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

ments and availability, in part because of varying research requirements.Projects may also be temporarily shelved, especially thosewith substantial set-up costs. There were considerable differences inthe periods of development for equally expensive projects. One firm,for example, developed two distinctive pulping processes for differentlocations and was able to shorten the development time of the secondprocess by drawing upon research done for the first. In another project,a firm avoided financial delays by commercializing some elementsof an "important" innovation before finishing it.Fifth, for the more expensive projects, and for pulping projects ingeneral, R& 0 costs cluster around $2.7 million. The only exception tothis occurred because one firm had to construct an entirely new pilotplant.As scant as they are, these data undermine the idea of a continuumof R&D costs for projects. My survey also showed that in-houseR&D has been oriented to firm-specific requirements. In-house projectswere applied within the firm, two at more than one companylocation; one project was also sold to another firm. Although the firmsdo take out patents, and contemplate selling their technology, themain thrust of their R&D is directed toward their own operations.A small amount of in-house R&D by forest-product firms hasbeen product-oriented. An example is MacMillan Bloedel's Parallam, abuilding material that its makers claim is stronger than conventionallumber, with a bending strength that exceeds glue-laminated lumber.The company began research in the early 1970s and built a $lO-millionprototype plant in 1982. Although some Parallam was produced forExpo in 1986, its full commercialization awaits investment in newplant and completion of various marketing initiatives.The Role of In-House R&D by Equipment FirmsEquipment suppliers have traditionally been a significant source ofnew technology in the forest-product industries.' and to the extentthat they provide new equipment they are invariably involved intechnology transfer. In Canada, few equipment suppliers conductbasic, applied, or developmental R&D. They rely upon foreign R&Dto generate new products that are obtained from parent companies,from other companies by means of "arm's-length" licensing arrangements,and by imitation. In firms that do conduct basic, applied, ordevelopmental R&0, the efforts are sporadic.Among the sampled firms, slightly more firms (23) claimed thatthey had developed a new product over the last five years or so thanthe number of firms (19) that claimed some form of in-house R&D.53