regional innovation life cycle - milken institute...17 university of virginia patent fdn. 66.53...

Regional innovation life cycle

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation

Labor Market/ Graduates

M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships

Regulatory Environment

Value-add

Conception Formation

GrowthMaturity

Clinical Trials

Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and

Research Institutions

Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation


M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships


Value-add


GrowthMaturity

Clinical Trials

Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and


Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation


M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships


Value-add


GrowthMaturity

Clinical Trials/Prototype

Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and


Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation


M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships


Value-add


GrowthMaturity

Clinical Trials

Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and


Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation


M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships


Value-add


GrowthMaturity

Clinical Trials

Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and


Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation


M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships


Value-add


GrowthMaturity

Clinical Trials

Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and


Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation


M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships


Value-add


GrowthMaturity


Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and


Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation


M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships


Value-add


GrowthMaturity

Clinical Trials

Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and


Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

Knowledge

CreationTechnology

Transfer

Commercialization

Clusters and

Networks

Patents

Licenses

Incubation/

Research Parks

Venture Capital

Business Planning

IPOs/gazelles

Job Creation


M&A Activity

Economies

of Scale

Federal R&D

Industry Consortia

and Partnerships


Value-add


GrowthMaturity


Regulatory

Approval

Industry R&D

Universities and


Product Pipeline

Proof of Concept

Testing

Collaborations/

Partnerships

New Economy Strategies and Milken Institute

Entrepreneur

Top 10 U.S. states in human

capital investments, 2008

DEVTVAUTNYMNCTCOMAMD

80

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

Level

Source: Milken Institute.Source: Milken Institute

Top 10 U.S. states in R&D

input, 2008

NMVAWACTRINHCOCAMDMA

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

Level


Top 10 U.S. states in risk and

entrepreneurial infrastructure, 2008

AZNCGAPAMDNYWACOMACA

82

80

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

Level


Top 10 U.S. states in technology

concentration, 2008

NHNJWACAAZCONMVAMDUT

86

84

82

80

78

76

74

72

70

Level


Top 10 U.S. states in technology

and science work force, 2008

NJCTTXDECAVAWAMDCOMA

95

90

85

80

75

70

Level


Percentage of high-tech workers

Top U.S. states, 2006

UTNJCTMDKSVACOCAMAWA

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

Percent


Number of Tech Fast 500 companies

Per 100,000 businesses, top U.S. states, 2007

GATXUTCOVAMDCACTNJMA

25

20

15

10

5

Number


Average annual high-tech growth

Top U.S. states, 2002-2006

CTAZMTKYWYRIINAKWAID

25

20

15

10

5

0

Percentage

Source: Milken Institute.

US Total Industries

Average Growth 2.74%

Source: Milken Institute

R&D expenditures in life sciences

per capita


NHNYMOIANCNECTMAVTMD

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

US$


R&D expenditures in math and science

per capita


ORUTCAILPARIMAHIAKMD

25

20

15

10

5

US$


Top U.S. states in science and

technology, 2008

RINHUTCTVAWACACOMDMA

85.0

80.0

75.0

70.0

65.0

Level


State Technology and Science

Index 2008

Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom TenSource: Milken Institute

Research and development inputs

component

Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom TenSource: Milken Institute

