NRC-IRAP is engaging key stakeholders in the development of initiatives intended to support the growth of a nanotechnology cluster centred in Edmonton, which includes NRC-NINT, Western Economic Diversification, Alberta Innovation & Science, Alberta Research Council, Alberta Ingenuity Fund, University of Alberta and Edmonton Economic Development Corporation (EEDC). For example, NRC-IRAP West is developing a collaborative initiative with EEDC that will strengthen the nanoMEMs Edmonton cluster initiative that is anchored by NRC-NINT.
NanoMEMS Edmonton is a vibrant cluster champion committed to building R&D capacity in 'small tech' not only among local members, but also with similar public-private partnerships around the world. The initiative has led to the creation of the Alberta Centre for Advanced Molecular Nanotechnology Products (ACAMP) in Edmonton and is supporting the development of a collaborative Alberta network of nanotechnology-related organizations to advance the use of nanotechnology in firms. These initiatives will enhance the capability of firms in Western Canada as well as across Canada to utilize emerging nanotechnologies and strengthen the success of up-and-coming companies.
The problem with this excerpt, and with the talk given in class yesterday, is that it is nearly impossible to identify concrete steps that are being taken. Leigh did say progress was slow, but it is not even entirely clear what they are moving towards. From the presentation I got the impression that ACAMP was supposed to act as a sort of incubator by supplying the various tools (physical and knowledge based) to nanotech companies to lure them to Edmonton and help get them up and running. That sounds relatively promising, thought could certainly have been fleshed out more.
Are we talking about a nano-lab/fab that can be 'rented' out to startup companies to save them from requiring large capital investments? Kind of a shared fabrication facility mainly for prototypes? He also talked about three non-physical areas (can't remember exactly what the were): marketing and production services, etc?. Are they consulted out? Subsidized? And where do they expect to get the expertise from?
My feeling is that trying to promote a cluster for such an emerging technology is similar to designing product around a new technology without an identified market. Nobody really knows what the nanotechnology market will look like in 5 or 10 years, and who's to say that once it matures it lends itself at all to a clustered approach? Will there ever be huge application markets for nano devices? Or will they only ever represent niche markets and components to other product?
A technology cluster as discussed in the Costa Rica makes more sense because there are a wide range of inputs that go into designing and manufacturing complete electronic devices. And in that situation clustering suppliers and vendors can streamline the supply chain and get economies of scale on infrastructure investments. Can the same be said of nanotechnologies?
Then again, maybe the nanotech cluster could be based around financing channels, fabrication equipment, research facilities and talent. But for financing and research proximity isn't terribly important thanks to the Internet. Talent specific to nanotech doesn't exist anywhere yet. And equipment can be shipped...
My problem is I'm a free market guy. Subsidies to promote an industry can result in misallocation of resources. Costa Rica had it right with rejecting any favourable treatment of Intel. Make a city/province/country a great place to do business, and the businesses that will thrive in the given environment will move in naturally.
Putting NINT into Edmonton will develop the local talent required for a nano cluster and was probably the most important action in getting the ball rolling. However I would argue that the single most significant factor that will hold back nanotech commercialization, and technology and startup companies in Edmonon in general, is the lack of risk capital. Having a nano incubator with shared facilities and services may be a solution for the nanotech industry as it reduces the need for capital, but doesn't help other technologies and startups and in fact may make risk capital even more scarce for them.
3 comments:
Costa Rican Model and MNT cluster in Alberta
Klaus's input was a very accurate reflection of the questions that
arise from the story so far about the NRC initiative and the ACAMP
role in creating the cluster. I was also confused as to what the
parameters of success are in this particular case, is it the
commercialization of the products, or is it the liaison with other
companies and partners, is it creating the right picture for venture
capitalists to jump in and start pouring the money for further
development or is it securing more funds to carry forward the burden
of state?? Lots of questions. And perhaps its requires more than just
one presentation from Leigh Hill for us to completely understand the
scenario.
On further digging some interesting facts came to light. If you go to
this particular website
http://www.nanobusiness.ca/boardofadvisors.php,
http://www.nanobusiness.ca/sectors.php...one can see the complete
picture of the nanotechnology scene in Canada.
This website further takes us to the different areas of Canada and the
distribution of the nanotech companies and agencies. Its not
surprising that such companies are heavily concentrated in Ontario and
Quebec.
Infact the question that arises is that how effective is NRC in
creating the clusters for example, university of waterloo houses
serious researchers in nanotech field and receives plenty of funding
from federal, provincial and private agencies (such as RIM donated a
big amount for nanotech research) and University of Waterloo does not
even figure on the NRC map showing the NRC clusters.
http://www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/news/ResearchFund102805_bd1.asp
WATERLOO LINK
http://www.nanotech.uwaterloo.ca/
http://www.newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/archive/news.php?id=4665
http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4463
http://www.nanovip.com/taxonomy/term/174
Supposedly what is required is not just the commitment of the
university and NRC and the local bodies but also the contribution of the provincial bodies in attracting the companies (and yes, without
disproportionate incentives). Only the free market economy model will
be able to successfully take the research forward, as also highlighted
by Leigh Hill when he said that what is needed is that private
companies should become partners or some how contribute to the success.
Lots of astute observations here. There is some confusion about the details of the plan precisely because a) there isn't a clear plan b) because the shareholders want it that way and c)without commitment from the Alberta government, nobody wants to stick their necks out too far anyway.
This free market hogwash doesn't fly. There hasn't been a centre of excellence, industry, or useful cluster that has been created to my knowledge without government support or intervention. The big boys in silicon valley will tell you lots of stories about heroes and villains in creating the semiconductor industry, but the truth is they'd have never gotten off the ground without the government pushing them. In Alberta, the best that can be hoped for is the government provides moral support in the form of a few dollars and stays out of the way. That's why things don't happen faster than a snail's pace here.
NanoMEMS Edmonton was Leigh Hill and he's not there anymore. NINT is moving at the speed of government and the one thing they aren't is the keystone to attract or support local nanotech companies. Maybe that has changed recently but my experience is that they operate cloistered behind closed doors. Same as Micralyne. Then the majority of other Nanotech startups are working on gimmicks rather than salable technology. ACAMP just hired a director from out of province and it's contribution will I think be directly related to that individual and what he brings.
Overall, all government funding in Alberta goes to or is gated by the same 5 individuals, who are mainly looking after their own interests. Rogue funding agencies like MSTRI are used when convenient but disenfranchised when not.
Compare this disarray to the money and effort and support that is going into nanotech in Japan and the US and basically the only conclusion is that Alberta, if not Canada, is not serious about nanotech and the money might as well be spent elsewhere. There are a lot of skilled researchers and workers but they aren't the ones getting funding and support, it's all the showcase sites and organizations that soak it all up. Canada needs a national nanotech initiative and the best way to do that is to put someone in charge, but Harper fired him just after taking power, so I guess we'll have to wait a little while longer for change
Nanotech is a science that enables the continuing technology revolution, evolving and developing very fast.
Post a Comment