Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ADVANCING INNOVATION IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADORKNOWLEDGE SYNTHESIS
Heather M. Hall & Jaqueline Walsh, Memorial UniversityOctober 2013
P a g e 1
Fellow
Geography
(Grenfell)
1
INTRODUCTION
This knowledge synthesis is part of the Harris Centre ‘Advancing Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador Project’. It provides a summary of the latest research on innovation, providing insights for advancing innovation policy and practice in Newfoundland and Labrador. More information on this project can be found at www.innovationnl.ca
Over the last several decades, the topic of innovation has captured the attention of
policymakers and researchers alike. Being innovative is now widely seen as paramount
for competitiveness, economic growth, and prosperity. Within the innovation literature,
size matters. Large city-regions offer diversity and dense concentrations of people, firms,
and institutions with global reaches (Wolfe 2009). On the other hand, rural regions and
smaller cities and regions located on the periphery are often ignored or perceived as
unfavourable places for innovation to occur (Polèse et al. 2002; Johnstone and Haddow
2003; Hayter 2005; Tödtling and Trippl 2005; Virkkala 2007; Doloreux and Dionne
2008; Hall and Donald 2009; 2012; Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose 2011). These regions are
often described as ‘locked-in’ to old industrial sectors or institutionally ‘thin’ (Tödtling
and Trippl 2005; Wolfe 2009). However, there is a growing movement to understand and
pursue strategies for innovation in more rural and peripheral regions (see for example
Doloreux and Dionne 2008; Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose 2011; Coates 2012). This report
explores the innovation literature and its insights for advancing programs, policies and
best practices throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
WHAT IS INNOVATION?
Firm level innovation is a complex subject that has commanded much attention in the
academic literature. The OECD (2005) categorizes four types of innovation: product
innovation, process innovation, organizational innovation, and marketing innovation.
More specifically, the OECD (2005: 46) states: “an innovation is the implementation of a
new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing
method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or
external relations”. Innovation is also often classified as incremental or radical. For
example, incremental innovation occurs when products, services, and processes are
2
significantly improved while radical innovation involves the introduction of new and
unique products and processes (Wolfe 2006; Sternberg 2009; Slaper et al. 2011).
The OECD definition of innovation noted above is often used when discussing
innovation on a macro-economic level. At the firm level, researchers often define
innovation in a more task and goal oriented manner. Among the many definitions of
innovation used in the literature, Drucker (2002: 95) defines innovation as “the means by
which the entrepreneur creates new wealth-producing resources or endows existing
resources with enhanced potential for creating wealth”. This definition highlights the fact
that change has to be purposeful and focused on enhancing the firm’s potential to
prosper. Change can come from all areas of the business, through new or existing
resources, whether it relates to products, processes, strategies, marketing, human
resources, organizational structure, management or technology.
In terms of measuring innovation, as Sternberg (2009: 487) argues, “innovation research
is still searching for the ideal data”. Patent activity is most commonly used, however, as
Slaper et al. (2011) explain, patents are insufficient when used as the sole indicator of
innovation. As they further describe, there are geographic issues related to using patents
including the availability of smaller, disaggregated geographic data. As we have outlined
elsewhere (White et al. 2013) other innovation indicators include: R&D expenditures,
educational attainment, GDP, utilization of technology, occupational mix, industrial mix,
proximity to an urban area, government provisions, applications for funding, training
programs, productivity, venture capital, and access to broadband (see also Slaper et al.
2011).
These definitions and indicators present a number of issues for rural regions and smaller
cities on the periphery. First, is the debate over what constitutes ‘new’ – new to the
world or new to a region (OECD 2005). In many rural regions and smaller cities on the
periphery, innovations are new to the region versus new to the world. This means that
innovations might be overlooked or ignored in these regions. In terms of indicators,
many are simply not available at smaller units of geography (i.e. local and regional).
3
Without access to good data, many rural regions and smaller cities are once again passed
over. There are also a number of studies that point to the limitations of R&D investments
as an indicator of innovation specifically in peripheral regions. For example, Fitjar and
Rodríguez-Pose (2011) argue that southwest Norway is one of the most innovative
regions in the country despite low levels of R&D investment. Another significant issue is
that innovations in these regions are often disregarded because they occur within sectors
tied to natural resources (i.e. forestry, oil & gas, mining, fisheries). Ultimately, this
creates a perception that rural regions and smaller cities on the periphery are deficient or
devoid of innovative firms and activities (Polèse et al. 2002; Hall and Donald 2009;
2012).
INNOVATION AND FIRMS
Research on business innovation is largely concentrated on the manufacturing sector and
high technology companies and much of this literature relates to product innovation as
opposed to process innovation (Becheikh et al. 2006). Although much of the early
literature focused on large firms, small and medium size firms have generated significant
interest among academics in recent years. Major arguments stemming from this research
include: small firms innovate differently than large firms due to their scarcity of
resources (Marion et al. 2012); conclusions drawn from the manufacturing sector
research may not be relevant to service sector firms (Hipp and Grupp 2005); and the
challenges that firms face vary depending on such factors as the competitive
environment, location and industry (Touringy and Le 2004).
This research also confirms that innovation is a complex process and success is
influenced by a number of variables that are both internal and external to the firm.
Becheikh et al. (2006) reviews existing literature on innovation in the manufacturing
sector and identifies the following external factors that affect firm innovation: customer
demand; industry concentration; regional infrastructure; specialized workforce; proximity
of potential partners such as universities, R&D and financial institutions; networking;
knowledge and technology acquisition; government policies and government financial
support programs. In the same study, the following internal factors are identified: use of
4
export, differentiation and intellectual property protection strategies; organizational
flexibility; transformational leadership; managers’ qualifications, experience and
perceptions; R&D activity; acquisition of sophisticated equipment and production
technologies; an educated, experienced, diverse and technically qualified workforce; use
of HR strategies such as training and motivation; good financial performance; and funds
dedicated to innovation-related activities.
Another important internal characteristic of innovative firms is the role of management.
Managers must have effective innovation project management skills (Sanchez et al.
2011); create a climate for innovation to occur (Kmieciak et al. 2012); pay special
attention to the hiring and development of employees, as well as strategic HR practices;
and employ the proper organizational structure to enhance communication and decision
making (Cosh et al. 2012; Koski et al. 2009). Companies that have increased learning
capabilities are more likely to identify, assimilate and exploit knowledge from their
external environments and to successfully utilize their internal resources to create product
and process innovations (Amara et al. 2008). Such firms have cultures in which
employees are encouraged to take risks, ask questions, accept feedback, seek novel
solutions, take time to be creative, collaborate and engage in team work, and share
knowledge. Such companies are known as “learning organizations” (Marsick and
Watkins 2003). The creation and sustainability of a learning organization requires an
integrated, continuous and fluid approach (Farooq 2012).
The two preceding paragraphs highlight the need for both enhanced management skills
and superior leadership skills to create an innovative firm. In the social sciences
literature, there is a distinction often drawn between transformational leadership and
transactional leadership. Transactional leadership involves managing employees,
ensuring that employees have the resources needed to perform, hiring employees,
implementing human resource strategies and ensuring overall organizational efficiency.
Transformational leadership, on the other hand, involves leading, motivating and
empowering, communicating strategic vision, changing corporate culture and creating a
learning organization. Clearly both types of leadership are important for the creation and
5
sustainability of innovative firms. There is a substantial amount of literature examining
the impact that transformational leadership has on firm-level innovation. For example,
Aragon-Correa et al. (2007) find that transformational leadership had a strong influence
on organizational learning; Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) find that transformational
leadership enhances creativity at both the individual and organizational level; and
Michaelis et al. (2010) find that transformation leadership has a significant impact on
whether employees commit to using a particular innovation.
There are many obstacles that prevent firms from engaging in innovative activities
including firm size, industry characteristics and previous experience (Blanchard et al.
