We have examined hundreds of examples worldwide – initiatives to position companies, regions and countries in the Knowledge Economy [www.inthekzone.com]. Further, we have analyzed new performance measures and comparative ranking systems from around the globe.

‘Knowledge Innovation’ is the new concept – not technological; and Knowledge Innovation Zones (KIZ) is the concept-in-practice…Dubai Knowledge Village, Desert Knowledge Australia, Manchester Knowledge Capital, Øresund Region (connecting two cities across a sea), Medicon Valley, to mention a few. Beijing is celebrating 10 years of their Knowledge Innovation Program; and India seeks to become “the crucible of global innovations”. Hardly a company or country is not innovating itself into the future.

Massachusetts continues to rank in the lead within the United States; but other countries have adopted progressive ways to measure and manage – what has become known as Intellectual Capital (IC) or intangible wealth. One might even suggest that amidst this global economic meltdown, we are ready for the Bretton Woods of the Knowledge Economy. More important, what is the innovation strategy for our State and under whose (collective) aegis is it cultivated?

1st: Connect the dots within the Commonwealth: Massachusetts was one of the first to produce the Innovation Index and define the Innovation Economy. Associations, research institutes, degree programs and company positioning has capitalized upon this branding. Reality, though, is that we are not known as being very collaborative. In difficult times, there is more imperative to carefully leverage resources, the most important of which is human. The Massachusetts Miracle – however successful others may consider – was an umbrella strategy which coalesced – at least for a period of time – the leadership. We now need a shared vision, common language and innovation strategy to position us globally.

2nd: Maintain US innovation prominence: Although Massachusetts enjoys premier ranking on numerous counts, other States are not standing still. The stimulus program in Pennsylvania is called Keystone Innovation Zones. Newark has a Chief Innovation Zone Officer. Rhode Island has their Business Innovation Factory. Maine has an Executive Office of Innovation. Research Triangle Park in NC is hosting the International Assembly of Science & Technology Parks. The National Governor’s Association has an Innovation Task Force. Last fall, an Advisory Group delivered a report to the US Department of Commerce on Innovation Measures. [Note: It is being used by the government-funded Intellectual Assets Centre in Glasgow.] The Chief Economist of BusinessWeek calls it Innovation Economics. Other articles call for a cabinet position of Secretary of Innovation – complete with an action plan. Why not ensure that Massachusetts remains the hub of US innovation by hosting the meeting to bring together leaders from these various state-wide and national ‘zone’ initiatives?

3rd: Become the window for global innovation: Start planning now for the worldwide congress on Knowledge Innovation. Invite 40 heads-of-State to Boston to provide the State-of-Innovation in their respective countries. As someone who has now traveled to 35 of these nations, I know that innovation is high on the priority list for industrialized, developing and transition al economies. Abu Dhabi has its Festival of Thinkers. Davos has the World Economic Forum. South Africa hosted the IASP last year. The 2nd Knowledge Cities Summit is scheduled for Shenzhen, China, in November. The European IC Conference is slated for The Netherlands next month. We know that the old financial rules of a global economy are not working. The answers lie in new performance measures. But innovation is how knowledge is created, exchanged and applied to generate wealth. Why not host the international trade mission of the decade?

There are ways to catalyze the dialogue across sector, industry and geographic boundaries locally, nationally and abroad. This is not rocket science; but it does take a new mindset for what we might do to innovate our future…together. Your blog is a GREAT beginning.

One thing I would add to the dialogue here is that we need to be careful about looking primarily to government for the actions needed to bring about change.

If we want big, lasting changes that foster a more vibrant startup community, it needs to mostly come from us. This is simply because the part of state government that interfaces with the innovation community is a hand full of people, and tax dollars are scarce.

If the emergence of “user generated content” as a driving force on the web can offer us a lesson, it is that when we create frameworks for many individuals to directly contribute to a project, even in a small way, the impact can be surprisingly big.

Please indulge an analogy to drive this point home: if we asked the government to create an encyclopedia, and they did an exceptional job, they might come up with something that looks like the Encyclopedia Britannica. And this would come at a significant cost to the taxpayer. But if the community instead took this project on, we would get something that looks like wikipedia. A better solution that costs the tax-payer nothing.

A real-life example of how government’s reach is inherently limited is Pell grants. The idea is to impact the high cost of higher ed. The government spends billions on it (get the figure). But it only reduces the average recipient’s college bill by $500 (confirm). A relative drop in the bucket.

So what can we do?

Well, once again, Flybridge’s stay-in-ma program is a model. They didn’t wait for somebody to tell them it was OK to do it, or for the state to fund it, they just launched their program. What if every venture fund in the state came up with their best idea and went ahead and implemented it? What if every innovative company with means did this too?

I believe a public-private partnership in conjunction with more incubator facilities is possible. I have started and run a technology incubator. I know first hand that bringing people together is critical to building momentum. Now is an ideal time to put together incubator space, along with seasoned technology executives, mentors, technologists and investors to provide the infrastructure – including seed funding, required to bring these ideas and innovations to fruition.

There is ample space available for incubator facilities in the current market. I believe a public-private alliance could be formed that would make a very significant impact on retaining top young talent and innovators by provide seed resources (space, a place to interact with advisors and other entrepreneurs, seed money, communications infrastructure, etc.).

Many of the public incubator programs are full or overbooked currently. There is growing demand, but public programs don’t necessarily provide the exposure and intellectual capital, seasoned executives and investors to generate fast growth successful emerging growth companies. This has to be driven by the private-sector to generate significant long-term success and attract the best and brightest young entrepreneurs coming out of the top schools.

Regards,
Eric Dahler