Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
Innovation Canada: A Call to Action 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
Program EffectivenessFigure 5.6 Performance Indicators for Comparison of Categoriesof Like Forms of R&D SupportCategory of Support Program Outcomes Possible Indicator(s)A Firm R&D andcommercializationB R&D partnershipsIncreased businessinvestment in innovation,including R&DIncreased ability to performand manage R&DImproved firm performanceIncreased adoption ofknowledge and technologyby firmsStrengthened networks andlinkages• Increased firmexpenditures on R&D• Increased firmexpenditures onintangibles (e.g.,intellectual property)• Increased number of R&Dmanagers• Increased profits from costsavings resulting fromproductivity improvements• Increased profits fromsales/revenues of newproducts and services• Percentage of projectsresulting in technologytransfer• Number of new firmsentering R&Dactivity/number of repeatfirms• Increase in SME clientsserved by post-secondaryeducation service providers• Increase in co-publications• Increase in the intensity ofcollaboration (value ofprivate sector R&Dexpenditures on contractswith the public sector)5-17
- Page 37 and 38: The Context of the Reviewspreads wi
- Page 39 and 40: The Context of the ReviewBox 2.2 De
- Page 41 and 42: The Context of the ReviewIn absolut
- Page 43 and 44: The Context of the ReviewInnovation
- Page 45 and 46: The Context of the Reviewdevelopmen
- Page 47 and 48: The Context of the ReviewBox 2.4 Wh
- Page 49 and 50: The Context of the ReviewProsperity
- Page 51 and 52: The Context of the ReviewFigure 2.6
- Page 53: The Context of the Review%115110105
- Page 56 and 57: Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
- Page 58 and 59: Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
- Page 60 and 61: Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
- Page 62 and 63: Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
- Page 64 and 65: Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
- Page 66 and 67: Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
- Page 69 and 70: Vision and PrinciplesChapterVision
- Page 71 and 72: Vision and Principlesout in Chapter
- Page 73 and 74: Program EffectivenessChapterProgram
- Page 75 and 76: Program Effectivenessand processes.
- Page 77 and 78: Program Effectivenessfull spectrum
- Page 79 and 80: Program EffectivenessFigure 5.2 Rea
- Page 81 and 82: Program EffectivenessFigure 5.4 Sat
- Page 83 and 84: Program EffectivenessBox 5.1 Operat
- Page 85 and 86: Program Effectivenessassessment of
- Page 87: Program EffectivenessFigure 5.5 Dir
- Page 91 and 92: Program Mix and DesignChapterProgra
- Page 93 and 94: Program Mix and DesignBox 6.1 Direc
- Page 95 and 96: Program Mix and Designthe needs of
- Page 97 and 98: Program Mix and DesignFigure 6.3 Ta
- Page 99 and 100: Program Mix and DesignBox 6.3 Stack
- Page 101 and 102: Program Mix and Designcapital costs
- Page 103 and 104: Program Mix and Designportion of th
- Page 105 and 106: Filling the GapsChapterFilling the
- Page 107 and 108: Filling the GapsBox 7.1 Use of Proc
- Page 109 and 110: Filling the GapsBox 7.2 Canadian In
- Page 111 and 112: Filling the Gapscompetitive levels,
- Page 113 and 114: Filling the GapsBox 7.4 Institutes
- Page 115 and 116: Filling the GapsThe budgetary impli
- Page 117 and 118: Filling the GapsSuch concerns are i
- Page 119 and 120: Filling the GapsAngel InvestmentAt
- Page 121 and 122: Filling the GapsWith the foregoing
- Page 123 and 124: Filling the GapsBearing this in min
- Page 125 and 126: Leadership for InnovationChapterLea
- Page 127 and 128: Leadership for InnovationThe approp
- Page 129 and 130: Leadership for Innovationinnovation
- Page 131 and 132: ConclusionChapterConclusion9We are
- Page 133 and 134: Programs in the ReviewAnnexPrograms
- Page 135: Programs in the ReviewDepartment or
Program EffectivenessFigure 5.6 Performance Indica<strong>to</strong>rs for Comparison of Categoriesof Like Forms of R&D SupportCategory of Support Program Outcomes Possible Indica<strong>to</strong>r(s)A Firm R&D andcommercializationB R&D partnershipsIncreased businessinvestment in innovation,including R&DIncreased ability <strong>to</strong> performand manage R&DImproved firm performanceIncreased adoption ofknowledge and technologyby firmsStrengthened networks andlinkages• Increased firmexpenditures on R&D• Increased firmexpenditures onintangibles (e.g.,intellectual property)• Increased number of R&Dmanagers• Increased profits from costsavings resulting fromproductivity improvements• Increased profits fromsales/revenues of newproducts and services• Percentage of projectsresulting in technologytransfer• Number of new firmsentering R&Dactivity/number of repeatfirms• Increase in SME clientsserved by post-secondaryeducation service providers• Increase in co-publications• Increase in the intensity ofcollaboration (value ofprivate sec<strong>to</strong>r R&Dexpenditures on contractswith the public sec<strong>to</strong>r)5-17