ABCtech #148 31MAR2012 CREATING ALBERTA’S TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OR NOT

ABCtech #148 31MAR2012 CREATING ALBERTA’S TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OR NOT

Prepared by: Perry Kinkaide Prepared for:

Kinkaide Enterprises Inc. Alberta Government – representative: Mel Wong

Alberta Industry – representative Rollie Dykstra

March 31, 2012

Why A Provincial Technology Association?

The development of a technology industry association has been the subject of some interest in Alberta over the last several years. The concept of such an association has had appeal to those who see the “industry” as an important segment of Alberta’s innovation-value chain and as such, an important contributor to diversifying Alberta’s economy. And they cite the contributions of the British Columbia Technology Association to business and industry development through education and advocacy. In Alberta, the industry is characterized as fragmented and lacking leadership, comprised of many small companies and large multi-nationals, dominant public research institutions plus many special interest groups, i.e. “associations.” The special interest groups have typically evolved with an interest in some aspect of the supply chain or specific field of technology. An overarching industry association in Alberta does not exist for representing the interests of companies engaged in developing or commercializing technology.

Obtaining Industry’s Diverse Viewpoints – 2011 and 2012

In the spring of 2011 several representatives of the Alberta Government and others from industry met to consider what might be done to help establish a technology industry association in Alberta. Kinkaide Enterprises Inc. was selected from among several candidates to establish an industry association taking into consideration recent attempts in Alberta and British Columbia. The project had two distinct phases.

Phase I. Start – Explore. In this phase, commencing in April and paused in June 2011, KEI conducted dozens of interviews to assess who might be effective leaders of an organization founded to advocate on behalf of the interests of Alberta’s technology industry. Also of interest was to help characterize both the industry’s features and its needs. Dozens of interviews were conducted of industry leaders, small business operators, and large corporations, entrepreneurs and researchers. In addition, the project was discussed at several conferences and workshops. In mid-June, the project was paused and resumed again in January.

Phase II. Adjust – Assess. Upon resumption, the project’s focus was modified. During January and February 2012 an additional series of interviews were conducted and a request for input conveyed to the subscriber base of the Alberta Council of Technologies – 10,000 plus individuals sharing a common interest in the commercialization of emerging technologies. The inquiries were to assess whether the “industry” wanted a technology association, the purpose of such a body and to interview several successful Alberta associations to learn of their keys to success.

The following report contains highlights of the findings, conclusions and recommendations. The report has been prepared for those with an interest in the development of a representative voice for the technology industry in Alberta. The report is intended to have wide-distribution and is shared with the funder, the Alberta Government. The views expressed, however, are those assembled from the industry itself. The funder was explicit: the report was to be for the industry and has not been edited.

Observations – Fragmentation prevails, problems perpetuate and collaborative leadership is lacking

Kinkaide Enterprises Inc.

The following observations were generated from responses to the survey and interviews in 2011 and 2012 conducted of people who shared an interest in the commercialization of technology in Alberta. The highlights were reviewed with several associations that had been interviewed over the last year.

First, while the project was funded by the Alberta Government, the Government has been clear that they are taking no position on the matter. It wants to know what “industry” wants! To reiterate, the task was to find out what industry wants, share the findings, and trigger industry dialogue and initiative. Viewpoints as might be expected reflected three divergent positions – none of which was dominant.

1. STATUS QUO. “Do nothing, industry already has a voice,” or “There are already too many leadership claimants. We don’t need one; what would it do anyway?” or, “Be patient, the leader is emerging.”

“Do nothing” is favoured by individuals who view that: a) there is already a leader, and cite ICT Council, Calgary Innovates, TEC Edmonton, CCAT, local incubators, various NGOs, Canadian Manufactures & Exporters, Alberta Innovates, BioAlberta, AHIA, Alberta Chamber of Commerce, the Alberta Council of Technologies, and the list goes on, b) that there are already too many leaders, or c) they aren’t clear on what such an association would do, that is, whether it would be effective or why it is needed at all, d) they argue for a single voice – though why isn’t usually clear, but note that progress in establishing the voice is evident, so nothing further is needed.