2012; D’Este et al. 2012). Tourigny and Le (2004) report that the most significant
impediments in the manufacturing sector in Canada include: an inability to devote staff
to specific projects on an on-going basis; high cost of development; lack of skilled
personnel; lack of financing; and organizational rigidities. In another study, the
Conference Board of Canada surveyed 1000 large and small firms from various sectors in
2012 and asked them to report major barriers to innovation (Conference Board of
Canada, 2013b). Financing is considered the most significant impediment, mainly due to
cash flow issues and lack of metrics to show value. Other major challenges to innovation
include: managers’ belief that their firm is too small to innovate; industry specific
characteristics (supply of skilled labour, regulatory environment, level of competitiveness
in market, and government support for innovation); corporate culture and lack of risk
taking; technical difficulties in innovation; low cost competition; and poor capacity to
implement ideas. In discussing the gap between innovative ideas and commercialization,
the findings suggest a lack of commercialization and management skills; a weak culture
of collaboration; and an insufficient competitive drive are among the key issues.
Firms generate innovative ideas from a variety of sources. Conference Board of Canada
(2013b) reports that “customer needs, market structure, demographics, industry structure,
and the state of scientific and technical know-how are the principal triggers for
innovation” (p24). Innovative ideas can originate internally from executives, managers,
salespeople, marketing people, operations people or technical personnel. Externally, the
6
supply chain partnerships with suppliers and distributors, as well as customers, academic
institutions and competitors can provide the foundation for new innovative products,
services or processes. The Conference Board of Canada (2013b) survey reveals that
senior level executives and customers are the major source of innovations in small firms,
but not so much for larger firms. Large firms are more reliant on production, operation
and R&D departments, business partners, suppliers and competitors as sources of
innovations.
INNOVATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
One of the most significant arguments emerging from the innovation literature over the
last several decades is that innovation is not a linear process. As Sternberg (2009: 481)
explains, “for a long time, the innovation process … was presented as a linear process
consisting of the phases of scientific discovery (invention), product development
(innovation in its true sense), market introduction, and diffusion.” However, “innovation
is increasingly recognized as a social process” (Wolfe 2009: 15) or simply put “firms do
not innovate in isolation” (Nauwelaers 2011: 468). Related to this, was the ‘rediscovery’
of the ‘region’ as the prime site for innovation and learning to occur.
A number of territorial innovation concepts have emerged since the 1980s including
industrial districts (Becattini 1990), clusters (Porter 1990), learning regions (Florida
1995; Morgan 1997), triple helix/quadruple helix (Leydesdorff 2012), and regional
innovation systems (Cooke 1992; Cooke and Morgan 1998) (see Table 1 for an overview
of these concepts). The common link between these concepts is the emphasis on
interaction and learning between a wide variety of actors including individuals, firms,
industry associations and supporting institutions like government, universities, colleges
and innovation centres (Asheim et al., 2011; Tödtling and Trippl 2011; Nauwelaers 2011;
Rodríguez-Pose 2013).
7
Table 1: A Brief Overview of Territorial Innovation Concepts
Industrial Districts
• Originates in the work of Alfred Marshall in the late 1800s • “Factory without walls” • 1980s and 1990s renewed interest in the Third Italy • Cooperation among competitor firms to share risk, stabilize
markets, and share innovation • Emphasis placed on agglomeration, embeddedness, trust and
flexible specialization versus mass production
Clusters
• Michael Porter – The Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990) & On Competition (1998)
• Geographic concentrations of interconnected firms, supplies, firms in related industries, and other institutions
• Cooperation and competition
Learning Regions
• Most often associated with Richard Florida and Kevin Morgan • Emphasis placed on the presence, absence, and quality of research
institutions and their networks and/or • The contributions of social capital and trust in supporting dense
networks of inter-firm relationships as well as the process of interactive learning
Triple Helix/Quadruple Helix
• Loet Leydesdorff and Henry Etzkowitz • Triple Helix – university-industry-government relationships • Quadruple Helix – university-industry-government-civil
society/community users of innovation
Regional Innovation Systems
• Most often association with the work of Phillip Cooke and Kevin Morgan
• Emphasis placed on the institutional context, importance of place, ‘social process of innovation’
• Collaboration and cooperation between firms, universities, research labs, public and private governance/government organizations, financial institutions etc.
Source: Amin 1999; Becattini 1990; Porter 1990; Florida 1995; Morgan 1997; Cooke 1992; Cooke and Morgan 1998; Wolfe 2002; Arnkil et al. 2010
This territorial innovation literature also stresses the importance of institutions, place-
based assets, and learning. For example, Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift (1994; 1995) use the
term ‘institutional thickness’’ to take into account not only the ‘hard institutions’ (i.e. the
presence of institutions) but also the ‘soft institutions’ (i.e. social and cultural factors)
that play a role in regional economic success (Harrison 2006). They suggest four main
characteristics: 1) a strong institutional presence (in the form of institutional
arrangements between an array of actors including firms, local authorities, labour unions,
research centres etc.); 2) a high level of interaction between these institutions to
encourage networking, cooperation and exchange; 3) the presence of well-defined
8
structures of coalition-building and collective-representation; and 4) inclusivity and
collective mobilization, or in essence a common sense of purpose on a widely held
agenda or regional development project (Amin and Thrift 1994: 14; see also Martin
2000; Goodwin et al. 2002).
Meanwhile, Michael Storper’s (1997) work highlights the ‘region as a nexus of untraded
interdependencies’ or the distinct regional assets that impact competitive advantage. As
he (1997) describes,
‘untraded interdependencies’, which take the form of conventions, informal rules and habits that coordinate economic actors under conditions of uncertainty; these relations constitute region-specific assets in production. These assets are a central form of scarcity in contemporary capitalism, and hence a central form of geographical differentiation in what is done, how it is done and in the resulting wealth levels and growth rates of regions (5).
Storper (1997) further argues that firms and institutions become attached to particular
regions due to these ‘untraded interdependencies’. These assets are also said to have a
direct impact on a region’s competitive advantage because they help firms and
institutions develop a capacity for learning which enables them to adapt to change (Amin
1999; MacKinnon et al. 2002; Cumbers et al. 2003).
This emphasis on learning is further explained in the work of Philippe Cooke and Kevin
Morgan (1998; Morgan 1997). They stress, “knowledge is the most strategic resource and
learning the most important process” (Cooke and Morgan 1998: 17). As MacKinnon et
al. (2002: 301) explain despite increasing efforts to codify knowledge, regions that
become sources for tacit knowledge can derive considerable economic advantages
through the importance of ‘being there’ (Gertler 1995). More importantly, firms and
organizations need to be constantly learning from within and open to outside sources of
knowledge to prevent lock-in (Nauwelaers 2011). In this sense, innovation is stimulated
by what Bathelt et al. (2004) describe as ‘local buzz and global pipelines’ (see also Wolfe
and Gertler 2004). As Asheim et al. (2007) explain, buzz includes “rumours, impressions,
recommendations, trade folklore, and strategic information” (660) while global pipelines
9
take into account information and knowledge flows between firms and institutions in
different regions (Bathelt et al. 2004; Wolfe and Gertler 2004).
A significant debate in the territorial innovation literature focuses on whether regions
with highly specialized economies or regions with more diversified economies are more
conducive to innovation and growth (Asheim et al. 2011). More recently, the importance
of ‘related variety’ has been emphasized in response to this debate. As Asheim, Boschma
and Cooke explain (2011: 896), related variety “implies that the long-term development
of regions depends on their ability to diversify into new applications and new sectors
while building on their current knowledge base and competences”. Proponents of this
concept argue that innovation is more likely to occur when knowledge flows or spills
over between related sectors versus within a single sector (Boschma 2008). Related
variety also combats the risks associated with overspecialization and overdiversification
(Tödtling and Trippl 2011).
