Applied Research: Innovation, Productivity and the R&D Continuum

The ACCC 2009 Applied Research Symposium: What does success look like? was held in Ottawa on 25-26 February, and featured interesting and informative presentations about the role of colleges in the R&D innovation chain. The conference focused mainly on some of the issues involved in establishing college applied research: building a research culture, intellectual property, metrics, and community-focused versus industry focused research. Walter Stewart, from the Toronto Region Research Alliance, gave the opening keynote, and challenged the audience to focus our efforts in applied research capacity development on how we can serve our mandate to students and industry. In so doing, we must not try to be all and do all, but rather focus our efforts according to our strengths. This fits well with the notion of complementarity.

My own talk - from which I took the title of this post - was intended to illustrate the role of Polytechnic applied research. My focus was on topics I have written about here, and the shared challenge we all have to work within our areas (geographic, specialization): complementarity.

Here are my speaking notes:

Innovation

• Canada’s Innovation Capacity
• 13th out of 17 countries (OECD)
• “D” for innovation: “it’s been a D for decades”
  Conference Board of Canada, How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada
  
  Canada seems very good at inventing things, but not so good at capitalizing on inventions.

Productivity

• Canada is second in OECD for HERD; 12th in BERD
  HERD: Higher Education Expenditures on R&D
  BERD: Business Expenditures on R&D
• Firms are not making effective use of postsecondary applied R&D capabilities
  “We’ve gone too far in subsidizing R&D, and not far enough in subsidizing diffusion of innovation.” (Sharpe 2009)
  
  Our goal is to help firms make better use of applied R&D capabilities.

Role of the applied research office

• We focus on Regional R&D Capacity and Innovation Transfer and
• Complementarity in the R&D Continuum
  
  We are not trying to replicate what any of the university, government or industry research labs do. Rather, we do what they cannot do: fabrication of prototypes, for example.

Startup.edu

• We are a startup, and we help startups
• We offer “Last Mile” R&D services
• The Stages of technology development provide a useful framework for how we fit into the R&D continuum

How we’re different

• We respond to industry needs
• We have industry governance through the GBC Research Innovation Advisory Board
• The IAB is a multi-sectoral SME and entrepreneurial stakeholder group whose primary role is to provide a current and effective link between the Research and Innovation office at George Brown College and the key sectors it serves

Innovation Support Services

• We offer innovation support services to sector partners, using a validate/simulate/adaption model to
• Validate practicality and usability of new technologies/products/processes
• Simulate impact of their use
• Adapt those technologies for deployment under diverse conditions
  
• Testing practicality and market/user/practice adoption and adaptation lets us focus on the implementation of innovation
  
  This is the Diffusion of Innovation

From discovery to design

• Our Multidisciplinary Collaborative Problem Solving model mobilizes college disciplines in support of industry needs
• The intentional application of applied research and innovation services to industry needs and contexts means we focus less on discovery, and more on the design of innovation - how to test the practicality of new products or services (adoption and adaptation)
• Our model uses college verticals in a horizontal integration strategy
  This is a matrix for understanding our innovation intentionality:
  College disciplines are verticals of expertise. A project is a horizontal that accesses expertise as needed/required from each vertical.
• Move from idea to invoice

Innovation Literacy

• This is a cornerstone of what our students gain from participating in applied research projects: the ability to think creatively and apply problem-solving skills to diverse and intangible issues within industrial problems and contexts.
• Innovation literacy is a transferable skill that enables our students to be flexible innovators in the workforce.
• Our students are Highly Qualified and Skilled Personnel
  Innovation literacy is the creativity called for by Martin and Florida

Open Innovation

• “…the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively.” (Chesbrough)
• All colleges, working together, can foster an open source approach to innovation and capacity building for improved social and economic productivity in Canada

Open Innovation Network

• Polytechnics are a de facto Applied Research Cluster (PARC)
  A distributed research cluster or open innovation network.
• AutoPARC
• EcoPARC
• EnviroPARC
• HealthPARC
• Etc.
  
• Fostering what the EU calls “Regions of knowledge” means that colleges can collaborate to compete together. We form an open innovation network that is more than the sum of its parts.

College and Community Innovation Program

• The NSERC CCIP represents a significant investment and awareness of the importance of colleges in the innovation chain in Canada.
• Relating back to HERD and BERD (see Productivity, above), the CCIP is a P3RD
  A Public Private Partnership R&D investment
• This is a public R&D subsidy that is specifically designed to increase BERD commensurate with HERD

We must take this opportunity, and, in recognizing it as P3RD, deploy these funds strategically to foster social and economic productivity. We have an important role to play in the R&D continuum in Canada, and that role should also focus on how colleges can work together - like the Polytechnic Applied Research Cluster model - to ensure that this capacity can realize its potential and contribute meaningfully to improving Canada's innovation capabilities. Canada's college are key to improving community economic and social development.

My challenge to us all is to make this collaboration work, to find ways to work together in a complementary fashion. It is important to celebrate our successes, but it is even more important now to look ahead to the future and chart where we are going. This future-forward orientation will be the focus of a panel I will be convening for the ACCC Annual Conference.

Entrepreneurship, or, Enabling the Innovation Economy

I've been giving innovation and entrepreneurship a lot of thought - particularly since we are having a whole day on this at the Polytechnics Canada conference on 5 and 6 May. Part of the conference will be working sessions designed to articulate solutions that leverages all aspects of the education and innovation system and the innovation skills needed for Canadian productivity.

One thing that I came across recently that is of interest to anyone in this space: Skills for Innovation and Research (2011) OECD Publishing. There is a good definition of entrepreneurship, including the summation: "creativity seems to be a necessary but not sufficient precondition of entrepreneurship." To this I would add the ability to analyze, think critically, and focus on human-centred product or process development and what I have called "adoptation"--the ability to adopt and adapt: precepts central to innovation literacy.

I've written before on the double helix nature of the multiplier effect needed for our "innovation DNA": the need for both graduate/undergraduate trained innovators with complementary STEM/nonSTEM skills as essential for productive innovation. A mixture of skills is needed for innovation, but this mixture is always in flux. There is no static model for what constitutes the optimal mix of skills as these are variable and according to the need of innovation-in-context. This is a very important point as it means there is no magic bullet solution for fixing innovation. Rather, we need a constant commitment to reinvention and an additive ability to learn, to translate (user needs to design specifications, for example), to embrace change and adoptation. These skills are additive both in terms of what it means to an individual and in terms of the multiplier effect in work groups or teams, but also in the ongoing iterative nature of innovation that builds on histories of innovation and invention.

OECD's Skills for Innovation and Research tells us that there are several influencers of what innovation skill sets are required. These include: "the stage of innovation, the type of innovation, and the industry structure," to which I would add industry context vis-à-vis other industries. This last point refers to concepts such as open innovation, participatory innovation, and the ability for firms to collaborate across industries. Here again, the OECD Innovation Strategy skills show the value of nonSTEM skills as a complement to STEM skills in providing ways to develop business ideas based on science. Technical skills are the substrate on which innovation is based. We must assume this "ground", and look at the ancillary skills we associate with innovation literacy as being the "figure" of innovation. This figure is the entrepreneur, set against the backdrop of innovation-in-context.

