1. 1 GPS GE 3 LS Series: Optimizing the Impact of Genomics Research 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 jkh5@sfu.ca 778-782-5891 Acknowledgements: Genome Canada/BC; SSHRC Ottawa Sept. 27, 2011

2. My Current Genome Canada Projects (2011- 2014) v Genomics-Based Forest Health Diagnostic and Monitoring – PI: Prof. Richard Hamelin (UBC Forestry) v Harnessing microbial diversity for sustainable use of forest biomass resources – PI: Profs. Lindsay Eltis and Bill Mohn (UBC Microbiology) v My current GE 3 LS Team v Dr. Stelvia Matos v Dr. Vern Bachor

3. My Perspective: Managerial and Social Implications of Innovation & Entrepreneurial Dynamics v Langford, Hall, Josty, Matos & Jacobson (2006). Indicators and Outcomes of Canadian University Research: Proxies becoming Goals? Research Policy v Hall, Matos, Silvestre & Martin (2011) Managing Tech., Commercial, Org. & Social Uncertainties of Industrial Evolution, Tech. Forecasting & Social Change v Hall & Martin (2005). Disruptive Technologies, Stakeholders and the Innovation Value Chain: R&D Management v Hall, Daneke & Lenox (2010) S.D. & Entrepreneurship, J of Business Venturing v Sustainable Supply Chain Innovation (e.g. IJPR, IJPDLM, JCP, JOM, etc) v Hall, Matos & Langford (2008) Social Exclusion & Transgenics J. of Bus. Ethics v Hall, Matos, Sheehan & Silvestre (FC?). Entre. & Inn. in Emerging Economies: A Recipe for Inclusive Growth or Social Exclusion? J of Mgmt Studies v Hall & Vredenburg (2005) Managing Stakeholder Ambiguity Sloan Mgmt Rev. v Hall & Vredenburg (2003). Challenges of S.D. Innovation, Sloan Mgmt Review v Chrisman, McMullan & Hall (2005). The Influence of Guided Preparation on the Long-Term Performance of New Ventures, J of Business Venturing

4. The Challenges of New Product Development Wheelwright & Clark 1993 Number of new ideas ConceptCommercialisation

5. The Challenges of New Product Development Clark and Wheelwright, 1993 Number of new ideas ConceptCommercialisation Ability to influence outcome

6. The Challenges of New Product Development Clark and Wheelwright, 1993 Number of new ideas ConceptCommercialisation Ability to influence outcome Actual management activity

7. Traditional Approach to Technology / Product Development Planning Tech. Assessment and Forecasting Market Assessment & Forecasting Project Management and Execution Not typically integrated

8. ‘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

9. Technological Issues Development goals & objectives Aggregate project plan Project management & execution Post-project learning & improvement Commercial Issues Organizational Issues Social Issues v More recent thinking also considers the role of: – Organizational issues; appropriability (e.g. Teece) – Social Issues (E 3 LS; stakeholder theory; mindfulness? VALORISATION, etc.) Exogenous technological developments, market trends, global financial conditions, etc. Social trends, legal issues, etc.

10. Valorisation - recognizing economic and social values: Parallels with the entrepreneurship discourse v 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) v 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?

11. Innovation is Complex v Optimize or satisfice (Simon, 1969)? v Is it feasible to optimize the impact of genomics research, especially when considering valorization? Innovation is Risky v True risk vs. uncertainty vs. ambiguity (Knight, 1921) v Stakeholders are heterogeneous: – Perceive risk differently (e.g. investment opportunity vs. avoidance of harm) – ‘Stakeholder Ambiguity’ (Matos & Hall, 2007) Innovation is Idiosyncratic v Stakeholders are heterogeneous, sometimes ambiguous v Varies with time, context, but often measured homogeneously, reinforcing linear model (Langford et al, 2007)

12. Implications v 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 v Is harmony the best way – or competition? v 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?