INNOVATION IN RURAL AND PERIPHERAL REGIONS
One challenge in the innovation literature is that it is largely based on the experiences of
large cities and core regions. While this literature does offer important insights there are a
number of significant differences that face rural and peripheral regions. For example,
Hall and Donald (2009; 2012) describe a number of ‘peripheral realities’. This includes
geographic isolation, which is exacerbated by high transportation costs, limited
transportation options, and infrastructure constraints. These regions often also experience
challenges with attracting and retaining talented individuals due to limited education and
economic opportunities. Entrepreneurs in rural and peripheral regions also encounter
difficulties with accessing capital and institutions promoting innovation. Their work
further describes how innovations often become ‘locked-in’ peripheral regions, supplying
local and regional markets but failing to connect to national or global markets. Likewise,
Tödtling and Trippl (2005) argue that a major characteristic of many peripheral regions is
institutional thinness while older industrial regions are locked-in to mature industries (see
also Lagendijk 2011).
10
Another significant issue is what Oughton et al. (2002) call the ‘regional innovation
paradox’. As they describe, this paradox “refers to the apparent contradiction between the
comparatively greater need to spend on innovation in lagging regions and their relatively
lower capacity to absorb public funds earmarked for the promotion of innovation and to
invest in innovation related activities, compared to more advanced regions” (98).
Similarly, Lagendijk (2011) explains how many peripheral regions lack the financial and
human resources to make adequate plans or match funding opportunities for regional
innovation. Perhaps more importantly, rural and peripheral regions often try to copy
regions like Silicon Valley, typically ignoring their own regional strengths and
challenges.
More recently, however, increased attention on innovation in rural and peripheral regions
has provided a number of important insights. For example, Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose
(2011) found that firms in Southwest Norway with a wide range of international partners
were more likely to create new products than those in other parts of the country. The
regional economy, much like the Northeast Avalon in NL, includes maritime industries,
petroleum-related industries, shipping, ICT, fisheries, and agriculture. Specifically, this
region is home to the oil and gas industry including the dominance of large multinational
firms. Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose argue that by building strong cooperative international
networks, firms in this region are able to combat the challenges of being located on the
periphery. More importantly, they discovered that firms “that cooperate with a wider
range of international partners tend to have managers who are open-minded about the
potential of learning from foreign cultures and who are open to change and new ideas”
(571). They suggest strategies focused on creating regional hubs with “strong connections
to international collaborative networks” (556).
In La Pocatière, Quebec, Doloreux and Dionne (2008) discovered a number of important
insights for innovation in rural regions. This is a small region, with a strong history tied
to agricultural research and teaching, located about an hour and a half from Quebec City.
The industrial structure is made up of transport equipment, engineering technologies, and
11
agri-business and related activities. Doloreux and Dionne (2008) discovered a number of
important factors contributing to La Pocatière’s success. First, they found a strong
presence of institutional actors who have capacity to respond to economic and
technological change over time. They also found community entrepreneurs who
mobilized around initiatives emerging from public institutions and a common desire to
initiate new business activities based on La Pocatière’s strengths. Finally, they
discovered the importance of knowledge exchange and collaboration between
institutions, between firms, and between firms and institutions. Their work highlights the
significant role of public institutions for encouraging firm innovations in smaller
peripheral regions. Their case study also demonstrates how the small size of La Pocatière
actually facilitated trust and collaboration. Doloreux and Dionne (2008) do, however,
note difficulties with attracting highly skilled workers especially when taking into
account the professional integration of a partner.
Another example from rural Norway, critiques the notion that “innovation process to be a
phenomenon that can be controlled and guided” (Fløysand and Jakobsen 2010: 329).
They also take issue with the arguments that innovation requires a business ‘milieu’ and
advanced knowledge infrastructure from postsecondary research in stitutions. Fløysand
and Jakobsen (2010) focus on Ellingsøy in Norway using a social fields approach to
demonstrate the importance of family and community in innovation versus the
cooperation between local firms and postsecondary research institutions, which did not
exist. They also discovered that in Ellingsøy, “innovative practices are influenced by tacit
knowledge and dynamics characterized by a strong corporate responsibility or
commitment to the local community” (341-342).
One final example worth noting is the Developing Europe’s Rural Regions in the Era of
Globalization (EU DERREG) project led by Michael Woods. This research initiative was
focused on four themes, of which two are particularly relevant for the AINL project:
capacity building, governance, and knowledge systems; and global engagement and local
embeddedness of rural businesses (Woods and McDonagh 2011). The first theme was
concerned with determining how to support learning and innovation in rural grassroots
12
development initiatives using 61 grassroots initiatives in six case study regions,
including: Lithuania, Spain, Germany (x2), Ireland and the Netherlands (see Roep and
Wellbrock 2011). Their findings suggest that the ‘learning region’ and ‘triple helix’
concepts are too narrow for rural regions due to the number of diverse actors trying to
implement a variety of place-based development initiatives. As seen in Figure 1, they use
the nexus of region, public administration, and knowledge support structures to capture
rural regional learning versus the industry, academia, and state arguments seen in the
triple helix model. The region is seen as the ‘arena’ for grassroots development
initiatives, while knowledge support structures take into account a wider array of
knowledge infrastructure supports, and public administration includes the support
policies and the actors who facilitate and implement them (Roep and Wellbrock, 2011).
Figure 1: Governance of Rural Regional Learning from DERREG
Source: Adapted from Roep and Wellbrock, 2011: 17.
Other findings from their research suggest that support for learning and innovation in
rural regions requires political commitment, a place-based approach, and support –
Regional Learning
Region
Grassroots Development
Initiatives
Facilitating agents and agencies
Knowledge Support
Structure
Supporting Policies
Public Adminstration
13
including financial support, knowledge and skills, physical infrastructure and social
infrastructure. In addition, they highlight three different considerations for supporting
learning and innovation in rural regions. This includes:
the scope of operation (i.e. the type of beneficiaries targeted and geographical position), the formal shaping of the operational space (i.e. the type of support and facilitation provided, rules, regulations and procedures attached to obtaining it, and the resulting shape), and the delegation of tasks and roles to operational agents and agencies (Roep and Wellbrock, 2011: 83).
This research also argues for delegating decision-making to regional operators in an
effort to prevent grassroots development initiatives from becoming overly bureaucratic or
politicized.
In the second theme, global engagement and local embeddedness of rural businesses,
researchers were focused on the impacts of business networking in rural regions (Copus
et al. 2011). Researchers in this domain were focused on five case study areas involving
the Czech Republic, Sweden, Slovenia, the Netherlands, and Lithuania. This research
offers a number of important insights. First, rural businesses can derive considerable
benefits from “networking economies”. This argument is important because traditional
theories of innovation and economic development emphasize the importance of
“agglomeration economies” or the benefits of spatial proximity. This is largely seen as a
competitive advantage in urban areas. However, networks in rural regions can act as a
“surrogate for agglomeration” and support the transfer of entrepreneurial knowledge.
In this research, networks included local, regional, national and international businesses,
customers, suppliers, and support institutions. Motivations cited for business networking
included: joint marketing approaches; learning about new opportunities for development;
complying with rules and regulations; improving production processes; and reacting to
customers needs. Overall, this study found that the major benefit from networking was
acquiring market intelligence. This was followed by gaining information to improve
products or production processes. This research also identified the importance of having
face-to-face contact with support institutions. Finally, this study emphasized the role of
14
network brokers who act as match-matchers and forum facilitators.1 While this research
is more focused on informal networks, in one case study more formal networks organized
by government or other support organizations were viewed as ‘stepping stones’ for
making new business contacts.
