Standard of Living & Quality of Life Relies on Innovation:

Innovation Relies on Engineering Design

(Draft v9 2013-05-05)

Quality of life has advanced since the industrial revolution and this advancement has accelerated
with the information revolution. Life expectancy has increased, catalytic converters protect our
air, a disabled athlete runs with the fastest runners in the world1, and global real GDP per capita
has grown by a factor of 2.5 over the past 50 years2. This quality of life advancement is the
result of continuous innovation. In todays global economy, innovation is essential for Canada to
compete (even to participate) and to continue advancing our quality of life. Collective global
innovation has never been more critical. World population growth (7 billion and counting),
diminishing non-renewable resources (oil and beyond) and escalating environmental challenges
(climate change and pollution) all require global scale innovations or our collective quality of life
will not be sustained.
Canadians have contributed much to the world including the telephone and smartphone,
CANDU reactors, snowmobiles, IMAX, and the pacemaker. However, over the last number
of years, there have been multiple reports critical of Canadas capacity for technological
innovation3 and studies that offer strategies for improvement.4 While it is true that innovation is
essential to the future of both Canada and the world, innovation is only a means to an end and it
is incumbent on us to define the desired ends. Innovation can be a means to a higher quality of
life and a more sustainable future for generations to come or it can simply be a means to increase
the financial prosperity of the nation. To achieve the ends we value, it is essential to measure
innovation in terms of these ends, not in terms of subtle differences in the rate of change in the
GDP per capita. Are our innovations leading to cleaner water for all, a healthier and complete
diet for all, and meaningful employment for all?
To address this concern, we make the following recommendation:
1. That the Government of Canada develops methods to measure innovation outcomes
that are more sophisticated and reflect not only economic factors but also the quality of
life perspectives that Canadians value5.
As a second step to building an innovative society, we need to better understand and better
measure the ingredients necessary for such a society. INNOVATION AND BUSINESS

1

South African Olympian Oscar Pistorius

World Bank data, 2000 Constant dollars,
www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global+gdp#!ctype=l&strail=fal
se&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&ifdim=region&tdim=true&tstart=-
295387200000&tend=1313985600000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
3
Although it is recognized that innovation is not limited to technology alone; however, technological innovation has played a significant role in
the advancement of the worlds quality of life.
4
Council of Canadian Academies, Robert Brown, Chair, June, 2009, available at
http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/inno/(2009-0611)%20innovation%20report.pdf
5
If we value what we currently measure (rate of change of GDP per capita) then we would see a farmer who converts from growing corn to
growing tobacco as an innovative and more productive farmer. This can hardly be a good in a world with many who are starving and with
many suffering with lung cancer. An example of a broader set of measures is provided by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (2012; How are
Canadians Really Doing? The 2012 CIW Report. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo.)
2

STRATEGY: WHY CANADA FALLS SHORT, The Expert Panel on Business Innovation6
has some very useful points to make with regard to innovation. Several statements are of
particular interest:
Put simply and intuitively, innovation is new or better ways of doing valued things. Innovation occurs in
the economy in two distinct but complementary ways radical innovation and incremental
innovation. (p.21)
The ultimate economic benefits (jobs and income growth) of a blockbuster innovation usually diffuse
broadly and relatively rapidly beyond the firm and location where the innovation originates. For instance,
while the microchip and the personal computer may have been pioneered by a small number of companies
in the United States (e.g., Apple, IBM and Intel), many of the resulting production jobs migrated elsewhere
and, more important by far, the productivity benefits of the resulting information and communications
technologies (ICT) revolution continue to accrue to users worldwide. (p.21)
Much more pervasive is incremental innovation in which goods and services, and their means of
production, marketing and distribution, are being continuously improved. (p.21)

However, the most important statement in this document is that

an innovation is not simply an invention, or even a practical prototype. There must be implementation to a
meaningful extent (p.26)

These statements reinforce that a big scientific discovery (a big I innovation) is one, but not
the only, type of innovation. Many, many small i innovations pervade and are essential to
advancing our standard of living and quality of life. These statements also make clear that a
scientific discovery is not sufficient for innovation. An invention, a discovery, or an idea is not
an innovation until implementation and use has been achieved.
Several reports provide evidence that the Canadian capacity for discovery (the R part of R&D) is
a national strength.7 Over the last several years Canada has further invested in this area of
strength through the Canada Research Chairs program and Canadian Foundation for Innovation.8
What is equally evident is that the development (the D part of R&D) part of research and
development is the Achilles Heel of Canadas innovation capacity. Development has three major
components: design of a product or service, production of a product or service, and marketing of
a product or service. The weakness in development has many elements: funding9, few
companies with an innovation-based business strategy10, business expertise11 and, a factor that is
largely overlooked, engineering design.
The measuring of all R&D as one lump and the counting of scientists and engineers as one lump
is inadequate. It is the equivalent of just weighing all of the food eaten by our children and not