Risk capital infrastructure component

Top TenSecond TierThird TierBottom Ten


Human capital investment component


Tech and science work-force

component



Technology and dynamism component



Overview

• Role of National Innovation Policies

• Faculty Research Quality

• Incentives and Culture

• Human Capital Investment in OTT

• Absorptive Capacity of Regional Ecosystem

• Measures on Commercialization Outcomes

9. University of Washington

1. Harvard University

21. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

30. University of Toronto

23. Universites de Paris (I-XIII)

3. University of London

2. University of Tokyo

6. Univ of CA, San Diego

5. Univ. of Pennsylvania

7. Johns Hopkins University

10. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles

8. Washington University

29. SUNY at Yeshiva University

28. Univ. of NC at Chapel Hill

22. Univ. of TX at Dallas

27. Cornell University

26. Case Western Reserve University

25. Univ. of CA, Berkeley

24. Columbia University

12. Stanford University

11. Yale University

13. Rockefeller University

14. Univ. of WI, Madison

16. Baylor College of Medicine

18. Duke University

19. Osaka University

20. Kyoto University

17. Univ. of Oxford

15. Univ. of Cambridge

4. Univ. of CA, San Francisco

Top 10

11-20

21-30

Top 10

11-20

21-30

29. Yeshiva University

University biotechnologypublication ranking

Top 30, 1998-2002


11. Harvard University

28. MA Institute of Technology

8. Univ of CA, San Diego15. Univ. of Pennsylvania

3. Johns Hopkins University

23. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles

22. Washington University

5. Cornell University

7. Univ. of CA, Berkeley

6. Columbia University

4. Stanford University

18. Yale University

9. Univ. of WI, Madison

2. Univ. of CA, San Francisco

27. Univ.of Minnesota

29. Univ. of Chicago

1. University of Texas

16. Rockefeller University

20. Thomas Jefferson University

26. University of Utah

17. CA Institute of Technology

30. Univ. of Alabama

25. Univ. of British Columbia

10. University of London

12. Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem

13. University of Michigan14. McGill University

19. Univ. of Melbourne

21. Tel-Aviv University

24. University of Oxford

Top 10

11-20

21-30

Top 10

11-20

21-30

University biotech patent ranking Top 30, 2000-2004


University technology transfer andcommercialization index

Top 10 U.S. and Canadian, 2000-2004

Rank Institution Name

Patents

Issued

Score

Licenses

Executed

Score

Licensing

Income

Score

Startups

Score

Overall

Score

1 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT) 95.17 79.89 90.64 100.00 100.00

2 University of California System 97.26 85.25 95.16 83.24 96.59

3 California Institute of Technology 100.00 70.77 87.12 86.60 92.94

4 Stanford University 91.56 84.28 93.76 77.02 92.65

5 University of Florida 84.82 71.41 92.57 69.26 86.11

6 University of Minnesota 78.92 77.46 91.02 69.24 85.55

7 Brigham Young University 66.87 80.60 86.13 77.57 85.41

8 University of British Columbia 74.36 74.09 82.73 77.42 84.23

9 University of Michigan 82.70 72.25 77.98 74.89 82.54

10 New York University 73.68 63.30 100.00 58.16 81.63

Weights 15% 15% 35% 35%


University technology transfer andcommercialization index

11-25 cont’d, U.S. and Canadian, 2000-2004

Rank Institution Name

Patents

Issued

Score

Licenses

Executed

Score

Licensing

Income

Score

Startups

Score

Overall

Score

11 Georgia Institute of Technology 76.80 60.51 72.79 83.41 80.95

12 University of Pennsylvania 76.41 72.05 83.95 67.15 80.83

13 University of Illinois, Chicago, Urbana, Champaign 72.80 74.55 77.60 72.72 80.35

14 University of Utah 77.08 70.80 81.56 66.01 79.40

15 University of Southern California 70.77 79.81 70.37 75.72 79.28

16 Cornell Research Fdn., Inc. 86.31 75.99 77.99 61.51 78.69

17 University of Virginia Patent Fdn. 66.53 75.11 79.41 68.48 78.52

18 Harvard University 78.82 76.06 87.54 52.45 77.68

19 University of California, San Francisco 88.60 11.63 99.73 62.39 77.19

20 North Carolina State University 78.41 73.80 74.40 64.77 76.94

21 SUNY Research Foundation 79.51 64.36 84.63 58.01 76.90

22 W .A.R.F./University of W isconsin 87.59 86.65 90.52 38.99 76.86

23 McGill University 77.47 68.76 72.12 69.24 76.80

24 University of W ashington/W ash. Res. Fdn. 75.11 76.10 88.49 50.03 76.54

25 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 78.48 76.86 71.14 64.21 76.00