One thing this OECD document states is that "More evidence is needed on the relationship between specific skill groups and innovation" (12). I've not mentioned this in this space before, but GBC is leading a large scale study on Measuring Innovation Literacy that will do this - the first of its kind in Canada. I'll post more on this study later, but our hypothesis is that we will show the value of the double multiplier, particularly the STEM/nonSTEM mix aspect - to be crucial to improving our innovative capacity as a country. In the Skills for Innovation section (p31 ff) we see the difficulty of coming up with a taxonomy of sorts to define what is needed to foster innovation. This is our collective opportunity to define the genre of innovation in Canada. That is, a complementary mix of skills is needed, including a solid grounding in STEM disciplines. But innovation leadership requires more than this. STEM grads need business training in order to fully realize their place in the innovation economy. Managerial and entrepreneurial talent are the purview of nonSTEM disciplines. This does not get enough discussion. Pundits typically decry the lack of STEM skills in North American society - and to be sure we need scientific literacy firmly grounded in our educational psyche. But we must not ignore the nonSTEM disciplines as adding a lot of value to the mix. Again, this is not a zero-sum game. (As an aside, here are two Twitter posts on both sides of this equation: People-Centred Innovation: WSJ.com - Vint Cerf's Opinion: How to Fire Up U.S. Innovation and Want Innovative Thinking? Hire from the Humanities. My opinion: neither is right; neither is wrong.)

Education is the single biggest element of innovation here - providing it, encouraging it, and supporting it life-long, and life-wide. What I am arguing for here is an "entrepreneurial upskilling" of STEM/nonSTEM talent alike, as well as the need for innovation literacy at all levels of the workforce. Complementarity of education systems - university, polytechnic and college - is essential. Here the OECD tells us that universities are adept at disruptive innovation and basic research, whereas the vocational college/polytechnic is adept at incremental innovation - the applied research and experimental development parts of the innovation value chain. Both are necessary. This complementary linkage of differentiated actors in the educational/innovation system was nicely highlighted in the discussion that followed my appearance, alongside Queen's University's John Molloy at the R&D Review Panel last December.

The Public Policy Forum recently published Innovation Next: Leading Canada to Greater Productivity, Competitiveness and Resilience, which further underscores the need for bold leadership across and within sectors and silos. We are all oriented to the same goal of increasing and improving our productivity. Our discussion in May will be drawing on these insights and leveraging the group convened to push this agenda forward. Entrepreneurship is key to enabling the innovation economy. The responsibility for improving innovation does not rest on any one system actor, group, or set of disciplines. Rather, it is in the mix of a people-centred, participatory innovation.

Innovation is the solution: Showcasing Polytechnic Applied Research

Algonquin College in Ottawa yesterday hosted the fifth annual Polytechnics Canada Showcase. Featuring innovation in action, students, faculty and industry partners from our nine member institutions convened to highlight work aimed at improving innovation and productivity.

The agenda kicked off with a panel that discussed how best to foster a complementary R&D system in the country - something I've discussed extensively on these pages. Rick Tofani talked about the Alberta "Innovation Renovation", and the breaking down of silos between universities, colleges, research centres and industry. Taras Hollyer from FedDev Ontario spoke of their efforts to seed capital in the Ontario innovation system, with a particular emphasis on job creation and capacity building for economic diversification. Margaret Dalziel from the University of Ottawa Telfer School spoke about the gap between the scientific community and the business community - the innovation gap or incentive vacuum where polytechnic/college applied research is most adept at addressing. Dalziel also spoke about how innovation activities in this middle, mediating space is not easily measurable by traditional metrics (patents, disclosures, etc) because getting innovation from idea to invoice involves many nuanced activities that are more qualitative than quantitative. This echoes a point made in my RD Panel submission: the diffusion of innovation requires us to find proxies and precursors to job creation and economic development so that we can begin to measure productivity milestones. Janet Scholz from ACCT Canada completed the panel's discussion, adding that we need long term approaches to collaboration and complementary partnerships in the innovation ecosystem. (NB: ACCT Canada is hosting Innovation 2010 next week in Ottawa).

All of these panelists discussed concepts highly relevant to open innovation, a topic that was picked up by Angus Livingstone's (UBC) luncheon keynote address. Livingstone gave the audience an excellent perspective on the need for action in the innovation space, and linking the high performing academic R&D players with the low performing business R&D side of the equation. Livingstone outlined a 5-point scale for assessing a company's innovation capacity, and reminded all of us that our goal should be to get a company assessed at 1 to a 2, and those at 3 to a 4 and ultimately 5. This is a sensible approach to fostering increased business R&D and the diffusion of innovation. Livingstone also picked up on the panel theme of measurement, saying that we need to begin to measure the intangibles like the relationships we form with industry partners. Doing so will take us past simple metrics of innovation as we work together to foster true innovation system capacity across the country.

The highlight of the day was presentations from students representing all nine polytechnics. Each student was given a 5 minute slot to tell about their project and the industry problem they worked on. This was followed by an open discussion and questions from the audience, during which the students displayed the core tenets of innovation literacy: problem solving, entrepreneurial thinking, and collaborative team work. GBC's students presented on our work supporting industry partner Syndications Canada and the development of a vertical axis wind turbine. As indicated in my twitter feed, the quote of the day came from Syndications Canada Managing Director Douglas Chaddock: "We hire GBC grads because they have a can-do attitude. We're CANadian, not CANTadian." He further stated that the advantage of college graduates is that they are not afraid to get their hands dirty as they work their way through the applied R&D world of business innovation.

Polytechnic applied research: it's all about collaboration, economic development, and getting your hands dirty.

George Brown College Response to the CFI 2009 Consultations

The Canada Foundation for Innovation has embarked upon a consultation process in advance of distributing the $600M in new funds received from the recent federal budget. As part of this consultation process, all institutions wishing to participate in the funding programs were asked to send in their thoughts as to how best to structure any new funding programs. Below is the response from George Brown College.


This response to the CFI consultation discussion paper offers several ways in which better support for Colleges and Polytechnics will aid Canada’s innovation strategy and the federal Science and Technology Strategy. Colleges address the four areas that CFI is interested in exploring, some directly, some indirectly. While CFI has historically focused on the capabilities of individual investigators within institutions, we need to make the case that, while we do conduct some discovery based research that meets the excellence criteria for individual investigators, Colleges are more institutionally focused. That is, we offer industry-facing applied research capabilities that are institutional, not individual, as applied research centres marshal resources (people, materiel) from across our Colleges to fill gaps in the R&D pipelines in Canada. Our focus on applied research, innovation and commercialization activities supports industry problem-solving in ways that are complementary to established, discovery-based research institutions. This is a strength, and a necessary facet of the R&D continuum. Supporting College applied esearch capacity thus is in line with the federal Science and Technology Strategy (most notably through the College and Community Innovation Program administered by NSERC), and provincially in Ontario through MRI’s continued support of the Colleges Ontario Network for Industry Innovation (CONII). George Brown College has received first round NSERC CCIP funding, and is also a founding member of CONII.

