Northern Tasmania's budding 'entrepreneurs' are about to be the recipients of infrastructure valued something in the order of say '$4Million plus' in the form of Macquarie House in Launceston's Civic Square. .
This exemplar of heritage architecture holds with it all the promise of the 'endeavour' being a significant entity within the city's built environment no matter what. The building comes loaded with stories, layer upon layer of them. It sits in a key and historic location in Launceston's CBD – albeit a prime example of over capitalisation in a 21st commercial context. .
Then again this building, and the ways in which it is imagined, is all about 'political placescaping', and to some extent cultural landscaping, rather than anything vaguely resembling hard headed pragmatic commercialism.
If it were the latter, then there would be a requirement for it to return $300K to $400K in 'rents' and/or other incomes.
For the would be entrepreneurs for whom it is proposed this purposefully renovated 'heritage building' is intended, it'll be a bit more salubrious than that where many start-ups hang their first shingle. The opportunity is to set-up-shop in what in anyone's book should be a kick-start of a special kind even if there is no inbuilt success factor in play or even being implied. Moreover, there is an attendant assumption of 'the-greater-good' without any serious attempt to articulate what that might look like nor any hint of the 'dividends' this 'operation' is likely to deliver.
What this Macquarie House operation promises is a stark contrast to the family garages, box-rooms, bedrooms, dingy offices, garden sheds etc. where all too many budding enterprises – successful and otherwise – get their start. Here there is an interesting scenario in play in that there is a building that was looking for a purpose rather than, or more than, a cluster of evolving enterprises looking for a launching pad that was/is in a building – this building.
What has led up to the point that now pertains is by now a matter of history. Reportedly this 'facility' will throw its doors open to the world in a few months without doubt the mayor, a cluster of politicians and bureaucrats, TV cameras, the press and perhaps a few curious passers-by no doubt in attendance watching a ribbon being cut to the sound of brass band playing. There are cynics out there already suggesting that it will be coincident with some political event ... an election maybe?
A PARADIGM IN OPERATION
Meaning is always to be found in the context of a situation and especially so when it is in situations like this one When time is taken to contemplate 'meaning' a raft of question turn up looking for answers. The first being, how did we get here and why?
Any questioning of public sector decision making is ever likely to be unwelcomed but that is just the way of things when there is 'skin in the game' - personal 'investments' off to the side as often as not. When there is, it is ever likely that the questioning will become more intense with responses to questioning leading to more and more questions.
Typically, corporate bodies, and indeed 'governance' in all its manifestations, operate on the assumption that they beyond the reach of criticism and critique from 'outsiders' as an automatic default position. Nonetheless, this is rarely a sustainable position and very often 'corporate opacity' flies in the face of 'accountability' – yet as often as not transparency is enshrined in law.
So here we have it, an 'enterprise kick starter' that is not itself operating as an 'enterprise'. It appears at least that it is not intended to operate in a truly entrepreneurial manner. It turns out that the operation has transmogrified into a 'charity' without a pragmatic community oriented 'purpose'. Given its current legal status as a publicly funded incorporated not-for-profit operation it follows that it is perceived as and operates as a 'cost centre'. Therefore, as a deliberate 'loss operation' all it needs to do in order to succeed is survive. As for targeted outcomes little to nothing is being said about dividends, social or fiscal.
STRATEGIC PURPOSEFULLNESS
As a function of being a company limited by guarantee ENTERPRISE TASMANIA has in its constitution a set of 'primary objectives'. However the operation's 'purpose' isn't there and thus, perhaps by design, the constitution it is of little to no use if you are trying to establish the 'performance indicators' that will/can be applied to assess outcome relative to expectations and inputs. So much for purposefulness!
It may be similarly assumed, given the silence, so much for enterprise/entrepreneurialism at the foundations.
Yes the word is in the title, and sort of in the branding, and critiquing any of this at any level is the approximate equivalent to critiquing 'motherhood'. However the fact remains that the 'objectives', as important as it is to have them, they are elastic, subjective and aspirational. They do not much at all to illuminate nor set out an objective 'purpose'.
The purposefulness of an operation, ideally, would be objective, concrete and measurable. Interestingly, operations devised/designed by politicians and/or bureaucracies for their own implementation, typically avoid hard headed accountability.
Here, Thomas Paine's words “a body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody” rings the loudest of warnings. And the alarm bells are ringing big time. Macquarie House and Enterprise Tasmania are anything but a fit. Nonetheless, there is a case for them being understood as some kind of political opportunism where ' entrepreneurial purposefulness' is way down the list 'key performance outcomes'.
