Building the Ohio
Innovation Economy

Summary of a Symposium

Charles W. Wessner, Rapporteur

Committee on Competing in the 21st Century:
Best Practice in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives

Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy

Policy and Global Affairs

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Charles W. Wessner, Rapporteur Committee on Competing in the 21st Century: Best Practice in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy Policy and Global Affairs

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street NW Washington DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by: Contract/Grant No. DE-DT0000236, TO #28 (base award DE-AM01-04PI45013), between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Energy; and Contract/Grant No. N01-OD-4-2139, TO #250 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institutes of Health. This report was prepared by the National Academy of Sciences under award number SB134106Z0011, TO# 4 (68059), from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This report was prepared by the National Academy of Sciences under award number 99-06- 07543-02 from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Economic Development Administration, or the U.S. Department of Commerce. Additional support was provided by The University of Akron, NorTech, Case Western Reserve University, Morgenthaler, Jones Day, Cleveland Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, Austen BioInnovation Institute in Akron, The Burton D. Morgan Foundation, Cleveland State University, Kent State University, KeyCorp, Lorain County Community College, Medical Mutual of Ohio, the Heinz Endowments, the Association of University Research Parks, Acciona Energy, Dow Corning, IBM, and SkyFuel, Inc. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-26676-5 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-26676-9 Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu/. Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Committee on Competing in the 21st Century: Best Practice in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives* Mary L. Good (NAE), Chair W. Clark McFadden II Dean Emeritus, Donaghey College Senior Counsel of Engineering and Information Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Technology Special Advisor to the Chancellor David T. Morgenthaler for Economic Development Founding Partner University of Arkansas Morgenthaler Ventures at Little Rock Edward E. Penhoet (IOM) Michael G. Borrus Director Founding General Partner Alta Partners X/Seed Capital Management Tyrone C. Taylor William C. Harris President President and CEO Capitol Advisors Science Foundation Arizona on Technology, LLC *As of December 2012 v

OCR for page R1
PROJECT STAFF Charles W. Wessner Sujai J. Shivakumar Study Director Senior Program Officer Alan H. Anderson David S. Dawson Consultant Senior Program Assistant McAlister T. Clabaugh David E. Dierksheide Program Officer Program Officer vi

OCR for page R1
For the National Research Council (NRC), this project was overseen by the Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP), a standing board of the NRC established by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine in 1991. The mandate of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy is to advise federal, state, and local governments and inform the public about economic and related public policies to promote the creation, diffusion, and application of new scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the U.S. economy and foster economic prosperity for all Americans. The STEP Board and its committees marshal research and the expertise of scholars, industrial managers, investors, and former public officials in a wide range of policy areas that affect the speed and direction of scientific and technological change and their contributions to the growth of the U.S. and global economies. Results are communicated through reports, conferences, workshops, briefings, and electronic media subject to the procedures of the National Academies to ensure their authoritativeness, independence, and objectivity. The members of the STEP Board* and the NRC staff are listed below: Paul L. Joskow, Chair Mary L. Good (NAE) President Dean Emeritus, Donaghey College Alfred P. Sloan Foundation of Engineering and Information Technology Ernst R. Berndt Special Advisor to the Chancellor Louis E. Seley Professor for Economic Development in Applied Economics University of Arkansas Massachusetts Institute at Little Rock of Technology William H. Janeway John Donovan Partner Chief Technology Officer Warburg Pincus, LLC AT&T Inc. Richard K. Lester Alan M. Garber (IOM) Japan Steel Industry Professor Provost Head, Nuclear Science Harvard University and Engineering Founding Director, Industrial Ralph E. Gomory (NAS/NAE) Performance Center Research Professor Massachusetts Institute Stern School of Business of Technology New York University *As of September 2012. continued vii

