"And the end of our exploring..."

"...is to arrive from where we started. And know the place for the first time."

This line from TS Eliot is a fitting epigraph for my final week at George Brown College. Over the past 9 years I have led the development of applied research at GBC, in Ontario and across Canada, working in concert with many outstanding people inside the college and out. College applied research has grown exponentially over the years into a viable and complementary component of a healthy innovation ecosystem in Canada.

The history - in metrics - of GBC Research since 2007: 781 partnerships; 7592 Student research experiences; $96M in research funding from public and private partners; 724 Applied research collaborations; 180 Research-active faculty members; 7 Academic partners. 

I am very proud of these accomplishments, but I am most proud of the 7592 students who now have innovation literacy. They are the future of our country, flexible innovators who will be integral members of teams no matter their careers or profession.

Two students have been members of our Innovation Advisory Board. Comments from each are below, which speak volumes for the work that the college system does in fostering industry innovation while ensuring that students like these gain innovation skills so essential to the future of our society and economy.

James Henderson: "As one of the 7,500 students who have participated in applied research during your tenure, I can attest to the profound impact such opportunities have on us. The skills we acquire, the network we form and the experience we gain makes our transition into the workforce so much easier. For so many of us, applied research has allowed us to explore interests and discover passions we might not otherwise have known were there."   

John-Allan Ellingson: "I'm glad to have been a part of the 'Luke Generation' of researchers, and the experiences I had with the group have been extremely valuable in the time since. I am confident that they secured me my current internship, certainly I drew from them heavily during interviewing. It could be the solution to the 'Entry level position: 3 years experience required' problem - possible marketing opportunity." Beyond helping students through the difficult post-graduation period, exposure to the wide spectrum of industries involved with the R&I office will remain career-long assets for the cohort of student researchers. With one foot now in the working world, I'm starting to better understand this - how a problem tackled in the Food Service or Assistive Device realm provides solutions for Construction and elsewhere, with the right perspective - and appreciate how rare the experience was. I'm sure that fostering this ecosystem, and its added value for students, ranks highly among your successes at GBC.

If anything exemplifies why I have been so committed to this work it is contained in these statements.

As of next week I take up the role of Vice President, Research and Innovation at OCAD University. You can find periodic updates here, connect with me on LinkedIn, and follow me on Twitter @LukeRobert.

Canadian Chamber of Commerce convenes roundtable on Talent for Innovation

Yesterday the Honourable Perrin Beatty convened the Toronto roundtable in this series, examining the important topic of what talent Canada needs for the innovation economy. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship the Honourable John McCallum opened the session with remarks on the importance of immigration to the supply-side of talent for Canada - this is particularly important for a country where we need people to fill the growing demographic gap due to retirements. I made the point that international students - important to the national economy - are prevented from participating in entrepreneurship programs - let's hope this can be changed.

I joined Cisco's Rick Huijbregts, VP Innovation and Digital Transformation Lead, Cisco, Americas, Wendy Cukier, Vice President, Research and Innovation, Ryerson University, and Alex Parizeau, Managing Director, Ubisoft Toronto in providing remarks for the roundtable discussion.

The Chamber set the stage thus:
Talent for Innovation is our topic. Through this project, our central question is: How can Canada cultivate talent for innovation? We are preoccupied with business innovation (i.e. innovation within companies) and innovation that comes to market (and not on pure “science and technology”). During our project, we will explore three key sub-questions:

• What are the skills that foster innovation?
• Where and how do we cultivate innovation skills and talent?
• What can the federal government do?

We discussed many important topics, from the importance of generational change, to digital literacy, and main street entrepreneurship - fostering growth companies in all sectors of the economy, not just new technology. Diversity was an important theme - building on the initial discussion about the importance of immigration, but also encouraging women in STEM and other fields.

My remarks used Technology Readiness Levels as an example of the need for diversity and complementarity in skills, competencies and credentials. That is, if you are going from TRL 1 - where I have an idea to build a rocket - to TRL 9 - where I am actually launching that rocket - you require a team of multidisciplinary people who are educated at different level - from PhDs, to engineers, to technicians, marketers and beyond. When people from varied competencies/credentials work together there is a multiplier effect. This is the principle of ensuring that everyone - from across the credential spectrum - has innovation literacy. 

We need to focus on the skills Canada needs, but also the skills Canada wants - both transactional and transformative skills for the economy and civil society. A focus on Work Integrated Learning is essential here - both as a component of all undergraduate programming, but also as a model for integrating and socializing youth into careers. This latter point fits well into the federal government's initiative to reboot a Katimavik 2.0 - a kind of youth internship for a gap year between secondary and tertiary education. The government could offer tax incentives to businesses who participate, pay a stipend to youth to participate in social and economic nation building while trying out a potential career. This could be a way to avoid the $500-600M in student loan defaults per year, by enabling students to find a career, and so educational path, that suits their interests and aptitudes well.

Above all an integrated approach to fostering education for innovation is required. The Chamber should be applauded for adding its voice to this Canadian imperative.

Polytechnics Canada and Conspicuous Contribution to Public Policy

The Annual Polytechnics Canada conference convened at Humber College last week, once again offering excellent discussion and contributions to Canadian public policy. "Learning that works" was the theme that saw very good keynote presentations ranging from insight from the Swiss education model to the changes being undertaken in Ontario. On the latter, MTCU Deputy Minister Sheldon Levy provided insights on innovating education, drawing on his work leading the Digital Media Zone Ryerson University.

Michael Horn, Co-Founder and Distinguished Fellow from Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation provided excellent insights into the disruption of education, showing how personalization of education and micro-credentials are setting up a sea change in the way education is proffered and taken. The rise of micro-credentials is something I've been interested in for some time, something I've outlined in a Globe and Mail op-ed in 2012 called Education should take a lesson from the open-source movement.

Another keynote by Jeff Selingo, Columnist for the Washington Post gave the crowd some additional insights into the employer context, specifically around the skills needed to thrive in the innovation economy. Career navigation is important to the current and ensuing generations, and providing skills such as curiosity, grit, creativity and contextual thinking are hallmarks of innovation literacy. GBC Research supports skills development with validation in micro-credentials via our innovation skills badges.

Navigation requires skills, which become the sextant for the innovation economy, enabling students to measure the angles between where they are and where they wish to go. Once again, Polytechnics Canada convenes a conference that demonstrates thought leadership through conspicuous contribution to public policy. 

