The Perceived Role, Effectiveness, and Visibility of WD

Members of the innovation support system, proponents of systemic projects, and innovation company representatives were asked to provide their observations regarding the role of WD, its effectiveness in promoting innovation, and the profile of the Department. The major findings are highlighted below.

The feedback obtained from the members of the innovation support system, proponents of systemic projects, and innovation companies is highlighted below. A more detailed summary of the responses to survey questions is provided in Appendix VII.

1. WD is Perceived as a Facilitator and a Catalyst

The role of WD with respect to innovation is most commonly characterized by the respondents as that of a facilitator and catalyst for innovation, which promotes the development of leading edge clusters through providing leadership, sharing risk, making strategic investments, assisting in the development of infrastructure, building partnerships, and linking Ottawa and Western Canada.

Table 3.7
What Do You Perceive to be the Role of WD
with Respect to Innovation?

 

As representatives of other organizations active in innovation related activities, the members of the innovation support system noted that the activities of WD complement those of their organization by:

• Filling in gaps, particularly with respect to funding (25 respondents);
  
• Enabling their organization to develop, expand and accelerate projects and initiatives (19 respondents);
  
• Supporting the development of partnerships and networks and increasing access to other sources of funding (17 respondents);
  
• Creating greater awareness of the importance of innovation and working to strengthen the innovation support systems in Western Canada (9 respondents);
  
• Strengthening the infrastructure for innovation (8 respondents);
  
• Delivering programs and other support services (5 respondents); and
  
• Assisting in the commercialization of new technologies (4 respondents).
  

Of the 70 innovation members surveyed, 89% indicated that there was no duplication or overlap in the services of their organization and those of WD. Areas where some duplication was identified by the remaining respondents included the potential for overlap between Community Futures and provincially funded regional development organizations, some overlap in the area of international trade, and some duplication in employment-related programs targeted at recent graduates. However, none of the respondents indicated that any overlap, which may exist, detracts from the impact of WD in promoting innovation.

1. WD is Effective in Promoting Innovation

The average rating of WD’s effectiveness in promoting innovation ranged from 3.7 amongst members of the innovation support system to 4.2 amongst the proponents of systemic projects (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all effective and 5 is very effective). Of those respondents who expressed an opinion, 84% of the innovation representatives and 98% of the proponents rated WD as at least somewhat effective in supporting innovation. In particular, WD was praised for helping to strengthen the infrastructure and to create a positive environment that has established the foundation for future innovation.

Table 3.8
How Effective has WD Been in Supporting Innovation?

 

When asked to identify specific areas and ways in which WD has been successful, the most common responses were that WD has:

• Helped to fill gaps and to facilitate the development of important partnerships and projects that have helped to promote innovation and diversification;
  
• The support provided by WD has facilitated the development of important partnerships and projects that have helped to promote innovation and diversification;
  
• WD has worked to address key funding gaps; and
  
• WD has made strategic investments in new and developing sectors.
  

Table 3.9
In What Ways Has WD Been Successful in Promoting Innovation

 

The members of the innovation support system and proponents of systemic projects were also asked whether there are areas where WD had been less effective than they would have expected. The results reflect some of the uncertainty and confusion caused by changes in WD’s innovation-related mandate and strategies over time. The results also indicate that certain areas identified as strengths, such as its flexibility, breadth of involvement, and speed in decision-making, can also be perceived as weaknesses or areas of concern. The most common responses provided by the members of the innovation system included:

• WD has struggled in clearly defining its mandate with respect to innovation and/or in balancing mixed mandates (11 respondents). Several respondents noted that establishing clearer objectives and target outcomes would be useful in defining the role of the organization and providing a basis for evaluating progress. In addition, the preparation of additional cluster studies and technology roadmaps would also be beneficial in defining overall directions, the role of WD, and its relationship to other organizations;
  
• There appears to be a lack of an overall direction, focus or strategy with respect to WD’s innovation efforts (10 respondents). Several respondents noted WD may be diluting its impact by supporting too wide a range of projects. While some respondents criticized WD for being too reactive, others viewed this as a strength because it means that the organization is market-driven in responding to requests from potential proponents;
  
• Awareness of its programs and activities is low (9 respondents);
  
• More interaction and collaboration with other members of the innovation system would be beneficial (8 respondents); and
  
• WD has not been successful in increasing the funding it has available for innovation activities (5 respondents).