CFI should recognize and support the unique contribution that colleges are already making to strengthening Canada’s capacity for research, innovation and commercialization. To do so, CFI needs to structure its strategy and its application and granting process in order to leverage the institutional versus individual applied research focus that Colleges bring to the equation. In saying this, we are not asking for special consideration in our applications to the CFI for funding of infrastructure. We expect to be judged based on the excellence of our proposals and our ability to complement the R&D continuum, as noted above.

The impact of CFI’s work will be extended considerably by drawing more intentionally and more fully on the capacity of Canada’s community colleges. Investing in the applied research layer of Canada will enhance our overall social and economic productivity. Colleges represent a key vehicle for attracting business expenditures on research and development (BERD), matching the higher education expenditures on R&D (HERD).1 Colleges work with established basic research centres and industry partners to enhance competitiveness overall in the sectors we serve. Generally speaking, firms are not making effective use of the postsecondary research facilities we currently have. The goal of College applied research centres is to enable firms to make more effective use of public applied research facilities in support of increased BERD, which will result in increased productivity.

CFI should take a proactive approach to supporting R&D complementarities, and the institution-based applied research strengths of Canada’s Colleges. For George Brown College, the intentional application of applied research and innovation services supports industry needs and contexts, thereby facilitating the design of innovation - how to test the practicality of new products or services (adoption and adaptation). Colleges most ably speak to the need documented by CFI to enhance the role of Canadian institutions in knowledge translation and commercialization that is of benefit to Canada. Our participation in the R&D continuum fosters social and economic productivity across the fabric of industry sectors we serve. Our impact is not as much based on discoveries by individuals in individual laboratories. Rather, our impact is more environmental, in that we support the whole by filling in the parts that are not currently well supported in Canada – the applied research, commercialization-focused "last mile" services industry needs in order to test market practicality assumptions. CFI should build on the initiatives started by the CCI Program, and encourage industry sector partnerships that go beyond providing deep discounts to infrastructure. Industry should be supported in seeing themselves as equal participants in the applied research facilities, with ongoing investments in their use.

Supporting applied research in Colleges, particularly those (like George Brown College) that work well with established university partners, will strengthen regional innovation clusters, and create more value for industry-facing research and development activities. Broadening the potential outputs for all R&D in a given area by supporting applied research inputs will foster increased productivity, thereby enabling Canada to realign R&D expenditure imbalances, and correct the long-standing poor record we have on innovation generally, as understood by the OECD and the Conference Board of Canada.

We know from various national and international studies that Canada lags in innovation compared to similar developed countries. The Conference Board of Canada, in its 11th annual snapshot of Canada’s socio-economic performance entitled How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada, assessed Canada's ranking as 13th out of 17 countries in innovation and gave this component its worse grade — a "D".2 The OECD and Global Insight have drawn similar conclusions regarding Canada's weak position in terms of innovation capacity and performance. Global Insight assigned a rating of "C- ", its lowest rating among eight factors reviewed, for Canada's 'Capacity to innovate'.3 The Conference Board of Canada called for action from educational institutions to support the innovation agenda in another report entitled, 'Solving Canada's Innovation Conundrum: How Public Education Can Help'.4 The authors note that "how students develop their innovation skills depends on the nature of their educational experience... Ultimately innovative processes, tools, and techniques generate students with higher levels of skills for innovation". One of the three strategic approaches identified to make innovation a priority is the development of relevant institutional capacity. The Conference Board's call to action consists of four 'pillars':

1. Develop a pan-Canadian framework for promoting innovation skills;
2. Recognize and credential innovation skills;
3. Strengthen links among education, business and communities; and,
4. Increase innovation training in pre-service and in-service programs for educators.

Our proposed work will contribute to several facets of this call to action.

College applied research supports the development of highly qualified and skilled personnel (HQSP). Our students working on applied research projects gain innovation literacy: the ability to think creatively, evaluate, and apply problem-solving skills to diverse and intangible issues within industrial problems and multidisciplinary contexts. Fostering innovation literacy in our highly qualified and skilled graduates is a key differentiator of the College and Polytechnic advantage, particularly as regards applied research conducted in close concert with industry and community needs. In this way, College applied research supports the call for better deployment of public funds in the R&D sector, supporting the applied research capabilities of Colleges working in concert with regional networks in support of innovation. In recognizing the unique capabilities of the applied research layer the Colleges bring to the equation, CFI can support HQSP graduating from College programs: this represents 70% of the Canadian workforce. In so doing, CFI has a unique opportunity to support what is called open innovation in Canada: "the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively" (Chesbrough). This is the central facet of R&D complementarities, whereby all R&D organizations, working together with firms, can foster an open approach to innovation and capacity building for improved social and economic productivity in Canada.

1 Canada is second in the OECD for HERD; 12th for BERD. Realigning this imbalance and encouraging more private R&D investment is seen by many as one way to increase productivity.
2 http://sso.conferenceboard.ca/HCP
3 Global Insight Canada on Canada's Fundamentals
4 Solving Canada's Innovation Conundrum: How Public Education Can Help, July 2003, The Conference Board of Canada

Looking back, Looking ahead: Investing in Applied Research

Properly speaking a post so titled should come in January, but as we close out the year I thought it would be useful to summarize some key points from the past year, but more importantly, what I see as some key themes that I will be focusing on in the year ahead.

The past year has been a good one for applied research, for polytechnics, and for colleges engaged in instigating industry innovation. The Federal R&D Review is one of the more significant policy opportunities that emerged, with its focus on business innovation and what public policy measures can be taken to foster this. There can be no debate that we need to increase productivity and our national capacity to innovate. Polytechnics and colleges involved in industry applied research are working toward this and have made strong gains in the past year. Government sponsorship is helping us to help industry innovate. The increased funding we have received is not part of a zero sum game that pits colleges, polytechnics and universities against one another. The internecine reflex that encourages such thinking prevents us from moving forward.

For the year ahead I have three themes:

1. The diffusion of innovation: to my point above, our ability to be responsive to the innovation and productivity challenges that beset us is contingent on complementarity and cooperation. This doesn't mean less of a focus on excellence. Rather, it means focusing on excellence while promoting a national, participatory and unified perspective on fostering greater business innovation. The intentional application of applied research and innovation services to industry needs and contexts means we focus less on discovery, and more on the design and diffusion of incremental innovation. Our focus is not on us, but on what we can do downstream by enabling industry innovation.
2. People-centred innovation is a grounded way to promote participatory innovation - our way of engaging students, faculty and our partners, using the principles of human-centred design. This approach, contiguous with open innovation, fosters innovation literacy in our graduates while being focused on the downstream results of our work, as noted above, while being mindful of stakeholder needs. This is an outside-in, versus an inside-out approach, meaning we need to adopt the perspective of those we are working with and for. This is a basic precept of participatory design that lets us see our responsibility (to improving innovation and productivity for example) against any perceived right (to obtain funding for research). People-centred innovation acknowledges that innovation is a social activity.
3. Using our imagination. It is time to modernize the Canadian postsecondary environment and create a national innovation system that clearly articulates universities, polytechnics and colleges. This new national system will be receptive to industry engagement, and will foster innovation literacy at all levels of HQSP. Doing this requires a collective will to imagine the future where we can compete in the global innovation economy. To do this we need to take research from ideas to invoice: we must craft an Innovation Policy that encourages firms to invest in R&D and provides an "any point of contact" entry to link industry with our postsecondary institutions (PSIs). Doing so will achieve a threefold ROI:
• A Return on Interest from basic research that provokes thought and ideas, leading to disruptive innovations through long term research investment;
• A Return on Innovation from applied research that increases industry R&D spending and our collective capacity to innovate, leading to improved productivity; and
• A Return on Investment from experimental development through the creation of new products and processes and through the training of students, who enter the workforce ready to innovate.

