« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

November 25, 2007

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

November 23, 2007

Innovate Beyond Boundaries: The Global Brain

Global_brain_book_cover 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.”

November 14, 2007

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.

November 12, 2007

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 strengthening the international competitiveness of United States business.

Conference Co-Chairs

Vinod Jain

Dr. Vinod K. Jain
Director, Center for International Business Education and Research
Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland

 

P.K. Kannan

Dr. P.K. Kannan
Harvey Sanders Associate Professor, Department of Marketing
Director, Center for Excellence in Service
Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland

Keynote Speakers

Lemuel Lasher

Mr. Lemuel Lasher
Chief Innovation Officer
President, Global Business Solutions & Services
Computer Sciences Corporation

Mr. Egils Milbergs
Founder and President
Center for Accelerating Innovation

Mr. Harvey Seifter
Director
Arts and Business Council

Tom Venable

Mr. Tom Venable
Executive Vice President
Innocentive, LLC
(An Eli Lilly company)

The Smith CIBER was established on July 1, 2006 with a $1.42 million, four-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education and 100% matching funds from the Smith School and University of Maryland.

November 11, 2007

Students not prepared for the innovation economy

A nationwide poll of registered voters reveals that Americans are deeply concerned that the United States is not preparing young people with the skills they need to compete in the global economy. An overwhelming 80 percent of voters say that the kind of skills students need to learn to be prepared for the jobs of the 21st century is different from what they needed 20 years ago. Yet 60 percent say that schools have done only a fair or poor job keeping up with changing educational needs.
The national poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Peter D. Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Among the other key findings:

• Eighty-eight percent of voters say they believe that schools can and should incorporate 21st century skills such as including critical thinking and problem-solving skills, computer and technology skills, and communication and self-direction skills into their curriculum.
• Sixty-six percent of voters say they believe that students need more than just the basics of reading, writing and math; schools also need to incorporate a broader range of skills.
• Fifty-three percent say they believe schools should place an equal emphasis on 21st century skills and basic skills.

“The loud and clear message from this poll is that Americans recognize the need for our schools to help our students get back ahead of the curve in quickly changing world,” said Geoffrey Garin, Peter D. Hart Research Associates. “Right now, far more Americans view us as falling behind other countries in this regard than see us as taking the lead.”

“We now know that employers and the public are united in their understanding of what it takes to compete today,” said Partnership President Ken Kay. “These results provide education leaders and policymakers the tremendous opportunity to make our education system more aligned with the needs of the 21st century workforce. The public strongly supports more rigorous expectations for students that integrate 21st century skills into core academic subjects.”

“The industrial model of education is glaringly inadequate for the 21st century innovation economy. We cannot compete with a narrow scope of disciplinary skills. The education system should give more emphasis to problem solving, systems thinking, interactive learning, integrating multiple disciplines, self direction, learn-to-learn skills, integrity and ethics,” comments Egils Milbergs, president, Center for Accelerating Innovation. He noted that “immersive virtual environments such as Second Life hold great potential to dramatically expand student competencies and learning beyond the typical classroom."

Visit the Partnership for 21st Century Skill’s website for more information on the poll and 21st century skills, www.21stcenturyskills.org . Read a summary of the poll results www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/oct._10_launch_slides.ppt

November 10, 2007

UK Invests in Innovation to "Race to the Top"

The UK government will invest £1bn in business innovation and technology development over the next three years through the newly established technology strategy board (TSB). The strategy is aimed at positioning Britain as a key knowledge economy at the forefront of 21st century innovation and is based on a report by Lord Sainsbury of Turville entitled “The Race to the Top” (published October 5). The report states that the best way for the UK to compete in this age of globalization, is to move into high-value goods and services, for which an efficient and effective science and innovation ecosystem is vital.

