Thursday, 26 May 2016
by Marcus Powe, RMIT's Entrepreneur in Residence
What on earth happened? Have you ever wondered, “How come I did not see that”? The reason for this is often you are too close to your process, product, service, device or instrument and have not zoomed out for some time. If you do not zoom out you will miss the big picture, the driving forces and opportunities.
Let’s zoom out and use the PESTTG analysis. The PESTTG analysis is comprised of Political, Economic, Societal, Technological, Mega Trends and Globalisation Driving Forces. They are dynamic forces that create and destroy opportunities instantly and constantly. The Driving Forces are connected and a change in one Driving Force will affect all the others.
Entrepreneurs stop, think and zoom. If you can zoom out and see the whole game, and your competitors can’t, who do you think will win?
The PESTTG analysis is forcing you to stand back from your organisation, stand back from the market place and out into the Environment. Each Driving Force creates an Industry Critical Success Factor (ICSF). Industry Critical Success Factors are those things that you need to meet or exceed in order to play the game. For example, an ICSF for a restaurant that sells alcohol is that it must be licensed in order to sell liquor to the public, if you don't have the licence you cannot open your business.
The Forces – Miss one and you will be blown away.
Political: These are the rules and regulations in the market place in which you are playing. If you don't know the rules, don't play. The ICSF is your ability to comply with all the rules and regulations. Most government policy (and change of policy) is discussed prior often for months and in some cases, years. A smart player will get ‘connected’ and move from a reactive position to be proactive and try to either avoid or embrace the changes proposed by government a lot earlier than the competition.
Economic: Economic Driving Forces consist of gross domestic product (GDP), interest rates, disposable income, discretionary income and other key economic indicators. How is the economy performing in your market(s)? Up, down, flat or recovering, or is it about to burst? The ICSF are concerned with the notion of Value, and more importantly, consumers’ notions of value. People, like Driving Forces are constantly changing, and so too is their notion of value. Now there are two sorts of Value. Tangible Value is where you compete on price and Intangible Value is where you compete on service, quality and innovation.
Societal: Societal Driving Forces are all about fads and fashions, what’s hot and what’s not, what’s in and what’s out. The ICSF of Societal Driving Forces are all about setting the trends, fashions or fads or keeping up. There is nothing wrong with either of these two strategies. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Technological: Technological Driving Forces are all about faster, lighter and stronger or a convergence of these. The ICSF of the technological Driving Forces are in many ways similar to those of Societal Driving Forces – either set the trend or follow it.
Mega Trends: Mega Trends are those things which, at large, society is doing. These include living longer, having an improved quality of life, adopting new age medicines and health practices (the wellness movement) and being more aware of security, both personally and nationally. The ICSF are either is reactive or proactive. If you fight (react) you will lose.
Globalisation: Globalisation is a topic that upsets some people, though it is nothing new. If we take a look at the great civilisations throughout history and remember the Egyptians or the Romans, it is clear that globalisation has been going on for thousands of years. They globalised – or colonised – the world. The internet and social media have just speeded things up. The ICSF's of globalisation are will you be proactive or reactive?
The slightest change in any one of the Driving Forces can irreparably damage you or your organisation or create a wonderful opportunity. If you are always aware of this environment, you have a greater chance of surviving and thriving in the market place. The more attuned you are to your environment, the greater your level of success will be in any current and future ventures.
Use the force, use the force!
Wednesday, 4 May 2016
Joanna Mendelssohn, UNSW Australia; Jason Potts, RMIT University; Julian Meyrick, Flinders University, and Peter Tregear, Royal Holloway
Last night’s federal budget had little to say about the arts. The Arts Party described it as a “nothing” budget for the arts, while Live Performance Australia said it “fails to deliver any major new policy initiatives or programs” for the industry. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, meanwhile, highlighted the fact that while the ABC’s base funding has been maintained, funding for specialist news services will be cut by A$18.6 million over the next three years.
So, what does all this mean for Australian arts and culture? Our academic experts offer their insights.
What happened Malcolm?
Joanna Mendelssohn, associate professor of art and design, University of NSW
We had such hopes for Malcolm: a Prime Minister who revelled in an excellent art collection, a cultured and witty man, who understood that the country needs to be intellectually nimble as it creatively innovates with the latest IT and scientific discoveries on the information superhighway.
Furthermore, here was someone who could address Q&A in his snappy leather jacket. As a graduate of Sydney Grammar and then the University of Sydney, he surely knew that an excellent education is a pathway to success, and to the country’s future prosperity.
Well this budget shows how wrong we were. Scott Morrison’s stern warning to those who keep the wheels of government turning is that the government is “continuing to keep government spending under control”. So nothing for the National Library, National Gallery, National Museum, Australian War Memorial or the Australia Council – which is already on life support.
The only infrastructure mentioned in his government speech is “roads, rail, dams, and public transport” – it gives a mental image of men in hard hats and high viz vests standing in front of earnest television interviewers for the tabloid news. The only difference between the Turnbull and the Abbott era is the addition of trains and public transport.
