I do think that the middle section above defers too much to government initiatives, surprisingly, as in one of the same paragraphs, there is a good outline of a rich “digital sector,” while government and related sectors have rather weak track record in Ireland (broadband being only one example of failure over a long period, but one which exemplifies what can go wrong with even well-intentioned moves, with publicly-funded initiatives actually weakening the market).

I agree with the broad thrust of the highlighted action points, but will comment more on the specifics on the relevant detail pages, as I do have some concerns, largely around the speed factor in education, and the RTE and Digital Hub aspects of the “IFSC” group.

And I like the idea in the comment just before me, of going out and bringing back “top talents” from other markets. We must be open in today’s world, and we must equip ourselves to sell to big markets such as China and India, and perhaps even Indonesia, Brazil and Russia and the former USSR.

Also good to see a – no ageism, either way, intended – young person lead this work. Even more reassuring that there seem to be others out there who can recognise the value of such a person, at both Irish and UK universities, and Tony O’Reilly’s outfit. I assume all of these places have also been good sources of ideas and inputs – tho perhaps I am an optimist as most Irish colleges are dire at keeping in touch with, or drawing value from, grads, unless it involves amateur fund-raising.

I like both the list of stakeholder areas – but see my comment on another page on how many were actually in the process – and the headline suggestions, even if I do not agree with all entirely. But I would add one other top priority, speaking as an employer – talent recruitment and retention, as national policy. We are seeing a new brain drain, both of the best of our new arrivals – many of whom were in the wrong jobs – and of our own – and our rather negative visa policy is *not* bringing us the best of the rest. We need to get working on this, and join Schengen as a matter of urgency, to improve access. Perhaps we could start with a mission to somewhere like Italy, or rural china, to “hoover up” top talent.

It’s at http://nextleap.wordpress.com/conclusion-converged-leadership/options-for-government-action/key-action-points/ or in “Key Action Points”.

On the third, I do not think that “branding” will be easily done, but if all the pieces are in place, maybe. However, these things are not done quickly, and the digital world moves fast.

I think (see my earlier comment) that the first set of actions are the real key. But I suggest that when there is a problem with basic funding for schools, and basic competence for a significant percentage of pupils in, for example, maths, a “digital curriculum” could be a bit of a challenge. Especially as there has been no visible move to prepare new or existing teachers for this.

I disagree with the idea of weighted marks, but agree with the concept of trying to inspire interest. Given what the digital world is doing, and that the next generation are in many ways “digital natives”, this should not be so hard.
The “digital IFSC” sounds good, but the actions suggested, no offence, are a mixed bag. Putting forward RTE as a potential incubator sounds like an idea from people who do not know that organisation. This task might be better suited to one of the more innovative universities, such as UL, DCU or Carlow or Dundalk IT’s. A “national pool” of VC is a good sound bite, but this is not how the VC world works. What could be done is to make available a State “matching pool” to support projects which succeed in, say, two rounds of private sector funding. And this could take in the last idea. Certainly, those who know what to do in the private sector should be used, but they are not going to sit around on a panel. But if their day to day work could be levered, there could be something.

-Use private sector leaders with proven successes to assess start-up applications for state funding