Looking beyond universities in a knowledge economy

By Dr Peter Morand

In order to meet the challenges of the new reality emerging from the AUCC's 2002 Action Plan, 84 Canadian universities signed on to create the Alliance for Commercialization of Canadian Technology (ACCT) in 2004. ACCT aims to accelerate development of the infrastructure needed for a strong technology transfer capacity in Canada by supporting the growth of regional networks and providing mechanisms for sharing "best practices". It does so by working with the existing regional networks — Atlantic Research Commercialization Network (ARCN), Bureaux de liaison entreprises-universités (BLEUs) in Quebec, Ontario Society of Excellence in Technology Transfer (OnSETT) and Westlink Innovation Network in the western provinces.

A specific goal of ACCT is the development of performance indicators to measure the impact of research carried out in Canadian universities. It assumed a leadership role in this regard by organizing a metrics workshop last June to review what information is currently being collected, explore the gaps that the participants believe exist and identify viable existing data sources or metrics collection methodologies. In order to start building a consensus on the type of information needed to track the impact of research, representatives from the granting agencies, economic development organizations, Federal Partners in Technology Transfer and Statistics Canada as well as senior academic administrators and researchers, were invited to the workshop.

Last November, ACCT organized its annual conference around the theme: "Benefiting Canada in a Global Economy". ACCT president Angus Livingston reported the outcomes of the June workshop and there were plenary sessions on approaches for measuring the impact of technology transfer. It is not surprising that the emphasis was on technology transfer since this is the business of the people involved with ACCT.

However, if the objective is to develop relevant metrics to measure the impact of the investment in research in terms of socio-economic benefits, there will need to be significant input from a much broader range of stakeholders as well as coordination and selection of existing data and methodologies developed in Canada and elsewhere.

In the US, Edwin Mansfield, who died in 1997, was a pioneer in the use of empirical methods to demonstrate societal benefits of university research. Not surprisingly, Al Gore quoted Mansfield's findings when seeking congressional support to increase the National Science Foundation budget. During the time I was at NSERC, I frequently referred to Mansfield's analyses when making representations to the federal government. But it was difficult to get anyone to listen in those days.

In Canada we have a number of experts who are making insightful and well-documented contributions. These are aimed at defining and measuring performance indicators for the impact of research and training on society and to develop policy guidelines for optimizing the societal impact of the investment in the advancement of knowledge.

Another encouraging sign is that government departments (e.g. Industry Canada and Statistics Canada), research granting organizations and publicly funded research centres, in varying degrees, are all making efforts to develop meaningful performance indicators for strategic planning and policy formulation. An example is the tri-council Networks of Centres of Excellence performance measurement system that allows it to measure its operations at regular intervals.

While president of CMC Microsystems, Brian Barge drew attention to 4th pillar organizations that he described as "innovation-enabler and multiplier organizations that complement the other three pillars (business, government and universities) by bringing together diverse stakeholder groups to focus on important opportunities." He considered CMC, PRECARN, CANARIE and PAPRICAN to be examples of such organizations.

In addition, Margaret Dalziel at the University of Ottawa's School of Management prepared a report on 4th pillar organizations, listing 100 "active and potential" such organizations across Canada. The objective of this report was "to lay the groundwork for a consideration of how the government can leverage 4th pillar organizations as vehicles of increased innovation and productivity, particularly among small- and medium-sized enterprises."

The increasing prominence of 4th pillar organizations both globally and in Canada's innovation strategy makes a compelling argument for the development of performance metrics for these innovation enablers that would be benchmarked against similar organizations in other countries.

Peter Nicholson, now president of the Council of Canadian Academies, has published an excellent analysis of Canada's global position in terms of productivity by benchmarking Canada's performance against other OECD countries. He concludes that Canada is on the right track as a result of improved practices in both the public and private sectors. But he warns that "productivity growth is not an end in itself, but rather the economic means by which the welfare of the entire society can be expanded."

From my perspective, the case for supporting university research and training has already been made, a point that The Impact Group's Jeffrey Crelinsten emphasizes in arguing for "a vision that focuses on how to prepare young people for success in the knowledge economy." Yes, we need to develop performance indicators to make more effective policy and resource allocation decisions. But we must go beyond what happens in universities.

Dr Peter Morand is past president of the Canadian Science & Technology Growth Fund (1996-2006) and the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council of Canada (1990-95). petermorand@rogers.com