Accelerating Innovation

Gov. Gregoire Appoints Egils Milbergs Director of New Economic Development Commission

OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON – Gov. Chris Gregoire today appointed Egils Milbergs director of the newly formed Economic Development Commission. Milbergs was selected through a joint process involving the governor and the Economic Development Commission.

“Mr. Milberg’s national reputation and unique talents will be a tremendous asset to our state in implementing the state business plan, Next Washington,” said Governor Gregoire. “We can create even more family wage jobs in Washington by streamlining our state economic development initiatives.” Milbergs and the Commission will play a key role in updating the state’s economic development vision and strategies, she said.

Last year, the Legislature changed the composition of the Commission and expanded its responsibilities. The 18-member Commission includes 11 voting members appointed by the governor. “The Commission is very pleased to have attracted a director with such high caliber credentials and national experience,” said Economic Development Commission Chair, Melanie Dressel.

Egils Milbergs is founder and president of the Center for Accelerating Innovation. The Center conducts research on the changing nature of the innovation process and consults with start-ups, corporations, associations and governments on growth acceleration strategies. Milbergs played a principal role in the National Innovation Initiative (NII) and the Innovation Vital Signs project of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

From 1998-2003, he served as president of the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing, an industry-led organization aimed at improving the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. He established the Advanced Manufacturing Leadership Council, which organized a powerful policy consensus on R&D, human capital, and supply chain issues focused on strengthening the “extended production enterprise.” In 1994, he founded Learning Access to pioneer Internet applications in the K-12 education sector, including a unique multi-million dollar partnership of Internet-based after-school centers called the Chicago Neighborhood Learning Network.

From 1986-1993, Milbergs served as president of the non-partisan Institute for Illinois, a partnership of the Illinois Congressional Delegation, business and research community. A major accomplishment was implementing a $2 billion federal R&D project portfolio for improving the state’s research and technology infrastructure. He served as an advisor to the president of Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology (CIT), and gained legislative approval and budget for its first strategic technology plan and space commercialization initiative.

From 1980-1986, Milbergs served as deputy assistant secretary for productivity, technology and innovation at the U.S. Commerce Department under Malcolm Baldridge in the Reagan Administration. He also served as executive director of the President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. Milbergs is a graduate of Harvard College, where he concentrated in public policy and economics. He lectures frequently on the subject of technology policy, innovation, entrepreneurship and global competitiveness issues.

Business Week on Commerce Innovation Metrics Report

A Better Way To Track the Economy

Mike Mandel, Business Week chief economist, comments on the Commerce Dept. Advisory Committee report: Innovation Measurement: Tracking the State of Innovation in the American Economy. It recommends new yardsticks for measuring growth and the contribution of innovation.

· Plus: Video: Measuring the State of Innovation

· Podcast: Unmasking the Economy

Commerce Department Announces Steps to Improve Measurement of Innovation

Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez announced January 18 steps for the federal statistical agencies and others to work to explain and quantify one of the largest and most elusive drivers of the economy—innovation. Among the innovation measurement initiatives announced were comprehensive accounting of the effect of high-tech goods and services, measuring the increase in productivity due to increased investments in innovation, and expanding collection of data on innovation.

Secretary Gutierrez announced these measures based on a report by the Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy. Committee members are CEOs and prominent academics who worked over the past year to develop innovation metrics.

“Innovation has proven an essential driver of growth for the U.S. economy,” said Secretary Gutierrez. “Thanks to the leadership of the committee and Chairman Carl Schramm, we now have a well-informed framework for moving forward and ensuring that we as a nation foster innovation and its contribution to a healthy 21st Century economy.”

“While we recognize that the American economy is changing in profound ways—mostly due to innovation—our understanding is minimal,” commented Chairman Carl Schramm. “Data collection and measurement loom large in helping us to understand these changes and to identify and replicate what we’re doing well.”

Here are some of the key recommendations.

-The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) will work with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to provide a comprehensive accounting of the effect of high-tech goods and services on growth and productivity.This will set the stage for the development of integrated estimates for major sectors and detailed industries. Although total factor productivity growth is not a direct measure of innovation, correctly capturing productivity at the sectoral level will greatly improve our understanding where innovation occurs.

-BEA will design a supplemental innovation account by January 2009. This account will be a framework for directly measuring how much of the overall increase in productivity is due to increased investments in innovation. It will include investments in intellectual property (including patents, copyrights, and trademarks) and in human capital. In addition to directly measuring the impact of innovation on growth, such a measure would take into account the fact that knowledge, just like other property, is wealth—and those policies that increase knowledge increase the wealth of our society.

-Building on their successful efforts in developing measures of the impact of R&D on GDP growth, partners at the National Science Foundation are asked to maintain and expand their commitment and effort to the collection of data on research and development and innovation-related inputs. These efforts will provide an important piece of the puzzle of what drives innovation in the U.S. economy.

-Recognizing the clear benefits that can be achieved through better statistical coordination and data synchronization, Secretary Gutierrez pledged to work with the Council of Economic Advisors, the Office of Management and Budget, the Departments of Treasury and Labor, and Congress to see whether a framework that meets everyone’s data confidentiality concerns is achievable.

-The Committee members expressed a desire for the dialogue to continue after the release of these recommendations. In particular, the Secretary indicated he would direct the bureaus in Commerce to conduct various workshops on the drivers and impediments to innovation.

The Report is available on line at www.commerce.gov and www.innovationmetrics.gov.

Direct links to the report of the Advisory Committee:
Click here to access the full report
Click here to access the press release
Click here to access quotes
Click here to access key facts

Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 Released. National Science Board Calls for Bolstering Basic Research and New Metrics to Sustain US Competitive Edge

Members of the National Science Board today delivered to the President and the Congress Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (SEI'08), the Board's biennial report on the state of science and engineering research and education in the United States. Called the "gold standard," it is the most comprehensive source of information on research and development conducted by universities, industry, the federal government and the international science and engineering enterprise.

The Board also introduced its new publication, Digest of Key Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 containing a selected set of indicators electronically linked with detailed data tables and discussions in the main volumes of SEI. In addition to SEI'08, the Board, concerned that the data revealed disturbing trends with serious policy implications, published a companion piece, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy. In this policy statement and in presentations in the U.S. House of Representatives, National Science Board Chairman Steven Beering, Subcommittee Chairman on SEI'08 Louis Lanzerotti and SEI'08 Subcommittee Member Arthur Reilly stressed the need for increased government and industry sharing of funding for basic research.