As mentioned earlier, institutions, place-based assets, and learning are all important for
regional innovation. More recently, an approach termed Research and Innovation
Strategies for Smart Specialization or RIS3 has captured the attention of policymakers
across Europe, including the European Union and OECD. In fact, it will form the basis
for EUs Structural Funds as part of the Cohesion Policy for 2014-2020. Rooted in the
regional innovation systems literature and discussions on related variety, RIS3 are
described as “integrated, place-based economic transformation agendas” (Foray et al.
2012: 8). The RIS3 approach includes six steps: first, the analysis of the regional context
and potential for innovation; second, creating an inclusive governance structure to ensure
participation and ownership; third, creating a shared vision for the future of the region;
fourth, identifying a small number of priorities for regional development; fifth, defining
appropriate policies, a road map and an effective action plan; and sixth, integrating
monitoring and evaluation mechanism (for more detail see Foray et al. 2012; see also
Figure 2).
1 The authors define forum facilitators as bringing “together groups of firms with a common interest, with the ultimate objective of strengthening trust between them, and of fostering ‘collective learning’ (23).
15
Figure 2: RIS3 Approach
Source: Foray et al. 2012
The EU Commission has created a website with a variety of tools to assist regions in
planning for RIS3 (see http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu). One tool is the RIS3
Assessment Wheel designed to assist regional actors with assessing where their region is
in each of the six steps (see Figure 3). This includes a scaling system from 0 (no
information on a certain element) to 5 (excellent).
Analysis of Regional Context
Governance
Shared Vision
Identification of Priorities
Policy Mix
Monitoring & Evaluation
16
Figure 3: RIS3 Assessment Wheel
Source: European Commission, 2013
The RIS3 approach also emphasizes, “an entrepreneurial process of discovery” defined
as “a learning process to discover the research and innovation domains in which a region
can hope to excel” (Foray et al. 2009: 2). Entrepreneurial actors are broadly defined and
include firms, post-secondary education institutions, public research institutions and other
individuals/institutions involved in innovation-related activities. Harnessing this
entrepreneurial knowledge is essential because it includes “market growth potential,
likely competitors and the entire set of input and services required for launching a new
business activity” (Foray et al. 2012: 12). Entrepreneurs are best situated to identify what
a region does best in terms of R&D and innovation and new domains of specialization
0
1
2
3
4
5
Informal assessment - region XXX
17
that might be useful (Foray et al. 2011). To encourage this entrepreneurial process of
discovery, Foray et al. (2011: 12) recommend research service vouchers, which “could
be provided to firms to commission an R&D project from a public research institution or
any specialised R&D organization.”
INNOVATION IN CANADA
Several recent reports provide a bleak picture of the landscape of firm level innovation in
Canada. The first, the World Economic Forum’s 2012 Global Competiveness Index,
shows that Canada’s global competitiveness ranking has dropped for the third year in a
row (Conference Board of Canada 2012). Although there are numerous factors cited to
explain this decline, one of the main reasons is weak business innovation performance
(Conference Board of Canada 2012; 2013a). The findings suggest, among other things,
that many Canadian companies do not have access to venture capital funding; lack
investment in training staff; do not absorb new technologies; have a narrow value chain
and unsophisticated production processes; lack the capacity to innovate using advanced
operations and strategies in such areas as marketing, branding and distribution; do not
invest sufficient monies on R&D; lack collaborative relationships with universities; and
do not derive their competitive advantage from the creation of unique produces,
processes or services (Conference Board of Canada 2012).
In 2012, the OECD released a report entitled Unleashing Business Innovation in Canada
(Bibbee, 2012). This report cites many issues that have resulted in Canada’s lagging
performance in business innovation, including: a growing commercialization gap
between academic and applied research; a high degree of risk aversion in doing business;
under-developed entrepreneurship programs in post-secondary institutions; and a lack of
management and commercialization skills. Likewise, a 2009 report, Innovation and
Business Strategy: Why Canada Falls Shorts, by the Council of Canadian Academies
argues that, “the weak innovation performance of Canadian business is due to the fact
that relatively few Canadian companies adopt innovation-based business strategies”
(209). More importantly, the expert panel behind this report “approached innovation as
an economic process rather than as a primarily science and engineering activity” (3,
18
original emphasis). The report also provides a number of factors that influence business
innovation including: 1) industry structure characteristics; 2) the state of competition; 3)
the climate for new ventures; 4) the public policy environment; and 5) business ambition.
There have also been several recent Canadian reports and initiatives that support the
‘social nature of innovation’ argument. For example, the federal Innovation Canada: A
Call to Action otherwise known as the Jenkins report, which was released 2011. The final
report includes a strong role for government in supporting innovation through
procurement and a Minister for Innovation. It also encourages regional programs like
ACOA to play a strong role in supporting business innovation by assisting firms to
compete globally. In addition, like the ‘regional innovation systems’, approach the
Jenkins report emphasizes the ‘innovation ecosystem’. Likewise, the President of the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) argues that,
“successful innovation emerges from robust cultures of innovation” (Gaffield 2012;
SSHRC 2013). While the most recent World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness
report (2013: 4) argues that “Canada's competitiveness would be further enhanced by
improvements in its innovation ecosystem, such as increased company-level spending on
R&D and government procurement of advanced research products”. Other Canadian
insights include several reports by the Conference Board of Canada (2012; 2013a; 2013b)
and their new Centre for Business Innovation as well as the Coalition for Action on
Innovation in Canada (2010) and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (2012). All of
these organizations emphasize the importance of education and research institutions for
fostering an innovative economy. They also call for more action on strengthening our
research institutions, university–industry partnerships, and cluster developments. These
reports also highlight one significant gap in Canada, which has been the underutilization
of our colleges as part of this system.
In terms of innovation strategies, vouchers are increasingly being used across Canada in
provinces like Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick, British Columbia and Nova Scotia.
Under voucher programs businesses receive vouchers, which can be exchanged at
universities, colleges and other institutions for expertise, other resources, and IP.
19
Vouchers are important tools for enhancing innovation because they promote
commercialization in postsecondary institutions and assist firms with R&D while
building partnerships between them (see Serebrin 2013). For example, Ontario recently
introduced the Collaborative Voucher Program through the Ontario Centres of Excellence
(OCE). This program provides four types of vouchers including: commercialization,
innovation and productivity, E-Business, and an industry association R&D challenge.
The program incorporates several federal funding programs (e.g. NSERC, IRAP, and
Connect Canada) into a ‘convenient one-stop application process’ (OCE 2013).
Universities are also promoting innovation by encouraging and supporting
entrepreneurship and collaboration. Many universities across Canada now have
commercialization centres and business incubators on campus. One unique approach
worth noting is the Queen’s Summer Innovation Initiative or “entrepreneur boot camp”.
Students from a variety of disciplines learn about entrepreneurship, corporate innovation
and change management from faculty in the Queen’s School of Business and the Faculty
of Engineering and Applied Science along with alumni, entrepreneurs and other business
experts. These students are then placed in teams and work with two mentors to develop
an innovative idea. At the end of the summer, students pitch their ideas to a jury and the
top-three win money to develop their business venture. This initiative started with small
seed funding from the University and is run almost entirely on alumni donations
(Initiative Campaign 2013; Queen’s Innovation Connector 2013).
Another example is the University of British Columbia, which has just released an
innovation strategy focused on: “a new corporate relations office to work more closely
with the business sector; the creation of a central UBC agency to support faculty
consulting by 2014; growing the current ‘Campus as a living lab’ model beyond campus;
expanding and integrating UBC’s e@UBC entrepreneurship activities from education to
venture creation to seed funding, and re-engineering and streamlining the activities of the
20
University Industry Liaison Office to accelerate the technology transfer process” (UBC
News 2013).2
INNOVATION IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Newfoundland and Labrador has long been considered a have-not province in the
Canadian political economy. However, the province is enjoying newfound status as a
‘have’ province. The St. John’s city-region, in particular, is experiencing unprecedented
prosperity from oil and gas development off the province’s east coast (Greenwood
forthcoming; Greenwood and Hall forthcoming). As the provincial capital and largest city
in NL the St. John’s city-region offers many of the common features expected in large
city-regions. However, the city is small and peripheral compared to national and
international urban systems. Simply put, St. John’s is a ‘metropolis on the margins’
(Lepawsky et al. 2010). Close to half of the province’s population now resides in
communities within the St. John’s commuting area. That being said, a large number of
people still reside in more rural and remote communities spread across the province.
