Andrew Ault and Jib Turner suggest more lenient IP regulations at universities could greatly enhance commercialization efforts for the forest sector.
Introduction
Building resilience of Ontario’s forest sector is not only key to the strength and sustainability of the northern economy; but also to solving some of life’s most challenging questions of sustainability. Indeed, forest products can be a solution to many larger issues of sustainability, and more broadly, global development. Among other things, some scholars we can increase bio-diversity, reverse deforestation, protect wildlife, prevent soil erosion and pull carbon from the atmosphere to reduce greenhouse gases from further development of the industry. Further, as trees are a renewable resource, given they are replanted when harvested, forestry can provide an answer for a truly sustainable economy, especially if done in accordance to Indigenous values and forging meaningful partnerships between academia, industry and indigenous communities. In order to do so, however, there are some obstacles which must be overcome.
Finite fossil fuels are almost equally used in energy creation as they are in durable and consumable plastics, (Astrup, 2009) given that fossil fuels are a key ingredient in plastic. In the recent decade, governments, including Canada, have been active in promoting alternative sources of energy. However, has only been recently have they have focussed further on the role that forestry can play in such as well as reducing reliance on plastic. Prime Minister Trudeau’s announcement of the ban of single-use plastics by 2021, (Trudeau, 2019) Premier Doug Ford’s interest in banning other single-use plastics, like straws, (Working Forest, 2019) and Finance Minister Victor Fedeli’s commitment to an Ontario Forestry Strategy (Working Forest, 2019) are just three announcements that exemplify the recent interest in government to promote an economy based on bio-resources, otherwise known as a bio-economy.
Today, we have or are actively developing technologies that are truly transformational. Many new innovations look at bio-energy solutions, where tree material is playing a critical role in generating renewable energy. Others are seeking ways in which wood could be used as a substitute for concrete and steel in high-rise buildings. An innovative bunch are looking at wood to be a key components to industrial designs, being durable products used for consumption like technology, furniture and automotive materials. Several are involved in bio-plastics, who focus their time on developing wood-based alternatives to plastics. And others are seeking ways of which wood operations can be optimized economically and environmentally, by increasing harvest volumes, benefitting soil erosion and offsetting concerns of invasive species. Conceivably, the next century would see ample innovations using wood, otherwise known as bio-innovations. Given the vast northern wilderness and variety of species within northern Ontario, building a bio-economy hub in northern Ontario would be a prime opportunity for it to diversify its economy and capture the renewed energy in forest innovations.
This past May, renowned northern Ontario economist and advocate for forestry, Dr. David Robinson (PhD (UBC)) suggests “northern Ontario needs to build a wood pipeline [that] will not be made of Sault Ste. Marie steel [but of] brains and technology.” (Robinson, 2019) While he mainly focusses his article on the need for architects, conceivably from Laurentian’s new architecture school which he helped found in Sudbury, he nonetheless speaks to the importance of diversifying northern Ontario’s forest industry to more knowledge-based realms. As he notes, the growing population in Southern Ontario will point to a strong economic link if we can build high-rise buildings out of northern Ontario wood. But beyond Robinson’s analysis of buildings, one could only imagine the economic benefits of being apart of a knowledge-based bio-innovation economy in northern Ontario.
Indeed, many cities are starting to see the signs. While Sudbury is clearly eyeing to build on its strengths with its school of architecture, nearby Sault Ste. Marie also sees these opportunities, with recent collaborations between Sault College, Algoma University and federal and provincial forestry research centres which are based in that City. Similarly, in Thunder Bay, Confederation College, Lakehead University and industrial partners, like Resolute and Ontario Power Generation, are also exploring a mantra of ways in which they can enter this economy. (Sault College, 2019) Indeed, with a strong forest industry, committed schools, and renowned forest research institutes, northern Ontario would be and is a prime location for a bio-economy hub.
Building this bio-economy hub in northern Ontario is precisely one of the Centre for Research and Innovation in the Bio-economy’s (CRIBE) most strategic mandates. This Centre, based in Thunder Bay, was established in 2009 by the Ontario Government to be an independent, not-for-profit corporation that focusses on driving a bio-economy that is competitive and sustainable within Ontario, including for new products, materials and energy sources. From its founding under Michael Willick to present, CRIBE continues to see the benefits of its investments within the northern forestry industry. Projects like White River Forest Products and Hornepayne Lumber, both at one time led by former Tembec CEO and former CRIBE Board Chair, Frank Dottori, have revitalized economies for communities who totally lost their staple employers. While many of CRIBE’s projects are focussed on optimization, many are also in the area of diversification; including for new products like black-died Styrofoam for automotive seat cushions, or energy in the case of Atikokan. That said, however, even with their current resounding success, there is still much work to be done at developing a bio-economy hub in northern Ontario.
While a principal concern is understanding why Ontario is harvesting significantly less wood than, say, Finland; other concerns about the bio-economy hub concern the challenges at developing the early footings. In theory, northern Ontario has what any successful hub needs as “building rocks”. It has world-class scholars forestry scholars; from architects who use wood at Sudbury’s new McEwan School of Architecture to long-standing faculty members at Lakehead University’s Faculty of Natural Resources Management – one of only four undergraduate forestry schools in Canada. There are also hundreds of forestry researchers, including two large multi-storey research centres and one of two head offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in Sault Ste. Marie. Most of all, there is also considerable forest industry within the region – from sawmills to constructors.