 All of us implicated in the Canadian innovation system have a responsibility - a response-ability - to step up and continue to work together with each other and other players in the system. We need to think past the immediate and see the longer term goals of improving social and economic prosperity. In these tumultuous and kinetic times, our productivity challenges demand this of us.

Mapping Innovation: Place Matters to Productivity

MaRS has put out a great resource showing the region's start-ups. Startup City features a visual of Toronto's start-ups and offers a glimpse of the innovation ecosystem cohering around the Greater Toronto Area. The map offers a good correlate to TRRA's Innovation Jobs report.

The relationship of place and innovation and innovation capacity is a good topic to delve into more deeply. The March issue of Wired (not yet online) has a great short article called "Cultivating Genius" by Jonah Lehrer that shows historical evidence of innovation emerging from distinct geographies. He makes the point that the pace of innovation can be taught and managed by bringing rigour to the processes that enable it (a point made by Roger Martin as well, including at this event). Lehrer's point is that the US currently does this, only with athletes. If we were to focus the kind of energy we do on creating world class athletes and apply this to science and engineering, we would create the conditions similar to other epochs in history noted for the emergence of both disruptive and incremental innovations. It's a great premise.

To paraphrase Roger Martin, innovation literacy can be taught. And the link to regional innovation should be pursued as one plank of an innovation policy closely linked to economic development. Bert van den Berg, NSERC's Director of Knowledge & Technology Transfer, recently sent me a link to the following article which provide for excellent reading on this topic. Innovation in Cities and Innovation by Cities by Robert Atkinson outlines the view that place matters when it comes to innovation.

By way of example, the GBC Food Innovation Research Studio (FIRSt) works with others across the Greater Toronto Area serving the food innovation needs of local industry. There are 25000 SMEs within 80KM of GBC FIRSt working in the food product development area. The sector contributes over $84B annually to the Ontario economy (half of this in the Toronto area), employs 30% more people than the auto industry, employs 1 in 13 people in Canada, and is 9% of Canadian GDP (to put that into perspective, oil, gas and mining combined are 4.5% of GDP). The point here is that innovation in the food industry is very much linked to locale, as evidenced by the amount of companies and money flowing in the GTA.We link the education and training of graduates in this area closely with all sectors of the industry. Ensuring these graduates possess innovation literacy acquired through applied research is one way we can ensure that the innovation capacity of the region will continue to develop. 

And this takes us back to mapping innovation. Connecting companies to each other and to innovation support services such as those offered by colleges, polytechnics and universities is one way to map the innovation ecosystem and orient the region to increased innovation capacity. Key here is the ecosystem approach: everything is interdependent, related, complementary. The Ontario Network of Excellence, CONII, OCE, MaRS Innovation are all ecosystem actors supporting and sustaining the emergence of an innovation ecosystem. It will only work to the extent that we know and are known to each other. I've often said all of us agents of the innovation system function like LavaLife, helping to understand industry innovation needs and putting them together with the right supports. The rise of concepts such as open and participatory and people-centred innovation, or research clusters (virtual and proximate) are part of the emergence of place as the way to understand how to enact innovation for greater social and economic productivity.All of this is predicated on industry adopting innovation as a business strategy and understanding the links between innovation skills and productivity. 

George Brown College last year conducted a GTA Employer Survey in which local employers of college and university graduates were asked to state the skill or ability they find to be the most important. We found that the link between innovation skills & productivity may not be fully recognized yet, but this link is fundamental to an innovation economy. We continue to do more work in this area in order to map out the future for essential skills for the innovation economy.

ORION Summit 2011 a Success

The ORION 2011 Summit - Innovation Needs A Backbone - was one week ago, and I've been remiss in posting some thoughts on it (other than through Twitter). In short, it was a very good conference that included many excellent discussions on the future of RD&I: research, development and innovation, as enabled by high bandwidth technologies such as ORION. On Monday I convened a panel discussion on the role of colleges in applied research. It was an excellent overview from knowledgeable people who are focused on improving our record on innovation and productivity. The role of student training was nicely discussed - reflecting earlier thoughts on the multiplier effect of preparing a future workforce with innovation literacy skills.

Ilse Treurnicht, CEO of MaRS, introduced day 2, reminding us to galvanize our local assets as highly qualified and skilled people are highly mobile globally. Significantly, she said we need to generate "stickiness": an affinity to Canada that will help get our best ideas into the market. During a panel convened by MRI on the new Research and Innovation Centres (RICs), one panelist commented on the need for virtual density - the way in which RICs and all actors in the innovation ecosystem are connected through ORION to provide any point of access service to discoveries seeking market entry from university labs and/or firms seeking innovation support. The notion of distributed research clusters is one that Canada can particularly excel at, given our wide geography and distributed expertise. Linking talent across the country to provide innovation support services - a point  GBC made in our submission to the R&D Review Panel - is one way we can build Canadian capacity to accelerate innovation, and enable the innovation economy generally. And there is good precedent for this: have a look at a recent study on clusters in Norway referenced in this Blogging Innovation post: Innovation Requires Global Pipelines Not Local Clusters.

It's worth providing the following in full; it's food for thought:

The results indicate that firm innovation in urban Norway is mainly driven by global pipelines, rather than local interaction. The most innovative – both in terms of basic product innovation and radical product and process innovation – firms are those with a greater diversity of international partners. Local and even national interaction seems to be irrelevant for innovation. Furthermore, the individual attitudes of the manager make a difference for the firms’ engagement with the outside world. More open-minded managers have a greater diversity of international partners and rely more on global pipelines, whereas those with higher levels of regional trust depend on local and, to a lesser extent, national contacts. (p5)

When local interaction does not suffice: Sources of firm innovation in urban Norway, by Rune Dahl Fitjar and Andrés Rodríguez-Pos.

Dr Gilles Patry, President of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, gave an overview of infrastructure supports CFI provides, including the new College-Industry Innovation Fund. He reminded the audience that "it's people not organizations who innovate." Innovation is a social act; promoting people-centred innovation is a key focus for those of us engaged in supporting Canada's innovation system. Patry outlined three issues:
1. We are in a global war for talent (see Ilse Treurnicht's comment, above)
2. Innovation is a national agenda
3. The power of networks.
Patry's point is that we need to develop an entrepreneurial, risk-taking culture as part of a national innovation strategy, and this should be enabled by the training of skilled workers through research-based education. Part of this involves developing what Matt Ratto, UofT faculty member and founder of the Academic-Private-Public consortium DDMIT lab calls "interactional expertise." This is a great term useful for describing the kinds of amorphous skills we can associate with people-centred innovation and innovation literacy - the capacity for adoptation and development for in situ innovation.

Innovation <clutch> transmission, or, Supply and Demand in the Innovation Economy

Last week I had the good fortune to attend  the Canada and the OECD: 50 Years of Converging Interests conference in Ottawa. The event was sponsored by the Public Policy Forum and featured many notable speakers who addressed not only the history of Canada and OECD (I didn't know that, for a brief spell, we were the only/first member as we were first to pay our fees), but also the implications for our interactions with the OECD, and why the OECD is such an important instrument for public policy.

The conference echoed some interesting thoughts and conversations I've been party to recently regarding Canada's innovation engine, and what one colleague stated as "a failure to engage the wheels." That is, we have a high performing R&D engine, but the wheels are not fully engaged to ensure that this R&D translates inventions into innovation and market value (social and economic). The R&D translation component - the clutch - is what we are starting to engage in earnest across the country with our renewed focus on business innovation.

Speakers at the OECD conference spoke a lot about Canada's enviable tertiary educational attainment rate (first in the world, though demographics are apparently unseating us there in favour of South Korea). Every speaker who mentioned this, from OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria to BMO's Kevin Lynch, failed to say that this includes what the OECD calls both Type A (university) and Type B (college/vocational). All the speakers focused solely on university attainment, which the facts do not support. As I wrote last year, we are first only when we include colleges and polytechnics; we are 11th (now 12th I believe) for university attainment. We need to recognize the role of college and polytechnic education in Canada, and work toward better integration of our capacity to strengthen our economy through our industry-focused programs. It's worth noting that, in the 9 polytechnics, we educate half a million people per year (25% FT, 75% PT), and that 20-22% of these people already have a university degree.

Barbara Stymiest, RBC, Group Head, Strategy, Treasury & Corporate Services, gave a very good introductory speech on the need to engage industry in R&D so that government does not drive innovation in the economy. Governments have a role in promoting and providing open and active environments to encourage innovation and the sharing of ideas. This is the basic premise of applied research and experimental development. As Stymiest put it: "We need to train our business people, researchers and government people to be entrepreneurs, not just employees." We need more private sector engagement and leadership to drive innovation from the demand side, rather than government's supply side or providing the talent pool for the private sector.
We can call this demand-driven innovation, which includes user-driven innovation and the engagement of producers and consumers in the diffusion of innovation.

Secretary General Gurria outlined the OECD's perspective on "green growth" a theme of the conference. Green growth is the only responsible growth, he said: It's not a matter of austerity versus growth; rather, it's a matter of responsible growth, and this growth is green growth. To this end, all OECD member states must identify the skills learners need and what skills the economy needs for future growth. There is "untapped potential"  in all areas of the green economy, and our education systems need to encourage innovation skills with an eye toward sustainability broadly in order to realize future markets and opportunities that will continue to develop world wide. This points to a differential between what employers want and what employers need. GBC's work in this area is notable, as we are providing employers the employees they need with the requisite skills. We need to push further as a country and ensure our employers can recognize the need to invest in the skills for the future as well.

This last point was made very forcefully by most of the speakers I heard at the conference. It further supports the government's (and the education sector's) role on the supply side of the innovation economy, which includes encouraging business innovation as well as being the compass on the growth potential of the future.  The panel discussion on Innovation for Growth addressed this directly. The speakers were Alistair Nolan, Senior Economist, Structural Policy Division, OECD, Chad Gaffield, President, Social Science and Humanities Research Council, and Amit Chakma, president of the University of Western Ontario.

Nolan outlined the OECD's innovation strategy and focused on the "intangibles issue" - those components of an innovation system that are not easily measured or articulated (like the soft skills GBC provides for example). Measuring innovation is imprecise, Nolan told the audience, and we face the necessary challenge of decoupling innovation from resource depletion. For example, patents are only one way to measure R&D output. Digital business models, art, design trademarks are increasingly more important for realizing latent innovation potential. "Entrepreneurship serves as a carrier for innovation and innovative ideas" Nolan said, and "public research institutions require reform to enhance and encourage R&D links with firms." These statements echo many ideas posited by Polytechnics Canada at the recent annual conference, where we focused on innovation and entrepreneurship skills development, and our role in fostering business innovation. On this front, according to Nolan, "we need to understand more about the complex trade offs in public R&D commercialization and firms." This means a more thorough understanding of what kinds of R&D investments translate more effectively into downstream innovation uptake. This is the clutch of innovation.

UWO's Chakma spoke directly about the supply side of innovation, confining his remarks to the university sector, but he did call for a "national project" whereby we direct science into certain sectors. This is a positive view of Canada's limited capacity to be all things to all areas of science. While we can encourage innovation and R&D into any and all areas, we would do well to be proactive in our spending to ensure we can maximize future potential and play to our strengths.

SSHRC President Chad Gaffield gave an overview of people-centred innovation, a topic I've been promoting since I first heard Gaffield speak on this topic last year. Gaffield reminded the audience that there is no longer a linear flow of idea to invention to the market. we are moving into a multi-directional flow of ideas (c.f. user-driven innovation) that is a transition from making (20th Century) to using (21st Century). My post a while back on thinking, making and innovation literacy points to the recent Globe article that outlines the need for a more nuanced approach to skills, including the science, technology engineering and math mixed with social sciences, humanities and the arts and design. All are necessary for increasing our innovation and entrepreneurship capacity. Integration and connecting digital technology, content and literacies, and business innovation and social innovation are core aspects of a 21st century people-centred innovation. People-centred innovation is about demand, not supply Gaffield reminded us.

Kevin Lynch's lunch time keynote was instructive here as well. Echoing comments he made at the Incremental Innovation conference a couple of weeks ago, Lynch reminded the audience that "pervasive globalization is both the opportunity and the challenge of the present age." The OECD is key to global guidance and Canadian policy setting in an interconnected, global innovation economy. It is the charting of the future course that the OECD speaks to, informing government policy as to what's next in the global economy.

Innovation needs a backbone

ORION's new CEO Darin Graham spoke to the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance earlier this week on the topic "Innovation needs a backbone." Graham's talk was an excellent call to industry to invest in R&D, as well as for those of us in the public innovation support sector to work together in supporting industry innovation. ORION provides the necessary ICT capacity to enable collaboration in the public R&D sector, and opening this up to the private sector is a good example of what a P3RD (see "the innovation equation") innovation support system can be.

Graham reminded us that innovation does not inherently exist in the universities and colleges; rather, it is inherent in the people who go there - the students, faculty and our industry partners. He also reminded us that innovation in not invention. Innovation has outcomes in the realization of social and/or economic value. Fostering innovation is at once as easy as enabling serendipity and interprofessional collaborations, but as difficult as doing this in a world of competing values, cultures ("academic: publish or perish versus private: profit or perish") and priorities. To enable innovation we need transparency in terms of our interface among organizations (c.f. brokering R&D relationships) and in our approach to intellectual property. This form of open innovation will push productivity improvements through a complementary approach to enabling industry innovation through a robust innovation infrastructure, in this case the ICT products and services that are the interface to collaboration as well as the locus of R&D development itself.