Nevertheless, despite these concerns, 59 of the 70 members of the innovation support system indicated that there would be a significant negative impact if WD were to no longer place a high priority on innovation. Six respondents felt that other organizations could fill at least part of the gaps left by WD while 5 were not sure what the impact would be.

When asked to identify areas where WD had been less effective or successful, the proponents of systemic projects tended to focus more directly on the availability of funding and reporting requirements as indicated by the responses summarized below:

• Resource constraints, particularly funding, have limited the magnitude of the impacts generated by WD (8 respondents);
  
• Because of its funding constraints, WD has not been able to make longer-term funding commitments (7 respondents);
  
• Awareness of WD’s programs and activities is low and more work needs to be done to raise its public profile (7 respondents); and
  
• The organization is too bureaucratic and accountability requirements are too stringent (6 respondents).
  

1. WD’s Effectiveness is Attributable to Certain Key, Unique Characteristics

A key issue in reviewing their role in the innovation system is identifying whether there are certain characteristics associated with the Department that may enable WD to be effective or to provide assistance where other organizations may not be able to. Of the 70 innovation representatives, 50 (71%) indicated that WD does have characteristics which make it uniquely able to fill certain gaps in the innovation system (10 did not perceive WD as having unique characteristics and 10 were not sure). Similarly, of the 65 proponents of systemic projects, 51 (79%) indicated that WD does have characteristics which make it uniquely able to fill certain gaps in the innovation system (3 did not perceive WD as having unique characteristics and 11 were not sure).

Table 3.10
What Characteristics Enable WD To Be Effective Or Provide Assistance Where Others May Not Be Able To

 

The most significant ways in which WD is perceived as differentiated from other organizations are the flexibility of its programs, its ability to respond quickly, the capabilities of its staff, and its familiarity with the local economy, clusters, and players as indicated in Table 3.10.

In particular, the flexibility of its programming is considered critical in that it enables WD to tailor its activities to reflect the specific needs of each province and key clusters as well as to provide a continuum of services. The availability of funding is considered crucial in bringing parties together and leveraging resources from other sources. Another advantage that WD has in establishing partnerships is that it is generally perceived as a neutral party which does not have its own agenda apart from promoting innovation.

While WD may provide funding on a project-by-project basis, one of its strengths is that the organization tends to focus on building relationships and establishing development objectives which extend beyond any one project. The experience that it has gained in economic development, vetting projects, working with various parties, and promoting specific clusters also enables the Department to add value to this process. It was also noted that WD often gets involved early in the process and helps to bring attention to specific initiatives or clusters and, in some cases, to provide a foundation on which to attract future funding. A notable example that was cited was WD’s early involvement in nanotechnology in Alberta, which eventually helped lead to the establishment of the Nanotechnology Institute there.

The factors that were identified as constraining WD from having had an even more significant impact in terms of promoting innovation included:

• Funding constraints, particularly for multi-year programs and initiatives (identified by 32 representatives of the innovation support system and 18 proponents);
  
• Systemic issues related to government bureaucracy and/or political considerations (identified by 7 innovation representatives and 7 proponents);
  
• A constantly changing mandate and focus (identified by 7 innovation representatives and 5 proponents);
  
• Human resource constraints, such as competing demands for staff time or the availability of technical expertise (identified by 6 innovation representatives and 5 proponents); and
  
• Not enough communication and interaction with other organizations related to the development or selection of projects (identified by 6 innovation representatives). However, most respondents identified the effectiveness of WD in obtaining input from a wide variety of organizations as one of its strengths.
  

1. The Stakeholders Provided a Wide Range of Recommendations for WD

When innovation representatives and systemic proponents were given an opportunity to provide recommendations regarding how WD could enhance their innovation-related activities, the most common responses were to:

• Develop and pursue specific innovation strategies in association with other members of the innovation system;
  
• Become more pro active in the delivery of its programs;
  
• Increase its overall level of funding and secure a multi year commitment for that funding; and
  
• Increase awareness of its programs, initiatives and successes.
  

Table 3.11
How Could WD Enhance Their
Innovation Related Activities?