However, while some scholars are exploring new uses for wood fibre, there is strikingly little private sector investment and activity from industry in areas beyond the traditional forest sectors. Compared to Europe, there are few start-ups exploring novel uses of wood fibre, there is comparatively little private sector investment in bio-energy, with no private architectural firms exploring using wood for high-rise buildings and nor companies taking leadership roles in bio-plastics. While many European countries are seeing an explosion of private sector investment in the bio-economy, Ontario is clearly far behind.
Answering the question as to why this is would be multi-faceted and complex, it is fundamental to first explore the gap between the research and development happening at our government-funded universities and colleges and the dismal forest innovation market. While some are actively conducting applied bio-economy research, such as new technologies to produce textiles from wood product, there are relatively few in applied realms as most focus on basic research. Hence, many questions arise as to why these innovations are not close to the market. Why are few researchers commercializing their ideas in northern Ontario? Is Ontario well equipped to commercialize applied research, or are there gaps that should be addressed? How can Ontario better support a bio-innovation eco-system between universities, government and the private sector?
This commentry seeks to help answer some of those questions in exploring such gap, with the goal of clarifying reasons on why it exists and suggesting ways it could be shrunk. In particular, it seeks to accomplish the following objectives:
(a) Identify key processes and infrastructure required to commercialize bio-economic research
(b) Analyze emerging trends within commercialization and specifically within the bio-economy, to identify ways in which Ontario could strengthen its bio-economic commercialization agenda.
Accordingly, the principal normative research questions guiding this project’s work is:
RQ1: What are the ways in which applied research is successfully commercialized, and how can these processes relate to the bio-economy?
RQ2: In what ways could applied bio-economic research with commercial potential be further fostered and adopted to market, and how can Lakehead University support such?
To answer these questions, this project has three deliverables, respectively; which are as follows:
Ø Literature Review on Commercialization Processes with Implications for the Bio-economy
Ø Strategic Roadmap to Build Capacity and Grow Ontario’s Bio-economic Commercial Success with a focus on involving Lakehead University
Data
For literature on commercialization and its barriers in both, general and bio-economic contexts, this capstone project uses the Google Scholar database. This database is very comprehensive as it includes journal results that are both, subscribed by and not subscribed by the University library; and hence contains the highest number of possible research. As a limitation, however, this database also includes non-published works, such as some working papers posted on websites such as Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN) and ResearchGate; as well as graduate student theses which are not peer-reviewed. To account for these limitations, the articles selected under this research were only those of which were in a peer-reviewed journal.
Given the lack of journal articles on bio-economic commercialization, this study used the Factiva database to scan for key themes within the area. Factiva is a database of DowJones and contains up-to-date, relevant news from a very wide range of sources. These sources include national newspapers, such as the National Post; and also trade publications such as the Canadian Biomass Magazine. Given a lack of local newspapers, where some research specific to northern Ontario may be found, news data was supplemented with use of Canadian Newsstand by ProQuest. This database was accessed from the Carleton University library, as the subscription purchased from Lakehead University was a very basic subscription and did not include anywhere near the number of papers included in the subscription by Carleton. These media outlets that are included entail those such as Northern Ontario Business, CBC Thunder Bay, CBC Sudbury, the Working Forest, and the Chronicle Journal among others. Access to these papers was important given the range of scholars who contribute to them on issues involving the bio economy, specifically within northern Ontario.
While the academic literature and newspapers provided a solid foundation of commercialization processes and challenges in general and bio-economic contexts, there still remained a number of gaps still present. First, there was a lack of understanding on the commercialization prospects of research happening at Lakehead University’s forestry school. To fill this gap, this research conducted a rudimentary analysis of research being studied by such scholars. Second, while there was some academic literature on the impact of intellectual property rights on commercialization and university impacts; this was unknown at Lakehead University, which is home to Ontario’s only undergraduate programme in forestry. Accordingly, the webpage for its IP policy was queried from a Google search and synthesized accordingly.
As there was also a lack of scholarly literature in the area of commercializing within smaller, northern centres like Thunder Bay; a consultant report evaluating the barriers and opportunities for a health science cluster in Thunder Bay was studied. This report had a goal of providing the most opportunities to commercialize health science research from the Northern Ontario School of Medicine. (NOSM, 2019) This study was extraordinarily useful, as it identified and examined other research clusters on a range of criteria and identified trends which Thunder Bay could capitalize on in the health field. While having been studied in the health field, the fruit of its work can start to be seen in small doses. Just recently, there are a number of bio-science companies which have emerged from students and professors at the School; most notably DNA Labs, founded by 2 PhD students; (DNA Labs) and Reznik Labs, (Reznik Labs) which is in late stages of now commercializing its decades of research in advanced detection devices.
Moreover, as the literature and media discerned that dedicated research infrastructure and graduate program choice had an impact on commercial realization; and that Price George was also focussed on developing a knowledge-based forest sector. Accordingly, this project examined the University of Northern British Columbia’s website for the Master of Engineering in Applied Wood Design, (UNBC, 2019) proliferation of the Wood Innovation and Design Centre and faculty within the school as a case study for commercialization to identify these trends.