In recent years, several academic studies have focused on innovation in NL (see
Appendix 1). This includes research in Newfoundland and Labrador that was part of a
national project looking at the social dynamics of economic performance in city-regions,
led by David Wolfe and Meric Gertler at the University of Toronto. This project was
focused on three themes: the social dynamics of innovation, talent attraction and
retention, and civic governance and inclusion. Rob Greenwood led the Newfoundland
and Labrador component, which included case studies on St. John’s, Clarenville, Corner
Brook, and Labrador West (see Lepawsky 2009; Lepawsky et al. 2010; Lepawsky, Hall
and Donald forthcoming; Hall 2010a; 2010b; Greenwood et al. 2011; Greenwood
forthcoming; Greenwood and Hall forthcoming). This research identified five industrial
clusters in St. John’s, including: Oil and Gas; Maritime; ITC Services; Business Services;
and Higher Education. Significant wealth is still generated from fisheries and mining
continues to be a major source of wealth creation on the Island and in Labrador. The
2 The Faculty of Business Administration and the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at Memorial University are currently exploring the strategic positioning and design of a Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technology Commercialization Centre
21
provincial economy, however, is now dominated by oil production (Spencer and Vinodrai
2006).
Another example includes a cross-Canada initiative led by Kelly Vodden (Memorial
University – Newfoundland and Labrador), Bill Reimer (Concordia University –
Quebec), David Douglas (University of Guelph – Ontario), and Sean Markey (Simon
Fraser University – British Columbia) focused on Canadian Regional Development. Five
themes are being explored including: place-based development, collaborative, multi-level
governance, rural-urban interactions, integrated development, and innovation and
learning. In Newfoundland and Labrador these themes are being explored in
Kittiwake/Gander-New-Wes-Valley and the Northern Peninsula (see White et al. 2013;
Vodden et al. 2013).
One final research example is the Networks for Business Innovation: Building Social
Capital in Corner Brook, NL initiative. This project is led by Jose Lam (Memorial
University – Grenfell Campus) and includes a team of individuals from government, the
university, community, and business. The project is designed to assess the local
innovation system (adapted cluster work for small regions) in the city of Corner Brook.
Using interviews and surveys to investigate who people talk to and work with, this study
is mapping out these connections and networks. Ultimately, this information will be used
to bring these players together to further develop social and economic innovation in the
city and region (Lam et al. 2013).
Many of theses innovation-related research projects in NL have identified a number of
barriers to innovation. This includes: a reluctance to share knowledge and collaborate;
access to capital; talent attraction and retention; population aging and youth out-
migration; infrastructure constraints; access to broadband in rural and remote regions; the
EI trap; and low learning and exposure to lessons and ideas from other regions. One
important opportunity is the strong commitment to place that exists in NL.
22
These studies also identify a number of innovation-support institutions in NL. This
includes industry associations like the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association
(NOIA), the Newfoundland Alliance of Technical Industries (NATI), the Newfoundland
Environmental Industries Association (NEIA), the Canadian Manufacturers and
Exporters (CME), OceansAdvance Inc. as well as the campuses of Memorial University
in St. John’s and Corner Brook, and the campuses of the College of the North Atlantic.
Other institutions include, Chambers of Commerce, and Community Business
Development Corporations (CBDCs) along with commercialization centres like the
Genesis Group Inc. and entrepreneurial support centres like Navigate. The Strategic
Partnership between business, labour, and government is another important initiative for
encouraging collaboration. The provincial and federal government’s are also playing a
role in encouraging and fostering innovation in the province through an array of
programs. One final institution worth noting is the Research & Development Corporation
of Newfoundland and Labrador (see Appendix 1).
Unfortunately, there is a lack of formal evaluation of business innovation within the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The information that is available is consistent
with what is known at the national level. In 2006, the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador released its province-wide Innovation Strategy – Innovation Newfoundland and
Labrador: A Blueprint for Prosperity. The report states that Newfoundland and Labrador
lags behind the other provinces in Canada on a number of measures of innovation
performance. A number of business innovation related challenges are cited including: a
relatively low level of investment in R&D by the private sector; limited access to private-
sector risk capital and financing for commercialization; limited linkages and
collaboration among post-secondary institutions, industry and communities;
entrepreneurs, managers and professionals lacking experience in using innovation and
building innovative enterprises; and a continuing out-migration of the knowledge
industry and other skilled workers (GNL Innovation Strategy 2006: 29).
The Innovation Strategy also identified four strategic directions to promote innovation in
the province, including:
23
• Fostering a culture of innovation that encourages new ideas and collaboration among industry, labour, government, educational institutions and other stakeholders throughout the province; • Positioning Newfoundland and Labrador as a competitive economy with recognized international strengths and advantages; • Broadening education and skills development, and aligning them with the future economic direction and labour market development needs of the province; and • Supporting enhanced R&D capacity, and improving financing and investment tools to facilitate commercialization (INTRD, 2006: 44).
A number of new initiatives were announced under the strategy including, a new
commercialization program and a new innovation enhancement fund focused on:
supporting the development of strategic clusters; creating an innovation awards program;
forming a Federal-Provincial Innovation Team; supporting youth innovation; establishing
an innovation scholarship fund; enhancing graduate employment opportunities; informing
the business community on R&D incentives; and establishing an Advisory Council on
Innovation (INTRD, 2006: 54-56). However, this strategy lacks any kind of tailor-made
approach based on place-based development. It also fails to discuss a clear process for
growing and enhancing the innovation system by bringing together key innovation actors.
An important decision that will impact innovation in NL, are the development regulations
set by the federal-provincial offshore petroleum board whereby oil and gas producers are
required to spend a certain percentage of their revenues on research and development
(R&D) and education and training in Newfoundland and Labrador.3 This has the
potential to combat the typical ‘rip-it-out-and-ship-it-out’ mentality that plagues
resource-based regions across Canada (Hall 2012). By requiring oil and gas producers to
spend revenue on R&D and education and training investments, the province is
encouraging innovative activity to remain in NL.
3 This contribution is based on price and production volumes. Already the accumulated amounts are in the hundreds of millions of dollars (Locke 2009).
24
ADVANCING INNOVATION IN NL WITH SMART & INCLUSIVE
STRATEGIES
A common argument in the innovation literature is that there is no magic one-size-fits-all
policy approach to innovation. Instead, tailor-made policies need to be encouraged that
identify specific place-based histories, challenges, opportunities, and assets (Tödtling and
Trippl 2011). Or as Lagendijk (2011: 606) argues, “instead of focussing on best practices
[from elsewhere], policy should focus on an assessment of missing strategic connections
and other development constraints”. Rodríguez-Pose (2013) also offers a note of caution,
that depending solely on local actors in rural or peripheral regions may not produce
strong innovation policies due to limited financial and human resources. However,
bringing in outside consultants is often more expensive and they lack local knowledge.
Instead, senior levels of government can empower local-capacity building by developing
general guidelines while also encouraging multilevel governance.
Ken Coates, the Canada Research Chair in Regional Innovation, recently argued that
Canada needs a more inclusive innovation strategy – one that encourages our best and
brightest in industry, academia, and government to discover what innovation strategies
will work in rural, remote and more peripheral regions. We hope that the Advancing
Innovation in NL project will generate new ideas for future directions including – What
can industry associations, firms, all levels of government, and the university/college do to
advance innovation in NL?