"These indicators come at an important time," said Chairman Beering. "The confluence of a range of indicators raises key questions about future U.S. high-technology industry's competitiveness in international markets and implications for highly skilled jobs at home."

The Board made three major recommendations:

1. The federal government should take action to enhance the level of funding for, and the transformational nature of, basic research;
2. Industry, government, the academic sector and professional organizations should take action to encourage greater intellectual interchange or synergy between industry and academia, with industry researchers encouraged to also participate as authors and reviewers for articles in open, peer-reviewed publications.
3. New data are critically needed, and this need should be expeditiously addressed by relevant federal agencies to track the implications for the U.S. economy of the globalization of manufacturing and services in high technology industry.

To review Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, visit http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators.

 

FACT SHEET: A Prime 13

1-2 Science and Engineering (S&E) Capabilities - People and Skills

Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 tell a mixed story regarding the achievement of U.S. students in science and math in international comparisons.

• U.S. grade school students continue to lag behind other developed countries in science and math, although fourth and eighth grade U.S. students showed steady gains in math since 1990. Only fourth graders showed gains in science compared to 1996.
• High school completion and college enrollment rates across ethnic groups increased steadily in recent years. But college enrollment and completion rates differ across socioeconomic groups.

3-4 Science and Technology (S&T) Capabilities and Workforce

The capability to do science and technology work increased throughout the world, and the National Science Foundation is out front tracking the trends.

• In 2000, the United States held about one quarter of the world's 194 million tertiary degrees -- degrees broadly equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate. Twenty years earlier, the U.S. share was closer to one third of the world's then 73 million tertiary degrees.
• From 1994 to 2004, U.S. firms increased the number of people they employed in R&D jobs outside the United States by 76 percent and employment within the United States by 31 percent, while U.S. subsidiaries of foreign firms increased their U.S. R&D employment by 18 percent.

5-6 S&T Capabilities - U.S. Research & Development (R&D)

The U.S. is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world supplying an estimated $340 billion for R&D in 2006, a record high.

• Of the $340 billion R&D total, basic research accounted for 18 percent or $62 billion; applied research accounted for 22 percent or $75 billion; and development accounted for the other 60 percent or $203 billion. In 2006, the federal government supplied about 60 percent of all basic research funds, industry about 17 percent, with private foundations, academic institutions and other governmental entities supplying the rest.
• Federal obligations for all academic research, basic and applied, declined in real terms between 2004 and 2005 and are expected to drop further in 2006 and 2007. This would be the first multiyear decline for academic research since 1982.

7-9 High Technology - U.S. Position

Based on key indicators, the U.S. sustained a relative economic advantage over other developed and developing economies. Growth has been far more rapid in the emerging markets of China and India.

• The U.S. is a leading producer in high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services, but several Asian countries, led by China, have rapidly increased their global market share.
• The U.S. leads the world in economically-viable patents, filed in the U.S., Japan and Europe.
• The U.S. comparative advantage in exports of high-technology products has eroded: the U.S. trade balance in advanced technology products shifted from surplus to deficit starting in 2002. Information and communications products geographically concentrated in Asia -- particularly China and Malaysia -- account for this deficit.

10-11 Public Support for Science in the U.S.

U.S. public support for government funding of scientific research is strong and growing.

• In a 2006 survey, 87 percent of Americans supported government funding for basic research, up from 80 percent in past surveys dating back to 1979. Also, Americans who said the government spends too little on scientific research grew from 34 percent to 41 percent between 2002 and 2006.
• In 2006, Americans expressed greater confidence in leaders of the scientific community than those of any other institution except the military. On science-related public policy issues, including global climate change, stem cell research and genetically modified foods, Americans believe that science leaders, are knowledgeable and impartial and ought to be influential.

12-13 Federal Support for Academic Scientists and Engineers

Academic scientists and engineers are more diverse today, and federal funding remains important to them.

• From 1973 to 2006, in the academic, doctoral labor force the share of women increased from 9 percent to 33 percent, of underrepresented minorities (African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians/Alaska Natives) from 2 percent to 8 percent, and of Asian/Pacific Islanders from 4 percent to 14 percent.
• Academic S&E doctorate holders employed in academia who received federal support has remained steady during the last 20 years: just under half, 47 percent in 2006, and in the late 1980s. Among life scientists, this percentage has dropped from 65 percent in 1989, to 58 percent in 2006, although the actual number of those reporting federal support increased.

Egils Milbergs, Center for Accelerating Innovation, commented:  "This is an important document for policy makers.  Today's Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 report makes clear that the public continues to support higher investment in scientific research. Yet we see in the data an erosion of federal basic research funding and, more disturbing, a relative decline in private sector R&D support of academic research. This raises the question of how to implement the National Science Board recommendation to encourage greater intellectual interchange or synergy between industry and academia. Investing in the scientific  talent and technological infrastructure of our overseas rivals appears to be more synergistic to global corporations than here in the US." 

Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 Will Rollout January 15

Members of the National Science Board will rollout Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the Board's biennial report on the state of science and engineering research and education in the United States on Jan. 15 in Washington DC. Every two years, the Board presents its report to the president and Congress. It is the most comprehensive source of information on research and development conducted by universities, industry, the federal government and the international science and engineering enterprise. This will be the earliest release date for any issue of the Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) series.

The presentation will focus on data in Indicators 2008 and the Board's conclusions contained in its companion piece, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy. The companion piece focuses on the important role of research and development and basic research supported by industry and the federal government in sustaining U. S. global competitiveness in high technology industries. The Board will also introduce its new publication, Digest of Key Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, containing a selected set of important indicators to be electronically linked with detailed data tables and discussions in the main volumes of SEI.

Link to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators to access a PDF version of Science and Engineering 2008 after 10 a.m. on Jan. 15.

Who:

Steven Beering, Chairman, National Science Board
Louis Lanzerotti, Chairman, Board Subcommittee for SEI
Art Reilly, Member, Board Subcommittee for SEI
Kathie Olsen, Deputy Director, National Science Foundation

What:

Rollout, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008

When:

Jan. 15, 2008, 10 a.m.

