1 gps ge 3 ls series: optimizing the impact of genomics research professor jeremy hall...

1

GPS GE3LS Series: Optimizing the Impact of Genomics Research

Professor Jeremy HallEditor-in-Chief, J. of Engineering & Technology Management

Editorial Boards: J. of Business Venturing; Technovation

Beedie School of BusinessSimon Fraser University

8888 University Drive, Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5A 1S6

jkh5@sfu.ca 778-782-5891

Acknowledgements: Genome Canada/BC; SSHRC

Ottawa Sept. 27, 2011

My Current Genome Canada Projects (2011-2014)

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 DevelopmentWheelwright & Clark 1993

Number of new ideas

Concept Commercialisation

The Challenges of New Product DevelopmentClark and Wheelwright, 1993

Number of new ideas

Concept Commercialisation

Ability to influence outcome

The Challenges of New Product DevelopmentClark and Wheelwright, 1993

Number of new ideas

Concept Commercialisation

Ability to influence outcome

Actual management activity

Traditional Approach to Technology / Product Development Planning

Tech. Assessment and Forecasting

Market Assessment &

Forecasting

Project Management and

ExecutionNot typically integrated

‘Contemporary’ Development Funnel Clark and Wheelwright, 1993

Technology Assessment &

Forecasting

Market Assessment &

Forecasting

Development goals &

objectives

Aggregate project plan

Project management & execution

Post-project learning &

improvement

Technology Strategy

Product/Market Strategy

Technological Issues

Development goals &

objectives

Aggregate project plan

Project management & execution

Post-project learning &

improvement

Commercial Issues

Organizational Issues

Social Issues

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.

Social trends, legal issues, etc.

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 ComplexOptimize 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 IdiosyncraticStakeholders are heterogeneous, sometimes ambiguousVaries 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?