OCR for page R1
William F. Meehan III Kathryn L. Shaw Lecturer in Strategic Management Ernest C. Arbuckle Professor Raccoon Partners Lecturer of Economics in Management Graduate School of Business Graduate School of Business Stanford University Stanford University and Laura D’Andrea Tyson Director Emeritus S.K. and Angela Chan Professor McKinsey and Co., Inc. of Global Management Haas School of Business David T. Morgenthaler University of California, Berkeley Founding Partner Morgenthaler Ventures Harold R. Varian Chief Economist Luis M. Proenza Google, Inc. President The University of Akron Alan Wm. Wolff Senior Counsel William J. Raduchel McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP Chairman Opera Software ASA STEP Staff Stephen A. Merrill Charles W. Wessner Executive Director Program Director Paul T. Beaton David S. Dawson Program Officer Senior Program Assistant McAlister T. Clabaugh David E. Dierksheide Program Officer Program Officer Aqila A. Coulthurst Sujai J. Shivakumar Program Coordinator Senior Program Officer viii

OCR for page R1
Contents PREFACE xiii I. OVERVIEW 1 II. PROCEEDINGS 23 DAY 1 Welcome and Introduction 25 Richard Pogue, Jones Day Mary Good, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Keynote Address 27 Luis Proenza, The University of Akron Panel I: The Ohio Innovation Economy in the Global Context 32 Moderator: Richard A. Stoff, Ohio Business Roundtable Challenges and Opportunities for the Ohio Innovation Economy 33 Ross DeVol, Milken Institute Meeting the Global Innovation Imperative 38 Charles Wessner, The National Academies Panel II: Stimulating Manufacturing in Ohio 45 Moderator: Sridhar Kota, Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House Innovation and U.S.-Based Manufacturing 45 Sridhar Kota, Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House ix

OCR for page R1
x CONTENTS The State Manufacturing Challenge 49 Eric Burkland, Ohio Manufacturing Association Stimulating Manufacturing in Ohio: An Industry Perspective 50 James Griffith, Timken Company Reviving Manufacturing: The Role of NIST 54 Phillip Singerman, National Institute of Standards and Technology Panel III: Innovation Clusters and Economic Development 59 Moderator: Lester Lefton, Kent State University Clusters and the Next Ohio Economy: What is Needed 59 Lavea Brachman, Greater Ohio Policy Center Infrastructure for the 21st Century: How EDA Might Help 63 John Fernandez, Economic Development Administration Economic Development in Ohio: The Role of Community Foundations 67 Ronn Richard, Cleveland Foundation Keynote Address: Investing in Ohio 72 James Leftwich, Ohio Department of Development Panel IV: State and Regional Innovation Programs 74 Moderator: Richard Bendis, Innovation America Current Trends and Challenges in State Innovation Programs 76 Dan Berglund, State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI) The Role of NorTech: Promoting Innovation and Economic Development 78 Rebecca O. Bagley, NorTech

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS xi Panel V: The New Energy Economy in Ohio 84 Moderator: Gary Leidich, FirstEnergy The Ohio Energy Economy: Needs, Opportunities, and Initiatives 85 David Wilhelm, Woodland Venture Management ARPA-e Initiatives 86 Jonathan Burbaum, ARPA-e Building Clean Energy Companies in Ohio: What Needs to Be Done 90 Lorry Wagner, LEEDCo DAY 2 Welcome and Introduction 94 David Morgenthaler, Morgenthaler Ventures Panel VI: 21st Century Universities: Drivers of Regional Growth & Employment 96 Moderator: William Harris, Science Foundation Arizona Relevance, Connectivity, and Productivity: The Akron Model 97 Luis Proenza, The University of Akron The Economic Impact of a Major Comprehensive Research University: The Case Western Reserve University Model 102 W. A. “Bud” Baeslack III, Case Western Reserve University Panel VII: Biomedical Growth Opportunities 107 Moderator: Baiju Shah, BioEnterprise Biomedical Research and the Health Care Industry 108 Frank Douglas, Austen BioInnovation Institute in Akron Bringing Medical Innovations to Market 110 Delos “Toby” Cosgrove, Cleveland Clinic Advancing Cancer Research 112 Anna Barker, National Cancer Institute, ret.