Where:

House Science and Technology Committee Hearing Room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

To review Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, visit http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/.

Marketplace for Idea-Sharing. Big Think Launches with 2292 Ideas (and counting)

(www.BigThink.com ) is an on-line beta site launched today for the growing global conversation about where we are and where we're headed. Harvard educated co-founders Victoria Brown and Peter Hopkins germinated the idea for Big Think while working together at PBS on the “Charlie Rose” show in 2006. Taking a cue from elite private institutions and conferences that convene thought leaders from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives to swap ideas about pressing global issues, Big Think is adapting this model to the more egalitarian Web medium. Combining journalistically produced interviews with user-generated content, and playing both moderator and mediator, Big Think is attempting to be a bridge between edited and so-called informed opinion and the less controlled freestyle of online social media – a potentially unique civic engagement platform.

"We live in a global age, and yet there is no central, global forum to exchange, discuss and debate the big issues and ideas of our time", says Big Think co-founder Victoria Brown. "Big Think is a needed social endeavor that will allow an engaged global audience to share the same platform as leading voices from around the world. Big Think is driven by the conviction that this conversation should be open across all geographies, boundaries and jurisdictions - not limited to one class, rank or station."

A formidable group of financial backers who share the founders' vision for raising the quality of media are investing in the project including Peter Thiel (PayPal, Facebook and Clarium Capital), Larry Summers (Former Secretary of the Treasury, Former President of Harvard), Tom Scott (Nantucket Nectars and Plum TV), and Gary David Goldberg (creator of Family Ties and Spin City). David Frankel, South African venture capitalist, is lead investor.

Link to New York Times article: Ex-Harvard President Meets a Former Student, and Intellectual ... New York Times

The National Innovation Ecosystem: A Metrics Framework for Guiding Innovation Policy in the 21st Century

The Center for Accelerating Innovation has been collaborating with ASTRA (The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America) on a framework for describing the “national innovation ecosystem” and for guiding the development of an innovation measurement system we call Innovation Vital Signs (IVS). Download innovation_vital_signs_framework_report_v.2.8.pdf   The purpose of such a system is to provide a tool to evaluate the nation’s innovation capabilities and performance, and better assess policy choices and potential impacts. [1]  More information on the IVS project can be found at www.usinnovation.org.

The framework is based on a systematic review of 52 public indicator reports and 95 private sector sources. Our review generated an inventory of 3,126 indicators measuring multiple dimensions of innovative activity. We discovered during our review that no common framework for organizing and presenting such indicators exists. The framework we designed is comprehensive and approaches innovation as a complex and multi-faceted process and recognizes:

• both the innovation supply (inputs) and demand (outputs) and the process that connects inputs to outputs and ultimate national impacts.
• context in which innovation takes place including the macroeconomic environment, public policies, infrastructure and the national mindset for innovation.
• changes in the nature of innovation including globalization of innovative activity, new business models for managing innovation, types of innovation, service sector innovation, entrepreneurial activity and diffusion/adoption rates for innovation.

The framework organizes indicators in four broad domains as illustrated and into 14 specific factors that drive knowledge from original insight to economic impact. Based on a detailed evaluation of these indicators and a workshop we identified a set of baseline indicators from which to evolve innovation vital signs for the national innovation ecosystem. We conclude that currently available indicators and measurement methods do not adequately describe in a timely manner the dynamics of innovation today. Innovation cannot be approached as an isolated inventive activity and linear process. We need to move beyond indicators dominated by inputs such as R&D, scientific and engineering personnel, patents and number of publications. A comprehensive indicator framework is required that can link innovation inputs, processes and outcomes to better reflect the reality of innovation today. Innovation is best viewed an ecosystem of relationships, connections and diverse patterns interaction among individuals and organizations. It is a complex process in which new knowledge eventually becomes embedded into a new products, services, processes and business models that create value. This value creation process in turn generates national benefits and revenue and profit to entities who undertake the risk of being innovators.

Innovation is a process by which value is created for customers through public and private organizations that transform new knowledge and technologies into profitable products and services for national and global markets. A high rate of innovation in turn contributes to more intellectual capital, market creation, economic growth, job creation, wealth, and higher standard of living.

Innovation policy should be based on evidence. Timely, high quality relevant information is available in abundance to support fiscal, monetary and trade policies. Innovation policy for the 21^st century will require new indicators, improved data collection and integration methods, and sophisticated visualization tools to understand the more subtle, qualitative and interactive elements of innovation and greater recognition of role innovation plays in the service sector. The framework offered in this report integrates the fundamental change in innovation practices from the previous closed, static, linear and individualistic perspective into a multidimensional, dynamic approach that is capable of staying abreast of the demands of a global economy.

The Innovation Vital Signs conceptual framework identifies 4 domains and 14 innovation factors that collectively interact to create the innovation capacity and performance of a nation. The innovation framework report summarizes the provisional set of indicators that emerged from our global assessment of innovation indicators. Download innovation_vital_signs_framework_report_v.2.8.pdf

---

[1]The framework builds on the innovation ecosystem concepts and recommendations prepared by Egils Milbergs, Center for Accelerating Innovation for the 21^st Century Innovation Working Group of the National Innovation Initiative, Council on Competitiveness. PDF] 21st century innovation working group final report , Innovate America Final Report, December 2004.  www.compete.org   Additional information on the Innovation Vital Signs Project can be found at www.usinnovation.org

An Innovator On The Road Not Taken: Ken Hendricks

Ken Hendricks died December 21, 2007 after falling from a construction site at his home in Afton, Wisconsin. This is a real tragedy for his family and also for those of us who were working on one of his many projects and entrepreneurial ventures. His rise from a 11th grade drop-out to the founder of ABC Supply, the largest provider of roofing and siding materials to contractors in the United States and a Forbes listed billionaire, is testimony to the opportunities available to all hard working and talented individuals. He will certainly be missed.

One of the most compelling stories of his life is how he turned around the struggling community of Beloit, Wisconsin. He made a lot of friends and more money redeveloping older vacant properties such as the former Beloit Mall and Beloit Corp. The 450,000-square-foot mall is now the Eclipse Center and holds a banquet facility and convention center, Cardinal Stritch University, Energy Services Inc., department store Elder-Beerman and several public services. The 800,000-square-foot former Beloit Corp. is called Ironworks and was converted for industrial and office use with massive murals on the building. He dreamed a change in Beloit and now hundreds of people are living in his dream. He didn’t neglect the blue collar jobs in favor of white collar jobs—he created both. He was on the road to developing hundreds of new green collar jobs through his environmental/energy ventures. .

