Innovation Canada: A Call to Action

Innovation Canada: A Call to Actioninstruments can develop constituencies ofsupport and a degree of autonomy, makingthem less amenable to change or cancellation,even where this would be sensible. In somecases, there may be ways to streamline therange of instruments and programmes, reducecomplexity, enhance transparency and loweradministration costs” (OECD forthcoming, p. 9).Internationally, jurisdictions such as Finland andthe UK, and domestically both Alberta andOntario, have reduced the number of businessinnovation programs offered and haverationalized their program suites into a set ofmutually exclusive programs, thus providingcoverage for areas of government interventionin the innovation system. The UK governmenthas consolidated its business support programs,reducing their number very substantially in thenew Solutions for Business program launched inApril 2011. The Panel believes that thegovernment must seize opportunities forprogram consolidation, and thereforerecommends the following.1.5 Program consolidation — Over time,consolidate business innovation programsfocussed on similar outcome areas into asmaller number of larger, more flexibleprograms open to a broader range ofapplicants and approaches.Through a more streamlined suite of programs,the government could reduce overhead costs,increase impact, enhance client awareness andimprove the usability of business innovationprograms.Comparative Program EvaluationThe Panel was asked to provide advice onwhich federal programs in support of businessinnovation are most effective. However, asnoted earlier, the tools needed to assesscomparative effectiveness have not yet beendeveloped — there is no agreed-upondefinition, framework or methodology forcomparative evaluation, no commonperformance indicators and no commondatabase of the programs. Management of$1.5 billion in direct program spending requiresbetter management tools to be put in place,together with a process to apply these tools ina comprehensive, consistent and ongoing way.A common, outcomes-focussed framework forperformance management and publicevaluation of business and commerciallyrelevant R&D programs would improvecomparability among programs and informdecisions to reallocate funding strategicallywithin the overall portfolio. It would makeCanada a leader in managing for results.Accordingly, the Panel recommends thefollowing.1.6 Program evaluation — Build a federalcapacity to assess the effectiveness of newand existing business innovation programsto enable comparative performanceevaluation and to guide resource allocationgoing forward.To this end, it is possible to conceive of a wholeof-governmentevaluation approach wherebysets of “intermediate outcomes” are applied asperformance measures to categories of likeforms of support, regardless of the departmentor agency providing that support. A schematicexample of this approach is illustrated inFigure 5.6, which could potentially serve as abasis for discussion between the IRIC and thefederal evaluation community, working withthe Treasury Board Secretariat.5-16