GBC Applied Research Day a Success

The annual George Brown College Applied Research Day was held this past Monday and was a great success, convening 200 faculty, students and research partners for an afternoon of dialogue, discussion and a tour through the Galaxy of Research. A highlight this year was the student start-up pitch competition that saw five student entrepreneurs vie for a spot at the GBC Research OCE Discovery booth and $500 in applied research services to support their venture. Congratulations to mywinecanada.com - I encourage everyone to check out this exciting business that enables wineries in Canad to sell wines direct to consumers.

The annual Applied Research Day demonstrates the strength of applied research at the College. Our faculty, industry and community partners spoke about curricular innovation, social innovation and industrial innovation – three facets of innovation that give our students key innovation skills while creating social and economic value in our community.

One of the things that struck me was how applied research offers an "unstructured structure" to curricula at the College. That is, we have the structure of engaging with partners on applied research and giving these experiences to our students as part of the educational environment. But we do not know how these projects will turn out, Some will success, others will fail, some will get taken in new and unplanned directions. This is the beauty of why applied research works so well to instill innovation skills in our students. It requires extemporaneous thinking and perseverance. It promotes outside the box thinking and the acquisition of innovation literacy, skills that foster resilience, problem solving and entrepreneurial thinking. 

A highlight for me was speaking to the many students who attended, and who attested to how working with our partners on the many projects helped them gain innovation literacy. These students have the skills needed for the economy of today and tomorrow, proving our strategic imperative of Enabling the Innovation Economy.

GBC Applied Research Day 2016 Logo

Numeracy and Essential Employability Skills

GBC President Anne Sado was on TVO's the Agenda this past week, participating in a panel on the numeracy gap. It was a good discussion about the need for better math and numeracy, building on a recent study "Closing the Numeracy Gap." This report is worth reading, as it relates well to our ongoing discussion about skills for the innovation economy. George Brown College is focused on providing rounded skills to our students via work integrated learning in all of our programs. This enables a balanced approach to what are called hard and soft skills. College programs it is worth noting articulate clear outcomes and integrate Essential Employability Skills across curricula. This renders explicit the tacit assumptions around the what and the why of education. This is good for students and social and economic development and productivity.

Budget 2016 and the incipient Innovation Agenda

Yesterday's federal budget offered the new government's prescription for the economy. Many pundits are offering cogent analyses - see Alex Usher's here, and the Polytechnics Canada reaction here, and that of Colleges and Institutes Canada here.

Above all this budget shows strong investment in education, research, and the clean/green economy. Directionally this is good for the country. On the clean economy side, the government is her not picking winners, but showing leadership for any and all of Canadian industry to find a place in this global reality. This is right thinking, and an essential element in Generation Renew.

Increased funding to the granting councils is also excellent. Even better is the language outlining the new Innovation Agenda that will be crafted over the coming months.

The language in Budget 2016 regarding investments in research supports colleges, polytechnics and universities as all being key component of the R&D and innovation ecosystem. 

STRENGTHENING SCIENCE AND RESEARCH The Government understands the central role of science in a thriving, clean economy and in providing evidence for sound policy decisions. Canada’s universities, colleges and other research institutions play a fundamental role in Canadian society by developing highly skilled and creative workers. They are also the engines of discovery, and collaborate on innovations that help companies compete and grow. Budget 2016 takes action to reinvigorate Canada’s research and science base by investing in infrastructure at postsecondary institutions and federal laboratories, fostering research excellence, and accelerating the diffusion and commercialization of knowledge into applications that benefit industry and society as a whole.

This language is intentionally inclusive. While Usher points out that no specific earmark for college research is indicated, this is a positive step forward in that the country recognizes there are many complementary actors in the R&D scene. It is unclear if the granting councils will be left to allocate funds to either basic or applied research (read: university or college); the granting councils have an opportunity to continue to grow the entire ecosystem and I am hopeful that they will continue on the complementary path rather than regress to the politics of the past. The budget makes clear that this kind of divisive thinking is not the target audience.

The infrastructure spending in the $2B Post-Secondary Institutions Strategic Investment Fund (PSISIF) is good for all post-secondary and there are examples in the budget of what it can mean for colleges in terms of training and applied research:

• A college could modernize or create sector-specific training facilities, including capacity for advanced areas such as Red Seal trades;• College and university facilities that support prototype development or proof-of-principle assessment could receive investments in order to better serve the needs of industry partners;

Our role as a demand driven innovation enabler is central to locating our place within the education and R&D ecosystem in the country. 

The really good news is with the Innovation Agenda that Minister Bains will be crafting in the coming months, as he outlined in a recent Toronto Region Board of Trade speech. There is mention of supporting clusters and incubators in colleges and universities. The focus on clean tech and sustainability is significant in that the government is clearly signally that this is an opportunity for Canada to step onto the world stage and craft a role for multiple industries to play in this important global imperative. This is in addition to key investments in skills training and apprenticeships, aboriginal education and skills, and arts and culture. I look forward to learning more in the days and months to come.

At its core innovation is a mind set

"At its core innovation is a mind set" said the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development during a lunch time speech at the Toronto Region Board of Trade. And he is right. Minister Bains made the point repeatedly that Canada should be telling the world about our business strength, our leading position as tertiary educated population (including college and university graduate), our leading basic research capacity. Where we need to do more is in translating this into innovation for Canada. His speech was followed by a panel of discussants and a follow on response by the Minister. All in all, a good discussion on the importance of innovation, and importantly, what the federal government will do about our poor record in innovation.

Minister Bains called for Canada to leverage Canada's diversity for competitiveness and prosperity. To focus on the range of industries in the country, old, new and emergent. Innovation is the ability to find solutions to big problems, and this includes social innovation, he said.

And while the focus is on many industries, clean tech is a priority and not just to our country; it represents 3 trillion to the world economy. "A clean environment means a strong economy" and this will be a focus in the upcoming budget and the Innovation Agenda he has been mandated to create. Collaboration will be a hall mark of this Innovation Agenda - not just in how it will be created via the consultations such as that today, but also in how innovation is supported. This includes the development of clusters: the Government is committed to creating a national network of clusters to replicate the success of DMZ and MaRS. This is a good ting. We have a well defined ecosystem wherein colleges, polytechnics and universities work in concert to support innovation in the public and private sectors. "Innovation is a team effort" the Minister said, and this complementary approach ensures that the right people, with the right skills and the right context are applied to innovation needs as they arise. 

Fundamentally Innovation is about investing in people the Minister told the crowd. This includes STTEM skills and coding - ensuring that our youth can be both producers and consumers in the technologically mediated world. This world will be defined by a focus on climate change and clean tech; Clean Tech companies and technology are important to government because they are important to the society of today and tomorrow. Innovation must be done in a global context, the Minster reminded the audience, and this is Canada's time to lead.