The Plot in Rockford, Illinois: A Prototype Innovation Ecosystem

Ken Hendricks  also saw opportunities in Rockford, Illinois, a community just south of Beloit and approximately 90 miles northwest of Chicago with a population of approximately 150,000. Rockford's 20th Century industry revolved around machine tools, heavy machinery, automotive, aerospace, fastener and cabinet hardware products, and packaging devices and concepts. During the 1980s the Rockford area went in to a severe economic decline as foreign competition and demand shifts in the manufacturing sector severely impacted the economy and employment structure. Rockford experienced one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. In a typical American story of resilience, Rockford is re-inventing itself and is now in transition as the business, political and civic leadership look to new markets, entrepreneurship and innovation based businesses to drive the future economy.

Ken Hendricks worked closely with Rockford Area Ventures and

EIGERlab -- the creative forces for positioning Rockford as a global innovation hotspot. Ken believed that the huge inventory of abandoned industrial buildings and pool of highly skilled retired or unemployed workers in Rockford were not a liability, but an asset for the future. Ken acted on this insight and purchased the vacant Essex Wire plant on the 2800 block of North Main Street. He challenged us to make it a catalyst for a new Rockford entrepreneurial and collaborative spirit. Those involved with the project’s evolution were  excited about designing the facility as a global center for innovation, learning and advanced manufacturing. Ken was an inspirational character—little ego, optimistic, entrepreneurial and a man of great accomplishments. I remember a number of meetings with him as we discussed the EIGERDome project and issues important to Rockford—K-12 education, leadership, business incubators, emerging markets, green technology, alternative energy, wind turbines and broadband access. He was focused on catalyzing more collaboration between industry, education and government. His insights were respected and he was always encouraging those around him to get on with the job. He was a visionary and, more significant, an actionary. It is my hope that Ken’s life story, and legacy, will make the EIGERDome a launch platform for dozens of creative projects and entrepreneurial ventures.

 

2006 Governor's Awards Recipients: Ken and Diane Hendricks

29 Oct 2007 by rss@youtube.com (wifoundationarts)  
An excerpt from Wisconsin's 2006 Governor's Awards in Support of the Arts, recognizing the life and work of Ken and Diane Hendricks of Beloit.

YouTube :: Tag // work - http://youtube.com/rss/tag/work.rss

Building Supply Billionaire Kenneth Hendricks, 66 - washingtonpost.com

Funeral Services for Ken Hendricks (December, 2007)

10 questions for Ken Hendricks - Entrepreneur of the Year

Billionaire made Beloit his business...Read Article
August 11, 2007 - The Wisconsin State Journal

Hendricks helping turn city around ...Read Article

October 10, 2007 - The Daily Gate City

The Roofer’s Son ...Read Article
September 2007 - Reader's Digest

Ken Hendricks in Forbes ...Read The Interview

The 400 Richest Americans 2007, Secrets Of The Self-Made Q&A
September 20, 2007 - Forbes

Hendricks: 'It's all about treating people right' ...Read Article
June 25, 2007 - The Janesville Gazette

Entrepreneur of the Year
December 2006 - Inc. Magazine ...Read Article

December 26, 2007 in Global Innovation, Innovation, Managing Innovation, Regional Innovaton | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Innovation: A New Face and Image for the US

The next Administration will have an opportunity to reshape the image America presents to the world. This requires leveraging so-called U.S. soft power instruments. Foreign assistance is one of the tools. However, American public opinion is highly skeptical of the benefits of economic aid to foreign countries. In general, foreign assistance is a low priority. Only 18% of the public considers improving the standards of living (e.g. getting out of poverty) of less developed nations as very important, 64% want to cut back economic aid and only 8% want to expand it. Furthermore, there is little consensus and much controversy among researchers and academics on the impact of foreign aid on reducing poverty or creating economic opportunity and growth.

Against this context the  HELP Commission, after taking nearly two years examining reform options for US foreign assistance programs, released its much anticipated final report, "Beyond Assistance." The Commission was created by an Act of Congress spearheaded by Congressman Wolf (R-VA) in January 2004. Most notable statement in the report after 22 months of countless meetings interviews and study:

“…. not one person appeared before this Commission to defend the status quo. It is shocking that the need for foreign aid reform is so widely recognized yet so little has been done to implement lasting and vital changes. The legislation mandating the U.S. system was written more than 45 years ago and is littered with competing goals, conflicting objectives, and vague directives.”

Specific recommendations put forth by the Commission, included:

· consolidating the disarray of organizations, purposes and accounts of assistance;

· rewriting the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to establish a new compact on foreign assistance;

· enhancing policy coherence, particularly by aligning U.S. trade and development policies;

· increasing resources -- staff, management training, and budget -- for foreign aid;

· ring-fencing long-term development assistance from redirection to short-term security and policy needs;

· encouraging greater investment in economic growth, agriculture and infrastructure programs;

· removing trade restrictions that hamper development, including reducing U.S. agricultural subsidies and providing duty-free/quota-free access for Millennium Challenge Account countries and for countries with $2000 per capita GDP;

· reestablishing an independent Office of Monitoring and Evaluation to track performance and report results; and

· instituting a Quadrennial Development and Humanitarian Assistance Review.

The Commission did not reach consensus on the organizational structure to manage a reformed foreign aid strategy. A majority supported a "super State Department" with four functional under secretaries -- political and security affairs; economic affairs, development and trade; humanitarian services and stabilization; and public diplomacy and consular affairs. A minority report by three commissioners argued for a cabinet-level department for international development.

New R&D Institute Proposed

Among the more intriguing recommendations is to establish a research and development organization to jumpstart technology that will change people’s lives in the developing world. Technology is increasingly becoming a part of daily life even in poor countries. The scientific and innovative capacity of developing states is also growing and partnerships with US high tech companies is clearly accelerating in such areas as biotechnology, climate research, alternative energy, biofuels, information technology, communications, infrastructure development, environmental health, education and so on. . . For example, Nick Negroponte has been promoting the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program, a low cost computer specifically designed for developing countries. Intel has the Classmate PC designed for emerging markets worldwide.