A final gap in knowledge, specifically of how degree programs and research infrastructure impacted innovations in the forestry bio-economy; which this project responded to by using data from LinkedIn profiles of Founders to bio-economic companies in Europe. It used the snowball method to gather these profiles, totalling a sample size of 100; by clicking profiles of related profiles after identification of three innovators. Altogether, the range of primary and secondary sources consulted here within provided an exceptional base of knowledge to provide insight into the research questions of the study.
Commercialization Processes, Challenges and Trends
Commercialization refers to the process by which products or technologies are introduced into the market and converted into usable commercial manufacturing. (Therin, 2007) Commercialization is not limited to specific physical goods, and the subject of commercialization may also be a certain method or technology. It differs from business development in its definition and operational processes. Business development entails tasks and process to develop and implement growth opportunities within and between organizations. The former concept often refers to the process that how to transfer the certain product, method or technology into end market and end user, but latter concept tends to state the certain activity conducted by organizations so as to expand the business scale. There is a plethora commercialization models throughout scholarship (see, for instance, Dmitriev et. al, 2014; Cho, 2013; Snow, 2011; Wong, 2007).
Examining the extant literature, the general phases can be discerned as: research/ innovation, patent protection and IP capturing, prototype finalizing, market planning and testing, and manufacturing and deployment. This process of commercialization could be defined as a funnel, which is necessary to look at many ideas to get one or two products or businesses that can be sustained long-term. (Rafinejad 2007) For each phase, they are generally considered existing independently or in parallel, and each phase needs to accomplish a certain level of tasks or specific goals.
Many scholars point to the broad notion that, before commercialization, it is necessary for model users to consider the technical level, target market and customers, as well as their own business team in advance. (see, for instance Gbadegeshin, 2017, Gbadegeshin, 2017b, Blair-Loy, 2001) This set of activities can be called the ‘research’ phase as such is the common thread. While understanding technology is critical, it must be evaluated to have a business purpose, which would largely see an answer to questions concerning “does this product/service solve a particular problem for specific segments?” (Matrix, 2018) Equally as important, it is generally agreed that the target market be defined and refined as this directly relates to the strength of the business idea and valuations of potential profit, key for investors. (see for instance, Al Natsheh et al., 2015 Stenard, 2016; Cantu, 2018). Third, a management team should be assembled at this point, even if only interim, as it has been well-researched such team would significantly impact success (see for instance, Gbadegeshin, 2017b, Wright, 2018; Bjornali, 2016).
While not common amoung all scholars, a subset of those quite prominent, given numbers of citations, also point to having a quasi-developed idea of manufacturing. (see for instance Szycher, 2016; Block, 2016; Paul, 2015). This is to enable the firm to achieve economies of scope and increase the variety of their products while simultaneously reducing costs through economies of scale. These economies 'exist where multiple products can be more cheaply produced in combination than separately' (Jelinek and Goldhar,1983: 29). Therefore, we can say the consideration is necessary and meaningful. Consideration of manufacturing activities, hence, should nonetheless be a step within this process where warranted by the individual projects.
The second phase of commercialization that can be gleaned from the extant literature, is that of Intellectual Property capturing. (see for instance Ryan, 2018; Fraser, 2016; Hoffmann, 2016) This phase is important, as failure to adequately capture would entail less value in the project, or alternatives to the original plan, such as licensing. That said, there can be many projects which do not involve intellectual property, such as new business models that may accelerate production. In these cases, one should look to find ways of increasing barriers to entry from other market participants, and perhaps consider strategic lock-in. (Kabir, 2019).
After this stage, there is the market planning stages that embody three activities which may occur concurrently; namely, these are prototyping, market planning and testing. While many models have these positioned linearly (see for instance, Fearis, 2017; Aithal, 2016; Cho, 2018), the reality is these activities could indeed be occurring at the same time, according to Dave Johnson. In this stage, one would need to refine the technology to be profitable and ensure the technology works. It would then need to prove its market viability by planning its target market activities and testing it amoung those contacts to ensure its success. It is very common that there is considerable feedback throughout these stages, which inform process improvements throughout. Supply chian management planning would also be crucial to many projects success, and hence should be considered before mass marketed to inform market strategy (Heirati and O’Cass, 2016) Once these meet an acceptable level amoung partners, however, entering the first phase of manufacturing and deployment would follow. This should be done with an understanding that it may not be perfect, but is still as solid as it could be without experiences from the market. This should ensure reasonable success with the technology.
Addressing Barriers to Commercialization
While these outline the technology processes in general, it is imperative that the wide range of barriers along these generic steps be considered. Barriers to commercialization constitutes a sizable and significant research agenda (see for instance Jamil, 2015; Kirchberger and Pohl, 2016; Al Natesh and Gbadegeshin, 2015; Kocehnkova, 2016; Meiher, 2019; Lipkova); with some in the area of forestry (see for instance Quesada-Pineda, Smith and Berger, 2018; Ferdando, Hansen and Kozak, 2018). Within this literature, a number of key themes emerge. First, access to capital is overwhelmingly the most prominent barrier. However, many other scholars believe a far greater issue is interest in commercialization, and researching areas that are applied in scope. In particular, the lack of capacity suggests a lack of entrepreneurial engagement and commercial orientation towards scientists, due to differences in motivations, professional role identity and support services. It is highly believed that, for entrepreneurial behaviour to develop, there must be significantly more promotion of applied research with commercial applications.
In the bio-economy, interviews with CRIBE’s Project Coordinator as well as a comprehensive news search revealed some significant undercurrents with regards to such barriers. The challenges to this research that stemmed out of the analysis were (a) capital, as projects are usually very capital intensive, (b) access to wood supply, as Ontario’s tenure model does not favour smaller corporations and (c) technical ecosystems. In this context, ecosystems refer to those with expertise to implement the technology; such as tradespeople familiar with wood must be had to implement any architectural design from wood. In consultation with CRIBE, it was also made clear there is concern over retaining Intellectual Property rights. Cumulatively, this points to the lack of a forestry strategy in Canada and permissive, but not enabling policy environments surrounding fostering applied commercial research. Second, this is also exemplary of a lower proportion of research being held within applied realms – verified by content analysis of Lakehead’s researchers yielding less than 10% of all researchers (a total of 2) having any applied research. This point to a lack of institutional capacity to partner with industry. Lastly, it has been made very clear from community leaders that there exists a gap between applied researchers and partnerships that can foster its long term development. Addressing each of these is important.
While community forestry can address wood supply (Robinson, 2016) and innovative IP models, such as one similar to UWaterloo’s model may work, (Colapinto, 2007; Haillem, 2017; Oboh, 2017; Cimoli, 2014) the largest obstacle by far is capital, and attraction of industrial partners to invest such capital. It is well-researched that such is made more available in jurisdictions with a less centralized banking system than Canada’s, however given such, government could still serve a role in financing these projects pending strong analysis. Furthermore, forming formalized partnerships is often touted as a strong way to overcome the above barriers. Competitors can help each other through Private-Public Partnerships and Industry Consortia – where each player offers an opportunity, from funding, research, application development, and education. Introducing a Connect and Develop model of innovation can speed up the process where one takes applied research and gives it an industrial or commercial use. To create a sustainable partnership within the bio-economy and encourage growth, there must be increased collaboration between CRIBE, industry, academia, government and SFL licences (wood supply holders). This kind of collaboration would overcome these barriers to accelerate innovation, spread risk, stabilize funding and promote forest sustainability to the market.
An interesting case that addressed these barriers is the University of Waterloo, now a model study for many other universities. In research, it was discerned that IP policy could be altered where the university receives significantly less of a cut than it otherwise would, for IP developed at the University. In addition, Waterloo also made a conscious effort to locate themselves near industry developing a ‘science park’. These parks have received significant praise from academia (see for instance, Rasmussen, 2006, Breznitz, 2008; Seigel, 2003; Markman, 2008) whilst IP policies have also received some attention. Science parks, which connect industry to academia, are now the standard for institutions looking to increase commercialization efforts.
Opportunities to Strengthen Ontario’s Capacity
To strengthen Ontario’s bio-economic capacity, one should take note of the trends in the broader environment. In this general area, there are some significant efforts that can be observed in the Canadian bio-economy that are building off the general ways to mitigate commercialization barriers. In Sault Ste. Mare, there was recently a formalized agreement signed between two government research institutions and its university and college (Sault College, 2019). With this agreement in place, those involved will be more apt to report on metrics , and have partners ready to accelerate the regional bio-economy in place which will accelerate the pace of innovation. There are also early talks about developing programming in the forestry area at Algoma University, for which is also seeking provincial approval to offer a Masters of Business Administration degree housed in its one-year-old School of Business and Economics (SooToday, 2019).
A similar focus on applied degrees can also be seen in British Columbia, at the University of Northern British Columbia. Here, the University is offering a one-year Masters of Integrated Wood Design, which is to significantly improve the applied research capacity. Research emerging from LinkedIn profiles of bio-technology makes it clear that graduate students are a significant driver of applied research development, as faculty compete for more publications or citations in order to advance their research careers. According to the LinkedIn research undertaken by this paper, over 71% of founders to European companies in the bio-economy have a degree in applied science or engineering, with 23% of those being in applied wood/forestry science. It is notable that 15% have some education in business and a mere 6% are undertaken by those with a generic forestry degree. Those companies, contextually, are of products and processes used to optimize forest operations, such as a GIS company and a company with products against invasive species. This infers that applied degrees are significant drivers of commercialization and that foci should be extended beyond forestry management, and into domains of entrepreneurship, architecture and chemical engineering.
Given this, the applied nature of UNBCs program will create graduates who are researchers that are focussed on commercially viable ideas, and in this case, buildings. This program is supported by a small science park, housed in the Wood Innovation and Design Building. (UNBC, 2019b). This building houses some floors for forest industry, others for government and others for classrooms and labs of the university. This exposes students to professionals in industry on a regular basis and develops high levels of synergies.
The range of exceptional efforts in Prince George is similar to the Northern Ontario Medical School in developing a knowledge-based health sciences economy for both, Sudbury and Thunder Bay. In 2005, consultants issued a report to NOSM, which was made public on its website (NOSM, 2018). In it were several recommendations for commercialization which are as follows:
· Regionally focussed venture seed fund
· Direct investment into academic labs by private companies
· Network of technology transfer officers
· Research park, with hospital and medical schools located near each other
· Liberal intellectual policy policies
The success of this program can be seen with the coming to life of some private investment in the area: Reznik Labs, creating advanced imaging devices stemming from a university researcher; Zebe Labs, attaining world class awards for its research in human papilloma virus; DNALabs stemming from two former PhD students; and RegenMed located at the ICR Discoveries building. Based on these trends, several can be made within the context of bio-economic regards to commercial realization.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Forge Collaboration Networks across Northern Ontario.