Originally commissioned by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, the review was directed to look at the role that science and innovation can play in enabling the country to compete against low-wage, emerging economies such as China and India. The report revealed that while the UK’s record of innovation is better than is commonly supposed, the UK has not yet produced the best possible conditions to stimulate innovation in industry. Company strategies based solely on low costs will end in a downward spiral, each year bringing a new low-cost competitor. As Lord Sainsbury's review points out, global competition shouldn't be a 'race to the bottom', to see who can produce things the cheapest. It should be a 'race to the top', where we draw in the best and brightest researchers to help tap into new, high-value markets, based on our talent, infrastructure and innovation."

The announcement comes as the TSB announced 75 new collaborative R&D projects worth £42 million. Businesses were invited to bid for the funding last year in areas of innovation such as bioscience, healthcare, energy efficiency and low carbon technologies.

Key recommendations were the development of a national "proof-of-concept fund" and more flexible 'knowledge transfer programs' (KTPs) to help firms to gain funding and personnel as they grow. In addition, Lord Sainsbury recommended that the Small Business Research Innovation (SBRI) scheme should be reformed to adopt the principles used by the US's successful Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) scheme. The report also called for increasing international collaborations to help attract researchers from abroad and link British researchers with the best and brightest researchers globally and expand links with leading scientific nations. The report highlights the importance of a skilled workforce, claiming that training is a key part of any innovation 'ecosystem' and should be a key priority for policy-makers. Proposals to improve the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects were also highlighted in the review, as well as new measures to improve collaboration between academia and industry.

Further information about the Sainsbury Review can be found on the Treasury website

LINK: PDF file of The Race to the Top: A Review of Government’s Science and Innovation Policies (798KB) 

November 01, 2007

The United States, Switzerland, Denmark and Sweden on top of the Global Competitiveness Index

The annual Global Competitiveness Index has been released and the United States tops the overall ranking in The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, released by the World Economic Forum. Switzerland is in second position followed by Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland and Singapore, respectively. Chile is the highest ranked country in Latin America, followed by Mexico and Costa Rica. China and India continue to lead the way among large developing economies. Several countries in the Middle East and North Africa region are in the upper half of the rankings, led by Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In sub-Saharan Africa, only South Africa and Mauritius feature in the top half of the rankings, with several countries from the region positioned at the very bottom.

“The United States confirms its position as the most competitive economy in the world. The efficiency of the country’s markets, the sophistication of its business community, the impressive capacity for technological innovation that exists within a first-rate system of universities and research centers, all contribute to making the United States a highly competitive economy. However, some weaknesses, particularly related to macroeconomic imbalances, continue to present a risk to the country’s overall competitiveness potential, and to the global economy as a whole. This danger has most recently been demonstrated by the fallout and contagion caused by the country’s sub-prime mortgage crisis and the ensuing global credit crunch,” said Xavier Sala-i-Martin, Professor of Economics at Columbia University and Co-Editor of the Report.

The GCI is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness, providing a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world at all stages of development. The pillars include: Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Stability, Health and Primary Education, Higher Education and Training, Goods Market Efficiency, Labor Market Efficiency, Financial Market Sophistication, Technological Readiness, Market Size, Business Sophistication and Innovation.

Egils Milbergs of the Center for Accelerating Innovation commented: “The WEF report findings for the US on the whole are very positive. But this is no time for complacency. Other nations have made innovation a strategic priority. We need to up our game by designing a new generation learning system, rewarding creativity with innovation prizes, investing in innovation ecosystems and implementing policies conducive to longer term innovation and risk-taking by the private sector.”

The GCI  Rankings in full

Country Background Links
US
Switzerland
Denmark
Sweden
Germany
Finland
Singapore
Japan
UK
Netherlands

Democratic Candidates Debate Education in Philadelphia

Drexel_university Philadelphia was the site of the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday night and provided an interesting context: home to the inventive genius of Ben Franklin, the site of the Declaration of Independence, a center of manufacturing during America’s industrial revolution and now reinventing itself for the knowledge based competition of the 21st century. Which candidate has the vision to dramatically transform the current education system to a future oriented learning system?

Brian Williams MSNBC moderator of the debate at Drexel University asked a lightning round question about trends in international mathematics and science study called TIMS. Transcript excerpts below.