The organization suggested by the HELP Commission would be called the “Development Applications Research Institute” (DARI), modeled on DARPA and focus on building technology in all relevant development areas, including agriculture, health and education. Excerpts from the report:

“…… Like DARPA, it would take on long-term projects and welcome risk-taking, with the understanding that risk taking implies potential losses as well as gains. In addition, much of the organization’s work would be carried out in partnership with the developing countries themselves, as a way to spur the development of local R&D capabilities and to ensure that local expertise informs solutions destined for local use…..the head of DARI could serve as science advisor to the lead U.S. Government official in charge of development policy. At the same time, staff could proactively seek new ideas for funding from private enterprise and research universities to ensure the broadest range of inputs……DARI would only fund projects that would lead to practical application of technology by poor people in the developing world. America needs to build a successful new R&D organization that is devoted to development. The cost would be relatively small, on the order of $50 to $100 million a year, but DARI could transform countless lives. Its cost is easily justified by solving a “market failure.” In other words, private markets probably have not responded to these needs because of the anticipated small market and low expected private return. However, these are outweighed by the high expected social return. DARI also could help alleviate suffering around the world and restore our country’s reputation for leadership in innovation.”

Some links to similar efforts that launched during the life span of the HELP Commission-- Brookings/CSIS' Security By Other Means, CSIS's Smart Power Commission, the Center for U.S. Global Engagement's Impact '08, and Senator Lugar's Committee Staff Report, Embassies Grapple to Guide Foreign Aid -- as well as CGD's Commission on Weak States and National Security that preceded it.

Little Funding Action on Bipartisan Competitiveness Bill

"A year that started with great promise of bipartisan action to enhance American competitiveness in the global economy appears about to end with no significant action on any of the key elements," said Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) President George Scalise. "To say that we are keenly disappointed would be a huge understatement."

The SIA noted that President Bush and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives both made strong commitments to increasing funding for basic research, reforming visa programs to ease the hiring of the best and brightest foreign-born scholars with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and modernizing and extending the R&D tax credit. "Both Congress and the Administration have taken bows for their strong commitment to enhancing U.S. competitiveness and innovative capabilities, but the rhetoric has greatly outstripped the action," Scalise continued.
"While Congress recently passed and President Bush signed the 'America COMPETES Act,' these actions mean little without an actual appropriation to fund the programs it authorizes. Current spending bills drastically shortchange research funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Energy," Scalise said. NSF and NIST both play critical roles in the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative which supports cutting-edge basic research in collaboration with industry and universities.    
SIA noted that without action this week, funding for basic research at universities and the national laboratories will fall far short of the levels promised by the President and the House leadership; U.S. companies will continue to be disadvantaged in the competition to hire the best and brightest foreign-born graduates from American universities; and the R&D tax credit will expire on December 31, 2007.

"Our competitors in the global economy are poised to seize the opportunities presented by our inaction on these critical concerns," Scalise said. "Other countries and regions have put in place generous incentives to attract investment, including cash grants, tax holidays, and liberal R&D tax credits. Competitors are also seeking to build world-class research universities and funding basic research in nanotechnology. The U.S. still enjoys a lead in technology, but leadership is not a birthright - it must be earned through action.

“Short-sighted and short-changed” declared Dr. Mary Good, Chairman of ASTRA, the Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America, following last-minute changes in key science budgets by Congress and the Administration as lawmakers rush to adjourn before the Holidays. “Reversing years of hard work, Congress and the Administration have been short-sighted in their haste to get a budget agreement — and they have short-changed America in the process” declared Good. “Only a few months ago, we achieved a refreshing consensus to begin the much-needed doubling of key science budgets under the America COMPETES Act,” said Good, adding “passage of the COMPETES Act recognized that America must increase its investment in physical sciences and engineering if it is to compete successfully in the future global economy. The COMPETES Act was bipartisan and signed by the President. It was a first step in insuring that future generations of Americans can be prepared for the competitive dynamics of a flat world.” The impending budget changes come only days after ASTRA’s release of a new 14-Point policy framework document, Riding the Rising Tide that is being sent to all Presidential campaigns and Congress. The RisingTide Report sets forth an action agenda that details how Americacan maintain its innovation future in the 21^st Century in the face of global competition and “flattening.” Rising Tide explains the consequences of inadequate investment in scientific research to our economy, the US standard of living and national security. See Riding the Rising Tide (www.usinnovation.org)

Following is a statement by the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation on the FY08 omnibus appropriations bill now under consideration in Congress.

The FY08 omnibus appropriations bill that Congress is considering represents a step backwards for the bipartisan innovation agenda.  The President and Congress, for all their stated support this year for making basic research in the physical sciences and engineering a top budget priority ended up essentially cutting, or flat-funding, key science agencies after accounting for inflation.

The nations that seek to challenge our global leadership in science and innovation should be greatly encouraged by this legislation.

 

The President and a near-unanimous Congress, by enacting the America COMPETES Act earlier this year, laid out a bold path toward revitalizing basic research in the physical sciences and engineering.  COMPETES was a welcome Congressional initiative to double funding for America’s science research programs and expand science education that complemented the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and the Democratic Innovation Agenda.

This appropriations legislation takes a step back from the promises contained in all of these initiatives.

The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation is hopeful that this reversal of direction does not represent a lack of commitment to turning around the nation’s long decline in support for basic research programs.  For now, the failure to provide the funding required to begin growing these programs makes these promises little more than empty gestures.   We intend to work with the Administration and Congress in the new year to make the promise of America COMPETES a reality.

University Research Generating More Patents, Licensing Income, Startups and Spinouts

The latest figures reported by the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) indicate that public and private sources spent more than $45 billion for R&D on university campuses in Fiscal Year 2006. Some statistics from the report:

• Managed 18,874 new invention disclosures

• Filed 15,908 total U.S. patent applications

• Saw 3,255 U.S. patents issued

• Signed 4,963 new licenses

• Managed 12,672 licenses and options that are yielding active income.

• Had 697 new products introduced to the market in 2006

• Introduced more than 4,350 new products into the market from FY1998 to FY2006.

• Launched 553 new startup companies in 2006.

• 5,724 new spinouts since 1980,

The top performers in licensing income include Duke, New York University, Stanford, the University of California system, the University of Wisconsin and Wake Forest University.