25
References ACOA. 2012. Program Information. Government of Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.acoa-apeca.gc.ca/eng/ImLookingFor/ProgramInformation/ Pages/Home.aspx Amara, N., Landry, R., Becheikh, N. and Ouimet, M. 2008. Learning and Novelty of Innovation in Established Manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28: 450-463. Amin, A. 1999. An Institutionalist Perspective on Regional Economic Development. International Journal of Urban and Radical Research, 23: 365-78. -----. and Thrift, N. 1994. Living in the Global. In A. Amin and N. Thrift (eds.), Globalization, Institutions, and Regional Development in Europe (pp.1-22). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -----. and Thrift, N. 1995. Institutional issues for the European regions: From markets and plans to socioeconomics and powers of association. Economy and Society, 24(1): 41-66. Aragon-Correa, J.A., Garcia-Morales, V.J. and Cordon-Pozo, E. 2007. Leadership and Organizational Learning’s Role on Innovation and Performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36: 349-359. Arnkil R., Jarvensivu, A., Koski, P., and Piirainen, T. 2010. 'Exploring Quadruple Helix. Outlining user-oriented innovation models', University of Tampere, Work Research Center, Working Paper No. 85 (Final Report on Quadruple Helix Research for the CLIQ project, INTERREG IVC Programme). Asheim, B., Coenen, L. and Vang, J. 2007. Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(5): 655-670. Asheim, A., Boschma, R. and Cooke, P. 2011. Constructing Regional Advantage: Platform Policies Based on Related Variety and Differentiated Knowledge Bases. Regional Studies, 45(7): 893-904. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. 2004. Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1): 31-56 Becattini, G. 1990. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In P. Pyke, G. Becattini, and W. Sengenberger (eds), Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy (pp.37-51). Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies (ILO). Becheikh, N., Landry, R., and Amara, N. 2006. Lessons from Innovation Empirical Studies in the Manufacturing Sector: A Systematic Review of the Literature from 1993-2003. Technovation, 26: 644-664.
26
BDC. 2013. About BDC. Government of Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.bdc.ca/EN/about/Pages/default.aspx Bibbee, A. 2012. Unleashing Business Innovation in Canada. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 997; OECD Publishing. Blanchard, P., Huiban, J., Musolesi, A. and Sevestre, P. 2012. Where There is a Will, There is a Way? Assessing the Impact of Obstacles to Innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(3): 679-710. Boschma, R. 2008. Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1): 61-74. Canada Foundation for Innovation. 2012. CFI Strategic Roadmap 2012-2017. Ottawa: Canada Foundation for Innovation. CBDC. 2011. About Us. Government of Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.cbdc.ca/about_us Coalition for Action on Innovation in Canada. 2010. An Action Plan for Prosperity Coates, Ken. 2012. Inclusive Innovation: What is the Role of Rural and Remote Regions in the Knowledge Economy? Presentation hosted by the Canadian Federation for Humanities and Social Sciences in partnership with the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Conference Board of Canada. 2012. Who Dimmed the Lights? Canada’s Declining Global Competitiveness Ranking. Briefing September. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada. Conference Board of Canada. 2013a. How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada. Conference Board of Canada. 2013b. The State of Firm-Level Innovation in Canada. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada. Cooke, P. 1992. Regional innovation systems: Competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum, 23(3): 365-382. -----. and Morgan, K. 1998. The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press Copus, A., Dubois, A., Hedström, M., Kairyte, E., Stastna, M., Potočnik Slavič, I., and Wellbrock, W. (2011). WP1: Global Engagement and Local Embeddedness of Rural
27
Businesses, Summary of Research Findings. DERREG – Development Europe’s Rural Regions in the Era of Globalization. Cosh, A., Fu, X. and Hughes, A. 2012. Organization Structure and Innovation Performance in Different Environments. Small Business Economics, 39: 301-317. Council of Canadian Academies. 2009. Innovation and Business Strategy: Why Canadian Falls Short. The Expert Panel on Business Innovation. Cumbers, A. MacKinnon, D. and McMaster, R. 2003. Institutions, Power and Space Assessing the Limits to Institutionalism in Economic Geography. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(4): 325-342. D’Este, P., Iammarino, S., Savona, M. and von Tunzelmann, N. 2012. What Hampers Innovation? Revealed Barriers Versus Deterring Barriers. Research Policy, 41: 482-488. Doloreux, D. and Dionne, S. 2008. Is regional innovation system development possible in peripheral regions? Some evidence from the case of La Pocatière, Canada. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 20(3): 259-283. Drucker, P. 2002. The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(8): 95-102. European Commission. 2013. “RIS3 Assessment Wheel – A synthetic tool to position yourself and your RIS3”. Retrieved from: http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ris3-assessment-wheel Farooq, O. 2012. Why Are Some Firms More Innovative Than Others? Exploring the Role of Learning Organization Components. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, September/October: 42-49. Fitjar, R.D. and Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2011. Innovating in the Periphery: Firms, Values and Innovation in Southwest Norway. European Planning Studies, 19(4): 555-574. Florida, R. 1995. Toward the Learning Region. Futures 27(5): 527-536. Fløysand, A. and Jakobsen, S.E. 2010. The complexity of innovation: A relational turn. Progress in Human Geography, 35(3): 328-344. Foray, D., Goddard, J., Goenaga Beldarrain, X., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K. Nauwelaers, C. and Ortega-Argiles, R. 2012. Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations (RIS 3). Luxembourg: European Commission. Foray, D., David, P.A. and Hall, B. 2009. Smart Specialisation – The Concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief No9.
28
Foray, D., David, P.A and Hall, B. 2011. Smart specialization: From academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation. Management of Technology & Entrepreneurship Institute, College of Management of Technology Gaffield, C. 2012. Time to unleash new cultures of innovation. The Hill Times, November 19th. Gertler, M.S. 1995. ‘Being There’: Proximity, Organization, and Culture in the Development and Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. Economic Geography, 71(1): 1-26. Goodwin, M., Jones, M., Jones, R., Pett, K. and Simpson, G. 2002. Devolution and Economic Governance in the UK: Uneven Geographies, Uneven Capacities? Local Economy, 17(3): 200-215. Greenwood, R. Forthcoming. “Embarrassment and Riches: Good Governance and Bad Governance in the St. John’s City Region,” in N. Bradford and A. Bramwell (eds.), Civic Engagement and Collaborative Governance in Canadian City-Regions, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Greenwood, G. and C. Pike with W. Kearley. 2011. A Commitment to Place: The Social Foundations of Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s: Harris Centre, Web. Greenwood, R. and Hall, H.M. Revised and Submitted. The Social Dynamics of Economic Performance in St. John’s: A Metropolis on the Margins. In D.A. Wolfe and M. Gertler (eds), information forthcoming. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gumusluoglu, L. and Ilsev, A. 2009. Transformational Leadership, Creativity, and Organizational Innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62: 461-473. Hall, H.M. 2012. Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Politics of Regional Development Initiatives in Northern Ontario. PhD Dissertation, Department of Geography. Kingston: Ontario Hall, H.M. 2010a. Local Governance, Creativity and Regional Development in Newfoundland and Labrador: Lessons for Policy and Practice from Two Projects. Workshop report prepared for the Harris Centre at Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. Hall, H.M. 2010b. The Social Dynamics of Economic Performance: Innovation and Creativity in City-Regions – Newfoundland and Labrador Project Preliminary Findings – St. John’s, Clarenville, Corner Brook & Labrador West. Workshop report prepared for the Harris Centre at Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.
