Share this :



Post on twitter:

 

Expert panel urges more business innovation

 
Canada must do better

Canada lags

Starting to rest easy because of the recent bounce in your stock portfolio? Hold on a minute. An expert panel with a long term view says don’t be distracted by boom or bust.  Focus instead on the fundamentals of corporate strategy – like business spending on innovation.

In its recent report, Innovation and Business Strategy: Why Canada Falls Short, The Council of Canadian Academies once again highlighted Canada’s productivity disadvantage. It traces the problem to weak multifactor productivity (MFP) – ineffective use of labour and capital in the economy compared to competitors. Put simply, lagging productivity growth is due to shortcomings in the way we invest in new technologies, enhance work methods and implement new forms of business organization.

Why are Canadian businesses – with notable exceptions -  innovation followers and not leaders? Five structural and cultural factors are pinpointed:

  1. A rich commodity endowment and extensive foreign control position businesses “upstream” in the industrial value chain, too far from customers who create the motivation for innovation;
  2. The domestic market is small, geographically fragmented and offers little reward for innovation risk;
  3. Technology start-up companies face tough challenges in bringing new ideas to market. The causes -  a weak venture capital sector, under-capacity in technology transfer and embryonic innovation clusters;
  4. There are gaps in business management and entrepreneurial education and policies for commercializing research; and,
  5. Canadian business lacks ambition to innovate.

While  there is no innovation deficiency in the DNA of Canadians, the Council warns that the hyper-competitiveness of global markets demands transformation in business strategy.  The prescriptions:

  • increase investment in machinery and equipment, particularly ICT;
  • provide public policy incentives for export, particularly for products that are downstream on the value chain;
  • improve the climate for new technology ventures, particularly for early stage financing and entrepreneurial mentorship; and
  • make strategic choices to invest in sectors that play to Canadian science and technology strengths.

It would be silly to ignore the wrenching dislocations caused by recent insolvencies in traditional industries. But, as the Council suggests, there is a fundamental need to address long-standing features of Canadian business practice that impede new and better ways of creating value.

To read the Council’s report, go to http://www.scienceadvice.ca/innovation.html or click here to download the PDF.

Related Blogs

Tags: , ,

  • Tim

    I remember an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which shows that long queues and waiting time are not due to shortage of staff, but rather disorganisation.

    This goes back to the age-old debate of operational efficiency vs. product leadership vs. customer intimacy. Of the three value proposition, product leadership, or “innovation”, is the most expensive. I agree to an extent with the council’s recommendation.

    More specifically, I interpret the fundamentals as improve customer service, take out unnecessary costs, and release prototypes/betas often.

    Even more specifically, the BHAGs could be:

    1. Establish Canadian customer service as best in class from fast food drive-through to outsourcing call centres to technical support.

    2. Design manufacturing processes so lean that the supply chain could almost be disrupted by a stoplight, and the assembly team is so highly skilled that QA and RMA processes do not exist.

    3. Release prototypes and betas into the marketplace at such a pace that it almost causes deflation.

    There is no need to climb the tech tree right away when there are low hanging fruits which builds a community in Canada.

  • http://sookman.blogspot.com/2009/07/guns-germs-and-silicon-valley.html Josh

    In a recent post on my blog titled “Guns, Germs and Silicon Valley?” I discussed a concept that was inspired by Jared Diamond’s novel Guns, Germs and Steel. It fundamentally discusses this question: Historically, why was widespread innovation limited to only certain countries in particular geographical contexts?

    So far, there have been 5 comments from other readers, and I invite you all to have a read and join in the conversation.

Earl Miller @ MaRS

Earl Miller @ MaRS

Earl Miller is MaRS’ strategic partnerships guy. He monitors issues and trends in innovation policy and contributes to discussions on the importance of the knowledge economy.

 
 
Get More From MaRS   MaRS NEWSLETTERS
Facebook Twitter Vimeo Flickr

MaRS Charitable Registration Number
876682717 RR0001

Please enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter