We appreciated hearing from so many of our readers that last week's special Digest issue on innovation indices was particularly timely or useful. As an additional resource on the topic, SSTI has prepared three matrices presenting the common indicators included in the national, state and local indicator reports referenced in the issue.
The Washington Technology Center (WTC), the state's science and technology organization that stimulates growth in the state, is seeking someone to become Federal Program Development Manager. WTC helps Washington companies develop commercially viable technology through statewide programs and services.
An important aspect of all indices, regardless of their geographic orientation, is that each is created with a different purpose or goal in mind. As a result, each index has an inherent or implicit bias toward the data collected, the manner in which the data is manipulated and presented, and the conclusions drawn or policy recommendations made.
Seven indices introduced below are followed by a sample of the similarities and differences that exist among them.
Even when indices are trying to measure the same activity or characteristic this may be done utilizing different measures and some indices may include indicators not used in others. A matrix presenting the common indicators among the national indices is available here. Examples of these differences and similarities follow: (Please note that not all indicators for all indices are mentioned.)
Led by Massachusetts, which released its first innovation index in 1997, states have been creating indices in an attempt to track changes and transformations in their own economies. Many of these indices look at some of the same characteristics such as investment capital, industrial productivity, technology workforce development, business development and many others.
Indices also are created at the regional and local level as well. Once again, while there is some crossover in measures, there are also significant differences that reveal some regional variation and shifts in priorities. This section highlights: regional indices for Washington D.C.
Some characteristics that STTI has found to represent a good index would contain some, if not all, of the following:
One of the more common topics in the information requests SSTI receives regards how to do or what are good examples of innovation indices or S&T report cards — compilations of statistics and data presenting a geographic area's standing against similar areas across several metrics thought to be useful guides in assessing economic health or potential for growth.
An important aspect of all indices, regardless of their geographic orientation, is that each is created with a different purpose or goal in mind. As a result, each index has an inherent or implicit bias toward the data collected, the manner in which the data is manipulated and presented, and the conclusions drawn or policy recommendations made.
One of the more popular sections of the SSTI Weekly Digest — according to our annual surveys of readers — are the periodic useful stats, which point to or present comparative statistics across cities or states. Fortunately, because we try to standardize the information for more meaningful interpretation, several of these tables provide useful data for developing a local or state innovation index.
Many community and economic development professionals believe the report released last Tuesday should have predated the President's 2006 Budget to consolidate or eliminate 18 federal programs used by most parts of the country to support growth and well-being (see the Feb. 14 issue of the Digest).
Coming off the heels of the state legislature's approval of a new Emerging Technologies Fund (see the June 13 issue of the Digest), Gov. Rick Perry announced last Saturday that Texas would provide a $50 million grant to establish the Texas Institute for Genomic Medicine (TIGM).
Incubators provide an integral and flexible component of many communities' tech-based economic development efforts. When successful, business incubators can provide a focal point for encouraging entrepreneurship in even the smallest cities and metropolitan areas. Ample evidence is presented in the latest survey of incubators supported through the multifaceted $35 million Entrepreneurship Initiative of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC).
For the second year in a row, the Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO) was the most active source of early-stage or angel capital, according to the July issue of Entrepreneur magazine.
In signing the state budget last Thursday, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle approved spending $5 million for two new programs supporting agricultural and forestry bio-based industrial development. Bio-based industries convert the carbohydrates in plants into fuels, polymers, fabrics, and other chemicals.
As a precursor to a report expected next month from the President's Commission on Tax Reform, the National League of Cities (NLC) recently issued its findings from a survey citing disapproval of how state and federal tax issues are being handled by the Administration, Congress, and state governors and legislatures. NLC outlined recommendations and called on the federal government to convene a national economic summit to address the issues.
Can patent insurance protect innovations from predators? Yes, particularly if innovators insure their innovation before rivals enter the market, according to Financing and the Protection of Innovators, a discussion paper by Gerard Llobet and Javier Suarez from the Centre for Economic Policy Research.
More than $11 million in two New York State Assembly grants will support several new incubators for Brooklyn and Queens. The investments were recently announced by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly members representing the two boroughs.
Innovation Philadelphia, the public-private partnership dedicated to enhancing the global innovation economy of Philadelphia, has unveiled the first Innovation and Entrepreneurial Index, a comprehensive study examining where Philadelphia stands in relation to key competitors in the Innovation Economy.
With more than 700 facilities around the country, federal laboratories and research centers can provide many resources for communities to tap as they strive to develop tech-based economies: technologies available for transfer and commercialization; facilities and technical staff available to partner with companies and universities for research; and, connections to funding and procurement opportunities.
The National Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers (NCEC) presented on Tuesday the 2002 NASDAQ Entrepreneurial Excellence Awards to entrepreneurship centers at Babson College, Indiana University-Bloomington, and Saint Louis University.
With more than 1,000 links to socio-economic data sources, EconData.Net provides a convenient and valuable starting point for gathering information to understand regional economies. Funded by the Economic Development Administration, EconData.Net is a 100 percent free website offering easy access to state and sub-state socio-economic data for practitioners, researchers, students and data users in general.
Minnesota Technology, Inc. (MTI), the state's leading tech-based economic development corporation, currently is searching for a dynamic individual with top-notch skills to help bring federal technology transfer activities to Minnesota companies.
Michigan's NextEnergy Center, the central component of Gov. John Engler's $50 million fuel cell initiative, will be located within Wayne State University’s Research and Technology Park in Detroit, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) recently announced. Wayne State is situated in the Woodward Technology Corridor, one of 11 SmartZones located across Michigan.