Trade group will focus on helping hand, not handouts

By PAULA OLIVER

The task of bringing together two cultures and forming them into New Zealand Trade and Enterprise won't be easy for Tim Gibson, but the chief executive of the new group is sure he can do it.

"Yes, I am confident," he told the Business Herald from his Wellington office.

"First, we have good people. When you have good people, and they have clarity around their roles and a clear understanding of our direction, it takes care of a lot of the other issues."

Gibson is enjoying his job, which officially started on July 1.

Before that he was working behind the scenes, drawing up a framework for the merger as the bosses of the two component organisations carried on with a "business as usual" approach.

He is well aware of the public and political criticism that has been levelled at one of the two bedfellows he is charged with bringing together.

Industry New Zealand became political fodder, was labelled a handout merchant and proved a source of embarrassment for the Government when it mishandled a grant to The Warehouse.

Its merger with Trade NZ has been seen as more of a takeover by Trade NZ in some business circles, but Gibson is adamant the change is a merger.

It is being done to give a more integrated service delivery, or what Minister of Economic Development Jim Anderton has labelled a one-stop shop.

Gibson thinks the handout perceptions of Industry NZ were overstated in some quarters, and he is quick to defend the work of the body.

"When you get behind the public perception of Industry NZ, the people who actually dealt with it are quite glowing in their praise.

"That's because it wasn't really about handing out grants - it was about helping to build capability, clusters, and networks."

Bringing together the two has not been easy, even in these early stages.

There has been staff upheaval, redundancies, and a change of direction. Some people have reacted in a good way, others not so good.

Gibson said disparate views were nothing new to him.

Towards the end of a lengthy stint with the Dairy Board he was involved with the restructuring of the dairy the industry.

His job history includes time in an exporting manufacturing company, a stint in Tokyo where he was running businesses in North Asia, and time in Europe where he organised a major international joint venture.

He has been called a low-key manager, but describes himself as someone who "doesn't like to muck around".

Gibson said he faced four major challenges at NZTE.

The most immediate was to complete the physical transition of bringing the two organisations together.

The next step was to make sure there was a clear understanding of what NZTE's role was, both inside and outside the organisation.

"It is important people understand this is not about simply handing out money.

"Successful economic development agencies around the world are based on building capability. That's essentially what I see our role as being."

He said that NZTE would not be management consultants.

For local businesses aiming to export, it would help them to identify potential partners, or direct them towards acquiring skills that would give their business a lift.

A strategic plan had been developed andthe agency's overseas network, with 38 offices and 140 staff in other countries, had a large role within that.

The plan was now under review to make sure that taxpayers were getting the best return possible on their money.

Gibson said he wanted to make sure the organisation gained credibility, and he believed one way of ensuring that was by measuring its performance.

"It is very hard. How do you actually measure the success or failure of an organisation like ours?

"We need to be able to be able to measure it internally - because if we can't measure things we can't manage them.

"Externally, we are custodians of taxpayer funds. We need to know the programmes are having an impact on the economy."

He is working with the Ministry of Economic Development to decide what specific measures will be used.

He said that some of the programmes would need to measured over time - perhaps five or 10 years - to gauge success.

By then his success in bringing the two organisations together would be clearly measurable.