Transcript Energy Companies, Sustainable Development

GPS GE3LS Series: Optimizing the Impact of
Genomics Research
Ottawa
Sept. 27, 2011
Professor Jeremy Hall
Editor-in-Chief, J. of Engineering & Technology Management
Editorial Boards: J. of Business Venturing; Technovation
Beedie School of Business
Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive, Burnaby, B.C.
Canada V5A 1S6
[email protected]
778-782-5891
Acknowledgements:
Genome Canada/BC; SSHRC
1
My Current Genome Canada Projects (20112014)



Genomics-Based Forest Health Diagnostic and Monitoring
– PI: Prof. Richard Hamelin (UBC Forestry)
Harnessing microbial diversity for sustainable use of forest
biomass resources
– PI: Profs. Lindsay Eltis and Bill Mohn (UBC Microbiology)
My current GE3LS Team
 Dr. Stelvia Matos
 Dr. Vern Bachor
My Perspective: Managerial and Social Implications
of Innovation & Entrepreneurial Dynamics










Langford, Hall, Josty, Matos & Jacobson (2006). Indicators and Outcomes of
Canadian University Research: Proxies becoming Goals? Research Policy
Hall, Matos, Silvestre & Martin (2011) Managing Tech., Commercial, Org. &
Social Uncertainties of Industrial Evolution, Tech. Forecasting & Social Change
Hall & Martin (2005). Disruptive Technologies, Stakeholders and the
Innovation Value Chain: R&D Management
Hall, Daneke & Lenox (2010) S.D. & Entrepreneurship, J of Business Venturing
Sustainable Supply Chain Innovation (e.g. IJPR, IJPDLM, JCP, JOM, etc)
Hall, Matos & Langford (2008) Social Exclusion & Transgenics J. of Bus. Ethics
Hall, Matos, Sheehan & Silvestre (FC?). Entre. & Inn. in Emerging Economies:
A Recipe for Inclusive Growth or Social Exclusion? J of Mgmt Studies
Hall & Vredenburg (2005) Managing Stakeholder Ambiguity Sloan Mgmt Rev.
Hall & Vredenburg (2003). Challenges of S.D. Innovation, Sloan Mgmt Review
Chrisman, McMullan & Hall (2005). The Influence of Guided Preparation on the
Long-Term Performance of New Ventures, J of Business Venturing
The Challenges of New Product Development
Wheelwright & Clark 1993
Number of
new ideas
Concept
Commercialisation
The Challenges of New Product Development
Clark and Wheelwright, 1993
Ability to influence
outcome
Number of
new ideas
Concept
Commercialisation
The Challenges of New Product Development
Clark and Wheelwright, 1993
Ability to influence
outcome
Actual management
activity
Number of
new ideas
Concept
Commercialisation
Traditional Approach to Technology /
Product Development Planning
Tech. Assessment
and Forecasting
Not typically integrated
Market
Assessment &
Forecasting
Project
Management and
Execution
‘Contemporary’ Development Funnel
Clark and Wheelwright, 1993
Technology Strategy
Technology
Assessment &
Forecasting
Development
goals &
objectives
Aggregate
project plan
Project
management
& execution
Market
Assessment &
Forecasting
Product/Market Strategy
Post-project
learning &
improvement

More recent thinking also considers the role of:
–
–
Organizational issues; appropriability (e.g. Teece)
Social Issues (E3LS; stakeholder theory; mindfulness?
VALORISATION, etc.)
Exogenous technological developments, market
trends, global financial conditions, etc.
Technological Issues
Commercial Issues
Organizational Issues
Development
goals &
objectives
Aggregate
project plan
Project
management
& execution
Social Issues
Social trends, legal issues, etc.
Post-project
learning &
improvement
Valorisation - recognizing economic and social values:
Parallels with the entrepreneurship discourse


Baumol (1990) and the ‘Entrepreneurship Paradox’:
–
Productive entrepreneurship: net social benefits (e.g. innovation)
–
Unproductive entrepreneurship: rent seeking (e.g. lobbying)
–
Destructive entrepreneurship: net social loss (e.g. crime)
Alert entrepreneurs (Kirzner; 1973) - those able to see/act on
previously unnoticed opportunities/ exploit existing information, vs.
Schumpeterian entrepreneurs dependent on knowledge creation
–
Alert entrepreneurs can be productive, unproductive or
destructive (Hall et al, F/C)
–
Are we channelling incentives in the right direction?
Innovation is Complex
 Optimize or satisfice (Simon, 1969)?
 Is it feasible to optimize the impact of genomics research, especially
when considering valorization?
Innovation is Risky
 True risk vs. uncertainty vs. ambiguity (Knight, 1921)
 Stakeholders are heterogeneous:
– Perceive risk differently (e.g. investment opportunity vs.
avoidance of harm)
– ‘Stakeholder Ambiguity’ (Matos & Hall, 2007)
Innovation is Idiosyncratic
 Stakeholders are heterogeneous, sometimes ambiguous
 Varies with time, context, but often measured homogeneously,
reinforcing linear model (Langford et al, 2007)
Implications

Need to developing appropriate heuristics for valorisation:
– Technological, commercial and organization uncertainties
differ but often based on similar heuristics (e.g. scientific
methodologies)
– Social uncertainties often differ significantly

Is harmony the best way – or competition?

Issues from the ‘Ivory Tower Trenches’
– Increased funding has come along with pressure for tangible
results, increased transaction costs, administrative hurdles (e.g.
auditing) and research ethics requirements
– Are the best researchers able to handle these new pressures –
are we turning our best researchers into mediocre bureaucrats?
– Are the incentive structures aligned with these new pressures?