It should be recommended that CRIBE not solely focus on Thunder Bay as the City to host a bio-based knowledge economy; yet see the whole of northern Ontario. Being stronger than the sum of its parts, four northern Cities could have unique features it could add to the hub, namely Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay and Sudbury. Home to a strong knowledge-based forest economy today, Sault Ste. Marie is home to one of two head offices to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, including the Business Development branch and Forest Economics branch. These two realms are important for legislative changes. There are a significant number of forest ecologists, forest scientists and forestry researchers housed at Ontario’s two most prominent research centres – the Great Lakes Forestry Research Centre of the Federal government, and the Ontario Forest Research Institute. Together, these centres employ over 400 people. In addition, Sault College and Algoma University have recently entered into a formal agreement with the aforementioned Institutions which can be a model partnership for other cities. Sault Ste. Marie can easily be a city of choice to commercialize research also, because of the applied nature of research at Algoma University, expected only to grow with its student numbers; especially in the ecology and conservation realms. It is also the headquarters of some forest business consultants, including Soanbert Corp., which has worked with CRIBE in White River and Hornepayne projects.
North Bay is important, not only because of the small cluster of forestry researchers housed at Nipissing University, but because of its relatively strong knowledge intensity in other areas of its economy, proximity to Toronto and Ottawa, and most importantly, ability to attract private sector investment. Dr. David Robinson makes clear North Bay compared to other northern cities, has historically been the only northern city primarily driven by private sector investment. Home to a wide range of information technology companies serving the globe, 21 advanced manufacturing firms and three research and development labs. This could easily be a solid complement to the hub network, with a focus on testing and attracting investment.
Sudbury would be critical to developing an economy in wood-based buildings. With the McEwan School of Architecture, and highly acclaimed expertise in forest economics, Sudbury could advance itself to providing ideas and research in wood design. This would be similar to activities undergoing in Price George and complement such research in an architectural way (as opposed to an engineering way).
Thunder Bay of course is also strong because of the presence of the forest industry in the region, interest in developing bio-mass energy facilities and presence of Lakehead University and Confederation College. Nonetheless, the position of a bio-economy hub could be far greater if encompassing other northern cities, similar to the proliferation of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine.
The reality is that, across all areas, and especially in the case of Thunder Bay, there must be formalized agreements. These agreements allow growth targets, reporting and encourage those to develop further in their respective areas toward the common goal. Other players, such as FP innovations, should also be included in these areas. Research centres held at academic institutions and endowed to corporations can also be a driver of this kind of work.
2) Creation of an Applied Bio-Economic Research Strategy including a regional program directed at forest product innovation with specific liberal IP provisions for program participants.
The analysis of faculty research at Lakehead made it quite clear there is little activity in the realm of applied research targeting the bio-economy. Looking at ways to increase this entail a strategy that will advance a researcher’s decisions towards commercial research. This would see a strategy that, ideally, would involve all four northern Ontario universities and five northern Ontario colleges to move from a permissive to a more enabling environment. This strategy should involve partnerships with government agencies, like the NOHFC and FedNor as well as SSHRC and NSERC in developing a northern-Ontario specific program that will fund bio-economic research with a commercial purpose. This is necessary given funding decisions at Canadian banks are not generally in benefit of entrepreneurs, and that it would make sense for government to do given the need to diversity the bio economy as made clear by CD Howe Institute. (CD Howe Institute, 2019)
To encourage this, Lakehead, along with other northern Ontario universities and colleges should collectively agree on an IP policy for innovations that apply to the bio-economy. It should make this policy modelled after that of University of Waterloo, whose revenue grew after doing so in terms of research dollars, reputation and student enrolment. Adjusting IP policy for those in the bio-economy exclusively would encourage researchers to change the scope of their research towards the applied realm and towards the bio-economy where possible and may incentivize scholars to focus their research efforts in this domain.
Two other important facets would be to co-locate industry with institutions dedicated to commercialization; and actively seek endowment of labs and rooms on campus. Having an on-campus presence of industry is largely researched and having offices of research to forest companies and start-ups will pave a strong road forward. Confederation College is noted to have the on-campus facilities of the Innovation Centre as Lakehead has Ingenuity. These programs are key starts, though the challenge would be to find research-oriented businesses developing a presence in those spaces; or leasing other spaces in a ‘research park’ like setting. On the Lakehead campus, the Balmoral Street building may be one that can be explored for this purpose. Further, having endowed labs enlightens students to the mantra of commercial projects that can be furthered. Surely, most forestry researchers are exposed to companies within the realm of forest operations and conservation, but rarely forestry innovation. Exposing them to these kinds of industries would be important for their research agendas.
3) Develop a suite of applied degree programs directed at the bio-economy with collaborative industry-academic collaborations.
While exposing researchers to industry is extraordinarily important, so too is exposing graduate students. Research from this project’s analyses of LinkedIn profiles shows a strong number of founders having a bachelor or master degree, but not necessarily a doctoral degree (96%). While the 4% founded with a doctoral may or may not be more disruptive in nature, it should not be overlooked that much of innovation occurs from graduate students. These students generally study programs of an applied nature, and further, this makes sense as such programs teach them within that direction. This points to the importance of developing applied programs (as opposed to academic, fundamental programs) in wood science and industrial design.
