When your innovation agency isn’t delivering results, should you fix it or kill it? New Zealand chose the latter—dismantling Callaghan Innovation and consolidating seven Crown Research Institutes into just three “public research organizations,” plus a fourth focused on emerging tech.
It’s a bold move that raises a fundamental question: can restructuring solve what might actually be an execution issue?
The government’s justification is straightforward. New Zealand spends $1.2 billion annually on research with inadequate returns. Budget cuts have already pushed many leading scientists overseas. Something needed to change.
We’ve seen similar scenarios play out globally. Governments frequently reorganize research institutions when they’re unsatisfied with innovation outcomes. Yet these restructurings rarely address the underlying issues.
Execution vs. Innovation
Entrepreneur Rowan Simpson offers a provocative perspective in his new book “How to Be Wrong: A Crash Course in Startup Success.” He suggests the agency named after Sir Paul Callaghan should have been called “Callaghan Execution.” His point is powerful, basically that helping businesses get “thousands of little things right” matters more than abstract innovation goals.
Simpson targets a genuine tension in how we support scientific and technological advancement. We create agencies to foster innovation, then measure them by business metrics that prioritize short-term execution.
This restructuring seems to double down on execution while potentially damaging the innovation ecosystem.
The Hidden Costs of Consolidation
Research institutions aren’t merely organizational structures on paper—they’re complex knowledge networks built over decades. Merging seven institutes into three undoubtedly disrupts these networks. Researchers leave. Projects stall. Institutional knowledge disappears.
In New Zealand, the specialized fourth organization focusing on artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and synthetic biology might seem forward-thinking, but creating an isolated entity for emerging tech risks disconnecting these fields from other disciplines where valuable cross-pollination would otherwise occur.
Budget cuts accompanying restructuring can trigger accelerated brain drain. Once researchers leave, rebuilding that capacity will likely take years, possibly decades.
Beyond Restructuring
If Simpson is right that execution matters more than innovation, the solution isn’t necessarily restructuring. It might be improving how existing institutions operate and connect with industry.
Countries with successful research ecosystems, like Singapore and Estonia, maintain stable institutional frameworks while continuously improving connections between research and business. They recognize that innovation requires both stability and flexibility.
New Zealand’s approach risks throwing away functional parts of its innovation system while failing to address core execution problems.
A Better Path Forward
I believe New Zealand would benefit from a dual approach. First, improve execution within existing structures through better governance and clearly stated missions with consensus. Second, create space for truly innovative research that isn’t immediately tied to commercial outcomes.
Research shows breakthrough innovations often emerge from scientists pursuing curiosity rather than predetermined commercial goals. NZ’s restructuring appears to further constrain this essential exploration space.
Simpson’s focus on execution contains wisdom. But we must note that execution doesn’t create innovation; it merely optimizes existing ideas. Real breakthroughs require both.
NZ’s governmental $1.2 billion research investment does deserve returns. But is reshuffling organizational charts likely to delivers those returns? Improving how organizations execute while preserving their capacity to innovate seems like the smart conversation.
-Bryndan D. Moore
Subscribe to The Black Futurist Podcast and @TheBlackFuturist on Youtube