 

 

Most of the members of the innovation support system (57 of the 70 representatives surveyed) also expressed interest in strengthening the relationship between their organization and WD. It was noted that strengthening the relationship between the two organizations would help to:

• Enable both organizations to be more productive and proactive in promoting innovation in the cluster and/or region (31 respondents);
  
• Develop and implement initiatives and strategies in a more timely and/or cost effective manner (21 respondents); and
  
• Improve the level of coordination, particularly with respect to long-term planning and the selection of projects (15 respondents).

To strengthen the relationship between WD and their organization, the innovation representatives recommended improving the level of communication and interaction between senior representatives in each organization, placing a higher priority on shared planning and collaboration, and more clearly defining the roles and priorities of WD with respect to innovation and communicating those priorities to other groups.

In contrast to the recommendations of innovation representatives and systemic proponents, which focussed on broader strategic issues, the recommendations of the innovation companies tended to be more narrowly focussed. More specifically, the company representatives recommended that WD continue to provide, and possibly increase, the amount of funding provided, place a greater emphasis on start-up/early-stage companies, broaden the eligibility requirements for graduates under FJST, focus more specifically on the cluster or sector in which the company is involved, provide greater technical assistance in the form of business support and counselling, and promote stronger linkages between educational institutions and private sector.

1. There are Additional Gaps In the Innovation System That Could Be Filled By WD

While the activities of WD have helped to strengthen the innovation system in Western Canada, most stakeholders identified other gaps in the innovation system that could be targeted by the Department. These gaps closely reflect the weaknesses in the innovation system in Western Canada, which were discussed in Chapter II. In particular, members of the innovation support system and proponents of systemic projects highlighted the limited availability of investment capital (particularly early-stage seed funding), the under-developed linkages that exist between the key players in the innovation system, and the limited amount of assistance available for technology demonstration and commercialization activities.

Table 3.12
What Additional Gaps Related To Innovation
Could Be Filled By WD?

The representatives of innovation companies also identified a range of specific activities for which further support is needed including marketing and product development (identified by 20 of the 150 respondents), R&D (10 respondents), technology transfer and commercialization (10 respondents), and technical assistance and/or business support services (7 respondents). Other comments received from the innovation companies included that WD should place a greater emphasis on start up/early stage companies (10 respondents) or more specifically on their sector or cluster (10 respondents).

1. Outside of Key Stakeholders, WD has a Low Profile

When the stakeholders were asked to rate the how well recognized WD is for the role that they play with respect to encouraging innovation in Western Canada, the average ratings ranged from only 2.6 to 3.1 across the three survey groups (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all well and 5 is very well recognized). Many of the representatives noted that WD is well recognized by their organization and other organizations that are potential targets for funding but often not at all recognized by the general public and to only a limited degree by the business community. The conference sponsorships, in particular, were identified as a useful mechanism through which WD had been able to interact more directly with members of industry clusters and foster relationships with other organizations.

Table 3.13
How Well Recognized Is WD For Its Role In Encouraging Innovation?

Many respondents questioned the need to significantly increase the visibility of WD given that the Department already has strong relationships with the other key players in the provincial innovation systems and, with the exception of FJST and ITPP, its innovation activities are not targeted at individual businesses and it has no innovation programs targeted at the general public. The key, according to these respondents, is to ensure that WD continues to build on these strong relationships and is also recognized within the Federal Government for the critical role that it plays with respect to innovation in Western Canada.

Assuming that increasing the profile of WD becomes a priority for the Department, the action that was most commonly recommended by the innovation representatives and systemic proponents was to become more proactive and aggressive in promoting media coverage of projects and overall activities. Other suggestions were to expand programming, require clients to implement a formal communication strategy, increase the level of interaction with the local business community, develop and communicate formal strategies and plans, and advertise the highly visible projects and other success stories. It was also suggested that WD could become more strategic in terms of its communication messages; for example, instead of focusing on announcements on a project-by-project basis, the messages could highlight the role of various projects and initiatives in promoting cluster development.

Of the three groups, the innovation companies were the least aware of WD’s innovation activities. Their most common recommendation for increasing the visibility of WD was for staff to get out into the business community more often through mechanisms such as attending events, networking with key industry associations, and direct interaction with companies.