Generation renew: innovation policy and education

I've been reading the revised edition of The Entrepreneurial State which supports the idea of state intervention and the development (and funding) of priorities in basic research. Those interested in this viewpoint would do well to read the interview with Bill Gates in the Atlantic, in which he says the same thing regarding the need for basic science investment in climate change. This is an important point that needs to be discussed as it relates to innovation policy and the public funding of basic and applied research, as well as experimental development (which is the innovation side of the equation - see post script below). There is also an interview in the recent Report on Business magazine with nobel laureate George Akerlof, in which he also supports the notion of state intervention. We are witnessing the rise of behavioural economics that shows how rational actors are induced to act irrationally.

A positive link here is the work that the Canadian Council of Chief Executives initiated recently: the Business Higher Education Round Table (BHER). There are two foci here: research collaborations and work integrated learning. Of particular import is the fact that leaders of business and higher education are working together to find productive solutions to inherent challenges in our economy - the lack of productivity and innovation, as well as persistent (and perceived) skills gaps. Universities Canada new CEO Elizabeth Cannon (co-chair, with GBC President Anne Sado, of the BHER) recently came out with a list of 5 priorities, which includes better industry academic partnerships.

All of this points to what I will call Generation Renew: we are generating renewal through a politics of detente that sees business, colleges, polytechnics and universities working together to address common needs. This includes industrial and academic productivity and partnerships, as well as a greater focus on skills the economy of the future needs.

Generation Renew is not just the generation of new models of cooperation and collaboration, it is also the generation of people that will come up within this milieu and start to address the long standing issues faced by the Canadian economy. Generation Renew supplants the alphabet soup of generational change and flux. Generation Renew are those people who work their way through the educational systems in Canada to acquire skills and competencies, are entrepreneurial and innovative, and who work together to make Canada a better place for all. The right mix of intervention and coopetition will enable Canada to make maximal use of our basic and applied research capacity, while ensuring we have the right skills for the innovation economy.



Post Script: Today's One Thought a Day blog post by Alex Usher offers some good advice on innovation policy. Usher offers views on differential spending between what he calls "pure research and applied research." There is an inherent problem with calling basic research pure research - it implies that applied research is somehow impure (and this in one statement sums up Canada's problem with commercialization as seemingly not pure). And, Usher, like most, ignores the third component of R&D - experimental development, in which innovation emerges. However, let's focus on Usher's repeat of the Jenkins Panel recommendation to support the establishment of an innovation granting council. This is important. While the previous government did a lot to promote HERD as well as to continue the previous Liberal government's initialization of the college research funding program, a lot of the good was lost in the rhetoric of entitlement to what I would call a libertarian view on "pure research": don't tell me what I can and cannot research, just fund me to do what I want to do. As I have pointed out in this space many times over the years, state intervention is required to support the establishment of clusters and national priorities. This is because, even though Canada spends more per capita on HERD than any other G7 country, we do not have the GDP to support research into anything and everything.

Innovation policy the rhetoric of research

There has been some good coverage in the Globe and Mail recently on innovation policy in Canada, leveraging the current election to promote fruitful discussion on this important aspect of public policy. One of the better pieces was by Doug Saunders on Saturday, where he asks "The question of Election 2015: Can government create jobs and growth?". In a nutshell he lays bare the need for government intervention in the economy specifically as it relates to promoting innovation in extant and emergent industrial sectors. The government's role is not to pick winners and losers, but rather to create gravitational pull towards specific goals such that industries can develop. Most importantly he cites the work of Mariana Mazzucato and her book The Entrepreneurial State (a must read). We need to get away from the tax incentives as a spur to innovation - these are not working. Instead, direct supports - such as those recommended by Polytechnics Canada  recently - will go much further in supporting a holistic approach to both industrial and academic R&D productivity. This point, made by Saunders and repeated today by Kevin Lynch, is seemingly not well understood in Canada.

Saunders makes a significant error in his reporting; in paraphrasing Mazzucato, he talks about the Canadian predilection to invest in what he calls "pure research." In the quote from Mazzucato, she talks about the continuum of basic research, applied research, and commercialization. It is worth quoting this passage in its entirety:

“What doesn’t work,” Dr. Mazzucato says, “is when the direct investments are too focused on one part of the innovation chain. The kind of active government involvement that was characteristic of Silicon Valley and places like Denmark – that government involvement has been across the entire innovation chain. Basic research? Yes. Applied research and early-stage financing for companies? Yes. Those countries that think they can just spend a lot on science and a lot on basic research and assume business can take care of the rest, without also having a strong presence in public policy – they tend to fail.”

Saunders's error is a linguistic one that is common among Canada's R&D policy set: equating basic research with the term pure research automatically confers on applied research and commercialization the connotation that this is impure. You might think this does not matter. But language constitutes reality, and in the partisan world of research funding, where one is seen as preferable to the other in the scrum for scant dollars, we would be wise to heed Mazzucato's words to diversify our investments along the innovation chain.

Saunders should be aware of this linguistic issue, having written arguably one of the better histories of Canada's consistent failure to embrace innovation in a 2012 piece called "My ancestors and the worst thing that has ever happened to this country." In this, he outlines may aspects of the historical antecedents of our long standing failure to capitalize on anything other than raw resources, and how

the idea of an individualistic, entrepreneurial, industrially adventurous economy became alien and undesirable. The hewing of wood, the drawing of water and the selling of furs may been the origins of Canada, but the post-1812 rulers turned them into an unavoidable fate.

With the opportunity before us to engage in dialogue and debate, I believe we can turn around this "unavoidable fate."

On that note, a good read on the connections between all forms of research and the complementary aspects of various education outcomes can be found in Fragmented Systems: Connecting Players in Canada’s Skills Challenge, released this week by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. 

Innovation in Canada

The Globe and Mail has been running a series of articles on innovation in Canada, kicked off back in May by a piece by Jim Balsillie. These articles are not really telling us anything we do not already know: Canada spends more per capita on basic research than our G7 counterparts, but we are at the bottom when it comes to business investment in R&D (and education and training and new technology, while we are at it). A couple of weeks ago there was a good article by Ian Klugman and Kevin Lynch on how the Toronto-Waterloo corridor could be Canada’s own Silicon Valley. For the first time in the series an author (or authors in this case) acknowledged that there is an innovation intermediary system comprised not just of universities, but also of colleges and polytechnics. I suppose in some respects it is short hand for post secondary education for most writers and editors to simply say universities, but we ignore the wider system at our detriment.