And while we are on the topic of enabling innovation, here is a link to a recent article that reinforces the need to invest in education as a main driver for an innovative economy. This includes integrating immigrants into the work force and addressing the skills gap and skills shortages we face. Ensuring we have highly qualified and skilled people with innovation literacy across all economic sectors will help lift Canada's poor productivity performance.

ORION Summit to promote Open Innovation

Mark your calendar for the annual ORION Summit, Innovation Needs a Backbone, being held at the MaRS Centre on 18-19 April 2011. This annual event convenes "distinguished Canadian and global leaders and innovators in science, research, education and information technology to discuss and showcase new and innovative technologies that are transforming the way we conduct research, collaborate, teach and learn." George Brown College President Anne Sado, who is also the Chair of the ORION Board of Directors, is giving the welcome address.

I am convening a panel discussion on "Colleges & Applied Research: Key to Innovation Success in Ontario." Panelists include:

• John Breakey, CEO, Unis Lumin; Chair, Industry Advisory Committee, Colleges Ontario Network for Industry Innovation
• Darren Lawless, Dean, Sheridan Applied Research
• Ken Ono, Vice President, NexJ Systems
• Dan Munro, Senior Research Associate, Conference Board of Canada

Each will speak to their experiences with the start-up nature of college applied research, success factors and industry engagement, and the role of engaging students and mobilizing our institutions for a future workforce enabled by innovation literacy. We'll end with a discussion about virtual research clusters, such as can be enabled by ORION, that would let us address industry needs where and when needed through advanced collaboration and communication technologies. A virtual R&D cluster would enable distributed work teams to collaboratively address R&D needs emerging from basic research labs for market entry, as well as addressing the applied research needs of industry. Such a portal is a point made in George Brown College's submission to the R&D Panel, wherein we advocate for an articulated innovation system with an "any point of contact" approach to industry innovation support. This is a logical extension of what CONII does, but would take it one step further and leverage the capabilities of the ORION network and offer tools and protocols for triaging industry requests and mechanisms for fostering cooperation and collaboration.

Creating virtual "regions of knowledge" and crafting the Canadian innovation system as an open innovation network will have positive downstream productivity effects. The ORION backbone is a key enabler of this future, a point made very well in ORION CEO Darin Graham's talk to the Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance last September.

IRAP supports demand driven innovation: Business Innovation Access Program launched

The honourable Greg Rickford, Minister of State for Science and Technology was at Sheridan College today announcing the launch of the NRC Business Innovation Access Program (BIAP). BIAP, also known as innovation vouchers, were promised in Budget 2013. As Minister Rickford stated in his address to the crowd, the program features "hassle-free vouchers, valued up to $50,000 per project, to access business and technical services carried out by Canadian researchers and students." The vouchers are a direct result of the Jenkins Panel which recommended vouchers as a way to support firms to get access to talent, facilities and networks in Canada's postsecondary education institutions.

This is a smart update to the innovation toolkit - it puts the funding in the hands of firms and creates demand driven innovation - this is the "pull" model of R&D that Canada's polytechnics and colleges excel at, but which universities also do well. Linking these systems in Canada to provide business innovation support fosters an open innovation approach to encouraging firms to invest in the development of new products and services.

With BIAP firms can tap into business and technical services provided by innovation intermediaries such as colleges, polytechnics and universities. The program assumes there will be good industry awareness, so communication of the opportunity will be key. Also assumed is the effective working of the NRC concierge service, which was also recently launched. These programs reinforce innovation as a social activity, and their success is contingent on all actors in the innovation ecosystem - firms, intermediaries, economic development agencies and other governmental supports (NRC, OCE et al) - working together.

There is good precedent - not just for vouchers (as they have been successfully delivered in other parts of the country)  - but also for the innovation ecosystem approach. We are working toward an effective integration of the various players all in support of fostering greater productivity, here of firms to tap in to R&D capacity, but also more broadly of basic research conducted in our world leading labs. The Concierge service, much like the P3RD system, are oriented toward fostering greater transparency of who can provide services, where and how, and developing public-private partnerships to support R&D.

At a round table discussion about academic-industry partnerships after the announcement, Minister Rickford spoke about the importance of measuring outcomes, and of those providing services to use common forms and formats for reporting on how the BIAP service works.  Such outcomes should include both inputs and outputs, but also throughput: what firms find BIAP and how were they referred or otherwise located the service; how did they locate a PSE service provide; what kinds of services were required; how well were these matched to regional opportunities/service providers; what was the time required to launch a project; what the the time of the conduct of the project; did BIAP accelerate innovation for the firm; and what were the outcomes in terms of new products and services in the market.

There is a strong consonance here with the emergence of a collective capacity not just to foster greater productivity of R&D in firms and academia, but also of learning how best to benchmark performance against these kinds of goals. Canada has not really tackled these issues yet, but the discussion is at least focusing examining what we do and how we do it, in terms of innovation, and how can we leverage complementary systems to national advantage. And for BIAP at least, this means looking downstream at what firms are doing in the economy, and how those of us whose mandate it is to help can best support them.

For now, spread the word. Firms seeking innovation support should contact their local IRAP office.

Open Innovation [reprise]

With thanks to Andrew Jenkins, member of GBC's Innovation Advisory Board, for sending me this link to an excellent article: Open Innovation: from marginal to mainstream. Open innovation is a topic I've written about a few times, and refers to a collaborative, open source approach to the business of innovation - the concept of complementarity that governs our interconnectedness with other R&D organizations. 

Interesting article on workforce skills and innovation

The OECD has released an excellent overview of major themes relevant to workforce training and innovation.

This is one of the best papers I have read in a long while that articulates what we refer to as innovation literacy and the role of instilling this in our graduates, as well as the potential downstream effect on the economy of graduates so trained. Many topics of high relevance are touched on: the evolution of academic programming to meet labour market needs; the importance of training innovation-related competencies and what we in Ontario call essential employability skills; the role of innovation intermediaries in the overall economy - by this I mean our role in helping our industry partners to innovate, as well as the intermediary role that our graduates with innovation experience play in their future occupations; and the role of high performing organizations and the supports required to enable firms to innovate. There is very useful data on the relative percentage of types of R&D performed versus innovation in the economy (the bulk of business innovation is Development, not Research), and strong evidence cited to support the fact that the majority of innovation conducted is incremental, and is best enabled by innovation intermediaries - people with intermediate skills. A participatory, people-centred, open innovation is clearly enabled by education that supports the acquisition of advanced skills, education and training alongside those skills we include in innovation literacy. These data also show that firms that train and promote education of their work forces have clear competitive advantages.

This is well worth the read for anyone in the innovation system - firms, post-secondary institutions, and governments alike.

The net effects of innovation and applied research

The ACCC held its annual conference earlier this week, which featured some good sessions on the practice of applied research at Canadian colleges. Many keynote speakers made reference to the importance of applied research and innovation and colleges' collective close links with firms. Most important was the discussion not on applied research per se, but rather on the downstream net effects on productivity our applied research work with firms has.