Download US Licensing Activity Survey FY2006

Japan: A Hybrid Model of Capitalism

After 15 years of gloom, Japan's companies have emerged with a new, hybrid model a bit closer to America's according to an article in the November 29 issue of The Economist.

“ONCE it was the Walkman. Then it was the PlayStation. Today it is the Toyota Prius that epitomises Japan's technological and industrial prowess. Built by Japan's largest company, which is now on the verge of becoming the world's largest carmaker……

But the Prius also symbolises another transformation: that of Japan itself. Just as a hybrid car combines the distinct advantages of petrol and electric propulsion systems, Japan has been developing a new hybrid model of capitalism that brings together aspects of the old Japanese model, which ran into trouble in the early 1990s, with carefully chosen elements of the more dynamic American or Anglo-Saxon variety of capitalism. The resulting hybrid model has been adopted by many firms and has already helped to transform Japan's fortunes. After wrenching political and corporate reforms, the country in 2002 emerged from over a decade of economic stagnation. Since then the recovery, originally export-led, has spread to the economy as a whole (see chart 1). Japanese firms have restructured, paid down their debts and are now posting record profits. The banking system has been cleaned up. Yet despite this progress, Japan still faces huge problems……

Read more at Going hybrid | Economist.com.

Also retired IBM executive Irving Wladawsky-Berger has a thoughtful post on the article here: Hybrid Models of Capitalism

Irving’s Blog: Irving Wladawsky-Berger: About Me

The Rising Chorus On Innovation

This week ASTRA (the Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America) released its report Riding The Rising Tide: A 21^st Century Strategy for US Competitiveness and Prosperity. The report presents 14 recommendations, many of which are familiar, and reinforces the quest to make innovation a first tier issue in the various Presidential campaigns. 

>> Download the Report
(PDF-6.2 MB)

Ken Jarboe of the Athena Alliance does a good summary of the 14 major points of the ASTRA report. “The report calls for greater efforts to understand the innovation ecosystem. We need to understand that the nature of innovations has changed in the I-Cubed Economy. It is no longer a linear process that begins with men in white coats in labs. Innovation is a complex set of interactions -- truly an ecosystem. By calling for better measures, increased analytical capabilities and new ways of thinking about innovation, the report sets a direction for innovation policy.”

Go to Athena Alliance's blog: Riding the Rising Tide

Also the Computing Research Policy Blog reported on the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation competitiveness briefing on Capitol Hill this week. Attendees heard from Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the president of the National Academy of Engineering Dr. Charles Vest, and a keynote address by Norm Augustine. Also, in attendance was Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) who has backed the issue of increased basic research funding since before the "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" report was released. Senator Bingaman echoed Dr. Vest when he said that the difficult work was still ahead because the current appropriations meltdown. He also said that the efforts of competitiveness were a long-term project. Senator Alexander said that it was important to continue to broaden the base of support for competitiveness issues in Congress but that it would be a mistake to think this issue was solely the responsibility of Congress. He said that everyone needs to be involved in order to keep America competitive.

Norm Augustine, who in addition to chairing the National Academies panel that produced the hugely influential "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" report and has since chaired a follow-up called “Is America Falling off the Flat Earth?”, pointed out that while great progress was made toward funding basic research in the FY07 appropriations, sustaining the momentum of increases in FY08 was critical. He said, “Leadership in science and technology is not a birthright of the United States” but is something that needs to be fought for and won every day. An interesting statistic that he used was that two-thirds of the increased labor productivity over the last several decades was attributed to federal investment in research. Download augustine_we_have_a_problem_talk_121207.pdf

The event concluded with a presentation of the Task Force YouTube contest winning video.

Egils Milbergs of the Center for Accelerating Innovation commented: "The Augustine and ASTRA reports are part of a rising chorus urging innovation as a fundamental national priority for maintaining US economic growth, prosperity and national security."

UK Gets a Taste of Open Innovation

A post by David Simoes-Brown about Open Innovation guru Henry Chesbrough’s visit to NESTA. NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts with a vision to transform the UK's capacity for innovation. Chesbrough has been described by the Economist as “the godfather of open innovation”.  Click here for a short video of him in action.

Henry Chesbrough opened the corporate lab with a presentation on the theory of open innovation, and lead the discussion on the implications for practice.  You could tell this subject is hot by looking at the quality and seniority of the audience from organisations as diverse as ARUP, AstraZeneca, BBC, BT, GSK, IDEO, RBS, Oracle Kodak, Capgemini, McLaren F1, Microsoft, Oracle, Unilever, P&G and Cancer Research UK.  Henry explained why open innovation was on the rise citing factors such as the explosion in venture capital, private funding of universities and increasing workforce mobility amongst others.  He then outlined four themes of the 'logic of open innovation':

· Good ideas are widely distributed and no-one has a monopoly;

· Not all the smart people work for us; 

· Companies must employ poker players as well as chess players;

· You must manage IP in order to manage research. 

Center for Open Innovation

About NESTA Connect

About NESTA

NESTA Innovation blog

NESTA Research Reports

The following links take you to a list of all NESTA's Policy and Research Unit's research reports. 

· Understanding UK innovation

Of particular interest is the Leading Innovation report on how to build effective regional coalitions for innovation. For regions without the extraordinary assets of Silicon Valley (what is termed here ‘ordinary’ regions), making the leap from an old-economy paradigm to one based on innovation in services and high-tech industries can seem impossible. But it isn’t. As shown in the report, it is made up of a series of smaller, more achievable steps. Two things stand out, however: this isn’t a fast process; and it requires deep regional knowledge and strong regional leadership.

The case studies presented in this report showcase seven European regions that have successfully made the transition from ordinary to innovative region; and four UK regions that are somewhere along that journey. It concludes by presenting a guide to the ‘regional innovation journey’ and an analysis of the types of leadership that may be required along the way.

Download the Leading Innovation

Global Entrepreneurship Week

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown joined Carl Schramm of the Kauffman Foundation in starting the countdown to Global Entrepreneurship Week, 17-23 November 2008, the world's biggest single event celebrating and promoting entrepreneurship amongst young people.

Representatives from more than 25 participating countries were on hand for the announcement and working sessions designed to share information and plan for the coming year. The event took place during Enterprise Week, the centerpiece of Make Your Mark's campaign to promote enterprise culture to young people in the UK.