The key point here is that, while we certainly need to focus on more startups emerging from our world leading basic science labs, we also need to focus on what we can do to help those companies who want to innovate. A well functioning innovation intermediary ecosystem includes the span of PSE institutions all working toward their particular strengths.

The Greater Toronto Area is emerging as one of these, with world leading university research labs and hospitals functioning well alongside smaller universities and start up ecosystems along with colleges and polytechnics that are each doing their part for the whole.

Ensuring everyone across the educational outcome spectrum is well equipped with innovation literacy skills - and knows how to work with others in the system - will future proof our economy. A good thought for a week when the world's markets are taking such a beating.

Seizing the Moment: Input to NSERC's Strategy 2020

NSERC President Dr Mario Pinto recently launched a wide consultation into a new Strategy for the organization. George Brown College hosted one of the town hall consultation session which was well attended by college faculty, staff and industry partners. I submitted the following comments to the online survey, pulling from many ideas and comments made in this space over the past few years.

Going forward, will the NSERC 2020 Strategy help the Canadian research community achieve this vision?

Canada has a productivity problem – industrial and academic – and the NSERC Strategy 2020 has the potential to reinvigorate the research, development and innovation (RDI) continuum in Canada, provided some small changes are made to its focus. Canada has a strong research and development capacity, though this is overly focused on basic research. Applied research, supported through universities, colleges and polytechnics, is lagging. We have excellent basic research capacity but very low innovation capacity – our academic research does not produce comparable outputs and our businesses do not invest in R&D to the rate of our OECD counterparts. This is a serious problem that needs to be explicitly addressed in the NSERC Strategy.

The Council of Canadian Academies State of Science and Technology, 2012 report outlines this problem:

• Canada is among the 5 leading countries in 7 of 22 fields, and among the 10 leading countries in an additional 14 fields.
• With 0.5 per cent of the world’s population, Canada accounted for 4.1 per cent of research papers in 2005-2010 (7th in the world)
• However, Canada holds only 1.7 per cent of patents
• In 2010 Canada had a negative balance of nearly $5 billion in royalties and licensing revenues

This represents a serious academic productivity challenge that is compounded by low industry investment. Where Canada leads the G7 in per capita public funding for R&D (Higher Education Expenditures on R&D – HERD), we lag the OECD in Business Expenditures on R&D (BERD).

The four strategic goals are highly laudable and will be effective inputs to a healthy and vibrant RDI ecosystem. Under number 2 – Building a diversified and competitive research base, it mentions that “We will build upon the potential of academic institutions of all sizes” – this needs to be amended to “all types and sizes.” Since 2003, when the federal investments first began for college and polytechnic applied research, these investment have not only grown steadily but have shown proven results. George Brown College, as one example, works equally well with our private sector partners – helping firms to get new products and services to market, in the process creating jobs and wealth in the economy. We also work with scientists and researchers in Greater Toronto Area universities, helping them to get products made, PhDs completed, patents and publications into the marketplace. We have an opportunity to link an emergent RDI ecosystem comprising universities, colleges and polytechnics, to the private sector. This will help ensure that we can work together in productive ways to aid universities in getting innovations to market, while linking the private sector to both applied and basic research capacity that exists in our post-secondary education systems. In so doing, we will increase academic and industry productivity, ensure that students from across the spectrum of qualifications understand innovation, and create prosperity for all. This supports your third strategic goal of “Strengthening the dynamic between discovery and innovation.” For the workforce functions best when complementary expertise from a variety of disciplines and depth work well together.

How can we work together to ensure success?

We have an unprecedented historical opportunity to leverage all components of the RDI ecosystem toward greater productivity and innovation capacity. When we focus on giving students – from apprentice through undergraduate to graduate – the experience of working together in high functioning cross disciplinary teams on invention and innovation, we help to create and foster the next generation of talent that understands complementary expertise as a vital component to vibrant economies. This means enhancing the capacity of colleges and polytechnics to engage in applied research with firms and university partners – the CCI Program has started this through innovative funding instruments that support college applied research capacity and college, university and industry partnerships. These efforts must be enhanced.

The commitment to global excellence is well founded, and there is strong precedent here. As the CCA 2012 report indicates we “punch well above our weight” in terms of our basic research capacity. It is widely known, and has been studied extensively by successive expert panels (Jenkins Panel, CCA) that our innovation capacity lags seriously. The NRC’s Concierge Service is one way that we can enhance and foster greater partnerships. We should do more. NSERC has a significant role to play in terms of your ability to have line of sight into world leading basic and applied research capacity. Linking universities, colleges ad polytechnics with the private sector can be the purview of NSERC partnerships. Taking a proactive view to building links and bridges, either via geography or sector-based, will enable scientists to access the skills and talent, machinery, equipment and markets and networks inherent in the college and polytechnic sector. Building complementary expertise in relevant scientific priority areas will enhance overall economic performance by ensuring higher academic invention productivity while linking to industry receptivity.

Industry as a whole does not perform enough R&D, nor understands the need for it in some cases. The geography of basic research in our world leading universities is not necessary linked to industrial receptivity. Providing greater stewardship of R&D results into, for example, prototyping and development capacity at a college or polytechnic, and then linking this explicitly to potential industrial partners, will help Canada improve our R&D standing. We need this kind of market intervention in order to realize the value of the investments we are making. There are those who will resist this thinking, either on ideological grounds (against any market intervention) or on the basis of any money going to one sector is less for another. This is outmoded thinking. The future prosperity of Canada demands we take a complementary and equitable approach, realize value for money on our investments, and ensure that we leverage all aspects of the publicly funded RDI system – linking the production of highly qualified and skilled personnel from across the educational spectrum. Doing so will future proof the investments made to date, and be a hedge against the global competition for talent and industrial development. The NSERC Strategy 2020 is a timely opportunity to stake out our future potential.

CICan Annual Conference features Applied Research

The Colleges and Institutes Canada Annual Conference was convened last week in Winnipeg. Applied Research was featured this year at the conference in lieu of a stand alone Applied Research symposium, as has been past practice. This was a great way to showcase how much applied research is core to Canada's colleges, polytechnics and institutes. CICan released a document entitled  Partnerships for Industry Innovation that showcases the scope of applied research now being conducted across Canada. There is much to be celebrated here in terms of how colleges foster industry innovation while teaching key innovation literacy skills to our students.

And speaking of students, GBC Research convened two panels - one on the student experience and another on applied research metrics. I was to moderate these but unfortunately was not able to make the trip. Dawn Davidson, Director of Research and GBC, moderated the first panel; Bert van den Berg of NSERC took over the second.  

