Technology and the Canadian Forest-Product Industries ... - ArtSites

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7. For example, nj. Daly, "Weak Links in the Weakest Link," Canadian PublicPolicy, 3 (1979): 307-3178. Schuler, op. cit., p. 5.9. 0. Whiteley, "The Cutting Edge," Vancouver Sun, Vancouver, 1 December1984: E7.10. See J. Clarke, "Forest Labs in Limbo? 'Privatization' Corp. Formed,"British Columbia Lumberman, March 1979: 44-53.11. R Hohol, "Finnish Paper Industry Shifts to Higher Value-added Grades,"Pulp and Paper Journal, November 1985: 10-12.12. Smith and Lessard, op. cit.13. O.L. Forgacs, "The Role of Industry Research," paper presented at BritishColumbia's Futurein Science and Research Executive Seminar, British ColumbiaMinistry of Education, Science, and Technology, Delta, 25 June 1979.14. See Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (GECD),The Research System, Vol. 3: Canada, United States, General Conclusions (Paris:GECD,1974).15. Mr Thorn was the initiator and first technical director of this operation,which, along with the rest of the firm, was taken over by InternationalPaper of New York in the 1920s to create Canadian International Paper.16. These firms included the Price Co., Howard Smith Paper, Dominion Tarand Cellulose, Building Products of Canada, and Fraser, which openedR&D laboratories in the 1930s at Kenogami, Cornwall, Lasalle, Lasalle,and Atholville respectively. After the Second World War they includedthe predecessor companies of MacMillan Bloedel at Powell River andNanaimo, the Ontario Paper Company at Thorold, Consolidated Bathurstat Grand-Mere, and, more recently, Belkin Paperboard in Burnaby and St.Anne-Nackawic at Nackawic.17. In the late 1950s Canfor had established a small "planning anddevelopment" group as part of its New Westminster plywood operations.18. See Hull, op. cit.19. Another exception to this observation is a building materials laboratoryestablished by Alaska Pine in the 1940s or early 1950s in Vancouver,which was closed down following takeover of Alaska Pine by theAmerican-controlled Rayonier.20. Domtar, for example, closed its laboratory at Lasalle, an industrial suburbof Montreal, and built a new facility at a more spacious site in Senneville.The laboratory at Cornwall meanwhile was maintained. Similarly,Abitibi-Price (as Abitibi) relocated its R&D effort from Sault Ste. Marie toSheridan Park, Mississauga, and MacMillan Bloedel consolidated itsresearch group at a new facility in Burnaby.21. CA. Sankey, PAPRIC4N: The First 50 Years (Pointe Claire: Pulp and PaperInstitute of Canada, 1976). See also Hull, op. cit.22. I.A. Litvak, Canadian Trade Associations and the Promotion and Diffusion ofInnovations, Technical Innovation Studies Programme Research Report(Ottawa: Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, 1985).23. Sector Task Force, The Canadian Forest Products Industry (Ottawa: Departmentof Industry, Trade and Commerce, 1978). Canada, Government of,Response of the Federal Government of the Consultative TaskForce on the CanadianForest Products Industry (Ottawa: Department of Industry, Trade andCommerce, 1979).24. See D. Dingeldein, "One Very Weak Link," Canadian Research, November1978: 5; and RW. Kennedy, "Research: A Shortfall, but Who is Really toBlame?" Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry, January 1979: 18.123
25. Litvak, op. cit., pp. 45-46.26. The Western Forest Products Laboratories' interests in pulping processeshave been taken over by Paprican at its new facility in British Columbia.27. Interestingly, one leading firm suggested that although Scandinavianfirms took the lead in the development of wood-processing equipment inthe 1970s, especially with respect to the incorporation of microelectronics,their rate of technological advancement has levelled off because they areconcentrating on recapturing costs by selling existing products. Accordingto this firm, there is now an opportunity to leapfrog the achievementsof Scandinavian firms.28. J. Sorenson, "Innovative Rim Saw to Replace Bandmills," Canadian ForestIndustries, May 1984: 12-14.29. P. MacDonald, "Computer Applications Unlimited," British ColumbiaLumberman, April 1984: 30-31.30. See Smith and Lessard, op. cit., and Solandt, op. cit.31. Smith and Lessard, op. cit., p. 65.32. D.E. Barron, J.H. Smithy, K.L. Campbell, and J.P. Martel, Forest ManagementExpenditures in Canada 1977-1983, a joint report of the Canadian Pulp andPaper Association and the Great Lakes Forest Centre (Montreal:Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, 1986).33. R. Hayter, "Research and Development in the Canadian Forest ProductSector - Another Weak Link?" Canadian Geographer 26 (1982): 256-263;Solandt, op. cit.34. Barron et a1., op. cit., p. 6.35. See Solandt, op. cit. For example, a group of researchers