National arts institutions, along with the rest of the Australian Public Service, will suffer from an expansion of the so-called “efficiency dividend” from which “net savings of $1.4 billion will be achieved over three years”.
Probably the best thing arts organisations can do is to line up to give internships for “young jobless” as for the first time in living memory young job seekers are not being harassed but subsidised for their first chance of work. So while there are no regular jobs, it might be possible for embattled arts organisations to give a break to a school leaver.
And that is it for the arts – not very much at all.
What rhymes with ‘submarine’?
Jason Potts, professor of economics, RMIT University
The main thing that happened with the arts in the 2016 budget is that nothing happened with the arts in the 2016 budget. The arts and culture are obviously not to be part of this coming election campaign.
“This is not a time to be splashing money around” said ScoMo, and then didn’t, except on dams and trains and submarines. So much money splashed on so many submarines.
On the face of it, that’s good. It means that the new and existing models (e.g. Catalyst, carved out from the Australia Council) are being bedded down. Whatever you think of the new model, which has moved A$15 or so million into a centrally allocated program, this is now the model. So there is value in being ignored, in being made neither a priority, nor a target.
The main benefit, as I see it, came from the corporate tax cuts, small, but a good start. A healthy arts economy ultimately comes from private spending, corporate sponsorship and philanthropy, not from government handouts.
Anyway, someone’s got to paint all those submarines. Write songs about them. Make the movies and stories and evocative dances that show us as a great, nay proud and unrivalled, submarining nation.
A black and unhappy farce
Julian Meyrick, professor of creative arts, Flinders University
Beckett plays are full of nothing. Narratively, not much goes on. Spiritually, audiences lurch into free fall at the absurdity of human existence. There’s time to consider what you should be doing with your life.
A bit like this year’s federal arts budget, with Scott Morrison playing the part of Winnie, buried up to her neck in sand, or Nag, who has to spend his time in a box.
No doubt the sector will breath a sigh of relief no major cuts have been unveiled. There’s still the thumbscrew of the efficiency dividend (“4.9% in real terms from 2015-16 to 2016-17, and 9.5% in real terms over the period 2016-17 to 2019-20”) and a resulting stream of job losses undermining arts organisations large and small.
But at least the Australia Council has survived with its change purse un-raided and its arm’s length relationship intact. With decisions about four-year funding only days away, that will mean better sleep for arts practitioners across the country.
Still, let’s be honest, what was there to cut? One more slice from the “arts and cultural heritage sub-function” and there wouldn’t be much sub-function left to slice. As it is, the lack of investment in the sector is the culmination of two and half years of mistreatment, misunderstanding, and neglect.
No mention of the arts in the Overview at all (unless you include “support [for] a culture of ideas and innovation to encourage commercialisation, reward enterprise and facilitate investment").
Modern economics is a bit like modern drama. The jokes are black and the endings rarely happy. It works on a slenderising principle of “more for less” that can sometimes transmogrify into “everything for nothing”.
That’s certainly the kind of economic thinking the federal government favours. Rating: one and a half stars.
How much do we value ourselves?
Peter Tregear, teaching fellow, Royal Holloway
As expected, this year’s federal budget delivered no respite from - but also no dramatic furtherance of - the cuts to arts funding bodies and cultural institutions of recent years.
The devil, however, is not in this detail but in the failure, once again, to offer a compelling overall policy framework and vision for the arts in Australia. It is no surprise, therefore, to find no significant new arts programs or reforms in this year’s budget either.
While the Australia Council has, for instance, only had to cop an additional A$2 million cut (or around 1%) in its total outlay, overall this budget only confirms its fate to be no longer an arms-length policy and advocacy body for artists but rather a funding delivery mechanism for Government initiatives.
With no relief from their obligations to deliver multi-year “efficiency dividends”, our national cultural institutions, similarly, must now operate within severally limited imaginative horizons.
And yet, as Julianne Schultz argued recently in The Conversation, the fact that so much of Australian public life is now in the sway of forces beyond our immediate control only makes the civic role of these institutions “more important than ever”, lest our own imaginative horizons become circumscribed by images, shapes, and sounds chosen for us by global media companies with a product to sell, not a civil society to nourish.
Sure, the budget also outlines a growing expectation from the government that these organisations can raise more and more funds from corporate and private philanthropy.
But will those companies and individuals among us who have particularly benefited from this age of unprecedented creation, and concentration, of wealth be prepared to assist?
If government is increasingly unable to express much enthusiasm for the role of the arts in Australian life, why should they? Well, to quote Schultz again,
it is the cultural richness, the democratic, inclusive, pragmatic, egalitarian, highly skilled, educated and creative elements of Australia that make us attractive and distinctive.Or, to put it another way, how much do we value ourselves?
Joanna Mendelssohn, Associate Professor, Art & Design: UNSW Australia. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, UNSW Australia; Jason Potts, Professor of Economics, RMIT University; Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Flinders University, and Peter Tregear, Teaching Fellow, Royal Holloway
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.