The panel on the student experience in applied research was called "This is what applied research looks like: From the student experience to skills" and featured the following:

• Jean Niravong, a graduate of the Chef School who worked on many projects with an emphasis on healthy food, and an instructor at the College;
• Miyoko Oikawa, is a current student in the Bachelor of Technology – Construction Management and a key member of the ARGILE research team, conducting research on building envelopes; and 
• Lisa Govia, a graduate of the Business Analyst program, and recent key member of the project management team in the research office, now at Royal Bank.

The focus of the discussion was on the two key outputs of College applied research : we help our partners to innovate, while giving students key skills and innovation literacy. These skills help students apply knowledge learned in programs leading to greater innovation capacity in their careers. The three graduates/students spoke eloquently about what they gained from this experience and what it has meant to their careers.

The second panel was on "Applied Research Metrics, Measurement and Evaluation" and featured Dawn Davidson, George Brown College, Mark Hoddenbagh, Algonquin College, and Sherrill McCall, Cambrian College. The purpose of the panel was to address Strategic Mandate Agreements recently mandated by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. These SMAs include metrics for evaluating applied research. It is recognized that it would be useful to have common metrics for the college system. This panel discussed how best to measure outcomes at the provincial level, and what these measures mean to our stakeholders.
Here is the longer abstract created for the discussion:

The refinement and continued development of applied research at Canadian Colleges, Institutes and Polytechnics has been further reinforced with the latest federal STI strategy which acknowledges applied research as a key component of the country’s innovation ecosystem. The college approach to applied research fosters industry and social innovation while equipping graduates with innovation skills.

In Ontario the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) recently mandated post-secondary institutions to create Strategic Mandate Agreements (SMAs) in order to enhance the cohesiveness of the Ontario post-secondary institutions, with the goal of creating a system based approach. Included in the SMAs for colleges are metrics for evaluating applied research; universities have metrics for both basic and applied research.  These outcome measures are important to ensuring effective return on investment for public funding into activities either core or ancillary to institutions’ academic mandates.

It is less clear at this juncture that there is a common approach to outcomes measurement for college applied research. Where some institutions feel that cost recovery is imperative, others feel that this detracts from the core academic mission of colleges. Regardless of where one sits on this spectrum, it is important to identify effective college applied research metrics, measurement and evaluation frameworks such that there is agreement in the Ontario system as to how institutions can work together to ensure consistency of experience, be this for students, faculty and staff, and our research partners.

These are important issues of high relevance to the college applied research community. Many of us have been working on these issues for some time, specifically looking at ways to measure both capacity to deliver applied research services and the contributions to the economy these produce. More on this in the days and weeks to come, including exciting developments among the Technology Access Centres, who are cohering around a national network designed to support applied research standards across the country.

The CICan conference as a whole, and the inclusion of applied research, marks a significant milestone in the evolution of the discourse around innovation policy as enacted in our colleges, institutes and polytechnics. I am looking forward to next year's conference in Quebec City.

Polytechnics Know How

Saskatchewan Polytechnic hosted the Polytechnics Canada Annual Conference on 7 May, and featured some great speakers and discussion about highly relevant issues pertaining to education and its relationship to productivity in the economy. On 6 May there were internal group meetings kicked off by a talk by Ken Coates, who engaged the group with questions regarding "the polytechnic moment." Fundamentally this is about our ability to respond to labour market needs with effective balancing of supply and demand with skills training and education. This recurrent theme is of great importance given the lack of growth in education funding and the need to ensure that the labour market has effective inputs (i.e. graduates) for social and economic outputs.

The agenda featured good speakers and an industry panel that discussed the political context of education and differentiation and how to articulate the value of polytechnic education. This includes our focus on applied research and the conjoint outcome of helping industry increase innovation and productivity while giving our students valuable innovation skills. These intangible skills were a strong focus of the discussions, in that these are often overlooked and add value to any social or economic enterprise.  That is, with demographics being what they are, with the work force essentially shrinking and the expenses of those retiring increasing, we have a very real need to increase productivity across the economy.  The kinds of skills and education that polytechnic education provides offer an excellent avenue for realizing this goal. This include the transferable skills and training people to assume managerial responsibilities as areas in need of development.

Adaptive thinking is required in our graduates - a core competency of innovation literacy - as well as in our approach to education. This is not an either or argument - it is clear form our discussions that situating one form of education against others is not a winning proposition. Rather, our focus on complementarity, in education and applied research, acknowledges a perspectival multiplicity that is also a multiplier effect on the economy. This kind of thought leadership is important in the post-secondary education landscape.

Budget 2015 support Business Innovation

Yesterday's federal budget contains some significant advances for the R&D capacity of the country. More specifically, Budget 2015 is one that promotes business innovation, something that has long been lacking in Canada. By business innovation we can include a host of measures, from promoting industry-academic partnerships for R&D right through to skills development and labour market information.

Budget 2015 R&D funding will further support research in our universities, colleges and polytechnics. The granting councils have been given modest increases focused on enhancing R&D from basic to applied research right through to experimental development. This includes $1.33B over six years for the CFI, $15M to NSERC - $5M of which will increase the College and Community Innovation Program (CCIP) starting in 2016-17, and $7M to SSHRC to increase partnerships between the public and private sector. As the budget notes Canada is at the top of the G7 in Higher Education R&D (HERD) spending (see page 93). Promoting greater capacity to engage in public-private R&D partnerships (P3RD) will help Canada leverage our world-leading basic research capacity and our polytechnic and college applied research strengths in support of experimental development and business innovation.

Most significant is the introduction of a key recommendation of the Jenkins Panel - a consolidation of industry facing R&D programs. This is a very positive move that will enable the full exercising of the public R&D system (universities, colleges and polytechnics) and orient these to industry partnerships when and where applicable. As I noted in my last post this was raised by industry participants in the NSERC Strategy Town Hall George Brown College hosted last week. The effort by NSERC is to align with the NRC's Concierge service, a nascent effort by the NRC to provide a portal into the secondary R&D supports. The Concierge service is right-headed, but adding NSERC to the mix will enable it to better serve the needs of industry by matching need to specific innovation support offered by universities, polytechnics and colleges. NSERC is well positioned to access the public R&D system.

The real value here is in the sector-agnostic approach to linking industry to innovation ecosystem supports:"While maintaining existing support for research activities at colleges and universities, this integration of similar programming will offer companies a single window through which they can undertake research collaborations with a university, a college, or both depending on project needs" (111). I would submit that this is one of the more forward-thinking initiatives to come to the R&D sector, in that we are finally moving forward on providing a seamless bridge for public-private R&D support, free of the angst of funding direction (as in: who gets the money - universities or colleges). This is positive evolution.

