Four Things I Learned From Studying Innovation in 3 U.S. Cities

better understand the assets and gaps they have in their social dynamics and cultural values. Hard assets, such as R&D and venture capital, clearly matter. We also discovered that every community may need to address on an ongoing basis what some of the “softer” attributes of their local economy are, and what about those attributes is enabling or inhibiting change and forward movement.

To this end, we identified four critical questions that should probably be examined by every community serious about innovation and entrepreneurship. They are:

—What are our industrial legacies and how are they enabling or inhibiting us on our journey towards new, more innovative outcomes? For example, are we applying old industrial corporate models to finance and manage our innovation strategies, or are we utilizing entrepreneurial models?

—What is the culture and the priorities of our research universities and institutes, and what impact do they have on how capable we are of achieving innovation outcomes? For example, are local research institutions engaged in specific programs that support technology commercialization and regional economic growth? Or are they primarily focused on technology transfer and licensing activities to companies around the world?

—What is the character of our business culture, our management capabilities, our legal and financial institutions, our real-estate development communities? Are they poised to be enablers of high-risk new companies, will they co-invest, provide pro bono services, or do they engage in more traditional business practices that could slow down the innovation dynamic required for nimble, globally competitive companies?

—How inclusive is our community? In particular, how easy is it for newcomers, immigrants, and young people to participate in, and even provide leadership for, organizations focused on innovation and entrepreneurship? Is ours a civic culture that can rapidly integrate newcomers into our core institutions, or are we more inclined to rely on established practices and leadership? Is this helping or hindering us?

An innovation environment is one in which things are always changing, always uncertain, and typically rich in targets of opportunity. Many of the social dynamics and business practices that were suited to a traditional industrial economy may no longer be appropriate to growing innovation clusters that are globally competitive.

Nimbleness is important, adaptability is important, attracting and retaining new kinds of talent with new kinds of credentials is important. What we learned is that the significant industrial and cultural legacies that differentiate cities like Philadelphia and St. Louis from a city like San Diego may be in part responsible for their slower growth toward an innovation economy.

Author: Mary Walshok

Mary Walshok is associate vice chancellor for public programs and dean of the extension program at the University of California San Diego. She oversees a $40 million division that educates 60,000 enrollees annually, plus UCSD-TV and UCTV, which reach 22 million households and millions more through the Web. An industrial sociologist, Walshok has studied and written extensively about the key ingredients needed to build knowledge-based clusters and high-wage jobs. She is a co-founder of Connect, the San Diego nonprofit organization for innovation and entrepreneurship. She has served on numerous community and national boards. Her research activities have helped stimulate the development of innovation economies around the world, and even prompted New York, Stockholm, Belfast, Copenhagen, Barcelona, Oslo, and Bergen, Norway, to start their own Connect programs. Walshok also is the co-author of the forthcoming Invention and Reinvention: The Evolution of San Diego’s Entrepreneurial Economy and the author or co-author of Blue Collar Women; Knowledge Without Boundaries; and Closing America’s Job Gap. She's currently working on a handbook on regional innovation for the Oxford University Press.