Below is Part 2 of the interview with Minister of Science and Technology Nguyen Manh Hung.

You emphasized that the major difference of Resolution 57 is output-based management. Can you specify the targets and indicators to demonstrate this?

Previously, we managed science with an administrative mindset: strictly controlling inputs, down to every voucher and invoice, while output requirements and evaluations were neither clear nor strong enough. Consequently, the creative space was narrowed, and scientists spent more time on procedures than on research.

Resolution 57 has reset the priority order: shifting from management based on procedures to management based on goals and final results. The Resolution also emphasizes sandbox mechanism, accepting controlled risks. Without accepting risk, there can be no innovation.

This is quantified by "telling" targets and indicators:

First is the measure of growth quality, through the target of Total Factor Productivity (TFP) contribution to economic growth reaching over 55 percent. This is a crucial indicator, confirming that Vietnam's growth in the coming period must rely mainly on productivity, science, technology, and management innovation, rather than continuing to rely heavily on capital and labor expansion as before.

Second is the goal of forming at least five digital technology enterprises on par with advanced countries. This means science, technology, and innovation cannot develop in a rampant manner. There must be focus and "locomotives" strong enough to lead the ecosystem and create a spillover pull for the entire economy.

Third is measuring research outcomes by their ability to reach the market. The resolution sets a target for the commercialization rate of research results and inventions at 8–10 percent. This represents a very clear shift from the "acceptance is the end" mindset to regarding acceptance as a technical milestone, while the true value lies in application and commercialization. 

The output of science is not the number of report pages, but the number of “Make in Vietnam” technologies and products that are deployed, sold in the market, and solve national challenges.

Fourth is the target of allocating at least 3 percent of total annual state budget expenditure to science, technology, innovation, and digital transformation, with gradual increases in line with development needs. At the same time, the mechanism will shift from detailed expenditure control to funding based on results.

A scientific system only truly has vitality when nurtured by the market. Therefore, the Resolution sets a target for R&D expenditure at 2 percent of GDP, in which funding from society accounts for over 60 percent. The State plays the role of "seed capital." When businesses spend money on science, they will demand real results. Market pressure is the most natural and effective monitoring mechanism to realize output-based management thinking.

In 2025, MST presided over the drafting, revision, and submission to the National Assembly of 10 laws on science, technology, and innovation, seen as a major step in removing institutional bottlenecks. Could you explain how these bottlenecks have been “unlocked” for research, innovation, and technology commercialization, especially for enterprises?

When we speak of “institutional bottlenecks,” we are essentially referring to barriers that have existed for many years: excessive procedures, management approaches biased toward process control, limited experimental space, and insufficient incentives in ownership and exploitation of research results.

Therefore, the National Assembly’s passage of 10 laws in science, technology, and innovation is not merely about adding legal documents, but also about creating a new framework and opening new development space for science, technology, and innovation. Some of these laws place Vietnam among global pioneers, such as the Artificial Intelligence Law and the Digital Transformation Law.

The institutional unlocking this time is most evident in the innovation of science and technology management thinking. For the first time, many regulations are designed to acknowledge that the nature of science, technology, and innovation activities involves risk and failure, requiring experimentation, but risks must be managed, not eliminated by procedures.

Meanwhile, businesses are also established as the center of the innovation ecosystem. They are not merely recipients of technology, but are enabled to participate from the outset: leading missions, commissioning research, collaborating with institutes and universities, and, critically, benefiting from clearer mechanisms on ownership, exploitation, and commercialization rights for research outcomes, including those formed with state budget funding under transparent principles. When enterprises have rights and benefits, they are willing to invest in R&D and persist with innovation.

Technology commercialization has been freed from technical bottlenecks. Procedures for technology transfer, intellectual property valuation, capital contribution using patents, technical know-how, and research results have been simplified to ensure smoother flows. This shortens the path from laboratory to market, turning knowledge into products, services, and added value.

Thai Khang