Individuals who view there being already too many associations, align with those advocating for the Status Quo. They view existing industry representatives as effective leaders, representatives or change agents, so “Why change?” Their position is, “Who’s got the problem? We haven’t heard of complaints other than from Government wanting a ‘voice’.” In the absence of being challenged, the status quo is acceptable.

Typically those agencies supportive of the status quo represent an industry segment or are an existing supplier/program of the “technology industry” and are defensive of their position. Or they may represent a single issue or have a local vs. provincial, business vs. Industry perspective.

Agencies that support the status quo, are also secure in their funding – or have been, and view their constituency and Board as supportive. They see promise in their efforts to resolve problems in their segment of the technology innovation chain. In the absence of an alternative, they view their position as one that should be respected by the other claimants.

Summary. Within the industry there is no crisis or overwhelming issue warranting cause for concern, change or an organization beyond what already exists.

2. CREATE AN ASSOCIATION. Establish a “voice” to represent and support development of the industry, its businesses, researchers and requisite services.

Why? We heard that leadership is fragmented, undermining efforts to address industry-wide problems, problems that are common across special interest groups to advance the commercialization and adoption of productivity enhancing, wealth creating, technologies: marketing, access to capital, innovation, manpower, export markets, purchasing policies. Organizations that exist have not delivered and/or represent only a small portion of the diverse array of technologies and/or needs of companies comprising the industry.

Individuals and agencies critical of the status quo are frustrated and want change – but lack an outlet or a “voice.” As agencies, they want to help, i.e.: programs and funding, talent and research, but are frustrated with poor communications and that common, acknowledged problems go unresolved attributed to the lack of industry leadership and networks to develop constituency, resources and set priorities. Collaboration between existing agencies is, or at least, has not been apparent and overtures are viewed with suspicion or without merit.

As individuals, the supporters for change have diverse backgrounds: public and private sectors, diverse interests in business and research and a range of technologies. They are well educated, internet savvy,

Kinkaide Enterprises Inc.

employed in large corporations, educational/research institutions, and small start-ups in the innovation chain. They are largely sympathetic to diversification and the need to advance the commercialization of technology. The start-ups are viewed as isolated and aspiring, alone and under-valued by Alberta’s institutions and government. The start-ups are under-capitalized, idealistic, trusting of networks, but in their absence draw on their immediate social relationships for support. They are generally unorganized, often don’t know of the existing agencies, and at best may participate in a local business/technology incubator or quasi-business network.

The Alberta Government has been supportive, viewing a single voice as convenient, but is reluctant to intervene without knowing what “industry” wants. Other support comes from sources who do not know that several organizations already exist or, who do know, and view the “create” option as timely, necessary and a “good idea.” In the absence of any experience with advocacy, they view advocacy as a time consuming political process of questionable effectiveness. They cite the existing organizations as weak, partisan, and reluctant to collaborate, warranting creation of a higher order “industry-wide” organization capable of casting influence.

Note. Travel Alberta is cited as an influential body focused on marketing for the hotel and lodging industry. CAPP is cited as orchestrating the consolidation of technology initiatives in the oil & gas industry. BCTIA, to those who know of it, is Vancouver-centric, industry-financed, engaged in delivery of business services and is evolving as a worthy “industry voice.”

3. COLLABORATE. Gather together the claimants and orchestrate a win-win consolidation of existing “leaders” and agencies. Adopt an identity that reflects their common interest: e.g.: marketing, innovation, or commercialization.

A worthy option but fraught with conflict as mergers often are. One agency noted that to succeed calls for distinguishing “self-interest,” from the needs of industry: 1) a collaborative mind-set, 2) CEO support and 3) financial authority. However, none of these are apparent yet in the “technology industry”. Note. Already apparent have been appeals for Government to stay away. Consolidation will require leadership that doesn’t exist among agencies or the intervention of a higher authority.

Those in favour of consolidation, as a means of “creating” a single voice, recognize that such an approach doesn’t come easy. They typically know the landscape, see the option as fraught with conflict and currently lacking CEO/Board support. There are exceptions.