29
Hall, H.M. and B. Donald. 2009. Innovation and creativity on the periphery: challenges and opportunities in Northern Ontario. Working Paper Series: Ontario in the Creative Age. REF. 2009-WPONT-002 Hall, H.M. and Donald, B. 2012. Clarifying Creativity and Culture in a Small City on the Canadian Periphery: Challenges and Opportunities in Greater Sudbury. In A. Lorentzen and B. van Heur (eds), Cultural Political Economy of Small Cities (pp.80-94). London: Routledge. Harrison, J. 2006. Re-reading the New Regionalism: A Sympathetic Critique. Space and Polity, 10(1): 21-46. Hayter, R. 2005. Regions as Institutions, Inter-regional Firms and New Economic Spaces. In R. Le Heron & J.W. Harrington (Ed), New Economic Spaces: New Economic Geographies. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company. Hipp, C. and Grupp, H. 2005. Innovation in the Service Sector: The Demand for Service-Specific Innovation Measurement Concepts and Typologies. Research Policy, 34: 517-535. IBRD. 2013. Programs and Services. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved from: http://www.ibrd.gov.nl.ca/innovation/innovationprograms.html INTRD. 2006. Innovation Newfoundland and Labrador: A Blueprint for Prosperity. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Independent Panel on Federal Support to Research and Development. 2012. Innovation Canada: A Call to Action. Review of Federal Support to Research and Development - Expert Panel Report. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Initiative Campaign. 2013. Encouraging Tomorrow’s Entrepreneurs. Retrieved from: http://www.queensu.ca/initiative/impact/sii Kmieciak, R., Michna, A. and Meczynska, A. 2012. Innovativeness, Empowerment and IT Capability: Evidence from SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(5): 707-728. Koski, H., Marengo, L. and Makinen, I. 2009. Firm Size, Managerial Practices and Innovativeness: Some Evidence from Finnish Manufacturing. Working Paper Series: Laboratory of Economics and Management, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies. Johnstone, H. and Haddow, R. 2003. Industrial Decline and High Technology Renewal in Cape Breton: Exploring the Limits of the Possible. In D.A. Wolfe (ed.), Clusters Old and New: The Transition to a Knowledge Economic in Canada’s Regions (pp.187-212). Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
30
Lagendijk, A. 2011. Regional innovation policy between theory and practice. In P. Cooke, with B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, D Schwartz, and F. Tödtling (Eds), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth (pp. 597-608). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lam, J., Carter, K., McGillis, L., Pike, C., McCahon, M., and Vodden, K. 2013. Networks for Business Innovation in Corner Brook, NL. Harris Centre Applied Research Fund Report. Lepawsky, J. 2009. “The Organization and Dynamics of Clustering and Innovation in the Ocean Technology Sector in Newfoundland and Labrador and the St. John’s City-Region.” St. John’s: Harris Centre, September 30. Lepawsky, J., C. Phan and R. Greenwood. 2010. “Metropolis on the Margin: Talent Attraction and Retention to the St. John’s City-Region,” The Canadian Geographer, 54 (3), pp. 324-46. Lepawsky, J., Hall, H.M. and Donald, B. In Press. Kingston and St John’s: The role of relative location in talent attraction and retention. In J.L. Grant (ed.), Seeking Talent for Creative Cities: The Social Dynamics of Innovation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Leydesdorff, L. 2012. The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, ..., and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1): 25-35. MacKinnon, D., Cumbers, A. and Chapman, K. 2002. Learning, innovation and regional development: a critical appraisal of recent debates. Progress in Human Geography, 26(3): 293-311. Marion, T.J., Friar, J.H. and Simpson, T.W. 2012. New Product Development Practices and Early-Stage Firms: Two In-Depth Case Studies. Journal of Product Innovation and Management, 29(4): 639-654. Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. 2003. Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2): 132-151. Martin, R. 2000. Institutional Approaches in Economic Geography. In T.J. Barnes and E. Sheppard, A Companion to Economic Geography (pp.77-94). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R. and Sonntag, K. 2010. Shedding Light on Followers’ Innovation Implementation Behaviour: The Role of Transformational Leadership, Commitment to Change, and Climate for Initiative. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4): 408-429.
31
Morgan, K. 1997. The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal. Regional Studies, 31(5): 491-503. National Research Council. 2013. Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP). Government of Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/irap/ National Research Council. 2012. NRC-IRAP’s Canadian HIV Technology Development Program (CHTD). Government of Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/irap/about/chtd.html Nauwelaers, C. 2011. Intermediaries in regional innovation systems: role and challenges for policy. In P. Cooke, with B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, D Schwartz, and F. Tödtling (Eds), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth (pp. 467-481). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. OCE. 2013. New Collaboration Voucher program conveniently connects business with academic researchers to give Ontario a competitive edge. New Release OCE, June 27th. OECD. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. OECD Publishing. Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., and Morgan, K. 2002. The Regional Innovation Paradox: Innovation Policy and Industrial Policy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1): 97-110. Polèse, M., Shearmur, R., Desjardins, P.M. and Johnson, M. (2002) The Periphery in the Knowledge Economy: The Spatial Dynamics of the Canadian Economy and the Future of Non-Metropolitan Regions in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces. Montreal and Moncton: Institut national de la recherche scientfiique and the Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development. Porter, M.E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press. Queen’s Innovation Connector. 2013. Queen’s Summer Innovation Initiative. Retrieved from: http://www.queensinnovation.ca/Innovate/Queens-Summer-Innovation-Initiative.html Research & Development Corporation. 2011. R&D Project Funding. Retrieved from: http://www.rdc.org/funding/index.htm Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2013. Do Institutions Matter for Regional Development? Regional Studies, 47(7): 1034-1047. Roep, D. and Wellbrock, W. 2011. WP4: Capacity building, governance, and knowledge systems, Summary Report. DERREG – Development Europe’s Rural Regions in the Era of Globalization.
32
SSHRC. 2013. Strengthening Canada’s Cultures of Innovation: Strategic Plan 2013-16. Serebrin. J. 2013. Vouchers hook businesses up with academics. The Global and Mail, July 15th. Sanchez, A., Lago, A., Ferras, X., and Ribera, J. 2011. Innovation Management Practices, Strategic Adaption, and Business Results: Evidence from the Electronics Industry. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(2): 14-38. Slaper, T. Nicholas R. Hart, Tanya J. Hall and Michael F. Thompson. 2011. The Index of Innovation: A New Tool for Regional Analysis. Economic Development Quarterly 25(36). Spencer, G. and T. Vinodrai. 2006. Innovation Systems Research Network City Region Profile: St. John’s. Toronto: Program on Globalization and Regional Innovation Systems (PROGRIS). Sternberg, R. 2009. Innovation. In Kitchin, R., Thrift, N. (Eds), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Volume 1 (pp. 481-490). Oxford: Elsevier. Storper, M. 1997. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guilford Press. Tödtling, F. and Tripple, F. 2005. One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34: 1203-1219. Tödtling, F. and Trippl, M. 2011. Regional Innovation Systems. In P. Cooke, with B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, D Schwartz, and F. Tödtling (Eds), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth (pp. 455-466). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Tourigny, D. and Le, C.D. 2013. Impediments to Innovation Faced by Canadian Manufacturing Firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(3): 217-250. UBC News. 2013. UBC announces strategy to help boost economic impact of innovation in B.C. September 11th, Retrieved from: http://news.ubc.ca/2013/09/11/ubc-announces-strategy-to-help-boost-economic-impact-of-innovation-in-b-c/ Virkkala, S. 2007. Innovation and Networking in Peripheral Areas – A Case Study of Emergence and Change in Rural Manufacturing. European Planning Studies 15(4): 511-529. Vodden, K., Carter, K., White, K. 2013. A Primer on Innovation, Learning and Knowledge Flows. Prepared for Canadian Regional Development: A Critical Review of Theory Practice and Potentials.