Weights 15% 15% 35% 35%


AUTM and ASTP universityperformance measures

Per million research expenditures, 2004

U.S. Canada Europe U.S./Canada U.S./Europe

Average Research Expenditures (US$ M il.) 225 178 100

Invention Disclosures 0.40 0.14 0.32 2.98 1.25

Patent Applications 0.25 0.06 0.12 4.21 2.06

Patents Granted 0.09 0.01 0.04 6.09 2.38

Licenses Executed 0.11 0.07 0.09 1.58 1.25

Licensing Income (US$) 27,825 12,934 11,988 2.15 2.32

Startups Established 0.01 0.01 0.03 1.74 0.37

Per Million Research Expenditures Ratio


U.S. university licensing income

Actual vs. fitted, 2003

Universities in Descending Order

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

US$ Millions

Actual ValuesFitted Values


Actual

Licensing

Income

Simulated

Licensing

Income

University

University of California System 99.7 83.2 224 156 20 14.8

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 33.4 28.3 103 79 22 19.1

University of Washington 26.1 22.7 91 75 7 5.7

Stanford University 50.6 47.4 133 117 12 10.5

University of Wisconsin 25.5 19.4 116 86 3 1.8

Johns Hopkins University 8.8 6.0 101 83 6 4.3

University of Michigan 5.9 3.7 55 44 7 5.5

State University of New York 14.6 11.1 39 27 5 3.8

Harvard University 19.3 16.9 68 58 3 2.3

University of Minnesota 17.8 13.7 84 67 7 5.8

U.S. Total 639.14 505.84 2,734 2,101 247 197

Actual

Licenses

Executed

Simulated

Licenses

Executed

Actual

Startups

Simulated

StartupsUS$ Millions

Simulation 2―income attributed to

office of technology transferTop 10 U.S. universities based on labor cost value

1997- 2003 average


Conclusions: national

innovation policy and culture

• Commitment to Financing University

Research

• University Mission Must Include

Commercialization

• IP Protection System Is Important

• Industry Involvement Critical to Success

Conclusions: national

innovation policy and culture, cont’d.

• Entrepreneurial Support and

Financing Key

• Human Capital Investment Essential

• Biotechnology Cluster Formation

Promotes National Success

Conclusions: university

level findings

• Faculty

– Research Capacity

– Entrepreneurial Incentives and Culture

– “Star Scientist”

Conclusions: university

level findings, cont’d.

• OTT

– Professional OTTs Generate High Returns

– Age of OTT Office (Networking Effect)

– Critical Mass Required for Returns

– Absorptive Capacity of Regional Ecosystem

Significant

– Exclusive Licensing Important for Spinouts

and Startups

– Without OTT, Commercialization Occurs,

Just Not as Efficiently

Conclusions: overall

• Gaps Remain Between Research Quality and

Commercialization Outcomes

• Commercialization Increasing Over Time

• U.S. Tops in Research and Commercialization

• Other Countries Making Sizeable Investments

Top 50 tech centers in North America

#

#

#

#

San Jose

Montreal

Distrito Federal

Phoenix Atlanta

Denver

Houston

St. Louis

Portland

Albuquerque

Salt Lake City

Austin

Kansas City

Wichita

Minneapolis

Pittsburgh

Orlando

San Diego

IndianapolisDurhamColorado Springs

Huntsville

Dallas

Seattle

Chicago

New YorkWarren

Washington

Los Angeles

EdisonOakland

Ottawa

Toronto

Vancouver

Chihuahua

Baja California

Tampa

Raleigh

Baltimore

Bethesda Philadelphia

Nassau

Cambridge

Newark

Hartford

Lake County

Fort Worth

Santa Ana

BoulderSan Francisco

Oakland


Total high tech Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

CanadaOttawa46

MexicoChihuahua36

MexicoDistrito Federal33

CanadaMontreal22

MexicoBaja California19

CanadaToronto14

U.S.A.Santa Ana -Anaheim -Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division10

U.S.A.New York -White Plains -Wayne, NY -NJ Metropolitan Division9

U.S.A.San Francisco -San Mateo -Redwood City, CA Metropolitan Division8

U.S.A.San Diego -Carlsbad -San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area7