There are other elements of the budget that are of significance - new labour market information (much needed in Canada) through to programs that will focus on "'soft' skills, such as the ability to communicate clearly, think strategically and work in teams" (149). This is the essence of innovation literacy, and promoting Blue Seal certification for example (a key recommendation from Polytechnics Canada), as well as youth employment, aboriginal employment and entrepreneurship and support for persons with disabilities will help ensure Canada has the right skills - including STEM skills - that a modern innovation economy requires. We can add to this experiential learning - a core facet of George Brown College's Strategy 2020 - as key to ensuring graduates of post secondary education have the skills employers need. Here we have another very positive development that acknowledges the specific strengths of the college and polytechnic sector.

Economic Action Plan 2015 proposes to provide a one-time investment of $65 million over four years, starting in 2016–17, to business and industry associations to support partnerships between employers and willing educational institutions. Through these partnerships, groups of employers and industry organizations will work with willing post-secondary institutions to develop curricula and programs that are aligned with the specific skills needs of the labour market.

It is worth noting that the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002, compels Colleges in Ontario "to offer a comprehensive program of career-oriented, post-secondary education and training to assist individuals in finding and keeping employment, to meet the needs of employers and the changing work environment and to support the economic and social development of their local and diverse communities." Colleges are specifically set up to serve the labour market needs with our educational programming, and this applies to our focus on applied research. Budget 2015 supports the further refinement and development of how best our educational systems can respond to labour market needs for skills development and the orientation of R&D capacity - for technology transfer out of our leading basic research institutions and firm-friendly conduits into the applied research capacity. Canada is on the cusp of becoming world class in our orientation to the innovation economy.

One highlight is the funding of the Canadian Centre for Aging and Brain Health Innovation (CC-ABHI), which is led by Baycrest Hospital, and includes a host of private and public sector partners working together to create "a national hub and network dedicated to the development, validation, commercialization, dissemination and adoption of brain health and seniors care products and services." George Brown College is very pleased to be a founding academic partner in CC-ABHI. Our Advanced Prototyping Lab will be supporting product development, in addition to clinical simulation and testing.

Read the Colleges and Institutes Canada press release and the Polytechnics Canada press release on Budget 2015.

Polytechnics Canada Student Applied Research Showcase and the "How To" economy

The 11 members of Polytechnics Canada assembled at BCIT this past week to celebrate the Student Applied Research Showcase. The event is always a highlight, and this year was impressive as 11 leading students from across the country pitched their projects to a panel of judges. Each did an excellent job of articulating their research experience, but I think what was most impressive was when they were all called to the stage as a group to answer questions from the audience. When asked what they had gained from their experience on applied research, several spoke up about the application of skills and knowledge gained, the benefit of working for a real client, and how the experience prepared them well for the world of work and helped them get a job.

Earlier this year Polytechnics Canada CEO Nobina Robinson wrote about the "how to" economy in a Globe and Mail op-ed, in which she articulates the value of applied research as a unique way in which the knowledge economy is aided by the ability to translate knowledge directly to the needs of society. She writes: "In an economy with a growing demand for innovation talent in all sectors, we need to train people to know not just the “why” of knowledge, but the “how-to” of technical talent." Resilient economies are those that have the capacity to innovate and to add value to products and services. When students learn through our academic programs and work with industry partners on applied research projects – developing real products and services – they gain innovation literacy, key skills that amplify the technical skills they acquire in our programs. The multiplier effect of innovation skills was evident in all of the student presentations.

The Polytechnics Canada Student Applied Research Showcase is an excellent window into the world of applied research and the value it brings - to our partners, our education programs, and especially our students. Our economy is in good hands with people like those 11 who presented to the audience at BCIT, who is celebrating 50 years as an institution and 25 years of applied research. It was a fitting celebration, of BCIT, Polytechnics Canada, and the students, who very ably represented not just their home institutions, but our future ability to innovate.

The GBC Green Building Centre: Open For Business Innovation

The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development agency of Southern Ontario (FEDDEV) and Member of Parliament for Etobicoke-Lakeshore Bernard Trottier were at our Casa Loma campus today to officially open the Green Building Centre. Many of our industry partners were on hand to celebrate the opening. The Green Building Centre is GBC's newest applied research facility that is supporting the growing Canadian green and smart building market. Prior to the ribbon cutting, The Minister, MP Trottier and industry guests toured the various labs developed with funding from FEDDEV:

• Building Information Modeling
• Advanced Prototyping
• Building Materials
• Building Sciences
• Building Automation

The Green Building Centre also features a Building Accelerator and Entrepreneurship Space for industry partners to work with our students and faculty on applied research projects.

Minister Goodyear, who in a former post was the Minister of State for Science and Technology, has presided over the development of the college applied research capacity in Canada. In his speech Minister Goodyear talked about the strengths of Canada's excellent basic science R&D capacity (as recently outlined by the Council of Canadian Academies), but the need to also focus on developing our business R&D capacity. Facilities like the Green Building Centre are helping companies to invest in R&D and to develop new products and services. This applied research helps to translate the results of basic science into innovation, which means jobs and wealth in the economy. Already the Green Building Centre  has resulted in 59 new jobs, and helped our partner firms commercialize new products in the green building industry.

When companies work with colleges and polytechnics on applied research, not only are new products taken to market, but the next generation of skilled, innovation-literate graduates gain valuable industry experience. This experience complements the technical skills gained through our programs. The multiplier effect of funding such as that from FEDDEV is helping George Brown College to help industry to innovate in important areas of the economy. (In addition to Green Building, we are very active through our Food Innovation Research Studio and in health technology). Today's opening marks the official launch of the Green Building Centre, where we are open for business innovation.

Education, information

This was a busy week for those interested in education. The Conference Board convened its annual PSE Summit, HEQCO held a conference on apprenticeships, and the Society of College and University Planning convened to discuss PSE planning, including physical infrastructure and programs. Of these I was unable to attend the HEQCO, though I have been told it was very good and featured excellent in depth discussion on important issues regarding skills, the skilled trades and the apprenticeship systems in Canada and elsewhere. Also related is a recent conference I attended at Simon Fraser University on Innovations in Undergraduate Learning.

The PSE Summit was presaged by a workshop on Monday held at Ryerson University's Digital Media Zone on "Rethinking the PSE Institution." It was a good discussion on how PSE can and should adjust to the changing world around us. The DMZ was held as an example of this, and rightly so. My read on the DMZ is that it is taking innovation and entrepreneurship and explicitly teaching this in a more competency based learning framework. It works because it is what the world needs, and what student (for the most part) are seeking - relevance of their education.

