Industry Study of Canadian Market Leaders

There are Canadian companies that are market leaders in their space. These companies should be studied to identify the reasons for their success and market leadership. How is research managed in these companies? Do they leverage any government programs? Do they benefit from the Canadian R&D tax incentives? Is there something in Canada that enabled their success? Are there any common threads? Once these critical success factors are identified, they can be made more available to more Canadian enterprises and an integral part of incubator programs for start–up businesses.

Comments

aarondyck — 2010–05–14 12:02:30 EDT wrote

I agree that we do need to look at the methods used by market leaders — but does this mean that the Government should be responsible for this? Part of running a successful business is due diligence. Take the time to do your research before you begin and you will be more likely to succeed. I have to give this idea a thumbs–down not because it is a bad idea but because I don't believe that the Government should be responsible for doing homework for businesses.

infzy — 2010–05–15 01:51:50 EDT wrote

We also don't want the government to enshrine the business models of the past; the world is changing, and innovation means creating new types of business within a very dynamic ecosystem.

Then again, examining how our industry is held back might reveal to the government the ways that our intellectual property system is holding us back by attributing waayy too much power to the creators; for example, patents "block" innovation and hurt small business, rather than encouraging innovation and protecting inventors (as is often believed to be the case). The government should reduce the term–length of patents, reduce the scope of what's patentable in Canada, and try to stop patent trolls from blocking innovation.

dsanden — 2010–06–10 11:44:50 EDT wrote

More general US vs. Canada productivity gap:

1. Lifestyles of the rich and unequal: An investigation into wealth inequality in Canada. See the reports list on the right — The Productivity Puzzle by Don Drummond.
2. Working papers see working paper 12 management matters.
3. From my own experience, my main hypothesis: US firms tend to solve more important problems. It's the aspirational target chosen when deciding what companies to start up and what they'll be doing. Important things have better pricing power and scalability — fueling growth to full size productive companies. In Canada if you think big you're a daydreamer. In the US if you think big you're an American entrepreneur.

SimonRuggier — 2010–07–03 03:40:55 EDT wrote

@aarondyck: the suggestion isn't that government does homework for businesses. Rather, the suggestion is that the government should do homework for itself, by investigating how public policy may have contributed to the success of successful Canadian companies. It's hard to argue that that would be a bad idea, at least in principle.

ak717 — 2010–07–09 14:44:19 EDT wrote

@SimonRuggier Well, I'd have no problem arguing it with it on principle.

This is a fast changing area. I am not sure there would be much value in research on the past when we are talking about disruptive technology effects. Research implies that we are building on the past and that there is a slow constant progress on a continuum. I am not convinced this is applicable here.

Research is slow and backward looking so I not convinced that research on ourselves is that useful. Research on others maybe.