6

Council of Canadian Academies, Robert Brown, Chair, June, 2009, available at

http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/inno/(2009-0611)%20innovation%20report.pdf
7
See for example Knowledge Matters: Investing in People, Knowledge and Opportunity and Achieving Excellence: skills and Learning for
Canadians from Canadas Innovation Strategy, 2002 (www.innovationstrategy.gc.ca)
8
Canada Research Chairs (www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/home-accueil-eng.aspx); Canada Foundation for Innovation (www.innovation.ca)
9
The Funding Gap, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, http://www.sdtc.ca/index.php?page=the-funding-gap&hl=en_CA
10
INNOVATION AND BUSINESS STRATEGY: WHY CANADA FALLS SHORT, The Expert Panel on Business Innovation Council of Canadian
Academies, Robert Brown, Chair, June, 2009, (p209)
11
INNOVATION AND BUSINESS STRATEGY: WHY CANADA FALLS SHORT, The Expert Panel on Business Innovation Council of Canadian
Academies, Robert Brown, Chair, June, 2009

worrying about the carbohydrate versus protein breakdown. The food-eaten indicator is fine and
yet we readily create unhealthy children with no energy. Innovation requires research and
development and these two activities are not interchangeable. Development is the more
expensive ingredient and the limiting ingredient in Canada. Spending more money on research
will not lead to the desired innovation performance increase in Canada unless our development
capacity is increased significantly. Doing so is the equivalent of trying to assist a plant that is
not growing well, by adding 100% nitrogen fertilizer, when the problem is that the soil lacks
potassium. Discovery based innovation requires both scientists and engineers. Scientists play a
dominant role in research but engineers play a dominant role in development. Measuring the two
as one does not provide an indication of the capacity of Canada to drive Research and
Development.
To address this concern, we make the following recommend:
2. That the innovation indicators developed by the Government of Canada separate
development from research and separate engineering design achievements from
scientific achievements so that the contribution of Engineering Design to the
development process can be clearly identified12.
The bundling of development with research and engineers with scientists is common and
widespread. The Government of Canadas Innovation Strategy13 14 makes no significant mention
of the role that engineers and engineering design play in the innovation process. When
engineering is mentioned at all, it is synonymous with science (in the sense of engineering
science research and natural science research). The Standing Committee on Industry, Science
and Technology uses the term science to represent the whole range of sciences, including
social sciences, natural sciences, engineering and health sciences.15 The problem is not unique
to Canada. Ferguson16 and others have pointed to the Grinter Committee Report17 of October
1953 as the trigger for the emphasis on engineering science in engineering curricula. While
there is great value in grounding engineering education in engineering science, this highly
influential report started the process that converted engineering schools from primarily teaching
institutes to primarily research institutes. The academic funding system (NSERC is the essential
funding agency for engineering and science at universities) catalyzed this conversion by focusing
on research (science and engineering science) with little to no support for development
(engineering design). In essence, academic engineers became scientists and the teaching of
engineering design, and the preparation of engineering students to do engineering design, slowly
atrophied. Engineering research as opposed to engineering practise has become so ingrained that
currently the possibility for an academic to secure tenure and promotion to a professorship, based
on creative scholarship that is engineering design and not engineering research, is very difficult.
The result is that several generations of engineering faculty members have never left the
campus and they neither understand nor appreciate the role of the technical innovator in

12

Whereas scientific innovation is often measured in terms of publications and citations, engineering innovation would have to take into
account patents and products/services brought to market, a much more challenging exercise.
13
Canadas Innovation Strategy (in two parts: Knowledge Matters and Achieving Excellence, June 2002)
14
Innovation Canada: A Call to Action (October 2011).
15
CANADAS INNOVATION STRATEGY: PEER REVIEW AND THE ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDS, Report of the Standing Committee
on Industry, Science and Technology, Walt Lastewka, M.P., Chair, June 2002, p3.
16
Engineering and the Minds Eye, Eugene S. Ferguson, The MIT Press, 1994, 257p.
17
Grinter L.E., 1955, Report of the Committee on Evaluation of Engineering Education, J. Engineering Education, September, p25-60.

