InnovateAmerica Final Report Recommendations

Specific recommendations from this final report from the Council on Competitiveness will be pretty familiar to those of you who have been thinking about innovation for awhile, but it’s nice to see our thoughts confirmed by such an august body.  They divide their recommendations into three categories:  Talent – Investment – Infrastructure.

Talent – the human dimension of innovation, including knowledge creation, education, training and workforce support.  Recommendations include supporting a culture of collaboration, a symbiotic relationship between research and commercialization, and life-long skill development.

Investment – the financial dimension of innovation, including R&D investment; support for risk-taking and entrepreneurship; and encouragement of long-term innovation strategies.  Recommendations seek to give innovators the resources and incentives to succeed.

Infrastructure – the physical and policy structures that support innovators, including networks for information, transportation, healthcare and energy; intellectual property protection, business regulation; and structures for collaboration among innovation stakeholders. Recommendations support a new industry-academia alliance, an innovation infrastructure for the 21^st century, a flexible intellectual property regime, strategies to bolster the nation’s manufacturing enterprises and a national innovation leadership network.

More on this report in later posts.

Comments

[George Ambler]

I also found this report very interesting, you might be interested in my post (http://leading-forward.blogspot.com/2005/01/thoughts-on-national-innovation.html) on the report.

[Ken Jarboe]

Bob -- I'm looking forward to your book! Both you and Joyce are right about the NII recommendations being both general and in the nature of things people have been talking about for awhile. I think the report's major value is in raising awareness and providing a consensus on where we need to go.

One area I was both thrilled and disappointed to see in the report (and the conference releasing the report) was discussion on intangible assets. I was thrilled that it was mentioned by one of the first speakers at the conference. As you know this is an area that Athena Alliance has been working on a great deal (including our ongoing policy dialogue cosponsored with the Woodrow Wilson Center and our new blog http://www.intangibleeconomy.org ). I was disappointed that the report (and the conference) didn't continue on the theme, especially on the role of non-technological innovation. While S&T is extremely important, other forms of innovation can be just as important and all workers (not just researchers and engineers) are key to the innovation process. I refer everyone to the 2004 RAND report New Foundations for Growth: The U.S. Innovation System Today and Tomorrow http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1338.0.1/MR1338.0.1.pdf

The NII report has laid an important foundation. We need to continue to refine and build upon it.

[robert sherwood]

Re: The innovate america final report.

I read Wycoff's summary and the comments by Paul Hobcraft. I agree with Wycoff and Paul. I am currently writing a book sub-titled The Great Broken Ammerican Innovation Machine and the council's report has encouraged me to continue writing. The council's report lacks a single unifiying theme and does not present a single powerful idea. It does however provide a real foundation for some serious discussions on innovation.

Water weathered rock and created the Grand Canyon; the evidence is indisputable. However, I have stood on the Grand Canyon floor for several hours and never noticed any changes in the rock. The decline and fall of the great American innovation machine is just like that - imperceptible changes in foresight, but indisputable changes in hindsight.

The fact that more than 40% of the patents are overturned by the courts is discouraging to a business that spent $100,000 getting the patent and $500,000 in its defense. There are not any easy solutions, but what we need is a single powerful idea, "like send a man to the moon and back." The council's report albeit comprehensive, represents a dinner with too many cooks in the kitchen. There are just too many items for most people to eat.

The council addressed education, but only in general terms. For example, years of wisdom,science, engineering and knowledge are locked in the minds of retired professionals, but they are unable to teach grade school or high school without a teaching certificate. Is there any dispute that a young mind would not be heavily influenced toward a career in engineering or science if the teacher was a person who had a successful 20 year career in the sciences? People with these experiences can unlock the excitment of the sciences to a young mind. In other countries, teaching is not only one of the highest paid careers,it is also one of the most respected. In America, teaching is the one of the lowest paid professions and faces negative social commentary such as, "The ivory tower profession" or "One who can does, and one who can not teaches."

There are many other examples of broken components in the innovation machine, other than just education, but until an Iowa farmer or a group of smart teachers float an initial public offering like Google, or sign a million dollar contract like our university athletic directors, then innovation in education will always be an oxymoron and more talk than walk. And that is what keeps me motivated to write The Great Broken American Innovation Machine.

Bob Sherwood