U.S.A.Dallas -Plano -Irving, TX Metropolitan Division6

U.S.A.Washington -Arlington -Alexandria, DC -VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division5

U.S.A.Los Angeles -Long Beach -Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division4

U.S.A.Cambridge -Newton -Framingham, MA Metropolitan Division3

U.S.A.Seattle -Bellevue -Everett, WA Metropolitan Division2

U.S.A.San Jose -Sunnyvale -Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area1

CountryRegionRank

CanadaOttawa46

MexicoChihuahua36


CanadaMontreal22


CanadaToronto14











CountryRegionRank


Pharmaceuticaland medicine manufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007


CanadaWinnepeg53

MexicoMexico16

CanadaMontreal11

CanadaToronto10

U.S.A.Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division9



U.S.A.Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area6

U.S.A.Oxnard -Thousand Oaks -Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area5

U.S.A.Indianapolis, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area4

U.S.A.Edison, NJ Metropolitan Division3

U.S.A.Newark -Union, NJ -PA Metropolitan Division2

U.S.A.Lake County -Kenosha County, IL -WI Metropolitan Division1

CountryRegionRank

CanadaWinnepeg53

MexicoMexico16

CanadaMontreal11

CanadaToronto10





U.S.A.Oxnard -Thousand Oaks -Ventura, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area5

U.S.A.Indianapolis, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area4


U.S.A.Newark -Union, NJ -PA Metropolitan Division2


CountryRegionRank

Computer and peripheralequipment manufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

CanadaToronto21

CanadaOttawa20

MexicoTammaulipas16

U.S.A.Poughkeepsie -Newburgh -Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area10

U.S.A.Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area9

U.S.A.Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area8

MexicoJalisco7

MexicoChihuahua6


U.S.A.Austin -Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area4

U.S.A.Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area3



CountryRegionRank

CanadaToronto21

CanadaOttawa20

MexicoTammaulipas16

U.S.A.Poughkeepsie -Newburgh -Middletown, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area10


U.S.A.Binghamton, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area8

MexicoJalisco7

MexicoChihuahua6



U.S.A.Rochester, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area3



CountryRegionRank


Communications equipmentmanufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

CanadaMontreal20

MexicoJalisco15

MexicoTamaulipas11



MexicoChihuahua8

U.S.A.Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area7

U.S.A.Bethesda -Gaithersburg -Frederick, MD Metropolitan Division6

MexicoSonora5

CanadaKitchener -Waterloo4



CanadaOttawa1

CanadaMontreal20

MexicoJalisco15

MexicoTamaulipas11



MexicoChihuahua8

U.S.A.Fort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area7


MexicoSonora5

CanadaKitchener -Waterloo4



CanadaOttawa1


Semiconductor and otherelectronic component manufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

CanadaMontreal50

CanadaToronto37

CanadaOttawa34

MexicoSonora15

U.S.A.Palm Bay -Melbourne -Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area10

U.S.A.Burlington -South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area9

MexicoChihuahua8


U.S.A.Phoenix -Mesa -Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area6

U.S.A.Boise City -Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area5


U.S.A.Portland -Vancouver -Beaverton, OR -WA Metropolitan Statistical Area3



CountryRegionRank

CanadaMontreal50

CanadaToronto37

CanadaOttawa34

MexicoSonora15

U.S.A.Palm Bay -Melbourne -Titusville, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area10

U.S.A.Burlington -South Burlington, VT Metropolitan Statistical Area9

MexicoChihuahua8


U.S.A.Phoenix -Mesa -Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area6

U.S.A.Boise City -Nampa, ID Metropolitan Statistical Area5





CountryRegionRank


Aerospace product and partsmanufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007


MexicoChihuahua110


CanadaToronto25

CanadaWinnepeg24

U.S.A.St. Louis, MO -IL Metropolitan Statistical Area10

U.S.A.Bridgeport -Stamford -Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area9

U.S.A.Phoenix -Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area8

CanadaMontreal7

U.S.A.Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area6


U.S.A.Hartford -West Hartford -East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area4

U.S.A.Fort Worth -Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division3


U.S.A.Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area1

CountryRegionRank

MexicoChihuahua110


CanadaToronto25

CanadaWinnepeg24

U.S.A.St. Louis, MO -IL Metropolitan Statistical Area10

U.S.A.Bridgeport -Stamford -Norwalk, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area9

U.S.A.Phoenix -Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area8

CanadaMontreal7

U.S.A.Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area6


U.S.A.Hartford -West Hartford -East Hartford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area4

U.S.A.Fort Worth -Arlington, TX Metropolitan Division3


U.S.A.Wichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area1

CountryRegionRank

Medical equipment and suppliesmanufacturing Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

CanadaQuebec46

CanadaVancouver43


U.S.A.Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area9

U.S.A.Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area8

U.S.A.Glens Falls, NY Metropolitan Statistical Area7



MexicoChihuahua3

U.S.A.Minneapolis -St. Paul -Bloomington, MN -WI Metropolitan Statistical Area2


CountryRegionRank

CanadaQuebec46

CanadaVancouver43


U.S.A.Bloomington, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area9

U.S.A.Salt Lake City, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area8




MexicoChihuahua3

U.S.A.Minneapolis -St. Paul -Bloomington, MN -WI Metropolitan Statistical Area2


CountryRegionRank


Software publishers Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

MexicoAguascalientes108


CanadaMontreal34

CanadaVancouver21

CanadaOttawa14


U.S.A.Atlanta -Sandy Springs -Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area9


U.S.A.Provo -Orem, UT Metropolitan Statistical Area7

U.S.A.Raleigh -Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area6






CountryRegionRank

MexicoAguascalientes108


CanadaMontreal34

CanadaVancouver21

CanadaOttawa14





U.S.A.Raleigh -Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area6






CountryRegionRank


Motion picture and video industries Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007


MexicoMichoacan de Ocampo67

U.S.A.New Orleans -Metairie -Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area10

U.S.A.Nashville -Davidson --Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area9

U.S.A.Oakland -Fremont -Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division8

CanadaToronto7


CanadaMontreal5


CanadaVancouver3



CountryRegionRank

MexicoMichoacan de Ocampo67

U.S.A.New Orleans -Metairie -Kenner, LA Metropolitan Statistical Area10

U.S.A.Nashville -Davidson --Murfreesboro, TN Metropolitan Statistical Area9

U.S.A.Oakland -Fremont -Hayward, CA Metropolitan Division8

CanadaToronto7


CanadaMontreal5


CanadaVancouver3



CountryRegionRank

Wired telecommunications carriers Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

MexicoVeracruz de Ignacio de la Llave238

MexicoOaxaca231

CanadaVancouver11


CanadaMontreal9



CanadaToronto6



U.S.A.Denver -Aurora, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area3

U.S.A.Kansas City, MO -KS Metropolitan Statistical Area2


CountryRegionRank


MexicoOaxaca231

CanadaVancouver11


CanadaMontreal9



CanadaToronto6




U.S.A.Kansas City, MO -KS Metropolitan Statistical Area2


CountryRegionRank


Wireless telecommunicationscarriers (except satellite) Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007


CanadaVancouver17


CanadaMontreal12

U.S.A.Tampa-St. Petersburg -Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area10

U.S.A.Albuquerque, NM Metropolitan Statistical Area9

CanadaToronto8

U.S.A.Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area7

U.S.A.Little Rock -North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area6





CountryRegionRank


CanadaVancouver17


CanadaMontreal12

U.S.A.Tampa-St. Petersburg -Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area10


CanadaToronto8

U.S.A.Lubbock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area7

U.S.A.Little Rock -North Little Rock, AR Metropolitan Statistical Area6





CountryRegionRank


Internet service providers andweb search portals Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007


MexicoNuevo Leon76


CanadaToronto17


U.S.A.Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area9









CountryRegionRank


MexicoNuevo Leon76


CanadaToronto17


U.S.A.Dayton, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area9









CountryRegionRank


Other information services Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

MexicoJalisco154


CanadaVancouver10

CanadaMontreal9

U.S.A.Chicago -Naperville -Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division8


