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 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
ISBN: 0-309-26679-3
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
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering and Medicine
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.
This page intentionally left blank.
Committee on Competing in the 21st Century:
Best Practice in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives*
Mary L. Good (NAE), Chair
Dean Emeritus, Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Technology
Special Advisor to the Chancellor for Economic Development
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Michael G. Borrus
Founding General Partner
X/Seed Capital Management
William C. Harris
President and CEO
Science Foundation Arizona
W. Clark McFadden II
Senior Counsel
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
David T. Morgenthaler
Founding Partner
Morgenthaler Ventures
Edward E. Penhoet (IOM)
Director
Alta Partners
Tyrone C. Taylor
President
Capitol Advisors on Technology, LLC
PROJECT STAFF
Charles W. Wessner
Study Director
Alan H. Anderson
Consultant
McAlister T. Clabaugh
Program Officer
Sujai J. Shivakumar
Senior Program Officer
David S. Dawson
Senior Program Assistant
David E. Dierksheide
Program Officer
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
President
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Ernst R. Berndt
Louis E. Seley Professor in Applied Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John Donovan
Chief Technology Officer
AT&T Inc.
Alan M. Garber (IOM)
Provost
Harvard University
Ralph E. Gomory (NAS/NAE)
Research Professor
Stern School of Business
New York University
Mary L. Good (NAE)
Dean Emeritus, Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Technology
Special Advisor to the Chancellor for Economic Development
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
William H. Janeway
Partner
Warburg Pincus, LLC
Richard K. Lester
Japan Steel Industry Professor
Head, Nuclear Science and Engineering
Founding Director, Industrial Performance Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
*As of September 2012.
William F. Meehan III
Lecturer in Strategic Management
Raccoon Partners Lecturer in Management
Graduate School of Business
Stanford University and
Director Emeritus
McKinsey and Co., Inc.
David T. Morgenthaler
Founding Partner
Morgenthaler Ventures
Luis M. Proenza
President
The University of Akron
William J. Raduchel
Chairman
Opera Software ASA
Kathryn L. Shaw
Ernest C. Arbuckle Professor of Economics
Graduate School of Business
Stanford University
Laura D’Andrea Tyson
S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management
Haas School of Business
University of California, Berkeley
Harold R. Varian
Chief Economist
Google, Inc.
Alan Wm. Wolff
Senior Counsel
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
STEP Staff
Stephen A. Merrill
Executive Director
Paul T. Beaton
Program Officer
McAlister T. Clabaugh
Program Officer
Aqila A. Coulthurst
Program Coordinator
Charles W. Wessner
Program Director
David S. Dawson
Senior Program Assistant
David E. Dierksheide
Program Officer
Sujai J. Shivakumar
Senior Program Officer
Contents
Mary Good, University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Luis Proenza, The University of Akron
Panel I: The Ohio Innovation Economy in the Global Context
Moderator: Richard A. Stoff, Ohio Business Roundtable
Challenges and Opportunities for the Ohio Innovation Economy
Meeting the Global Innovation Imperative
Charles Wessner, The National Academies
Panel II: Stimulating Manufacturing in Ohio
Moderator: Sridhar Kota, Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House
Innovation and U.S.-Based Manufacturing
Sridhar Kota, Office of Science and Technology Policy, White House
The State Manufacturing Challenge
Eric Burkland, Ohio Manufacturing Association
Stimulating Manufacturing in Ohio: An Industry Perspective
James Griffith, Timken Company
Reviving Manufacturing: The Role of NIST
Phillip Singerman, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Panel III: Innovation Clusters and Economic Development
Moderator: Lester Lefton, Kent State University
Clusters and the Next Ohio Economy: What is Needed
Lavea Brachman, Greater Ohio Policy Center
Infrastructure for the 21st Century: How EDA Might Help
John Fernandez, Economic Development Administration
Economic Development in Ohio: The Role of Community Foundations
Ronn Richard, Cleveland Foundation
Keynote Address: Investing in Ohio
James Leftwich, Ohio Department of Development
Panel IV: State and Regional Innovation Programs
Moderator: Richard Bendis, Innovation America
Current Trends and Challenges in State Innovation Programs
Dan Berglund, State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI)
The Role of NorTech: Promoting Innovation and Economic Development
Panel V: The New Energy Economy in Ohio
Moderator: Gary Leidich, FirstEnergy
The Ohio Energy Economy: Needs, Opportunities, and Initiatives
David Wilhelm, Woodland Venture Management
Building Clean Energy Companies in Ohio: What Needs to Be Done
David Morgenthaler, Morgenthaler Ventures
Panel VI: 21st Century Universities: Drivers of Regional Growth & Employment
Moderator: William Harris, Science Foundation Arizona
Relevance, Connectivity, and Productivity: The Akron Model
Luis Proenza, The University of Akron
W. A. “Bud” Baeslack III, Case Western Reserve University
Panel VII: Biomedical Growth Opportunities
Moderator: Baiju Shah, BioEnterprise
Biomedical Research and the Health Care Industry
Frank Douglas, Austen BioInnovation Institute in Akron
Bringing Medical Innovations to Market
Panel VIII: Growing the Ohio Flexible Electronics Industry
Moderator: Byron Clayton, NorTech
John West, Kent State University
Role of Regional Academic Institutions in Flexible Electronics Development
Miko Cakmak, The University of Akron
Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing of Flexible Displays
Manufacturing of Curved Liquid Crystal Devices
Panel IX: Early-Stage Finance and Entrepreneurship in Ohio
Moderator: Lisa Delp, Ohio Department of Development
Stimulating Entrepreneurship: The Lorain County Model
Roy Church, Lorain County Community College
Angel Investing: The ARCHAngel Experience
Barry Rosenbaum, The University of Akron Research Foundation
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
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
1For 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.
2For 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.
3For 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.
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 wellestablished 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.
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 |