Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Case studies evaluate R&D and innovation preparedness of South African state-owned enterprises, suggesting areas for improvement.
The study uses the term 'gearing' to assess the extent to which SOEs are prepared, ready and capacitated, through R&D and innovation, to achieve their objectives. The hypothesis being that if an SOE is gearing - or better, appropriately geared - then it is positioned to leverage R&D and innovation to maximise productivity and meet its mandated role within a sectoral system of innovation. The three SOE cases: ATNS, SAFCOL and SANEDI were selected as examples of SOEs from different economic sectors which demonstrate innovation activity, whether through R&D or other activity. The SOEs were assessed on the basis of the five dimensions discussed. Each was 'excellent' in only one dimension - for ATNS, institutional governance, and for SANEDI and SAFCOL, their networks. Each SOE was rated 'good' in two dimensions: for ATNS, human capital and networks, for SANEDI and SAFCOL, technological capabilities and institutional governance. Likewise, a 'work in progress' assessment applied to two dimensions in each SOE studied, with a common concern about research infrastructure: for ATNS, in technological capabilities and research infrastructure; for SANEDI and SAFCOL in human capital and research infrastructure. The research concluded that while the SOEs studied incorporated R&D and innovation activities within their strategic outlooks, and had clear examples of innovative performance, there were dimensions in which each could be more appropriately geared-capacitated, resourced and organised-to improve the contribution of R&D and innovation to their efficiency and effectiveness. Based on the analytical dimensions of firm performance in sectoral innovation systems, together with insights from the comparative analysis of the cases, it was possible to extract a set of potential indicators for each of the five dimensions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Human Sciences Research Council (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: