2.From IP to Impact

Building the Human Machinery Behind New Zealand's Next Breakthroughs

If the first part of this story is diagnosis – spotting the missing engine – the second part is about what we could build instead.

The gap between clever ideas and real-world impact is not uniquely New Zealand's problem. Other countries have stared at the same chasm and, over time, built bridges across it. Many started in places that look familiar - small populations, open economies, a strong public science base and the uneasy feeling that they were exporting raw materials while importing most of the finished value.

Israel is one useful example. Decades ago it was far from obvious that a small, resource-poor country would become known for technology. A key move was to treat tech transfer as strategic infrastructure. Universities created commercialisation companies like Yissum, hired people whose full-time job was turning research into deals and backed them consistently. The result was hundreds of spin-outs and, just as importantly, a mindset shift. Getting ideas out of the lab and into companies became normal, not exceptional.

The United States took a different route. The Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 clarified that universities could own and license inventions from federally funded research. That signal unlocked a wave of technology transfer offices and entrepreneurship centres. In regions like North Carolina's Research Triangle, universities, government and investors built shared infrastructure for incubation, proof-of-concept funding and founder support. Today those clusters anchor high-skill jobs and give researchers a visible path from grant to company.

The United Kingdom and several small European economies add more lessons. UK founders argued that universities were taking equity stakes so large that spin-outs were hard to finance. An independent review recommended more transparent, founder-friendly terms and many leading universities have since lowered their default stakes, especially for software ventures. Meanwhile, countries like Denmark have leaned into clustering, co-investing in labs, test facilities and talent pipelines so ideas, people and capital can move easily inside focused hubs.

So what does all of this mean for Aotearoa?

First, it suggests we should treat commercialisation capability as critical infrastructure, not a hopeful side project. That means stable funding for tech transfer offices, proof-of-concept programmes and founder education. It means recognising commercialisation as a profession and a career path, not something squeezed into the evenings of already overloaded academics. If we want more good deals and better companies, we have to back the people whose job is to make those things happen.

Second, it highlights the value of a simple, fair national framework for IP and deal terms. Researchers and investors do not expect every deal to look the same, but they do need clarity and a sense that New Zealand's norms are broadly in line with international practice. Lower, transparent university equity stakes in many spin-outs – particularly software and digital ventures – could make it easier for founders to stay here while still raising serious capital. There is also room for models where researchers own more of their IP, provided there is strong support around them to turn it into real ventures.

Third, international experience shows that money is necessary but not sufficient. We could double the size of every early-stage fund in the country and still fall short if we do not invest in people who can shape ventures to be investible. That includes coaches, experienced founders, sector-savvy directors and advisors who understand both the science and the market. It also includes time. Deep-tech and health ventures, in particular, need patient capital and space to learn.

Fourth, we have a chance to be deliberate about clusters instead of hoping they emerge by accident. That might mean doubling down on areas where we already have strength – med-tech, climate and agri-tech, parts of digital – and building real hubs around them. Shared equipment, common support teams, joint marketing and regular contact with global investors all help to shrink the distance between idea and impact.

Above all, we can choose to design this system with people at the centre.

For researchers, that means clearer options. If you love discovery, you should not feel pushed into being a chief executive. You should have pathways to partner with capable founders and commercial teams. If you do want to lead a venture, you should have access to training, mentoring and support that recognises how different that role is from academic life.

For students and early-career professionals, a stronger innovation system means more ways to stay in Aotearoa and work on meaningful problems - climate resilience, health equity, sustainable food systems, digital tools that make everyday life easier. They should be able to move between start-ups, established firms and public agencies without feeling that they are abandoning their field.

For communities, the upside is not just more GDP. It is more good jobs in more regions, more solutions to local problems and more chances to see our own values reflected in the technologies we export. Imagine regional clusters where Maori and Pacific innovators are not at the margins but at the centre, leading ventures grounded in their own knowledge systems and priorities.

There is, of course, a downside to doing nothing.

If we carry on with fragmented settings, thin capability and short-term funding, we will keep losing ideas and people. We will keep relying on a narrow base of emissions-intensive exports in a world that is moving quickly towards low-carbon, knowledge-rich value chains. The risk is not only economic. It is emotional. Talented people who cannot see a future for their work here will leave and their departure quietly erodes our sense of who we could be.

The alternative is harder in the short term but much more hopeful. We can decide, together, that every public research dollar carries a responsibility to look for public benefit, not just publication. We can back the people who know how to build that bridge from IP to impact. We can learn from others without copying them blindly and craft something that reflects New Zealand's scale, our Treaty commitments and our desire for a fairer, more regenerative economy.

None of this will transform the country in a single Budget cycle. But over a decade, it could shift our story from 'we have great ideas, but...' to 'we are a place where ideas grow into companies, jobs and solutions that matter'.

That feels like a future worth building towards.

If you’d like to share your thoughts or discuss further, feel free to reach out. I’d love to hear from you. +64 275 665 682 john.luxton@regenerationhq.co.nz www.regenerationhq.co.nz/contact