Dr Kamiel Gabriel, is a professor of engineering and applied sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Learning-by-doing: Canada needs a new breed of graduates with advanced leadership skills

By Dr Kamiel Gabriel

On October 1, 2013, Peter Nicholson, former president of the Council of Canadian Academies, made a presentation in Ottawa to launch the newest report by the CCA, provocatively entitled: Paradox Lost: Explaining Canada's research strength and innovation weakness. It is a must read for everyone who has been engaged in this debate. It provides a quick snapshot of Canada's strength in research and gives a brief historical background on why business innovation is as weak as it is today. It also suggests changes that need to be implemented to close the productivity gap with the US.

The report emphasizes that — while Canada ranks highly on the world stage when it comes to research output as measured by magnitude, quality, impact and trend of growth — business innovation has remained in what he defined as "low-to-medium innovation equilibrium".

This term how many Canadian industries have succeeded in the past by piggy backing on innovations led by its close geographical partner south of the border, and have managed to carve a profitable niche in integrated US-dominated value networks. Such attitudes have created the laissez faire culture in many small and large industries that are now lagging in terms of productivity and penetration of new markets.

The CCA report attributes the prevalent lack of incentives to invest in high-end innovation to this historical reliance on "outsourcing innovation". Of course, this doesn't apply to all Canadian industries and can't be generalized in anyway. However, all indicators point to the weakness of Canadian business innovation as the main cause of the productivity gap that continues to widen between the two countries. Nicholson made the point that such culture — and the business strategies associated with it — will not change unless the success factors they previously relied on change.

Ironically, the day following Nicholson's presentation, I attended a one-day conference organized by the Economic Club of Canada and Sustainable Development Technology Canada (Kudos to STDC and its well-oiled machinery for diligently seeking to open new markets for companies on its portfolio).

What was interesting to me personally was that, while the conference agenda focussed on topics of new and emerging cleantech opportunities and how to successfully access global markets, many of the questions from the conference participants came back to the same issue; namely the need for aggressive innovation-driven approaches to penetrate global markets. Clearly, innovation-driven strategies continue to be a top-of-mind issue, particularly with small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME's) struggling to make the leap to introducing new and innovative products and services.

The obvious question is, what are the success factors for those companies to compete and succeed in competitive, technology-crowded domestic and global markets with stiff competition? Another question is, what are the factors that would cause companies to change their strategies and focus more on innovation-driven approaches?

small catastrophies can help

V.O. Marquez, former CEO of Northern Electric (forerunner of Nortel Networks Corp) argues that "small catastrophes" are needed to change Canadian industry attitudes and get companies to expand aggressively into foreign markets. Tom Jenkins put it more bluntly: "It is competition that is needed, stupid!"

But is it just competition that is needed? Most companies face competition from the time they are born, and in most cases they continue to innovate in order to survive. Their approach may vary, from aggressive strategies to get ahead of the curve and sticking their flag in the ground before a competitor goes to the market with a similar product, to a more laidback approach of wait and see…..the market will decide for itself.

But companies are not just brick and mortar with big offices in nice suburbs with shiny brass plaques adorning their boardrooms. It is the foresight of leadership and innovative, committed employees that make it not only survive, but thrive!

This takes me to my main point: We need to focus our education and training on producing leadership qualities in the next generation of students and learners based on sound principles of advanced business practices, foresight, creativity, honesty and integrity with analytical approaches to solving problems.

We also need to change our approach to education to produce graduates with skill sets required for success in the current marketplace. In my field of engineering, I suggest that both the curriculum we teach, and the approach to teaching it, is so out-dated that the "product" that comes out at the end is incapable of facing the market place and coping with its 21st century realities.

teaching tools must change

The curriculum, of course, is driven by the assessment tools used by accreditation bodies to grant accreditation to the programs delivered by higher education institutions. These tools need to change to be more reflective of the relevant skill sets and become strongly linked to the student learning outcomes.

In general, and in engineering and science fields in particular, it is time to revamp our curriculum to one that focuses on "learning-by-doing". Learning-by-doing is an approach to education where students acquire essential knowledge and skills through active, self-reflective engagement with the world inside and outside the classroom.

It is about aligning academic programs to meet the skill sets needed by our graduates to succeed in the real world. Until we address the cause rather than focusing entirely on the effect, we will continue to see many of the up-and-coming companies being swallowed up by the more creative, innovation-driven entities south of the border and overseas.

Dr Kamiel Gabriel is a professor of engineering and applied sciences at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. He recently returned from a two-year stint at the U.A.E. where he helped introduce a new engineering curriculum in its federal colleges that focuses on learning-by-doing.