No programs at Lakehead, nor Nipissing (where a forestry option is available for biology students) focusses on applied research and development using forest products. Ontario’s sole industrial design school, Carleton University, also lacks an emphasis on wood products. An applied forestry program can truly accelerate applied research to this end. As a model, this report recommends a structure similar to the Master of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Queen’s. This program is joint between Faculties of Business and Engineering; (Queen’s University, 2019) where students take classes while starting a business. A similar program joint between Faculties of Business, Forestry and Engineering can be seen to be developed at Lakehead or another northern University. Offering this program at the masters level ensures students from other northern universities can participate in the program, which could leverage expertise across institutions to ensure there are enough researchers in the applied realm. A joint program, the PhD in Education, is offered at Lakehead to include also Brock and Windsor, for the same reason. (Lakehead, 2019b) This program can be offered in a blended format with video-conference technologies at all universities and resident faculty who mentor and develop students companies along with those from incubators, like Ingenuity.
CONCLUSION
Clearly, collaboration, partnership and innovation are critical for the success of Ontario’s forestry sector and for shrinking the gap between applied research and commercialization. Commercialization is a multi-faceted process that entails several phases from ideation to market; namely within research, IP capturing, prototyping, market planning, testing, and manufacturing to deploy in the marketplace. Embedded within these steps to commercialization are significant barriers that must be addressed specific to the bio-economy; namely the need for capital, access to wood supply and policies for the innovator to want to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour. Currently, Ontario has many successful components in place for a bio-economy hub to develop and prosper; including world class educational institutions, industrial partners and government programs.
To strengthen this capacity, this report recommends greater collaboration across northern Ontario cities and institutions, including government; and not just limited to Thunder Bay. It recommends leveraging strengths of each city to develop a multi-faceted hub, where there are special IP policies, dedicated regional funds and on-campus presence of industry throughout. Formalized agreements, like the one recently signed in Sault Ste. Marie, are important to this end. Above all else, it is also noted that Lakehead and other northern Ontario universities should also address the relatively low applied research activity present within its institutions by encouraging research of this type by students. It should consider a joint applied forestry program to overcome this.
There are several, significant limitations to the work presented within this research project. As this report was for a specific company and is of an applied nature, the methods and analyses here should not serve as a basis for any academic research. First, while articles were constrained to the parameters searched for here within, it may have missed some important articles in its search. Likewise, the news was limited to publications subscribed by Factiva and some rarer trade publications may have been overlooked as would some articles in the selection process. That stated, it is further limiting that such literature news was not analyzed systematically with any codebook; though doing so would have served little value in this specific context.
There are also limitations within the strategic analysis this study contains and recommendations it makes. This analysis was not based on any systematic analysis and the case study did not have clear economic analysis. Understanding the caution that some of these trends do not have a proven or disproven correlation for their impact on commercial success should be considered; and for major steps, having positivist statements regarding those should be a necessary step before enacting such ideas. Despite these limitations, this project nonetheless presents a somewhat comprehensive model of bio-economic commercialization which should have strong practical value.
REFERENCES
7 start-up financing sources for your business. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://www.bdc.ca/en/articles-tools/start-buy-business/start-business/pages/start-up-financing-sources.aspx
Aithal, P. S., & Aithal, S. (2016). A New Model for Commercialization of Nanotechnology Products and Services. International Journal of Computational Research and Development, 1(1), 84-93.
Al Natsheh, A., Gbadegeshin, S. A., Rimpiläinen, A., Imamovic-Tokalic, I., & Zambrano, A. (2015). Identifying the challenges in commercializing high technology: A case study of quantum key distribution technology. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(1).
Astrup, T., Fruergaard, T., & Christensen, T. H. (2009). Recycling of plastic: accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste management & research, 27(8), 763-772.
Bjornali, E. S., Knockaert, M., & Erikson, T. (2016). The impact of top management team characteristics and board service involvement on team effectiveness in high-tech start-ups. Long Range Planning, 49(4), 447-463.
Blair-Loy, Mary. "It's not just what you know, it's who you know: Technical knowledge, rainmaking, and gender among finance executives." The transformation of work. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2001. 51-83.
Block, J. H., Henkel, J., Schweisfurth, T. G., & Stiegler, A. (2016). Commercializing user innovations by vertical diversification: The user–manufacturer innovator. Research Policy, 45(1), 244-259.
Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research policy, 37(8), 1175-1187.
Breznitz, S. M., O'Shea, R. P., & Allen, T. J. (2008). University commercialization strategies in the development of regional bioclusters. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(2), 129-142.
Cantù, C., Giorgia, S., & Tzannis, A. (2018). Exploring the role of business relationships in start-ups’ life cycles: Evidences from the Italian context. IMP Journal, 12(3), 519-543.
Carvalho, L. M. C. (2017). Entrepreneurship in small-scale farms: From production to commercialization. In Entrepreneurship: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1081-1093). IGI Global.
CD Howe Institue. (2019). Forest Industry Fights Back Against Barriers to Growth https://www.cdhowe.org/media-release/forest-industry-fights-back-against-barriers-growth-cd-howe-institute
Cho, J., & Lee, J. (2013). Development of a new technology product evaluation model for assessing commercialization opportunities using Delphi method and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(13), 5314-5330.
Cho, S. N., Jeong, Y. S., & Oh, C. S. (2018). A Study on the Improvement of the Supporting Policy Efficiendy through the Analysis of the Demand for Direct Commercialization of Technology in Universities and Research Institutes. Journal of Convergence for Information Technology, 8(5), 229-236.