An entrepreneurial operation of the kind 'talked up' for Macquarie House could be located almost anywhere else other than in such as this heritage building. A tin shed in a paddock could be an alternative along with a myriad of other structures if the 'political imperative' was not the driver – or the political 'fiscal filter' didn't seem to be playing a part, albeit subliminally.
PURPOSEFULLNESS AND FISCAL MATTERS
Assuming that ENTERPRISE TASMANIA has an unarticulated 'purpose' somewhere and that it goes something like 'to facilitate entrepreneurship' then there might realistically be a set of objectives, and measureables, cum 'performance indicators' to contextualise it – and to background accountability.
Speculatively, we could even risk pondering what they might be and to some extent we might well be in the realm of divining 'motherhood's' good points. However, if there is a purpose and it is articulated the need for speculation fades and we might well look in a hard headed way for some 'dividends/expected dividends' – tangible and intangible.
But why might we want to do such a thing? Firstly, we, the community, might want to evaluate our 'investment'. Then we might need to be able to do it against an articulated purpose – that would be helpful. Bureaucratically however, currently this sort of thing is rarely an imperative and the proof can be found in the 'annual reports' of just about every corporation that does not nail its purposefulness to the masthead.
All too often outcomes are automatically measured as fiscal 'profits', or losses, as a percentage of an operational fiscal turnover albeit that there may well be a disconnect between purpose and profits. Profit might not be the operation's purpose albeit it may be an aspiration among others. Usually something more than a 'wet finger held to the breeze' is required to divine success or otherwise.
1. Provides workspace and enterprise network links for budding enterprises in Tasmania;
2. Does not articulate a ‘corporate purpose’ cum raison d’etre for the operation rather it articulates a set of aspirations/objectives;
3. Falls under the jurisdiction and overview of ASIC and national corporate law;
4. As a consequence of the above it does not – arguably unable to – articulate a set of objective and measurable ‘performance indicators’;
5. Does not require business plans or financial details from associates/members/clients beyond an operational overview;
6. Provides access to basic infrastructure requirements for selected ‘budding enterprises’ in Tasmania;
7. Does not provide practical administrative support for start-up enterprises in Tasmania;
8. Has provided nominal financial support to some associates/members/clients but does not anticipate any proposed change in the foreseeable future;
9. Presumably provides bona fides to associates/members/clients using social security as their income base and/or potentially people benefiting from other funded schemes – private, corporate or government;
10. Does not require any specific qualifications – academic, technical, etc. – or experience for associates/members/clients and essentially engages with them on an ad-hoc basis;
11. Does not require associates/members/clients to demonstrate an outcome relevant to, or in consequence of, support received;
12. Does not articulate staff or establishment personnel’s qualifications and/or experience; 13. Has a small staff establishment supported/directed by a board drawn from the community presumably via personal networking;
14. Does not itself engage in entrepreneurial activities;
15. Seems to have a recurrent budget presumably provided by Govt. rather than corporate bodies or private sponsors, membership contributions;
16. As a consequence of the above ENTERPRIZE TASMANIA holds the formal/informal status of a taxpayer funded not-for-profit entity;
17. As a consequence of the above it and its ’membership’ – including Hobart and Launceston Councils – the operation is in receipt of unspecified in-kind sponsorships and ‘support’;
18. ‘Does not itself deliberately generate income via any form of trading or the provision of services for a fee.
A PARADIGM IN OPERATION
Meaning is always to be found in the context of a situation and especially so when it is in situations like this one When time is taken to contemplate 'meaning' a raft of question turn up looking for answers. The first being, how did we get here and why?
Any questioning of public sector decision making is ever likely to be unwelcomed but that is just the way of things when there is 'skin in the game' - personal 'investments' off to the side as often as not. When there is, it is ever likely that the questioning will become more intense with responses to questioning leading to more and more questions.
Typically, corporate bodies, and indeed 'governance' in all its manifestations, operate on the assumption that they beyond the reach of criticism and critique from 'outsiders' as an automatic default position. Nonetheless, this is rarely a sustainable position and very often 'corporate opacity' flies in the face of 'accountability' – yet as often as not transparency is enshrined in law.
So here we have it, an 'enterprise kick starter' that is not itself operating as an 'enterprise'. It appears at least that it is not intended to operate in a truly entrepreneurial manner. It turns out that the operation has transmogrified into a 'charity' without a pragmatic community oriented 'purpose'. Given its current legal status as a publicly funded incorporated not-for-profit operation it follows that it is perceived as and operates as a 'cost centre'. Therefore, as a deliberate 'loss operation' all it needs to do in order to succeed is survive. As for targeted outcomes little to nothing is being said about dividends, social or fiscal.