Other industries have identified fragmentation and redundancy in technology development, e.g., Petroleum and the co-existence of Canadian Oil Sands Network for Research and Development (CONRAD) and the Oil Sands Leadership Initiative (OSLI), as a problem and taken steps to improve the industry’s development of technology by consolidating the redundant agencies. The “consolidation “ is to form an organization mandate to screen technologies and recommend government/ industry/ research universities what technologies specific to the oil and gas industry, and in particular – the oil sands, should be developed.

The Alberta Council of Technologies is a non-profit Society and professes an interest in a consolidation of associations, a “coming together” and acknowledged that common issues among special interest groups exist. The Society cited issues of: access to capital, rural communications, purchasing policies of government, market and network under-development. ABCtech is independent, voluntary, focused on early-stage business and emerging technologies, and comprised of over a dozen “special interests” with a constituency of over 10,000 “individuals” within Alberta’s innovation chain sharing an expressed “interest in the commercialization of

Kinkaide Enterprises Inc.

emerging technologies.” This constituency has not been mobilized but in terms of size, diversity, history and engagement, may have the leverage to bring other associations together.

Other initiatives include that recently orchestrated at the national level by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. This initiative has brought together a number of associations that have an interest in increasing productivity in Canada and working together to resolve common issues impeding the development of manufacturing in Canada – see attached. ABCtech, BioAlberta and the former ICT Industry Council, now reorganizing into the ICT Industry Association, have expressed interest in “collaboration” at least in conferring on the merit of convening a convention.

Summary. There is no clear consensus within the industry of the merit of collaboration or of establishing a technology industry association. There are indications that collaborative leadership is emerging as the industry finds itself challenged to demonstrate value among small memberships, as government becomes more results oriented, as emerging technologies themselves challenge the status quo, as individuals employ the Internet as an option to association events, and as common issues stir the public re: environment, productivity, manpower, energy.

CONCLUSIONS. In light of the lack of consensus from among industry associations, companies and individuals and in the absence of any clear reason as to why to enforce an association, the status quo would appear to prevail. But before drawing a recommendation, there are four observations that bear repeating:

1. Industry “collaboration” is demonstrable sometimes mandated by an external regulatory body, and other times driven by a common interest, usually a threat, or an opportunity “too good to miss.” Fundamental is the development of trust that requires time, tests and patience.

2. The technology “industry” is comprised in Alberta of small enterprises aligned into “special interest groups,” large multi-national corporations and public institutions. Their industry associations’ members are usually small enterprises. They are fiercely independent, operate in isolation and are unlikely to compromise their individuality or recognize an “industry“ vs. a business affiliation or endorse advocacy as a reasonable purpose.

3. Democratic principles impede quick fixes by government to aging and archaic structures, particularly those with historical relevance and a lingering constituency. The following principles were cited as fundamental if change is to come from within:

a. A Spirit of Collaboration. Acknowledging that working together is more effective than working alone

b. Leader Commitment. CEO Leadership is fundamental for achieving change. “Leading change is not for the meek, but is for the patient.”

c. Leverage. Use financial “purse strings” to drive change!

4. Economic diversification is often cited as a unifier and a worthy vision, but the means of achieving it differ significantly. Some argue that Alberta should capitalize on its strategic assets, its non-renewable resources, and not venture far afield. That’s what the markets want and the infrastructure is in place – stay the course. Others argue that such an approach leaves Alberta vulnerable to emerging technologies in the development of alternative sources of energy and advances in personalized health and knowledge management. Alberta is vulnerable to emerging technology and must be at the forefront of monitoring and advancing the commercialization of technology for sustaining its prosperity.

Kinkaide Enterprises Inc.

RECOMMENDATIONS – for advancing Alberta’s “technology industry”

1. Engage. Invite the “willing” to participate in the design of an industry convention for the purpose of identifying an achievable priority that would contribute to the common good
2. Lead. The “technology industry” is comprised of many special interest groups. Initiate a process for identifying and demonstrating to each the value of aligning to identify and address common interests. Acknowledge the merit of corporate and individual membership and govern to ensure special interests are recognized while pursuing common interests.
3. Measure. Set the metrics for success and accept volunteers for the design and execution of an action plan
4. Communicate. Report routinely to the convention delegates on progress and reconvene the convention or its appointed representatives
5. Renew. Repeat if effective until such time as the organization has proven its worth to the constituency.

Kinkaide Enterprises Inc.