society.18 In the same way that a medical scientist cannot train a surgeon, an engineering
scientist cannot train an engineering designer surgeons train surgeons, engineering designers
must train engineering designers. Engineering design must return to engineering schools in
Canada at all degree levels. A critical mass (ideally up to 50% of all engineering faculty
positions) of engineering designers must exist in all schools. The academic funding system and
academic reward system must overtly support and nurture engineering design and engineering
designers.
To address this concern, we make the following recommendation:
3. That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and universities,
work to ensure that a critical mass of engineering designers exists in engineering
schools across the country to help train the future generations of design engineers19.
The demise of engineering design in engineering schools has been a recognized problem for at
least the last two decades20 the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board21 has been pressing
for improvements for at least that long. NSERC recognized this demise when they established
the Chairs in Design Engineering program with the mandate to advance engineering design in
Canadian engineering schools.22 Progress is evident but slow. There are only 16 Design Chair
positions among over 4000 engineering academic positions across Canada. Meanwhile, there are
more than 10 times as many Research Chairs in engineering (NSERC Industrial Research Chairs
and Canada Research Chairs).23 Furthermore, Design Chair positions have remained unfilled
over the entire duration of the program, partially owing to the lack of suitable candidates
another indication of engineering design atrophy.
To address this concern, we make the following recommendation:
4. That the Government of Canada supports and nurtures academic engineering design
through its envelope of R&D funding programs24.
As a result of developments in engineering education over the last 50 years, and the reduced
status of engineering as opposed to science in both academic and political circles, Canada is
increasingly incapable of taking innovative ideas developed by our highly productive research
community, implementing innovative engineering designs based on these ideas, and bringing
them to market. In many cases, third world countries, that have a much greater respect for
engineering practise, including the development of stronger design skills in their universities, are
taking ideas developed in Canada, designing products based on these ideas, and selling the
products back to us.

18

Brown W.S., 1985, Educating Technical Innovators for US Industry, European J. Engineering Education, 10:103-107
Changes may include a model more closely aligned with that used in medical schools, where practising clinicians play an important role in the
training of doctors.
20
Lockyer J.E., 1993, The Central Role of Design in Our Economy, The Canadian Academy of Engineering, Engineering Issues, No. 4, November.
21
Engineers Canada, Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, Accreditation Criteria and Procedures 2011,
www.engineerscanada.ca/files/w_Accreditation_Criteria_Procedures_2011.pdf, accessed October 2012.
22
NSERC Chairs in Design Engineering, www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/CFS-PCP/CDE-CGC_eng.asp, accessed October 2012.
23
NSERCs Chairs database has 132 with engineering keyword (includes CDEs) and CRC has 57 engineering appointments.
24
The reliance of the present NSERC Discovery Grant program on publications and the training and placement of PhD level HQP severely
disadvantages those working in more applied areas. We are not arguing for a separate system, just that more inclusive measures of
productivity be implemented.
19

To address this concern, we make the following recommendation:

5. That Canadian universities recognize engineering design as a legitimate discipline of
creative scholarship and develop career progression systems that will provide academic
futures for design engineers working at a world class level25.
Developing products from ideas and discoveries also requires physical and virtual facilities.
Design studios, shop facilities and modern engineering design software tools have either been
too expensive or not a priority for most Canadian universities. This low priority is coupled with
the absence of a critical mass of engineering designers. The result is that some engineers
graduate without having set foot in any form of a shop environment, some mechanical engineers
graduate having never seen a lathe or a mill, some electrical engineers having never soldered a
circuit, and some civil engineers having never cast a concrete test sample. Equally many
graduates have not used modern design software and have little sense of the complementary
domains of physical and virtual technology development. Graduates are ill-equipped to take an
innovative idea to market in a successful and timely manner. Over a decade ago, Canadian
university libraries faced a similar challenge with the advent of electronic serials. This challenge
was addressed by a national program funded through CFI to allow all universities to access
electronic journals. A national program for engineering schools to access software tools and a
funding mechanism to allow engineering schools to develop and support shop facilities is critical
to preparing students for their role as developers of innovative products.
To address this concern, we make the following recommendation:
6. That the Canadian Foundation for Innovation creates both a system of access to design
engineering software and a program to redevelop shop training facilities in Canadian
engineering schools .
26

An additional challenge that must be addressed to ensure that a meaningful innovation culture
develops in Canada is to remove the barriers that exist between business schools and engineering
schools. Such barriers exist at many levels, not the least of them being that business academics
are generally funded by SSHRC while engineering academics are generally funded by NSERC.
Again, progress has been made in resolving these challenges: some schools incorporate business
students in design competitions and, increasingly, business academics are being funded through
the industrial engineering program at NSERC (although this has increased competition for
engineering academics accessing these funds). However, business and engineering schools still
function largely in isolation from each other. What is needed is a program of funding that
encourages business and engineering academics to partner in the training of the next generation
of innovators.
To address this concern, we make the following recommendation:

25

Most university career progression policies and procedures for engineering follow a science model. However, architects, artists and
musicians have academic careers which follow a model that might be more suited to that of a design oriented engineering academic.
26
Providing shop training facilities could be an expensive undertaking; however, it would also provide support for experimental researchers.
Although engineering software is very expensive to purchase, suppliers are often receptive to providing program with limited capabilities
(student version) in order to familiarize students with their products.

7. That the tri-council funding agencies support extensive innovation driven collaboration
between engineering and business faculty27.
In summary, we state categorically that, until engineering design is recognized as an essential
component of the innovation cycle and engineering design skills are developed in a systematic
and appropriately funded manner, Canada will never achieve the level of innovation required to
succeed in the modern world.

27

Providing an envelope of funding that requires aspects of both process (engineering) and policy (management) in an entrepreneurial oriented
project could be a means to this end.