Relevance is a defining feature of much of the discussion on education, and as well it should be. I've quoted John Godfrey here before: "The goal of education is to make people privately happy and publicly useful." Yet while most people will agree with this, there is still a sharp demarcation between education as a way to better oneself versus education for gaining skills to get a job. I don't think these are mutually exclusive. Education is always both transactional and transformative. We should be focused on outcomes-based education wherein students are told up front what skills and knowledge they will gain from a course or program. This enables students to see themselves on a career trajectory while we instil values congruent with our society. While there are those in the university and college sectors who eschew anything that remotely sounds like practicality, we ignore this at our peril. To these I say: Show me the student who does not want a job. That student does not exist.

That said, we should of course always encourage learning within or learning programs. This means recognizing, as one PSE Summit presenter said (quoting Alvin Toffler), "The illiterate of the 21st Century will not be those who cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn." Learning how to learn is an essential component of what we need to teach in order to future proof our economy. This creates resilience. It is a defining feature of those innovation skills I've termed innovation literacy. If the pace of technological change ushers in new forms of learning (about and with new technologies, for example), then the pace of credentialing similarly needs to be accelerated and adapted (IBM's M Mindel). In short, not only are there new competencies and skills associated with innovation as J. Salmi put it, these lead to the development of learning models such as what Ryerson's president Sheldon Levy has called zone learning, which is just "an updated form of co-op."

University of Toronto president Emeritus Robert Birgeneau gave one of the better keynotes at the PSE Summit with an overview of the California system. He described, among other things, the excellent articulation that defines credential laddering in the California PSE system (a real "system" I would point out, unlike Canada's many and competing systems). Most tellingly, he also went into detail about the new master education plan California is creating, in which there are community colleges, state universities and large, research universities, which are logically placed in a per capita allocation. To put this another way, Birgeneau pointed out that, if Canada were to structure PSE this way, Ontario would have 5 doctoral granting research-intensive schools, Quebec 3, BC and Alberta 2, etc. and create pathways among these. It reminded me of the U15 proposal for research funding, which is a good way to ensure that we can fund appropriately our best chances for global research excellence. This recognizes that we cannot continue to support everything and anything and everyone to be global research leaders. We have to pick winners. And we need an education system that serves the needs of the research pipeline an the development of human capital (read: potential): colleges, polytechnics and universities, both those that are undergraduate focused and those that are research intensive. Sooner or later this will come to pass for sheer economics. We cannot afford duplication in either credentialing or research intensity.

And so we end where we begin, in the need to focus on the development of a system (education and research) that works together, and provides students with outcomes and pathways throughout lives and careers. These issues arose at the SCUP conference and the SFU symposium. At SCUP there was a focus on planning and building physical spaces to reflect new learning, but also on program prioritization. Engaging in these sorts of exercises forces us to confront the cold reality of relative value of certain programs and types of education. This is as it should be. At SFU, there was a lot of discussion about outcomes amidst some fear that outcomes will restrict the ends of pedagogy, which to some is simply "crating good citizens." A noble goal, to be sure, but the majority of these citizens (95% according to one speaker) are entering universities to get a job and a career.

Those who eschew outcomes based learning I would liken to those who believe in magic. The students enter the educational institution, take some courses, and are magically transformed into a good citizen. To state what skills someone will learn from a given program or course disrupts this magical thinking, pulling back the curtain to lay bare the mechanisms of learning. The course or program is a black box in which magical things happen that are ineffable. This is alchemy, a transmutation that cannot be rendered explicit for fear of disrupting the professorial power to conjure this transformation.

To be fair it is difficult to render everything explicit. But we must be honest with ourselves and our students about what they will gain for their investments, and for those investments of public money we put into education. For if Canada tops the OECD in the percent of population with a tertiary education, yet there is still a mismatch in skills and gaps in career readiness, then there is a disconnect in the publicly-funded system and the needs of the private sector, where the majority of jobs are, in addition to the private needs of the individual to lead a fulfilling life as a participating citizen. This may simply be a communication gap (which is the rationale behind our innovation literacy badging program). And there are good models of public+private partnerships for education and research.

The private and public goals of education are complementary. The discussions held this week at these various venues has shown that there is great potential for the PSE system in Canada. There are good models at home and abroad that can shine a light on how we might reimagine our PSE systems, and make of them a true system.

Skills, innovation, the economy

With much discussion of late over skills and the role of education, it is interesting to see Alex Usher's post today featuring a Venn diagram of skills employers need versus those that alumni wish they had. It reinforces the work we do on innovation literacy and the promotion of those skills required for job market - and economic - success.

A recent Conference Board of Canada report called The Bucks Stop Here: Trends in Income Inequality Between Generations paints part of the picture here as well. There is some good news in this report, including increased labour market participation and a narrowing of the wage gap for women, and I note that the report states "The rise in average incomes does suggest that younger workers still have opportunities to advance." There is also a call to increase productivity in the labour force, which is consistent with many reports that look at how our labour force compares to other countries. With increasing retirements – and a corresponding shrinking of the labour force – increasing productivity is key to helping shape a vibrant economy.

Issues that are raised here such as underemployment and skills mismatches are real and important to address. One way that George Brown College is addressing these issues is to focus on a tight linkage to industry need in our programs. And, our emphasis on innovation literacy and what are called "soft skills" - those skills such as team work, communication, and entrepreneurship – gives our graduates a leg up in the job market. In addition, our focus on experiential learning – providing the capacity to apply skills through courses, applied research projects and internships, all help students to learn skills and apply them.

The Conference Board report notes that "The critical issue that emerges is how to ensure that younger workers are able to put their knowledge and skills to use in ways that will drive their incomes up faster than we have seen over the past three decades. " This is a very important point. Our focus on providing students with experiential learning and encouraging students to demonstrate what they have learned through for example our new digital badges program helps students seeking employment to demonstrate what they have learned in their programs and how they have applied this learning to real world contexts. Investing in education is a good thing, but this investment needs context: is there a labour market demand for a chosen profession? And importantly, what is industry's role in investing? We know that Canadian industry does not invest in additional education and training to the level our international counterparts do for their employees, and this is something that we foster with our close links to industry through our program advisory committees, for example.

