TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsScience parks won’t solve Indonesia’s innovation problem
Indonesia keeps building shiny technoparks to celebrate innovation, but until its institutions actually reward risk and accept failure, it is merely building the container while ignoring the broken system inside.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Game time: Students play the online game Roblox on Wednesday during the Edublox extracurricular activity at the Solo Technopark in Surakarta, Central Java. The Roblox online extracurricular game program for junior high school students, initiated by the Surakarta city government and Solo Technopark (STP), aims to enhance children’s creativity and provide positive digital education, transforming it into a modern, technology-based learning medium. (Antara/Mohammad Ayudha)
I
ndonesia may be one of the few countries where a new technopark can generate more excitement than a new commercial breakthrough. A building is opened, a logo is unveiled, speeches are delivered and once again the public is invited to believe that innovation is finally taking shape.
Yet that familiar optimism should make us uneasy. When the same symbol must be rebuilt again and again, the real problem may not be a shortage of innovation infrastructure. The real problem may be that we keep mistaking infrastructure for innovation itself.
This confusion matters because innovation is not the same as invention - and it is certainly not the same as facilities, programs or ceremonial activity. A prototype, a demo day, an incubator or a science park - none of these, on their own, constitute innovation. Innovation becomes real only when knowledge is translated into something that survives market pressure, attracts paying users and changes economic behavior beyond the walls of the institution that introduced it. Much of what passes for innovation in Indonesia still stops at the safer stages: ideas, prototypes, competitions, training sessions and buildings.
That is precisely why science parks and technoparks remain so politically attractive. They are visible. They absorb budgets cleanly, generate reports quickly and signal seriousness immediately.
Meanwhile, the real conditions of innovation are slower, messier and much harder to photograph. Firms must want new knowledge badly enough to absorb it. Universities must reward translational work rather than merely celebrate it in brochures. Investors must tolerate uncertainty. Students and founders must be allowed to fail without permanent social or professional disgrace. Innovation, therefore, is not mainly a real-estate problem; it is a problem of incentives, legitimacy and institutional design.
A science park can create presence, but it cannot guarantee flow. This is the distinction Indonesia repeatedly underestimates. Policymakers often assume that if the right actors are assembled in one place, collaboration will follow.
But colocation is not collaboration. Presence is not circulation. A system can look complete on paper and still remain inert. The actors may all be present, the facilities built and the programs launched, yet the loop never spins because nobody has really been given permission to act differently. In that sense, many innovation structures do not collapse dramatically. They simply remain administratively alive and entrepreneurially still.