STRATEGIC PURPOSEFULLNESS
As a function of being a company limited by guarantee ENTERPRISE TASMANIA has in its constitution a set of 'primary objectives'. However the operation's 'purpose' isn't there and thus, perhaps by design, the constitution it is of little to no use if you are trying to establish the 'performance indicators' that will/can be applied to assess outcome relative to expectations and inputs. So much for purposefulness!
It may be similarly assumed, given the silence, so much for enterprise/entrepreneurialism at the foundations.
Yes the word is in the title, and sort of in the branding, and critiquing any of this at any level is the approximate equivalent to critiquing 'motherhood'. However the fact remains that the 'objectives', as important as it is to have them, they are elastic, subjective and aspirational. They do not much at all to illuminate nor set out an objective 'purpose'.
The purposefulness of an operation, ideally, would be objective, concrete and measurable. Interestingly, operations devised/designed by politicians and/or bureaucracies for their own implementation, typically avoid hard headed accountability.
Here, Thomas Paine's words “a body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody” rings the loudest of warnings. And the alarm bells are ringing big time. Macquarie House and Enterprise Tasmania are anything but a fit. Nonetheless, there is a case for them being understood as some kind of political opportunism where ' entrepreneurial purposefulness' is way down the list 'key performance outcomes'.
An entrepreneurial operation of the kind 'talked up' for Macquarie House could be located almost anywhere else other than in such as this heritage building. A tin shed in a paddock could be an alternative along with a myriad of other structures if the 'political imperative' was not the driver – or the political 'fiscal filter' didn't seem to be playing a part, albeit subliminally.
PURPOSEFULLNESS AND FISCAL MATTERS
Assuming that ENTERPRISE TASMANIA has an unarticulated 'purpose' somewhere and that it goes something like 'to facilitate entrepreneurship' then there might realistically be a set of objectives, and measureables, cum 'performance indicators' to contextualise it – and to background accountability.
Speculatively, we could even risk pondering what they might be and to some extent we might well be in the realm of divining 'motherhood's' good points. However, if there is a purpose and it is articulated the need for speculation fades and we might well look in a hard headed way for some 'dividends/expected dividends' – tangible and intangible.
But why might we want to do such a thing? Firstly, we, the community, might want to evaluate our 'investment'. Then we might need to be able to do it against an articulated purpose – that would be helpful. Bureaucratically however, currently this sort of thing is rarely an imperative and the proof can be found in the 'annual reports' of just about every corporation that does not nail its purposefulness to the masthead.
All too often outcomes are automatically measured as fiscal 'profits', or losses, as a percentage of an operational fiscal turnover albeit that there may well be a disconnect between purpose and profits. Profit might not be the operation's purpose albeit it may be an aspiration among others. Usually something more than a 'wet finger held to the breeze' is required to divine success or otherwise.
1. Provides workspace and enterprise network links for budding enterprises in Tasmania;
2. Does not articulate a ‘corporate purpose’ cum raison d’etre for the operation rather it articulates a set of aspirations/objectives;
3. Falls under the jurisdiction and overview of ASIC and national corporate law;
4. As a consequence of the above it does not – arguably unable to – articulate a set of objective and measurable ‘performance indicators’;
5. Does not require business plans or financial details from associates/members/clients beyond an operational overview;
6. Provides access to basic infrastructure requirements for selected ‘budding enterprises’ in Tasmania;
7. Does not provide practical administrative support for start-up enterprises in Tasmania;
8. Has provided nominal financial support to some associates/members/clients but does not anticipate any proposed change in the foreseeable future;
9. Presumably provides bona fides to associates/members/clients using social security as their income base and/or potentially people benefiting from other funded schemes – private, corporate or government;
10. Does not require any specific qualifications – academic, technical, etc. – or experience for associates/members/clients and essentially engages with them on an ad-hoc basis;
11. Does not require associates/members/clients to demonstrate an outcome relevant to, or in consequence of, support received;
12. Does not articulate staff or establishment personnel’s qualifications and/or experience; 13. Has a small staff establishment supported/directed by a board drawn from the community presumably via personal networking;
14. Does not itself engage in entrepreneurial activities;
15. Seems to have a recurrent budget presumably provided by Govt. rather than corporate bodies or private sponsors, membership contributions;
16. As a consequence of the above ENTERPRIZE TASMANIA holds the formal/informal status of a taxpayer funded not-for-profit entity;
17. As a consequence of the above it and its ’membership’ – including Hobart and Launceston Councils – the operation is in receipt of unspecified in-kind sponsorships and ‘support’;
18. ‘Does not itself deliberately generate income via any form of trading or the provision of services for a fee.
No comments:
Post a Comment