the innovation continuum: moving promising technologies off the shelf genome canada gps policy brief...
TRANSCRIPT
The Innovation Continuum: Moving Promising Technologies off the Shelf
Genome Canada GPS Policy BriefCanadian Science Policy Conference
Calgary, November 5, 2012
Professor Jeremy HallBeedie School of Business
Simon Fraser University
Editor-in-Chief Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management
Professor Jonathan LintonPower Corp Professor for the Management
of Technological Enterprises, Institute for Science, Society and Policy,
University of Ottawa
Editor-in-ChiefTechnovation: the Journal of Technological
Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management
1
2
Context• Increased emphasis on publically funded research for invention,
leading to commercialization for societal benefits– How can new scientific endeavours be commercialized to
provide societal benefits?– How can we get promising technologies from public research off
the shelf?• Science-based innovation is a complex process involving different
individuals throughout cycle, where individuals variously enter and exit (Langford et al, 2006)
• High heterogeneity in knowledge; heuristics to exploit opportunity (Hall and Martin, 2005)
3
Context• Scientific/technical knowledge migrate across institutional
boundaries through (Reamer et al, 2003)– Cooperative research and development– Licensing or sale of intellectual property (IP) and spin-offs– Technical assistance– Information exchanges– Hiring skilled people
• Idiosyncratic, context dependent• Currently available indicators for university research outcomes
‘blurs’ the idiosyncrasies and unique path dependencies (Langford et al, 2006)
4
Context: Genome Canada Research
• Increasingly moving beyond discovery research towards “translation of discoveries” for the global bioeconomy (Halliwell and Smith, 2011) – Not just medical but also industrial applications – including:
manufacturing, chemicals, bioremediation, biomonitoring tools and biofuels (Sheppard et al, 2011)
– More integrated GE3LS research• Consistent with recent discourse on more reflexive , interactive
approach to innovation rather than linear “technology push” (Nightingale, 2004; Guena et al, 2003)
• Costs of greater integration?
5
Key issue: A need to understand heterogeneous, idiosyncratic features of innovation
• Heuristics, incentives differ among key technology developers, users, other stakeholders– Insights from wide range of stakeholders needed, but…– Adds complexity; ambiguity, e.g. difficult to identify salient
stakeholders, their interests, heuristics (Matos and Hall, 2007. • Industrial setting plays key role in whether a public technology
will be sought out and commercialized by firms– Some actively monitor, engage with university researchers
(e.g. pharmaceuticals), most industries more passive• Are technology transfer offices, scientists, early developers
adequately prepared to manage relationships with passive industry players?
6
Theoretical UnderpinningsThe Challenges of New Product Development
Clark and Wheelwright
Number of new ideas
Concept Commercialisation
7
The Challenges of New Product DevelopmentClark and Wheelwright
Number of new ideas
Concept Commercialisation
Ability to influence outcome
8
The Challenges of New Product DevelopmentClark and Wheelwright
Number of new ideas
Concept Commercialisation
Ability to influence outcome
Actual management activity
9
‘Contemporary’ Development Funnel Clark and Wheelwright
Technology Assessment &
Forecasting
Market Assessment &
Forecasting
Development goals &
objectives
Aggregate project plan
Project mgmt & execution
Post-project learning &
improvement
Technology Strategy
Product/Market Strategy
10
Technological Uncertainties
Development goals &
objectives
Aggregate project
plan
Project management & execution
Post-project learning &
improvement
Commercial Uncertainties
Organizational Uncertainties
Social Uncertainties
Exogenous technological developments, market trends, global financial conditions, etc. that affect cognitive legitimization processes
Social trends, legal issues, controversies etc. that affect socio-political
legitimization processes
TCOS Framework
Typology of Innovative UncertaintiesHall and Martin, 2005; Matos and Hall, 2007; Hall et al, 2011
1. Technological uncertainty: • Does it work? • Domain of scientists, engineers
2. Commercial uncertainty• Is it commercially viable? • Domain of marketing, business analysts
3. Organisational uncertainty• Will your organisation accept/adopt the technology and
appropriate the benefits? • Domain of the strategists, business development experts
4. Social Uncertainty• Is it acceptable to civil society? • Domain of ??
11
The TCOS Framework (Hall et al, 2011)Paradigmatic issues
Kuhn, 1962 Creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1934, 1942) Changes in selection environments; breaking org.
