Albert Einstein is quoted as saying “The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome.” IMHO this is the current state of innovation policy in Canada and particularly Ontario is significantly flawed. We continue to fund public innovation when perhaps facilitating the private sector is often what is more appropriate.

Photo Attribution: “Oil all joints” by Bryan Costin bcostin on Flickr

After doing a bit of research I have found that there is a phenomenon known as the “Swedish Paradox”.

“The first formulation of the Swedish paradox is that there was surprisingly low production of high-tech
products in Sweden in relation to her high R&D expenditures (Edquist and McKelvey, 1998).1 The second formulation of the paradox states that high-tech exports are low given the high R&D investments (Braunerhjelm, 1998). The third formulation of the paradox is more general and states that Sweden is inefficient in transforming its high R&D expenditures into productivity and growth (Andersson et al., 2002) or more generally that economic performance is poor (Klofsten, 2002).” [1]

The athlete analogy from the previous post regarding measuring success via inputs which is what typically happens. Alternately there is a focus on results but not on return for investment. What I mean by that is if you throw lots of money at a problem then there is a good probability that some level of success will be achieved, but at what cost. I have yet to see from any level of government statistics that tie inputs (primarily spending) to outputs (results). Greg Boutin of Growth Times wrote a very exhaustive series of posts on how Ontario is spurring innovation.

The next section of the innovation series will be entitled measuring what matters. I have looked at those dimensions of innovation that were touched on in the first part of the Innovation Series. Those dimensions are; Prosperity, Innovation and Commercialization as all three are dependent on each other. I will reference at least one or two expert sources for each dimension.

Next post in the series: Section 2 – Measuring What matters,

[1] The Swedish Paradox Astrid Kander, CIRCLE, Lund University, Olof Ejermo, CIRCLE, Lund University 2006-02-27

Ian Graham

Filed under: Commercialization, Featured, Innovation, The Code Factory by Ian
2 Comments »

As mentioned in the first post of this series the idea and content has been percolating on the back burner for over two years. This particular post is proof of that. I suspect it was written just after the summer Olympics in 2008 based on the content … when you read on you will see what I mean. Anyway thought it would be fun to leave the post pretty much as is and then provide an updated version next week.

Here is the Summer 2008 post:

Donning flame proof vest and backing away from this blog post. The opinions expressed are mine and intended to spark critical thinking of how Canadians at all levels of government incent innovation. I am a big fan of facilitating existing ecosystems, rather than creating “government programs” to help entrepreneurs.
I am continually disappointed at how often Canada’s success (or lack thereof) in innovation is measured by how much we spend. First of all spend is an input based metric and should never be the sole measure of success; however, it often is because it is EASY to track and measure. So … on to my athlete analogy.

This is particularly timely considering Canada’s recent Summer Olympic results, while sporting an improved performance, in my opinion, the results still fall far short of our potential. The bench mark for us to beat as a nation should be Australia (46 medals 14 Gold) and Canada (18medals 3 Gold). Canada has roughly twice the population of Australia, similar geography and standard of living. We can and should be able to outperform Australia at the Olympics but continually post inferior results and then pat ourselves on the back because we are getting better. Canada’s performance in the innovation arena is almost identical in terms of rating and ranking for athletes at the Olympics versus Canadian innovation in OECD.

In Canada we often measure our innovation success by how much we spend then that equates to a huge success because we are spending lots of money. This is equivalent to measuring an athlete’s success by how much they eat. Unchecked spending equates to Innovation obesity, much like how over feed athletes may become gluttons, spending on large bureaucratic government programs doesn’t necessarily equate to innovation success, quite the contrary. Canada is in the first quartile per capita spending on Innovation (according to Conference Board of Canada) and fourth quartile in terms of results. Government run entrepreneurship programs tend to result in Innovation dollars being vacuumed up by bureaucracies looking to add to their success metrics of increased headcount and budget. (Ask me about the Swedish Paradox)

I believe we can change … back to the Olympic analogy. Canada in preparation for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics has raised the bar significantly. The former goal of athlete’s personal best performance has been replaced by a quest for Gold. This will be the third time Canada hosts the Olympics (Montreal – 1976, Calgary – 1988 and Vancouver 2010) and we have yet to have a Canadian athlete win a gold medal in Canada. Canada is the only country to have hosted the Olympics that has not won a gold medal in their own country, something of a dubious distinction. However, the paradigm shift from personal best to quest for gold will in my opinion make all the difference in the world. Focusing on results will produce results and I expect we will see Canada’s best ever performance at an Olympic games in Vancouver 2010. Looking forward to it.

A similar paradigm shift is necessary in our innovation agenda. The key to innovation success in Canada is to strengthen existing ecosystems and facilitate a results orientation rather than a pro-spend bias on bureaucracies.

Ian Graham

PS, our performance at VAN2010 exceeded expectations.

Filed under: Commercialization, Entrepreneurship, Featured, Innovation by Ian
2 Comments »

Episode 1 – The Introduction

Ian Graham

Filed under: Featured, Ottawa, Start-up, The Code Factory, Video by Ian
1 Comment »

I have yet to find a definition for social innovation that really resonates with me. However, Figure 1 captures the essence of the concept, sums up social innovation and defines all of the social terminology related to in a very concise diagram. This figure helped bring clarity and a frame work to the topic.

A picture is worth a thousand words. ON that note here is Social Innovation.

I consider TheCodeFactory a social venture somewhere in the For-profit space.

Figure 1) SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP: DEFINITIONS ANDBOUNDARIES
ANSER-ARES 2009 – Social Entrepreneurship: Definitions and Boundaries

Ian Graham

Filed under: Featured, Innovation, The Code Factory by Ian
No Comments »

We are extremely pleased to announce that Tony Bailetti will speaking at TeamCamp on October 7th.

When: Thursday Oct 7th, 2010 at 6pm
Where: The Code Factory, 246 Queen St., Ottawa (Ring the buzzer to take the elevator to the 2nd floor)

Please let us know if you plan to come. RSVP via Twegather.

DETAILS:
Traditional development and commercialization models take too long and cost too much. Traditional models expose founders of technology companies to excessive risk and significantly decrease their equity ownership over time. Moreover, academics continue to question the economic benefits delivered by traditional economic development models such as clusters.

This talk provides an overview of a new approach to development and commercialization. This approach is currently by various organisations including Lead To Win. The presentation will draw on current Lead To Win experience to provide a concrete example.

Tony Bailetti is the Director of Ontario’s Talent First Network and the Director of the Technology Innovation Management program at Carleton University. He founded Lead to Win in 2002 and was part of the faculty that delivered the original program. Professor Bailetti holds a tenured faculty appointment in both the Eric Sprott School of Business and the Department of Systems and Computer Engineering at Carleton University. His teaching and research interestsare in commercialization of new technology. He was the Director of Carleton University’sSchool of Business from 1981 to 1988 and worked at Bell-Northern Research (part of Nortel) from 1988 to 1992. Professor Bailetti has published in engineering management journals such as IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Research Policy, and R&D Management. He won a Fulbright scholarship to study in the United States. In 1996 he won a Carleton University Teaching Award and in 2007 a Carleton University Leadership Breakthrough Award.

Chris Schmitt

Filed under: Camp Culture, Featured, Guest Post, Innovation, Open Source, Ottawa, The Code Factory by Ian
1 Comment »