Stephen Murgatroyd gave the closing keynote on Innovation, Colleges and Community, where he discussed key challenges for Canada's productivity and what colleges can do about this. Among other things he spoke of the need to encourage flexibility and adaptability in our students, the intangible skills that we call innovation literacy. Murgatroyd calls colleges "the best hope we've got" for improving productivity in Canada. Many topics raised in this space were raised, from the need to encourage more open innovation and coopetition, to "a relentless focus on improving productivity" in firms - the downstream effects of our work - rather than a focus on what we do in and of itself. This is solid, grounded thinking. Our work in applied research is important, but if we are successful we are in the background, an enabler of innovation writ large in social and economic productivity improvement.

Murgatroyd finished with 10 challenges for colleges:
1. Stop focusing on innovation and focus on productivity, design and skills development.
2. Embed creativity, change management and adaptability in all curricula (c.f. innovation literacy)
3.Don't focus on R&D, but rather on design, development, deployment and sustainability - what we can call the effects of applied R&D.
4. Use networks to create local and regional clusters.
5. Build cross-functional capacity within colleges and firms - this is a staple of interprofessionalism.
6. Be glocal - realize our work is local but interconnected to global trends and markets.
7. Invest in futures thinking, and partner with industry to develop innovation roadmaps.
8. Pursue and create Public Private Partnerships - what I have elsewhere termed P3RD.
9. Build community capacity.
10. Communicate our work directly to firms, governments and the public.

Related here is the recent release of the new OECD Innovation Strategy. The OECD continues their  focus on people and education and training, and speak about innovation literacy as an intangible asset linked to tacit knowledge, as well as the importance of a highly qualified and skilled work force. The mobility of the work force thus equipped with innovation skills-sets is an important driver of innovation and social and economic productivity.

Open Innovation, Collaboration

The start of a new year is always a good time to reflect Janus-like, back on the year past, and that which is to come. Last year was good for GBC applied research - we initiated our NSERC CCI program of research, launching many exciting projects in concert with our industry, academic and community partners. The year ahead promises more of the same. We are getting set to launch several new projects and initiatives, the newly expanded CONII is coming online, and there is strong federal and provincial support for the kind of R&D partnerships that will help Canada rise from our innovation doldrums. Announcements such as that by NSERC at the recent Polytechnics Canada Showcase about the value of industry+academic partnerships hold strong promise that the innovation system in Canada - and notably in Ontario with the Ontario Network of Excellence - can increasingly work together to foster greater social and economic productivity.

Here's an article that speaks about Proctor and Gamble's move into an organization that partners with others in the pursuit of bringing innovations to market. The value of open innovation to companies that embrace this concept is evident by P&G's successes. And a recent article in the Globe and Mail about a new academic search engine - Yaffle - shows how academic institutions are getting engaged with finding ways to partner with industry to ensure that, where relevant, research can be put to use. As the Globe article says, Yaffle is like "an online dating service for the academic set, matching research needs with expertise," echoing the purpose of sites like InnoCentive and CONII, which I've elsewhere called the lava life for the R&I set. These kinds of collaboration will be the way forward, as the innovation system in Canada articulates greater value to our publics for the work we do, whether in basic, applied, or experimental research. As I've noted earlier, our approach to applied research and innovation encompasses both applied and experimental research, and our focus on complementarity with other R&D organizations enables us to have a significant impact on the innovation economy.

"no one is as smart as everyone": crowdsourcing and virtual research clusters

Here is a good article that looks at crowdsourcing with a keen discussion on its benefits and limitations. An open source approach to IP generation and innovation generally is clearly the model for building innovation systems such as what I've proposed in the discussion about a virtual or distributed research cluster, using the precepts of open innovation. But the point made in this article about balancing crowdsourcing with the encouragement of individuals is very trenchant. This illustrates the principle of innovation literacy at all levels of the workforce, what we call the multiplier effect. Conspicuous contribution in open innovation systems is the new normal for the innovation economy.

Polytechnics Canada Research Showcase a Success

The Third Annual Polytechnics Canada Science and Technology Showcase was held last Friday at Sheridan. The theme of this year's conference was "Creating and Maintaining Sustainable Environments". Presentations from all seven Polytechnics outlined important work in the green economy, and student poster presentations showcased innovations in curricula. GBC students in the School of Design won an award for their poster on Road Ecology. The Proceedings are available online.

Common themes from all speakers included capacity development for sustainable development, and innovation literacy - fostering an innovation mindset in our graduates to participate proactively in the emergence of the green economy. For example, where SAIT is working on innovative building envelopes as part of sustainable construction practices, their students gain valuable experience in working not just on emergent technologies and building practices, but in (re)thinking how we build in the first place.

Other common themes included customization - of power grids, landfills, homes and human interfaces, and how incremental innovation leads to the adaptation and adoption of new technologies and practices commensurate with the development of new ideas.

Bill Mantel, Director, Commercialization Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation gave a closing address on open innovation, and how Ontario is fostering an "innovation ecosystem." The ecology of innovation is an important concept that supports the notion of complementarity, and the role of college and polytechnic applied research has in the overall R&D continuum. The ecosystem metaphor is very apt, and we would do well to remember that a healthy ecosystem is determined by the overall health of its constituent parts. Mantel spoke about how we are moving in Ontario to a more market-focused innovation system where our students enter the workforce as "demanders of innovation." Creating these "demanders" is the purview of GBC's Research Commercialization and Innovation program. Innovation literacy is the cornerstone of this demand.

In times such as these with the economic downturn, many commentators are calling for spending on infrastructure as a way to stimulate economic growth while investing in the future. Similarly, we must invest in the "infrastructure of the mind," and create graduates from college and Polytechnic programs that promote a sustainable environment for applied research that supports environmental sustainability.

Integrity, collaboration, ideas

The idea of collaborative knowledge building has come up a lot recently with colleagues with whom we are composing a CONII NCE Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research application. The goal is to facilitate knowledge creation around innovation clusters and applied research. This happens already, but recent publications like Wikinomics are bringing to the fore the notion of using web n+1 technologies to further open source learning and knowledge generation in a collaborative effort to take ideas from innovation to market.

There is a central tension here around balancing the open sharing of ideas and the need to protect intellectual property. Ideas in this sense are currency that have value only insofar as they are taken up and situated within social contexts. Social contracts around who "owns" an idea are precarious. Ideas emerge in discussion and within a context, just as innovation and invention evolve incrementally and involve many people building on others' ideas. Knowledge building works well within an innovation framework where there is a free flow of ideas, though ownership of these ideas can fast become an issue in the absence of trust and integrity.

The protection of IP is a topic of concern for the music industry, as we all know. Copyright in academic and research circles also has a long history. As the link to the article on the ecology of innovation makes clear, we need to incorporate IP and tax law within the social contexts of learning and idea formation as part of the function of research commercialization.

Legitimate peripheral participation, part of the theory developed by Lave and Wenger in their discourse around communities of practice, allows for a process of collaborative learning in which mentorship plays a key role. The business of innovation requires some basic protection of copyright, as well as a general collegial responsibility to acknowledge others' contributions. Are these two aspects of innovation commensurate with each other?