OCR for page R1
xii CONTENTS Panel VIII: Growing the Ohio Flexible Electronics Industry 117 Moderator: Byron Clayton, NorTech The Genesis of a New Cluster 118 John West, Kent State University Role of Regional Academic Institutions in Flexible Electronics Development 120 Miko Cakmak, The University of Akron Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing of Flexible Displays 122 Albert Green, Kent Displays Manufacturing of Curved Liquid Crystal Devices 124 Bahman Taheri, AlphaMicron Panel IX: Early-Stage Finance and Entrepreneurship in Ohio 128 Moderator: Lisa Delp, Ohio Department of Development Stimulating Entrepreneurship: The Lorain County Model 129 Roy Church, Lorain County Community College Angel Investing: The ARCHAngel Experience 131 Barry Rosenbaum, The University of Akron Research Foundation Innovation Capital and Entrepreneurship in Ohio 134 Ray Leach, JumpStart III. APPENDIXES A Agenda 139 B Biographies of Speakers 144 C Participants List 174 D Bibliography 183

OCR for page R1
Preface Responding to the challenges of fostering regional growth and employment in an increasingly competitive global economy, many U.S. states and regions have developed programs to attract and grow companies as well as attract the talent and resources necessary to develop innovation clusters. These state and regionally based initiatives have a broad range of goals and increasingly include significant resources, often with a sector focus and often in partnership with foundations and universities. These are being joined by recent initiatives to coordinate and concentrate investments from a variety of federal agencies that provide significant resources to develop regional centers of innovation, business incubators, and other strategies to encourage entrepreneurship and high-tech development. PROJECT STATEMENT OF TASK An ad hoc committee, under the auspices of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP), is conducting a study of selected state and regional programs to identify best practices with regard to their goals, structures, instruments, modes of operation, synergies across private and public programs, funding mechanisms and levels, and evaluation efforts. The committee is reviewing selected state and regional efforts to capitalize on federal and state investments in areas of critical national needs. This review includes both efforts to strengthen existing industries as well as specific new technology focus areas such as nanotechnology, stem cells, and energy in order to improve our understanding of program goals, challenges, and accomplishments. As a part of this review, the committee is convening a series of public workshops and symposia involving responsible local, state, and federal officials and other stakeholders. These meetings and symposia will enable an exchange of views, information, experience, and analysis to identify best practices in the range of programs and incentives adopted. Drawing from discussions at these symposia, fact-finding meetings, and commissioned analyses of existing state and regional programs and technology focus areas, the committee will subsequently produce a final report xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv PREFACE with findings and recommendations focused on lessons, issues, and opportunities for complementary U.S. policies created by these state and regional initiatives. THE CONTEXT OF THIS PROJECT Since 1991, the National Research Council, under the auspices of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, has undertaken a program of activities to improve policymakers' understandings of the interconnections of science, technology, and economic policy and their importance for the American economy and its international competitive position. The Board's activities have corresponded with increased policy recognition of the importance of knowledge and technology to economic growth. One important element of STEP’s analysis concerns the growth and impact of foreign technology programs.1 U.S. competitors have launched substantial programs to support new technologies, small firm development, and consortia among large and small firms to strengthen national and regional positions in strategic sectors. Some governments overseas have chosen to provide public support to innovation to overcome the market imperfections apparent in their national innovation systems.2 They believe that the rising costs and risks associated with new potentially high-payoff technologies, and the growing global dispersal of technical expertise, underscore the need for national R&D programs to support new and existing high-technology firms within their borders. Similarly, many state and local governments and regional entities in the United States are undertaking a variety of initiatives to enhance local economic development and employment through investment programs designed to attract knowledge-based industries and grow innovation clusters.3 These state and regional programs and associated policy measures are of great interest for their potential contributions to growth and U.S. competitiveness and for the “best practice” lessons that they offer for other state and regional programs. STEP’s project on State and Regional Innovation Initiatives is intended to generate a better understanding of the challenges associated with the transition of research into products, the practices associated with successful state 1 For a review of growth of national programs and policies around the world to support research and accelerate innovation, and the resulting challenges facing the United States, see National Research Council, Rising the Challenge: U.S. Innovation Policies for the Global Economy, Charles W. Wessner and Alan. Wm. Wolff, eds., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012. 2 For example, a number of countries are investing significant funds in the development of research parks. For a review of selected national efforts, see National Research Council, Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices—Report of a Symposium, Charles W. Wessner, ed., Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009. 3 For a scoreboard of state efforts, see Robert Atkinson and Scott Andes, The 2010 State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States, Kauffman Foundation and ITIF, November 2010.

