Full marks to the IIEA for putting a fair-sized team on the case, and with a young leader with a rich and varied background. But I have to agree with another comment somewhere about, with regard to the contributor list: it is simply missing too many relevant players. There are PWC and Trinity College (or at least one or two aspects of TCD), the Chambers of Commerce and some teaching reps, and a range of private entrepreneurs and public bodies, but most of the third level sector appears to be missing, plus most consulting and SI businesses, most of the telecom vendor realm and most of IT, along with such sectors as finance (good re AIB), gaming, the arts and the “big media” (though the participation of a range of production houses, and practical players like SerCom, is good). Further involvement from tax specialists, and something from the various legal firms who have some specialisation in this area (such as MHC) would also have been nice. I note the answer by the lead author, and 600 requests to take part sounds a fair base, but I would suggest that a request-and-wait approach is not enough. To assure the authority of the report, perhaps a “minimum participation,” by sector, was needed, with active pursuit of comment to reach this. Delighted that Ed Walsh was involved: someone who really did see changes in the world coming, and need to evolve academic approaches, and who, with Danny O’Hare over in DCU, did something about it. The involvement of the Silicon Valley group was a very good idea: Ireland needs to make much more “use” of its contacts abroad, many of whom have good will and are happy to help. I would also demur on the question of bias raised above, I am sure it is genuinely the case that many in business had a notion to contribute and simply, under pressure of work, never got round to it. And I do not see such a large range of public sector participants either, anyway.

What is done is done, and there is plenty of food for thought here, if people are listening, and some good, and some just provocative, ideas. I hope many more comments follow, as the response seems a little thin for now. And this in turn highlights another issue: Ireland is far from fully developed yet when it comes to online participation in what is broadly termed “Web 2.0.”

We must as a nation be constructive, the more so in hard times, but I have to agree with several commentators, and with Ger O’Neill on the linked blog, that we can’t rely too much on government and the public sector, where a poor understanding and disastrous delivery have characterised too much of the “dialogue” with technology. I too had exposure to early projects in that field, and a quick scout through Phoenix (or, for true horrors, Private Eye, as the UK has done “IT disaster” to an unsurpassable degree, for all the expertise it holds).

I am glad to understand that this, while the end of the three-stage “report process” is not the end of this line of work, and sometime when in Dublin would like to try one of the associated talks.

On the universities, there was useful input from a range of highly focussed and promising research centres based in universities.

However the section on Ideas Economy has much in common with some parts of this report, and the points on schools are OK, if far divorced from reality. And they have missed the point you make about encouraging kids’ interest. Perhaps Ireland-the-Innovation-and-Knowledge-Economy on Second Life? Or a better harnessing of the diaspora?

The third-level ideas also sound good, but how have the well-paid and secure academics missed so much for so long (what do the authors of the report make of our third-level offerings?), notably, with the honourable exception of a few, on work placements, and on rounding out Governing Bodies and Faculty Committees with well-developed graduates instead of political hacks. What needs to be done to change this?