Cimoli, M., Dosi, G., Maskus, K. E., Okediji, R. L., Reichman, J. H., & Stiglitz, J. E. (Eds.). (2014). Intellectual property rights: legal and economic challenges for development. Oxford University Press.
Colapinto, C. (2007). A way to foster innovation: a venture capital district from Silicon Valley and route 128 to Waterloo Region. International Review of Economics, 54(3), 319-343. Chicago
CTV News. Greenpeace says burning trees for energy a bad idea. https://www.ctvnews.ca/greenpeace-says-burning-trees-for-energy-a-bad-idea-1.719946
Dmitriev, V., Simmons, G., Truong, Y., Palmer, M., & Schneckenberg, D. (2014). An exploration of business model development in the commercialization of technology innovations. R&D Management, 44(3), 306-321.
Fearis, K., & Petrie, A. (2017). Best practices in early phase medical device development: engineering, prototyping, and the beginnings of a quality management system. Surgery, 161(3), 571-575.
Fernando, S., Hansen, E., Kozak, R., & Sinha, A. (2018). Organizational cultural compatibility of engineered wood products manufacturers and building specifiers in the Pacific Northwest. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 14(5), 398-410.
Fraser, H. G., & Dodd, J. (2016, September). Protecting and Commercializing Advanced Petroleum Technology: The Role of Intelligent Energy Law in 2016. In SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Gbadegeshin, S. A. (2018). Lean Commercialization: A New Framework for Commercializing High Technologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(9).
Goldhar, J. D., & Jelinek, M. (1983). Plan for economies of scope. Harvard Business Review, 61(6), 141-148.
Goldsmith, H. R. (1995). A Model for Technology Commercialization. Mid-Continent Regional Technology Transfer Centre Affilliate's Conference. NASA Johnson Space Centre, Houston.
Goldsmith, H. R. (1995). A Model for Technology Commercialization. Mid-Continent Regional Technology Transfer Centre Affilliate's Conference. NASA Johnson Space Centre, Houston.
Goldsmith, H. R. (2003). "Commercialization – the process of turning innovations into enterprises." American Venture Magazine.
Gregor, G. (2008, September 30).Commercialization models. Retrieved from http://www.rumourcontrol.com.au/
Guzzo, M. (2014, September 22). Six Barriers to Speedy Product Development. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140922182416-377758-six-barriers-to-speedy-product-development
Halilem, N., Amara, N., Olmos-Peñuela, J., & Mohiuddin, M. (2017). “To Own, or not to Own?” A multilevel analysis of intellectual property right policies' on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 46(8), 1479-1489.
Heirati, N., & O’Cass, A. (2016). Supporting new product commercialization through managerial social ties and market knowledge development in an emerging economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(2), 411-433.
Hoffmann, M., Kliman, S., & Gertler, J. J. P. (2018). Effective Strategy and Partnering Approaches for University-Generated IP.
Investopedia. (2017, October 17). The Top Technical Analysis Courses. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/trading/top-technical-analysis-courses/
Jamil, F., Ismail, K., & Mahmood, N. (2015). A review of commercialization tools: University incubators and technology parks. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(1S), 223-228.
Kabir, M. N. (2019). Opportunity Development and Commercialization. In Knowledge-Based Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 281-310). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Kennedy, J. (n.d.). Jeffrey Kennedy's Trade Set Ups Using Technical Analysis. Retrieved June 05, 2019, from https://www.elliottwave.com/Assets/signup/4-Keys-to-Crafting-Rock-Solid-Trades?tcn=goo4keys&rcn=goo4keystech3&sc_camp=83A9D4F4CAF04868AD620A50B27B477D&gclid=CjwKCAjw27jnBRBuEiwAdjQXDKwk3qaQIGh-pDYcFQfjMnJoHScx1QJpKjjfX-sBEqrN-ADY4CKCEhoCvCwQAvD_BwE
Kirchberger, M. A., & Pohl, L. (2016). Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1077-1112.
Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2016). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 407-429.
Lakehead University. (2019b) Joint PhD in Educational Studies. https://www.lakeheadu.ca/academics/departments/education/graduate/graduate-programs/phd-in-education
Lakehead University. Intellectual Property Policy. https://www.lakeheadu.ca/faculty-and-staff/policies/research/intellectual-property
Leaders in Sustainable Forest Management. (n.d.). Retrieved June 06, 2019, from https://frmginc.com/
Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401-1423.
Matrix, Sidneyeve. Vimeo | Sidneyeve Matrix. https://vimeo.com/sidneyeve
McCoy, A. P., Thabet, W., & Badinelli, R. (2008). Towards establishing a domain specific commercialization model for innovation in residential construction. Construction Innovation, 8(2), 137-155.
Meijer, L. L. J., Huijben, J. C. C. M., Van Boxstael, A., & Romme, A. G. L. (2019). Barriers and drivers for technology commercialization by SMEs in the Dutch sustainable energy sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112, 114-126.
Muoki, P., & Kebaara, K. (2019). Building commercial partnerships for orange‐fleshed sweetpotato processing: Evidence and lessons for programming.