Watch the video of the announcement.

See photos from the Nov. 13 event

The Power of Collaborative Innovation

The “Power of Collaborative Innovation” will be the theme of the World Economic Forum’s Annual meeting in Davos January 23-27, 2008.

Link: World Economic Forum - Home

The theme is a good fit for the Forum’s diverse membership and multi-stakeholder model. The Annual Meeting 2008 program will be based on the following five conceptual pillars:

· Business
Competing While Collaborating

· Economics and Finance
Addressing Economic Insecurity

· Geopolitics
Aligning Interests across Divides

· Science and Technology
Exploring Nature’s New Frontiers

· Values and Society
Understanding Future Shifts

Co-Chairs for the Meeting:
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1997-2007); Member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum
James Dimon, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, JPMorgan Chase & Co., USA
Henry Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates, USA
K.V. Kamath, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, ICICI Bank, India
Indra K. Nooyi, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, PepsiCo, USA
David J. O'Reilly, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chevron Corporation, USA
Wang Jianzhou, Chief Executive, China Mobile Communications Corporation, People's Republic of China

The World Economic Forum picks the hottest startups in health care, biotech, IT, Internet, and energy. Check out this slide show of 39 winners for 2008. LINK: Future Leaders of Tech

Innovation and the Presidential Campaigns

To keep up with the innovation policy positions by candidates link to www.usinnovation.org, a website maintained by ASTRA (The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America) www.aboutastra.org. It is an excellent resource. Check out the links below for recent innovation statements and webcasts.

2008 Presidential Campaign Tracking

Current Polls By State

 

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

John Edwards

Bill Richardson

 

 

Fred Thompson

Mitt Romney

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain

                                                                                                                           

BusinessWeek questioned the leading candidates in the Republican and Democratic parties about their views on innovation. Nearly all the candidates are in favor of spending more federal money for education in science, math, and engineering. And Republicans and Democrats alike want to invest more in nonoil energy sources. Most have advisers on innovation with ties to Silicon Valley and leading research universities.

View the leading Presidential candidates' outlook on innovation—what it is and what they'll do

Strategies To Solve Wicked Problems

What’s the best way to solve a wicked problem — by working in a large group sharing ideas via the intranet or as individuals? George S. Davidson and his research team at Sandia National Laboratories attempted to resolve this question. “In this day and age of email and the Internet, our expectations were that computer-mediated group brainstorming, i.e. across the web with no face-to face contact, was going to have the best results,” Davidson says. “What we found, however, was that people working as individuals were at least as effective and possibly more so than those brainstorming in a group over the web when trying to solve ‘wicked,’ tangled problems, both in terms of quality and quantity.”

Wicked problems are those problems that by their very definition are so tangled that there is no agreement about their definitions, much less their solutions.

This finding that individuals are more successful than groups in computer-mediated brainstorming suggests a time- and cost-saving potential for companies. Generally, when electronic group brainstorming is compared to face-to-face brainstorming, it is touted as having the advantages of shorter meetings, increased participation by remote team members, better documentation via electronic recording, and cash savings. But the Sandia research suggests that people working to solve problems on their own might involve less time and, thus less expenses, than electronic group brainstorming.

“Despite our findings, it still seems reasonable that there may be modes of [as yet, untested] web-based interactions and strategies that would allow the larger group to have superior performance compared to a limited number of participants working alone, even if those participants are able to reason and write about their ideas with brilliance and clarity,” Davidson says

He expects that in coming years “better software, including threaded discussions with moderators to focus the work and prediction markets to evaluate quality, will become tools that large organizations will use to solve wicked problems.”

Sandia News Release

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007... 

   Wicked problems

A $200K Prize for Clean Energy Offered by MIT

MIT is offering a $200,000 prize to the entrepreneur who develops the most innovative alternative energy technology. MIT President Susan Hockfield said: “The ultimate goal of this contest is to find innovative solutions to transform today's energy systems into tomorrow's sustainable energy future.” The prize builds off the very strong base of two existing and nationally recognized MIT competitions—the MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition and the Ignite Clean Energy Competition. Funding for the award is provided by NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation and the United States Department of Energy (US DOE).

This expanded competition and more significant pool of prize money is designed to accelerate the pace of bringing innovation to market. Entrepreneurial teams of all backgrounds and experience levels are being encouraged to participate, as the competition is open to both student and nonstudent teams that meet eligibility requirements. Teams will undergo a rigorous mentoring, coaching and selection process as the competition progresses. The competition begins Feb. 15 and will take place on the MIT campus. More information on the contest is available on the MIT Clean Energy competition Web site. The semifinalists and finalists will present and defend a full business plan before a panel of energy experts and venture capitalists. The panel will choose the winning team and runners up on May 14. In addition to the grand prize of $200,000, the judges will award three runners-up $20,000 each.

Egils Milbergs, president of the Center for Accelerating Innovation, comments: "The MIT Clean Energy Competition is an important demand-side experiment in accelerating innovation. Entrepreneurs are the agents of change. The prize competition will be powerful motivator to jump start  markets for alternative  technologies sitting in laboratories.”

MIT CEEP Announcement

Download MIT CEEP Press Release in .pdf

MIT CEEP PowerPoint

Download 11-28-2007 MIT CEEP Announcement

A Generous "Valley of Death" Tax Credit for Research at Oregon's Universities

A 60 percent income tax credit is now available to Oregon taxpayers who contribute to a program designed to fast-track commercialization of research discoveries at Oregon’s eight public universities: Oregon Health & Science University, Eastern Oregon University, Oregon Institute of Technology, Oregon State University, Portland State University, Southern Oregon University, University of Oregon, and Western Oregon University.

“This tax credit is one of a kind,” Oregon State Treasurer Randall Edwards said. “No other state has a program where donors can receive such a generous tax credit in return for helping move research from lab to market,”

David Chen, chair of the Oregon Innovation Council, said contributions to the fund provide targeted grant support during the difficult early stages of the venture lifecycle, referred to as the “valley of death” because so many promising innovations don’t make it through to commercialization. “As Oregon’s universities grow their market share of national research dollars and niche this research in growing areas of regional competence, such as nanotech, infectious disease solutions, renewable energy, and green building technologies, the University Venture Development Fund plays a critical role by bridging the gaps from lab R&D to marketable products,” Chen said. “Gap financing is a missing link in the chain of events linking research to job creation.”