in the biologydepartment at Simon Fraser University has recently pioneered techniquesto control pests that perennially inflict significant damage onBritish Columbia's forests.36. In fact, the expertise of the engineering consulting community in Canadaon forest-product technology is such that there is a global demand for itsadvice about choice of technology, transfer of technology, and mill designand layout.37. Recently, for example, Feric and Paprican, in association with Hymac, apulping machinery manufacturer, joined together to develop the Paprifer,which is a process designed to upgrade chips from logging residues, fulltrees, and otherwise unmerchantable material.38. Smith and Lessard, op. cit.39. Solandt, op. cit.40. Ibid.3. The R&D System and How It Works1. Silversides, op. cit., p. 232.2. Ibid., p. 233.3. D.A. Tillman, Forest Products: Advanced Technologies and Economic Analyses(New York: Academic Press, 1985): 95.4. For example, Schwindt, op. cit., was able to identify the origins of 40major and 34 minor innovations introduced into Canada between 1950and 1976. Of these 27 and 17 respectively originated with equipmentmanufacturers around the globe.5. R. Hohol, "Pulping Methods on the Threshold of Change," Pulp and PaperJournal, April 1982: 14-16.6. Sankey, op. cit., p. 111.124
Page 3 and 4:
Science Council of Canada100 Metcal
Page 5 and 6:
ContentsForewordAcknowledgments1113
Page 7 and 8:
In-House R&D by Equipment Suppliers
Page 9 and 10:
Table 2.5: R&D Employment in 10 Can
Page 11 and 12:
ForewordTechnological innovation an
Page 14 and 15:
adapted sufficiently rapidly to the
Page 16 and 17:
Finally, the author interviewed sen
Page 18 and 19:
Table 1.3: Degree of Foreign Contro
Page 20 and 21:
Figure 1.1: Innovation Patterns and
Page 22 and 23:
Since 1945 the pace of technologica
Page 24 and 25:
Toward Reliance on Research rather
Page 26 and 27:
science occurred between 1900 and 1
Page 28 and 29:
Forestry Sector R&D SystemIn Canada
Page 30 and 31:
up its forestry research group at N
Page 32 and 33:
and one other that was strongly ori
Page 34 and 35:
closely involved in the establishme
Page 36 and 37:
to vet and control research priorit
Page 38 and 39:
In-House R&D by Equipment Suppliers
Page 40 and 41:
product. One, by no means atypical,
Page 42 and 43:
only internal source of dissolving
Page 44 and 45:
of which only 18 per cent came from
Page 46 and 47:
New information can be generated by
Page 48 and 49:
Chapter 3The R&D System andHow It W
Page 50 and 51:
Table 3.2: Summary Characteristics
Page 52 and 53:
Sixteen firms provided details on s
Page 54 and 55:
The Opco Process: A Case Study of I
Page 56 and 57:
however, within the last two decade
Page 58 and 59:
in 1959, and a full-scale experimen
Page 60 and 61:
Papritection was developed as follo
Page 62 and 63:
Further tests were conducted in 198
Page 64 and 65:
fully automatic machines, and its s
Page 66 and 67:
Chapter 4Technological Capability a
Page 68 and 69:
Table 4.2 provides measurements of
Page 70 and 71: forest-product equipment patents, w
Page 72 and 73: Foreign-Ownership and In-House R&DT
Page 74 and 75: Technological Liaisons: Forest-Prod
Page 76 and 77: for this deficiency the federal gov
Page 78 and 79: On the other hand, three of the lea
Page 80 and 81: one of Sweden's forest-products gia
Page 82 and 83: Capital Investments in the Canadian
Page 84 and 85: and Quebec accounted for 33.9 per c
Page 86 and 87: Table 5.5: Canadian Forest-Product
Page 88 and 89: Scandinavian manufacturers are in t
Page 90 and 91: was implemented smoothly and manage
Page 92 and 93: the foundations were poured, until
Page 94 and 95: inherent capabilities were never fu
Page 96 and 97: especially in the east, has receive
Page 98 and 99: "export staples mentality." The bel
Page 100 and 101: size of the conglomerates would cer
Page 102 and 103: the concept of flexibility explicit
Page 104 and 105: This author therefore recommends th
Page 106 and 107: with respect to technology transfer
Page 108 and 109: of the R&D system and influence the
Page 110 and 111: operations, attitudes toward innova
Page 112 and 113: limited R&D base, but they do empha
Page 114 and 115: The small size and non-innovative n
Page 116 and 117: Promoting In-House R&D in the Fores
Page 118 and 119: Notes1. The Technological Challenge
Page 122 and 123: 7. P.G. Mellgren and E. Heidersdorf
Page 124 and 125: this R&D facility has become even s
Page 126 and 127: 3. K. Noble, "Forest Industry Urged
Page 128 and 129: Publications of the ScienceCouncil
Page 130 and 131: Reports on Matters Referred by the
Page 132 and 133: No. 40. Government Regulation of th
Page 134 and 135: 1981An Engineer's View of Science E
show all

Technology and the Canadian Forest-Product Industries ... - ArtSites

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?