Natural Resources Canada. (2019, May 30). Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/home
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Communications Division. (2018, November 28). NSERC – Idea to Innovation Grants. Retrieved June 06, 2019, from http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/RPP-PP/I2I-INNOV_eng.asp
Northern Ontario Business. https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/regional-news/sault-ste-marie/partnership-to-sow-seeds-of-forestry-research-commercialization-1425902
NOSM (2018). Benchmark Profiles. https://www.nosm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Appendix-3-Benchmark-Profiles-Report.pdf
O’Kane, C., Zhang, J. A., Daellenbach, U., & Davenport, S. (2019). Building Entrepreneurial Behaviours in Academic Scientists: Past Perspective and New Initiatives. In Entrepreneurial Behaviour (pp. 145-166). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
O’Kane, C., Zhang, J. A., Daellenbach, U., & Davenport, S. (2019). Building Entrepreneurial Behaviours in Academic Scientists: Past Perspective and New Initiatives. In Entrepreneurial Behaviour (pp. 145-166). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Oboh, R. A., & Okwilagwe, O. A. (2017). Intellectual property policy as factor influencing creation of intellectual property in universities in south west, Nigeria. Information Impact: Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 8(3), 39-50.
Oteri Consulting Group. (n.d.). Global Market Research Service Supplier. Retrieved June 06, 2019, from https://otericonsultinggroup.com/?gclid=CjwKCAjw27jnBRBuEiwAdjQXDHJF7qxjyBpAhHJUK4gAn6dF_59A3FfPzIHZbXNddlT_gbyck6T12xoCOgMQAvD_BwE
Paul, M. J., Thangaraj, H., & Ma, J. K. C. (2015). Commercialization of new biotechnology: a systematic review of 16 commercial case studies in a novel manufacturing sector. Plant biotechnology journal, 13(8), 1209-1220.
Project Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved June 06, 2019, from https://cribe.ca/projects/
Queen’s University. (2019.) Master of Entrepeneurship and Innovation https://smith.queensu.ca/grad_studies/mei/index.php
Quesada-Pineda, H., Smith, R., & Berger, G. (2018). Drivers and barriers of cross-laminated timber (clt) production and commercialization: a case of study of western europe's Industry. Bioproducts Business.
Rafinejad, D. (2007). Innovation, product development and commercialization: Case studies and key practices for market leadership. J. Ross Publishing.
Rasmussen, Einar, Øystein Moen, and Magnus Gulbrandsen. "Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge." Technovation 26.4 (2006): 518-533.
Robinson, D. (2016). The Economic Theory of Community Forestry. Routledge.
Robinson, D. (2019). Opinion: Northern Ontario needs a wood pipeline. Northern Ontario Business. https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/columns/opinion-northern-ontario-needs-a-wood-pipeline-1475585
Ryan, K. (2018, November). COMMERCIALIZING UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY. In Orthopaedic Proceedings(Vol. 100, No. SUPP_14, pp. 19-19). The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.
Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic management journal, 16(S1), 135-159.
Sault College (2019.) Algoma University, Sault College, Ontario Forest Research Institute And Natural Resources Canada’s Great Lakes Forestry Centre Sign Memorandum Of Understanding For Forest Science Research And Education. https://www.saultcollege.ca/AboutUs/News/2019/(2019-05-02)%20Memorandum%20of%20Understanding%20Signing%20for%20Forest%20Science%20Research%20and%20Education.asp
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: a review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small business economics, 20(2), 177-184.
Snow, C. C., Fjeldstad, Ø. D., Lettl, C., & Miles, R. E. (2011). Organizing continuous product development and commercialization: the collaborative community of firms model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 3-16.
Social Media & Digital Marketing. (n.d.). Retrieved June 05, 2019, from https://shout-media.ca/social-media-digital-marketing/?gclid=CjwKCAjw27jnBRBuEiwAdjQXDNnDr3AqssB6-KYVxrBQrKiaMcmdFWCaoZxUB8gAgWy0PW7ZO1eZUBoCmD0QAvD_BwE
SooToday.com Ross Romano’s Bill aims to expand Algoma University programming. https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/romanos-bill-aims-to-expand-algoma-university-programming-1355958
Staunton, P. (2011, April 6). Which Comes First - The Patent Or The Prototype? - Intellectual Property - UK. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from http://www.mondaq.com/uk/x/127234/Patent/Which Comes First The Patent Or The Prototype
Stenard, B. S., Thursby, M. C., & Fuller, A. (2016). Commercialization strategies: Cooperation versus competition. In Technological Innovation: Generating Economic Results (pp. 289-308). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Szycher, M. (2016). Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. CRC Press.
Tantiyaswasdikul, K. (2013). Intellectual property rights policy and university technology transfer output in Canadian universities. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 2(2), 467.
The Working Forest (2010). Premier Ford Discusses Forest Strategy. https://www.workingforest.com/premier-ford-discusses-provinces-forestry-strategy/
Thérin, F. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of Research on Techno-entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Trudeau, Justin (2019). Canada to ban harmful single-use plastics and hold companies responsible for plastic waste. https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/06/10/canada-ban-harmful-single-use-plastics-and-hold-companies-responsible-plastic-waste
UNBC. (2019). Master of Engineering in Integrated Wood Design. https://www.unbc.ca/engineering-graduate
UNBC. (2019b). Wood Innovation Design Centre. https://www.unbc.ca/engineering-graduate/wood-innovation-and-design-centre
Wright, M., & Phan, P. (2018). The commercialization of science: From determinants to impact.