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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

and one other that was strongly oriented to technical services, R&Dgroups annually draw up one-year and longer-term plans. R&D prioritiesare worked out in corporate-wide discussions and R&D groupshave to compete for their funds each year.The orientation of in-house R&D is toward applied and developmentalresearch: only one firm did basic research and that was only 5per cent of its total research. If the two smallest R&D operations areexcluded, the firms claimed that between 25 per cent and 85 per centof their R&D was applied and between 15 per cent and 75 per centwas developmental. Six firms allocated 10-25 per cent of their staffand budget to technical services or troubleshooting. For the smallestR&D group, technical services constituted 75 per cent of activities,and one large laboratory allocated 50 per cent of its R&D effort totechnical services for the operating divisions.Rationale for In-House R&DIn noting the advantages of in-house R&D the respondents revealedcommon lines of thought:We are able to respond to our needs in a timely fashion. If it's asmall project there is too much red tape to go outside.We can bring developments along at a schedule that is appropriateto us. A major investment with a 20-year time horizon cannotwait for Paprican. We can relate R&D to specific investmentopportunities that make sense to us. Finally, we can relate to ourparticular window on the market. Technological shifts have to bedetailed in the marketplace and related to capital investmentprojects.R&D is a people resource for the rest of the firm. Divisions wouldhave to strengthen their technological capability without us. Wecan more quickly respond to attack a problem; and while historicallythe industry was more process-oriented and open it isbecoming more product-oriented and closed and proprietary informationis becoming more important.Close ties to business.In-house R&D provides for rapid transfer of technology and isrelevant to our business in the D stage so it is very commercial. Itreduces maintenance costs; it provides marketing advantages;and the industry is becoming more closed.34
Teach yourself. If you go outside we have to educate them in ourbusiness which is expensive.Results are specific to company.The common theme is that in-house R&D provides firm-specificbenefits that cannot be derived from association or governmentlaboratories or universities.Although the respondents acknowledged that sometimes forestproductfirms can be profitable without in-house R&D, they emphasizedits benefits. One R&D director, for example, noted that savingsdue to research on corrosion paid for the firm's in-house R&D manytimes over. Four firms claimed their R&D was on the leading edge inthe forest-products sector: one of these would not identify its area ofexpertise, but there is little duplication in terms of the strengthsclaimed by the other three. Thus one firm claimed expertise in paperfinishing, another in pulp bleaching (and forestry work), and a thirdpointed to work on reconstituted wood, thermomechanical pulping,packaging, and corrosion. A fifth firm claimed that although it was noton the leading edge it was doing important developmental researchwith respect to chemithermomechanical pulping and de-inkingprocesses. A sixth suggested that it had been on the leading edge andwould be again but was not now. A seventh firm noted that it was aworld leader in R&D on insulation but not on forest products.Although several firms had researched high-yield pulping processes,none saw duplication as a problem, in part because of the specificnature of each firm's needs and also because some competition inR&D is beneficial.Cooperative (Association) R&DAlthough few forest-product firms in Canada support in-house R&D,the three main cooperative R&D laboratories are large and growing.The Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada (Paprican), ForestEngineering Research Institute of Canada (Feric), and Forintek werepartly funded, in 1984, by 59, 45, and 142 corporate members respectively.The only other cooperative R&D laboratory, a small productdevelopment and plywood testing facility run by the Council ofForest Industries (COFI) in North Vancouver, has remained small andvulnerable to closure.Paprican is most like a conventional industry associationlaboratory because it is largely supported by annual fees from forestproductmanufacturing companies. The federal government was35
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 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 120 and 121:
7. For example, nj. Daly, "Weak Lin
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?