routines & heuristics (Nelson & Winter, 1982) Competency-enhancing vs. destroying innovation
(Abernathy & Clark, 85; Henderson & Clark, 1990) Impact on innovation value-added chain (Afuah, 1998)
↓Impact/Influence
TCOS UncertaintiesHall & Martin, 2005 Technological Commercial Organizational Social
Risk CharacteristicsKnight, 1921;
Simon, 1959
Variables & interactions can be identified, probabilities estimated
More variables (complexity), some not easily identified
(ambiguity)Type of Legitimacy
Aldrich and Fiol, 1994 Cognitive Socio-political
HeuristicsPopper, 1945, 1959 Conjecture – refutation Piece-meal social
engineering12
Organizational and Social Uncertainty
• Organizational uncertainty: can organization appropriate the benefits of the technology (e.g. Teece & Teece et al):– Org. capabilities, complementary assets, legal/institutional
settings for IP protection (appropriability regime) determines who profits from the innovation
• Social uncertainty: how diverse secondary stakeholders may affect, or be affected by technology development– Differ from TCO uncertainties: more interacting variables
(more stakeholders beyond value chain, some which may be difficult to identify - complexity and ambiguity)
– Require different heuristics
13
14
TAIGA Forest Health: Forest Pathogen Detection and Monitoring
• Early detection/prevention best strategy for managing forest health, using new genomics-enhanced pathogen detection & monitoring tools for rusts, cankers leaf spots, root diseases
• Reg. agencies rely on visual inspection for known pathogens; proposed technology faster, more accurate
• Nurseries another potential market• Potential market size unknown; certification regulations in flux• While good for industry and society (socio-political legitimacy),
may be resisted by individual stakeholders– Some firms may be proactive; others reactive
15
• Forest biomass can replace petroleum through lignin-based polymers for aromatics, resins, carbon fibers, biofuels – Renewable; can reduce env. impacts– May affect forestry, chemicals, energy industries
• More efficient lignocellulose degradation via genomic/metagenomic approaches such as manipulating naturally occurring metabolic diversity of forest soil communities
• But… “You can make anything from lignin except money”– Regulatory pressures, increased concerns over non-renewable
feedstocks provide socio-political legitimacy • Promising products include lignin-based vanillin and resins
Biocatalyst Lignin Transformation Technology
16
TCOS Uncertainty Analysis Pathogen Detection RHA1 Vanillin LPF Resin
Tech
nolo
gica
l
Leve
rs Potential to enhance
certainty in risk assessments Demonstrated proof of principle
Demonstrated proof of principle
Hur
dles
Cannot detect if pathogen is dead or alive False positives and negatives Screening for key genera and race may be needed
Production scalability Particle size, distr’n, solubility, viscosity of solutions
Production scalability Strict certification (extreme temperatures & moisture; National and international building codes)
Com
mer
cial
Leve
rs
Trade most significant application; may expedite confinement time at borders Voluntary phytosanitary certification programs may benefit private sector
Petroleum free; potential eco–products Abundant, renewable and stable supply
Eco products increasing market niche Renewable; not dependent on fluctuating oil prices Reduces input costs
Hur
dles
Phytosanitary Certificates (inter-provincial Nurseries problem) End use differs - not defined Industry price sensitive Int. trade complexities Perceived only as a reg. tool
Compliance with market needs R&D to develop new applications Skepticism regarding making profit from lignin
Thin margins Need for reliable supply High transport costs Skepticism regarding profit from lignin Fluctuations in construction industry
17
TCOS Uncertainty Analysis Pathogen Detection RHA1 Vanillin LPF Resin
Org
aniz
ation
al
Leve
rs
Adds value in risk assessment procedures; help protect Canada against pathogens Complementary collaborative relationships
Patentable Out-licensing opportunity ‘Low hanging fruit’; establish cognitive legitimacy
Patentable, opportunity to out-license Specialty resin suppliers possess compl. assets, capabilities
Hur
dles
Lack of guidelines, Training issues May provide too much info (e.g. may identify problems that do not have solutions)
Access to compl. assets Need to secure patents Tech-transfer offices not equipped to deal with low margin industries
Capabilities & compl. assets weak Tech-transfer offices not equipped to deal with low margin industries
Soci
al
Leve
rs
Protects forests Could impact agriculture Climate change may be key driver
Env. attributes provide socio-political legitimacy
Renewable; no formaldehyde concerns Favorable for LEED cert. Env. attributes provide legitimacy
Hur
dles
Short term trade implications NGOs, local communities, First Nations unclear Stakeholder ambiguity issues Need clear post detection actions
Need to ensure env. sound practices through-out life cycle stages Need regulatory approval
Need to ensure env. sound practices throughout life cycle stages Need regulatory approval
18
ImplicationsEarly Scanning • Key for innovative success: early scanning of industry features
and market dynamics, firm capabilities and appropriability issues, and potential social/env. impacts. • Gatekeepers’ link between research team & environment: • Technological gatekeepers • Market gatekeepers • Stakeholder gatekeeper
The Role of Technology Transfer Offices: • Passive versus active role, depending on industry• Must move beyond medical (active) if translational model is to
engage the bio-economy • Training for heterogeneous skills?
19
ImplicationsOpportunity Identification• Early interaction reduces risks, plus identifies opportunities • Enroll unanticipated users for future applications, identify
opportunities otherwise beyond scope of initial project• The role of the ‘gate-opener’
• Temporary project structure/ short term funding, versus long term potential applications needed for translational model
Learning Levers for Legitimization: • New technologies compete against well established
incumbents with scale economies (cognitive legitimacy)• Effect of learning (Linton and Walsh, 2004)• Social/env. attributes as lever - different value proposition
based on social legitimacy, which can provide developers with time to improve technological and commercial attributes.
20
ImplicationsThe Cost of Translation• While benefits are promising, there are also costs: – Increased transaction costs (finding industry partners,
potential customers, consultations with more stakeholders)– IPM legal & admin costs– Increasingly demanding accountability/research ethics
• Individually all provide utility, but also time-consuming, requires skills, heuristics peripheral to lead researchers
• Schumpeterian vs. Kirznerian entrepreneurship - researchers creating new knowledge expected to take on larger share of the risks, admin under translational research, but currently not clear if rewards go to them or others
• Are we expecting too much from our scientists?
21
AcknowledgementsTCOS Lab Contributors• Senior Researchers (and co-authors of this brief): Drs. Stelvia Matos; Vern
Bachor & Robin Downey• Adjuncts: Dr. Mike Martin (retired); Dr. Bruno Silvestre (UofW)• Students: Deb Farias; John Prpic• Research Projects
• Genome Canada and Genome BC Studies• Genomics-based forest health diagnostic and monitoring (PI:
Richard Hamelin, UBC)• Harnessing microbial diversity for sustainable use of forest
biomass resources (PIs: Lindsay Eltis and Bill Mohn, UBC)• SSHRC & others: Brazil studies on innovation & entrepreneurship in
poor communitiesWe would also like to acknowledge our colleagues Professors Edna Einsiedel and Cooper Langford, and special thanks to Karine Morin for organizing this session