33
White, K., Carter, K., Vodden, K. 2013. Northern Peninsula Innovation Report. Unpublished working paper for Canadian Regional Development: A Critical Review of Theory Practice and Potentials. Wolfe, D.A. 2002. Social Capital and Cluster Development in Learning Regions. In J.A. Holbrook and D.A. Wolfe (ed), Knowledge, Clusters and Learning Regions. Kingston: School of Policy Studies, Queen's University. Wolfe, D.A. 2009. 21st Century Cities in Canada: The Geography of Innovation. The 2009 CIBC Scholar-in-Residence Lecture. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada. Wolfe, D.A. 2006. Knowledge and Innovation: A Discussion Paper. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. Ontario: Queen’s Printer. Wolfe, D.A. and Gertler, M. 2004. Clusters from the Inside and Out: Local Dynamics and Global Linkages. Urban Studies, 41 (4/5): 1071-1093. Woods, M. and McDonagh, J. 2011. Rural Europe and the World: Globalization and Rural Development (Editorial). European Countryside, 3(3): 153-163. World Economic Forum. 2013. The Global Competitiveness Index 2013-2014: Country Profile Highlights. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2013-14/GCR_CountryHighlights_2013-2014.pdf
34
Appendix 1: Innovation Studies and Reports in NL
DESCRIPTION
ACADEMIC REPORTS
Greenwood, R. Forthcoming. “Embarrassment and Riches: Good Governance and Bad Governance in the St. John’s City Region,” in N. Bradford and A. Bramwell (eds.), Civic Engagement and Collaborative Governance in Canadian City-Regions, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Greenwood, G. and C. Pike with W. Kearley. 2011. A Commitment to Place: The Social Foundations of Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John’s: Harris Centre.
Greenwood, R. and Hall, H.M. Revised and Submitted. The Social Dynamics of Economic Performance in St. John’s: A Metropolis on the Margins. In D.A. Wolfe and M. Gertler (eds), information forthcoming. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hall, H.M. 2010a. Local Governance, Creativity and Regional Development in Newfoundland and Labrador: Lessons for Policy and Practice from Two Projects. Workshop report prepared for the Harris Centre at Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hall, H.M. 2010b. The Social Dynamics of Economic Performance: Innovation and Creativity in City-Regions – Newfoundland and Labrador Project Preliminary Findings – St. John’s, Clarenville, Corner Brook & Labrador West. Workshop report prepared for the Harris Centre at Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Lam, J., Carter, K., McGillis, L., Pike, C., McCahon, M., and Vodden, K. 2013. Networks for Business Innovation in Corner Brook, NL.
Harris Centre Applied Research Fund Report. Lepawsky, J. 2009. “The Organization and Dynamics of Clustering and Innovation in the Ocean Technology Sector in
Newfoundland and Labrador and the St. John’s City-Region.” St. John’s: Harris Centre, September 30. Lepawsky, J., C. Phan and R. Greenwood. 2010. “Metropolis on the Margin: Talent Attraction and Retention to the St. John’s
City-Region,” The Canadian Geographer, 54 (3), pp. 324-46. Lepawsky, J., Hall, H.M. and Donald, B. In Press. Kingston and St John’s: The role of relative location in talent attraction and
retention. In J.L. Grant (ed.), Seeking Talent for Creative Cities: The Social Dynamics of Innovation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Vodden, K., Carter, K., White, K. 2013. A Primer on Innovation, Learning and Knowledge Flows. Prepared for Canadian Regional Development: A Critical Review of Theory Practice and Potentials.
White, K., Carter, K., Vodden, K. 2013. Northern Peninsula Innovation Report. Unpublished working paper for Canadian Regional Development: A Critical Review of Theory Practice and Potentials.
35
GOVERNMENT REPORTS
INTRD. 2005. Newfoundland and Labrador’s Blueprint for Sustainable Economic Growth Through Innovation: A Discussion Paper. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
INTRD. 2006. Innovation Newfoundland and Labrador: A Blueprint for Prosperity. Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Stewart, D. 2007. Fostering Innovation in Newfoundland and Labrador: A Critical Approach. Locke, W., Lynch, S. and Girard, B. 2002. University Research Activity, Private Sector Collaboration and the Commercialization of
Research in an Academic Environment: Memorial University of Newfoundland as a Case Study. A Discussion Paper Prepared for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Industry Canada.
Locke, W. and Lynch, S. 2002. The State of Innovation – An Inter-Provincial Comparison. A Discussion Paper Prepared for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Industry Canada.
OTHER REPORTS Business Retention and Expansion Leadership and Task Force Team. 2004. Business Retention & Expansion Initiative Strategy,
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Newfoundland & Labrador Division. Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Newfoundland & Labrador. 2013. Enhancing the Technical Development of
Newfoundland & Labradors Manufacturing Networks/Consortiums.
36
Appendix 2: Examples of Federal and Provincial Innovation Programs in NL AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
ACOA Atlantic Innovation Fund Designed to increase research and development (R&D) in Atlantic Canada. Focused on the development and commercialization of technology-based products, processes or service
ACOA Innovative Communities Fund
Purpose is to develop competitive, productive, strategic industry sectors; strengthen community infrastructure in rural communities; and invest in projects that enhance capacity to overcome economic development challenges and take advantage of their strengths, assets and opportunities presented
ACOA Business Development Program
Provides access to capital in the form of interest-free, unsecured, repayable contributions. Not-for-profit organizations that provide support to the business community may also qualify for non-repayable assistance
CBDC
Loan Programs Innovation Loan Social Enterprise Loan Business Counselling
Offers a variety of loan programs for youth, general business and first-time entrepreneurs Finance the costs of purchasing equipment, software, processes, licenses, and other ‘new’ technology as well as infrastructure, installation, training, and maintenance costs associated with implementing and utilizing new technology Advice to new and established entrepreneurs
NRC
Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)
Digital Technology Adoption Pilot Program (DTAPP) Canadian HIV Technology Development (CHTD)
Provides innovation assistance for small and medium sized enterprises. Includes advisory services, funding, and networking and linkages Industrial Technology Advisors (ITAs) work with firms to assist them through the process of implementing new digital solutions Encourage and support SMEs in the development of an HIV vaccine and other technologies related to prevention, treatment, and diagnosis
BDC Provides financing, venture capital and consulting services to entrepreneurs
37
PROVINCIAL PROGRAMS
RDC Business-led Programs
Available for small-and-medium sized business to improve access to researchers, facilities and equipment as well as reduce the technical and financial risk of pre-commercial R&D
Programs include: R&D vouchers, R&D proof of concept, petroleum R&D accelerator, GeoEXPLORE, ArcticTECH; and Industrial R&D fellowships
RDC Academic-led Programs
Focused on strengthening R&D capacity by investing in the development of highly qualified researchers; aligning R&D activities with business needs, competitive advantages and development opportunities; and investing in R&D infrastructure
Programs include: LeverageR&D, IgniteR&D, CollaborativeR&D, GeoEXPLORE, ArcticTECH, Oceans industries student research awards, research inspired student enrichment awards, RDC Mitacs accelerate internships, R&D infrastructure
IBRD
Business Development Programs
Business Investment Fund
Business Sector Development
Assists firms with funding for new technologies, processes, products and services
Three components: business investment [funding includes term loans and/or equity investments]; business development [funding includes non-repayable contributions]; and investment attraction [funding includes term loans, forgivable loans, conditionally-repayable loans, or equity investment]
Focused on eight strategic sectors: aerospace and defence; agrifoods; craft, gifts and apparel; environmental industries; ICT; life sciences/biotechnology; manufacturing; and ocean technology
IBRD
Non-Commercial Programs Regional Development Fund
Non-repayable contributions to support non-commercial organizations in activities related to regional and sectoral development, diversification and innovation Two components: regional development and partnership and capacity building
Source: White et al. 2013; IBRD 2013; ACOA 2012; NRC 2012; 2013; BDC 2013; CBDC 2011, RDC 2011
THE LESLIE HARRIS CENTRE OF REGIONAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT1st Floor Spencer Hall, St. John’s, NL Canada A1C 5S7Tel: 709 864 6170 Fax: 709 864 3734 www.mun.ca/harriscentre