Sen. Frank Morse, R-Albany, who championed legislation (SB 582 and 853) establishing the fund, described the launch as a watershed event. “We want Oregonians to be direct investors in expanding our economy,” he said. “I hope this will spur even more partnerships among the universities, government, business and industry.”

The donations will create an “evergreen” endowment to foster innovation because universities will repay the state for claimed tax credits with income from royalties and licensing fees. The state will issue additional tax credits as the initial ones are repaid allowing a cycle of reinvestment in university-derived innovation.

The legislature has authorized the universities to receive a total of $14 million in tax credit-eligible gifts, with each institution’s allocation based on its annual income from research grants and contracts. Tax credits will be awarded on a first come, first served basis.

FAQs and links to the participating universities, visit www.ous.edu/venturefund

Find out more about Oregon’s innovation initiatives at the links below:

2007 Innovation Plan
Read the 2007 Innovation Plan online, download the Plan (PDF) or  PowerPoint (9.9MB).

2007 Innovation Index
Read the full report (PDF).

Oregon Business Leadership Summit

Monday, December 3, 2007
Oregon Convention Center
oregonleadershipsummit.org

Innovate Beyond Boundaries: The Global Brain

The Global Brain: Your Roadmap for Innovating Faster & Smarter in a Networked World is a book authored by Satish Nambisan and Mohanbir Sawhney. It is a valuable read. Nick Donofrio, EVP for Innovation and Technology at IBM, writes a powerful introduction addressing his own perspective and  endorsing the principle themes of collaborative innovation, communities of creation, innovation ecosystems, open innovation and crowdsourcing and much more. “To pursue open, collaborative innovation, enterprises simply must find ways to tap into the potential of the skill, talent, and creativity of people form different teams in different organizations across the globe. A company can only be as innovative as the collective capacity of the people who make up its ecosystem.”

The book is organized into five parts:

1) From Firm Centric to Network Centric Innovation

2) The Landscape of Network- Centric Innovation

3) The Four Models of Network- Centric Innovation

4) Executing Network-Centric Innovation

5) Globalization and Network-Centric Innovation

The authors make a compelling case on why firms need to search for sources of creativity from both inside and outside the firm-- “innovate beyond boundaries.” There is no singular model (one size does not fit all). They present a useful taxonomy for analyzing the various dimensions and changing pattern of innovation and the confluence of open source innovation and business ecosystems. The most fun part is the presentation of four emerging models of network-centric innovation, which is useful in choosing the right strategy:

1) The Orchestra Model

2) The Creative Bazaar Model

3) The Jam Central Model

4) The MOD (“Modification”) Station Model

Egils Milbergs comments: “For those who want to study innovation and those that want to be innovators Global Brain is full of important insights on the journey to building the innovation DNA for a business.”

Sun Sets on Six Sigma at 3M R&D

After wrestling with Six Sigma principals for just about every company activity under former CEO James McNerney, 3M is largely abandoning it in research and development. Design News tells the story of that journey.  Full Story >> 

Rob Thompson on his www.learnsigma.com blog gets into this question of the future role of Six Sigma and innovation.

Some excerpts from his blog below.

As I’ve wrote time and time again on this blog there is no reason why Six Sigma should stifle innovation. Obviously 3M would disagree: [3M Shelves Six Sigma in R&D] 

Critics argue that excessive metrics, steps, measurements and Six Sigma’s intense focus on reducing variability water down the discovery process. Under Six Sigma, the free-wheeling nature of brainstorming and the serendipitous side of discovery is stifled. Experts agree the blanket approach to Six Sigma is generally not a good idea

Which ones? Name a few …. 

Okay, then: Michael Tushman, a professor at Harvard Business School, says: 

These TQM (Total Quality Management) and class of methodologies that are anchored on reducing variability are inversely associated with what we call exploratory innovation. Methodologies help incremental innovation. The more you apply them in R&D, the less effective they are on exploratory innovation 

So has the Six Sigma moment passed? 

“I think it has,” says Babson College management professor Tom Davenport. “Process management is a good thing. But I think it always has to be leavened a bit with a focus on innovation and [customer relationships].”… the notion of Six Sigma as a corporate cure-all is subsiding.

… the “define, measure, analyze, improve, control” mind-set doesn’t entirely gel with the fuzzy front-end of invention. When an idea starts germinating, Carter says, “you don’t want to overanalyze it,” which can happen in a traditional DMAIC framework.

AAARRGGHHH!! How many more times do will I hear that six sigma and innovation are not compatible. How many more times will someone say six sigma is dead, or ISO 9001 or any other quality management process? If you are tying to build an innovative product, would you rather have a stable, capable process where variation is known and controlled to work as a base to build upon or one which is widely fluctuating all over the place? Come on - this is a total no-brainer! Next it will be lean which is under attack, even though: 

Improving productivity in the face of lower production is a huge accomplishment

Do you have an opinion? More to come on this topic in the future.

Innovation and Globalization Conference at the University of Maryland

Egils Milbergs gave a keynote presentation at the Innovation and Globalization Conference held at the University of Maryland November 8 and 9. “The US still ranks number one as an investor in R&D and in global competitiveness. However, we need to recognize that other nations are embracing innovation as a top strategic priority and have joined the race to the top. To meet this challenge the US will need fresh insight and a new perspective. The traditional innovation paradigm has reached limits. Incremental extensions of current know-how, products and services will not cut it in a world that literally can change overnight. The answer is not just more R&D, more scientists and engineers, more patents and more scientific papers. We need a more radical, open and value based approach. The global innovation ecosystem that is rapidly emerging is not a threat. It is an opportunity to pioneer a new innovation model and metrics to drive future growth.”

LINK: Download innovation_and_globalization_presentation_1.4.pdf 

The Innovation and Globalization Conference was sponsored by the Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER) at the Robert H. Smith School of Business and University of Maryland. CIBER is designed to be a national resource center for teaching, research, and outreach in international business and related fields. The overarching purpose is to enhance the international competitiveness of American business. The specific initiatives being (and to be) undertaken by the Smith CIBER deal with critical competitiveness issues of national, regional, and local significance – all with the singular aim of streng