OCR for page R1
PREFACE xv and regional programs, and their interaction with federal programs and private initiatives. The study seeks to achieve this goal through a series of complementary assessments of state, regional, and federal initiatives; analyses of specific industries and technologies from the perspective of crafting supportive public policy at all three levels; and outreach to multiple stakeholders. The overall goal is to improve the operation of state and regional programs and, collectively, enhance their impact. THIS SUMMARY The symposium reported in this volume convened state officials and staff, business leaders, and leading national figures in early-stage finance, technology, engineering, education, and state and federal policies to review challenges, plans, and opportunities for innovation-led growth in Ohio. The symposium also included an assessment of the state’s industrial, and human resources; identification of key sectors and issues; and a discussion of how the state might leverage its universities, development organizations, philanthropic foundations, and national programs focused on manufacturing and innovation to support its economic development goals. Given the location of the conference, a number of speakers highlighted regional initiatives in northeast Ohio although initiatives elsewhere in the state were also given prominence. The scope of the conference, as with any single meeting, was necessarily limited. The conference rightly placed great emphasis on a wide variety of initiatives underway in Ohio to spur entrepreneurship and grow new industries rather than on how existing large employers are adapting to global competition. Similarly, little attention was focused on the state’s investments in its broadband infrastructure, even though this effort is a key element in the state’s future capabilities. The role of large employers and automotive supply chains are arguably understated, but this reflects the conference focus. At the same time, the conference did take up initiatives underway at some of Ohio’s “traditional” manufacturing industries. For example, the report captures the key factors leading to the turnaround of Timken, a leading manufacturer of steel bearings, and also addresses the new commercial thrust of the region’s well- established medical industry. This summary includes an introduction that highlights key issues raised at the meeting and a summary of the meeting’s presentations. This workshop summary has been prepared by the workshop rapporteur as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop. The statements made are those of the rapporteur or individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

OCR for page R1
xvi PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS On behalf of the National Academies, we express our appreciation and recognition for the insights, experiences, and perspectives made available by the participants of this meeting. We would like to extend special recognition and thanks to Luis Proenza, the President of the University of Akron, for his leadership in bringing this conference to fruition. Special recognition is also due to David Morgenthaler of the STEP Board and Richard Pogue for their leadership and support in galvanizing leading figures in Ohio’s business, education, and innovation communities to participate in this activity. We also wish to recognize the key role of NorTech’s Rebecca Bagley and Beth Elliot in the planning, support, and organization of the meeting. In addition, we are indebted to Alan Anderson for preparing the draft introduction and summarizing the proceedings of the meeting, as we are to Sujai Shivakumar for his substantive contributions and editorial skills. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REVIEW This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Anna Barker, Arizona State University; Albert Green, Kent Displays, Inc.; Ellen Perduyn, University of Akron Foundation; and, Stephanie Shipp, Institute for Defense Analyses. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the rapporteur and the institution. Charles W. Wessner Mary L. Good