be kept to the minimum required to best support a future evaluation of the program?
The program could provide clear guidelines on what information is required and provide templates or online forms to make reporting easier. Regular check-ins throughout the grant period could also help to reduce the burden at the end of the grant period.
What other opportunities (including those beyond data) could be explored as part of the post-grant period?
Opportunities for further collaboration or networking, access to additional resources or support, and opportunities to showcase their products or services could be explored.
How can the program complement other university, industry, and government initiatives?
The program could align its goals with those of other initiatives and provide complementary support. For example, it could focus on providing funding and support for areas not covered by other initiatives.
How could the program support better connections from industry to universities and entrepreneurial students?
The program could facilitate networking events, collaborations, and internships. It could also provide resources and training to help universities and students better understand the industry and the challenges faced by SMEs.