All research institutions subscribe to a policy of integrity in scholarly research. The fast scrum of innovation and ideas, establishing ownership of these ideas, and collaborating with integrity all require a careful balance between invention and disclosure in the complex matrix of collaboration. Learning from and with one another, and working towards common goals require us to foster open dialogue. There is great potential to "open source" the rapid development of ideas. But collaborating to compete together can prove difficult, requiring a high degree of trust and integrity, or else up front non-disclosure agreements that set some ground rules for the sharing of ideas in the first place. If nothing else, a clear understanding among all parties of expectations and roles is essential.

Polytechnic Applied Research: Open for Business Innovation

Research Infosource last month published their annual Top 100 R&D spenders supplement in the National Post. My editorial for this issue is below. College research was also featured in this piece.

Canada’s polytechnics and colleges offer industry-facing applied research solutions that fill gaps in the country’s R&D pipelines. Our focus on applied research, innovation and commercialization supports industry innovation needs in ways that are complementary to established, discovery-based research institutions. This is a strength, and a necessary facet of a healthy R&D continuum.

Since 2008, the institutions that comprise Polytechnics Canada (BCIT, SAIT Polytechnic, NAIT, Conestoga, Sheridan, Humber, Seneca, George Brown and Algonquin Colleges) have worked with 3,759 Canadian companies, 95% of which are small and mid-sized enterprises, conducted 2,481 applied research projects solving industry-identified problems, involved 22,515 college students and 1,978 college staff or faculty in applied research activity, and developed 948 prototypes for their industry research partners. Colleges across the country are involved in similar activity, as Canada initiates investment in college applied research as a vital lever in the R&D toolkit.

The breadth of industry partnerships that polytechnic and college applied research enables was noted in the recent Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel Report on “The State of Science and Technology in Canada, 2012.” The report shows that as a country we excel in many fields of research, and punch above our weight in terms of publications and international research influence. However, we fall short of unlocking the potential commercial value of the outcomes of basic research. In addition, Canadian businesses perform much less R&D as compared with our international counterparts. Our collective historical identity as "hewers of wood and drawers of water” has meant that ideas are just another basic resource that we draw from the land and export without adding value. Our competitors are exploiting our research to their commercial advantage.

Polytechnics and colleges focus on speed to market and engaging our students in industry innovation. We offer industry and universities alike four key advantages: 

• Access to talent – our faculty who are industry professionals, and our students. By engaging our students in applied research we train the highly qualified and skilled people needed for the innovation economy, who gain crucial innovation skills as part of their applied education. 
• Access to state-of-the-art facilities – our industry-focused teaching facilities double as applied research labs for companies or scientists who do not have equipment or need help making a prototype or product. 
• Access to markets and networks – we leverage our close ties to industry to help our research partners develop products and sales. 
• Access to capital – government funding provides matching capital for companies to engage in innovation partnerships, creating economies of scale for firms with ideas but lacking in-house R&D capacity. 

The 2007 federal Science and Technology Strategy gave impetus to college applied research capacity through the creation of the College and Community Innovation Program. Yet, the CCIP is the only federal program for polytechnic and college applied research. It is underfunded as compared to demand: we currently turn companies away both for lack of funding and capacity, limiting our ability to be “open for business innovation.”

Firms in Canada are not yet making effective use of the postsecondary research facilities we have, but this is changing. Polytechnic and college applied research can play a more robust role in strengthening national and regional capacity to innovate. We work with research centres and industry partners to enhance competitiveness in the sectors we serve. Our applied research centres offer services to industry that are not currently widely available in Canada – the applied research, commercialization-focused “last mile” services that industry needs in order to test market assumptions.

Canada needs to encourage industry-academic partnerships and have each party play to their strengths, be this basic research, applied research, or industry focused innovation. We need a better balance between the input and output sides of the innovation equation. Broadening the potential outputs for R&D by supporting applied research will foster increased productivity, enable Canada to realign R&D expenditure imbalances, and correct our long-standing poor record on industrial innovation.

There is work to be done by the polytechnic and college sectors in continuing to build the applied research capacity while finding better ways to measure outcomes. This requires us to focus on outputs and on collaborative data gathering to show the return on the (modest) CCIP investment. We would do well to encourage greater linkages among university, polytechnic and college research institutions, and greater industry-academic partnerships overall, building a true innovation system that plays to the strengths of all its parts. By working together, we can increase Canada’s global competitiveness.

Open for business innovation

Budget 2012 shows the federal government focusing its innovation efforts on the private sector, something sorely needed in Canada. There are many elements in the Budget that offer incremental changes and spending increases to the federal support of R&D. A predominant theme here is that companies are going to be able to get money and choose who to go to in order to access innovation support services. This is right thinking to get businesses investing in R&D.

There is good news with $1.1B in additional funding to support research, development and innovation. This includes $500M for the CFI, including specific mention of the College-Industry Innovation Fund. There is $15M for NSERC to foster industry-academic partnership under the Strategic Partnerships Initiative, and $7M for SSHRC for industry-academic partnerships. For the latter this will go a long way to encouraging a participatory, people-centred innovation. The Business Development Bank of Canada gets needed risk capital, which industry can access to help get innovations to market. IRAP gets their budget doubled, again offering industry with a valuable conduit for funding innovation. The SR&ED reforms will be watched closely, as will the revamp of the NRC. We are looking forward to the consultations that will lead to a better “demand-driven focus” for the NRC. Also of note is the creation of a “concierge service” to help firms navigate the federal funding waters. There is much to be said here for the government taking seriously the Jenkins Panel recommendations. The Polytechnics Canada news release offers good analysis on the benefits of collaborative industry-academic applied research.

Budget day was also the day Michael Porter spoke at the Toronto Board of Trade’s Economic Summit. Porter’s work on clusters is well known, and his keynote address was an excellent overview of how the Greater Toronto Area is emerging as a real economic powerhouse. Porter said that “the region is on the right path to start to make a meaningful impact on competitiveness,” but we require better coordination – of businesses, governments, and educational institutions – all oriented to fostering greater social and economic productivity. “Economic development is a process of continual upgrading” he said. Regions are critical to national economies, and within clusters it is important to encourage training and development, and business partnerships with colleges and universities. On the issue of education Porter said that our education and training system is not as strong as it could be, likely because of the fragmented nature of the post secondary system. We are a region without articulated education, and making it easier for learners to access education and training across the system rather than in pockets or silos will go a long way toward increasing our competitive advantage. On this Porter reminded us that “all clusters should try to strengthen education and training capacity in their regions.”

And so Budget 2012 offers good fodder for encouraging a resilient regional innovation, putting funds in the hands of businesses and giving them the option to access innovation support services from across the post secondary system. This is the staple element of how George Brown College and polytechnics and colleges work to foster business innovation while training the talent for the innovation economy. Michael Porter said today that on a microeconomic level, only businesses create wealth and jobs. Because polytechnics and colleges are close to industry, we are ideally situated to help the private sector innovate. With more direct access to capital, industry can choose the right support, in the right place, at the right time. Polytechnics and colleges are open for business innovation.