Williams: “It (TIMS study) found that, overseas, students spend an average of 193 days, annually, in school. The deficit, compared to the U.S., where it's 180 days, over 12 years, that adds up to a one-year gap between education in the U.S. and overseas. Do you believe we in this country need to extend the school day and/or extend the school year, and will you commit to it?”

Richardson: Yes, I'd commit to it. And I'm glad, finally, education is coming up in a major debate. This is what I would do. We are 29th in the world in science and math compared to the E.U., to countries in China and India. They graduate four or five times more engineers. There is a competitiveness gap here.

This is what I would do. One, I'd have 100,000 new science and math teachers. But we have to pay our teachers what they deserve, a minimum wage of what I believe is $40,000 per year. I'd get rid of No Child Left Behind. I would have science and math academies, but in the high school curriculum it is critically important that we have more civics, more language, and art in the schools to provoke creativity in science and math proficiency.

Kucinich: …….If we cut the Pentagon budget 15 percent, $75 billion will go into a universal pre-kindergarten program so our children ages 3, 4 and 5 will have access to full-time day care and more money would go into elementary and secondary education.

In addition to that, our college-age students need to know that with a Kucinich administration they're guaranteed a two- or four-year college, tuition free, and it'll be paid for by the government investing in our young people. That's the kind of approach I'll take to education.

Obama: …… we have to have more instruction in the classroom. We're going to have to pay for that, and the federal government has to help strapped local districts in order to make that happen. We also have to, if we want to development math and science curriculums, we've got to make math and science jobs attractive, which means increasing research grants. And this is something that is important not just for our competitiveness, but also for our long-term national security. And when George Bush requests $196 billion for next year's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and is seeing a flatlining of investment in science research that makes it more difficult for us to encourage our children to go into sciences.

Clinton: …….. We need to do more to help our families prepare their children. A family is a child's first school. The parents are a child's first teacher. This is something that I've worked on for many years. We need to really support it through nurse visitation or social work or child care. We need to do more with the pre-kindergarten program that I have proposed. In addition, though, this has to fit into an overall innovation agenda, which I have also set forth.

Because we can't just say, go to school longer. We need to do what happened when I was in school and Sputnik went up, and our teacher said, your president wants you to study math and science. That's what I want kids today to feel, that it's part of making sure we maintain our quality of life and our standard of living.

Edwards: I think we still have two public school systems in many ways in America. We have one for affluent communities, and one for everybody else……we should have universal pre-K for all 4-year-olds. We ought to deal with nutritional and health care needs of younger children -- young than four years of age, starting at about age two.

We should have a national teaching university so that we attract our most talented young people, send them out across America to teach in the toughest places to teach. We should give incentive pay to teachers who are willing to teach in the most difficult places.

We should have second-chance schools for kids who are dropping out and college for any kids who's willing to work when they're in college.

Biden: Yes, I proposed it in 1987. We should go to school longer. We either have to assume that our kids are (inaudible) brighter every other child in the world, or that somehow we have to go to school longer. Secondly, we should have a minimum 16 years of education. Thirdly, we should be focusing on the socioeconomic disadvantaged, mostly minorities in inner cities. That's something we've ignored. We pay no attention to it. We pretend they're the same circumstances as every other kid in America. They start off with half. Half of the education gap exists before they set foot in the first classroom. That should be the focus.

Dodd: …..I've been asked the question over the years, "What's the single most important issue?" I always say education because it is the answer to every other problem we confront as a people here…..I'm proud to have been named "Senator of the Decade" by the Head Start Association. All the ideas that are being advocating in early childhood education are critical. The federal government needs to be a better partner in all of this, not take away control locally. But a child's quality of education shouldn't depend on the accident of birth, and that's what happens too often in our country. The children of Philadelphia or in Connecticut or wherever else are going to be competing with children in Johannesburg, in Sydney, in Moscow, in Beijing.

We need to make the kind of investments jointly with our local communities. Higher education community colleges need to be more tuition-free -- I have an idea on how to do that -- so that we provide that continuum from the earliest stages through higher education to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

My Photo

Recent Posts

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Blog powered by TypePad