Our focus on soft skills, on innovation literacy and entrepreneurship, and on how our programs link to employment give our students the tools with which to build experience and to gain employment. Students hone these skills further through experiential learning such as applied research and learn how to articulate the skills and knowledge they have gained so employers will understand what they know and know how to do. This puts the emphasis on the agency of each individual student, who is encouraged to come to the College, learn from our industry-relevant programs, and then demonstrate these skills and knowledge. We provide the context and the tools, and the encouragement to learn, and earn, a living.

Recognizing innovation literacy with badges

Since the launch of our innovation literacy digital badges I've received numerous inquiries regarding the program, particularly since the story about our badging program appeared in Academica. I thought it would be useful to provide an overview the the program, and why we have launched it and what we hope it means to our students and graduates.

The premise of the program is that it is important to acknowledge the acquisition of skills students gain as a result of working on applied research projects conducted with industry and community partners.  These innovation literacy skills are ancillary to the technical and other skills students gain in our academic programs.

The foundational premise is that these innovation literacy skills are acquired through this applied research work. The second premise is that it is important to render these skills visible to students. That is, we must ensure that students can see and acknowledge that they have gained skills pertinent to innovation. We can tell students they have gained these skills, and most can articulate that they have gained these skills, but it is important to render explicit the tacit assumptions of skills acquisition in order to complete the learning and reinforce the value of innovation literacy. Third, it is important to make this skill acquisition visible. Enter the digital badge.

Badges are an increasingly popular way for students to show to potential employers how they have gained skills and experiences that do not normally appear on an official transcript. They can be displayed on an e-portfolio or co-curricular record, or on a social media profile such as LinkedIn or Facebook. The important thing is that badges are explicit recognition of skills that are gained through experiential learning.

For the past few years the team at George Brown College has been working to foster innovation literacy skills in our graduates that work on applied research. We have developed ways to measure this longitudinally, and this work is in progress. In the meantime we felt it important to take steps to ensure graduates understand what innovation means, and how their applied research experience enables them to take a proactive role in fostering innovation within the broader world of work they enter upon graduation.  It is important to demystify innovation, as in so doing we derisk it for the economy broadly. By ensuring that all graduates can achieve some understanding of innovation and how they can participate in it, we foster a better chance of future productivity. Key here is recognition of informal learning and its relationship to formal learning.

I've written earlier about the need for a more national approach to outcomes based learning that can account for both formal and informal learning. Such a "learning passport" system would enhance the linkages between learning and life (work), something colleges and polytechnics assume as part of our mandate. This explicit connection need not solely be focused on the transactional acquisition of skills of immediate use. For when we teach skills we also teach how to learn, and learning how to learn is a skill that fosters resilience and the transformational effects of education.

George Brown College Excellence in Research and Innovation digital badge

Polytechnics Canada promotes entrepreneurship of, in education

The annual Polytechnics Canada policy conference was convened this week at Algonquin College in Ottawa. The theme of this year's conference was "Polytechnic Education: The future we want, the difference we make, the change we need".

The agenda included an opening keynote by Matthew Crawford, author of Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work. It was a great opening to the conference as Crawford focused on the necessary balance between manual and intellectual labour, itself a false dichotomy.  The main idea here is that the kinds of work that colleges and polytechnics prepare people for has been traditionally delegated to second tier status. The time has come to realize we need a complementary approach to education.

The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada and Minister for Multiculturalism gave a keynote speech at the conference dinner preceding the event, focusing on the kinds of changes we need in ensuring we have better labour market information, credit transfer and mobility, and on the new reforms to apprenticeships. It kicked off very good discussion at the conference on the value of work (as per Mathew Crawford), as well as skills that employers need and how we can instil these in our graduates.

A panel discussion featuring representatives from all three political parties reviewed the role of the federal government in education, and there was a strong focus on innovation and the needed connection between applied education, the labour force, and the larger R&D capacity of the Canadian industrial ecosystem.

An ensuing speech by by Nathan Cullen, Member of Parliament for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C. and Finance Critic for the Official Opposition, New Democratic Party of Canada, was a good review of the consonance that exists across political lines on issues pertaining to education and policy. Cullen also made strong points about the need to reinforce the value of college and polytechnic education - a point picked up by many - where this value has had historically diminishing returns in terms of its perceived value. In simple terms, this means a historical bias favouring universities as the ticket to the future has led to the skills issues we now face (for which we need better data, of course).

It was Cullen who stated that "Polytechnics are the entrepreneurs of post secondary education." This is a very good point - the members of Polytechnics Canada are innovating in our approach to integrating applied research as a core facet of experiential learning while helping firms to innovate. We are advancing the apprenticeship discussion to update and modernize the system for better social and economic productivity. And we are working to connect supply and demand for the innovation economy.

Addressing this topic specifically was a panel on "Connecting Demand and Supply for a 21st Century Talent Agenda". Speaking from the employer perspective was Ross Laver, Vice President, Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and making the link to post-secondary change was Professor Ross Finnie, Director of the Education Policy Research Initiative (EPRI), University of Ottawa. It was an excellent overview of the needs of employers, and how education institutions can work to meet these needs. The crown learned about the nature of skills shortages and the lag of the PSE system to deliver the skills we need now, which runs the risk of ignoring the realities of the skills needs down the road. This is complicated by the fact that the jobs we will need to fill in 10 years may not exist right now. Todd Hirsch, writing in today's Globe, makes a similar point. (warning: paywall in effect).

A closing panel on healthcare shows how polytechnics from across the country are helping entrepreneurs innovate in the health space, while providing needed culture change impetus with the teaching of innovation literacy to a wide variety of students. GBC Research partner Infonaut was featured.

We need better labour market information (LMI): "The plural of anecdote is not data" enjoined Polytechnics Canada CEO Nobina Robinson. This was echoed by many - starting with Minister Kenney right through to Ross Finnie, the latter who also focused on the relatively new field of behavioural economics. This means understanding the context in which the students (now and in the future) are making decisions about the kinds of education in which they will engage includes some of the prejudices against college mentioned above. This is not to say that university education is not useful, but rather that it is not for everyone, nor preparation for all of the jobs we have and need to fill now and in the future. It is worth repeating: we need a complementary, non-binary view of education - and research for that matter - that starts from what the market needs.

Once again it was an excellent discussion, with participation from many across the education, government and policy spectrum. The focus on the future with a practical attention paid on how we will get there - and what changes we need to work on together - was very fruitful, and significantly advanced the discourse on education, skills and innovation.  Nobina Robinson summed up the day succinctly: "When events like these ask the right questions we can get to the right solutions."

Polytechnics Canada next convenes at BCIT in November for the annual Student Applied Research Showcase. With BCIT celebrating 25 years of applied research, it promises to be a good event.