CanadaToronto6



U.S.A.Boston -Quincy, MA Metropolitan Division3



CountryRegionRank

MexicoJalisco154


CanadaVancouver10

CanadaMontreal9



CanadaToronto6



U.S.A.Boston -Quincy, MA Metropolitan Division3



CountryRegionRank


Architectural, engineering, andrelated services Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

MexicoNuevo Leon189


CanadaVancouver24


CanadaToronto9




CanadaCalgary5

U.S.A.Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area4


U.S.A.Warren -Farmington Hills -Troy, MI Metropolitan Division2

U.S.A.Houston -Sugar Land -Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area1

CountryRegionRank

MexicoNuevo Leon189


CanadaVancouver24


CanadaToronto9




CanadaCalgary5

U.S.A.Huntsville, AL Metropolitan Statistical Area4


U.S.A.Warren -Farmington Hills -Troy, MI Metropolitan Division2

U.S.A.Houston -Sugar Land -Baytown, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area1

CountryRegionRank


Computer systems design andrelated services Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007

MexicoJalisco150



CanadaMontreal9

CanadaOttawa8



CanadaToronto5





CountryRegionRank

MexicoJalisco150



CanadaMontreal9

CanadaOttawa8



CanadaToronto5





CountryRegionRank


Scientific research and developmentservices Top regions in North America, 2003, 2007


MexicoQueretaro de Arteaga162

CanadaVancouver48

CanadaToronto44

CanadaMontreal40

U.S.A.Detroit -Livonia -Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division10










CountryRegionRank


MexicoQueretaro de Arteaga162

CanadaVancouver48

CanadaToronto44

CanadaMontreal40

U.S.A.Detroit -Livonia -Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Division10










CountryRegionRank


Top 10 Mexican states in

high-tech employment, 2003


Queretaro de ArteagaNuevo Leon

MorelosAguascalientes

JaliscoDistrito Federal

SonoraTamaulipas

ChihuahuaBaja California

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Employment concentration

Top 10 Canadian CMAs in

high-tech employment, 2007


Kitchener WaterlooQuebec

ReginaWinnipeg

St. JohnVancouver

CalgaryToronto

MontrealOttawa

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6


Top 10 US MSAs in high-tech

employment, 2007


Manchester,NHBethesda,MD

Binghamton,NYDurham,NC

Seattle,WAWichita,KS

Cambridge,MAHuntsville,AL

Boulder,COSan Jose,CA

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5


HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD

CURRENT VIEW

HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD

PROPOSED

MISSION BAY

2003

MISSION BAY

TODAY

MISSION BAY

2010

MISSION BAY

AT BUILDOUT

Tech Centers of North America:Tech Centers of North America:

How to Build and Sustain a Knowledge EconomyHow to Build and Sustain a Knowledge Economy

MEXICOMEXICO

Salvador MaloSalvador Malo

28 28 AprilApril 20082008

Milken Institute, Beverly Hills, CA

Contents

Education, public policies, and companies’ attitude

regarding science, technology and innovation in Mexico

1. Mexico’s Human Capital

2. Public policies regarding science and technology

3. Recent developments, and case examples

4. Policy mix and implementation practices needed to

improve the innovation performance of Mexico’s

economy

Some Facts

Canada Mexico United States

GENERAL

Population (millions) 32 104 294

GDP per capita (in USD

converted using PPP)32,413 10,145 39,660

Public Expenditure on

Education (as Percentage of

Total Public Expenditure)

(GDP)

23.1 (5.4) 14.4 (5.3)

Population Groups All (25/34) (55 -64) All (25/34) (55/64) All (25/34) (55/64)

Upper Secondary Education

(as Percentage of Age Group) 85 – 91 – 75 21 – 24 - 12 88 – 87 - 86

Tertiary Education (as

Percentage of Age Group) 46 – 54 - 36 15 – 18 - 8 39 – 39 - 37

Advanced Tertiary Education

(as Percentage of Age Group) 23 – 28 - 19 14 – 17 - 7 30 – 30 -28

Canada Mexico United States

GENERAL

Population (millions) 32 104 294

GDP per capita (in USD

converted using PPP)32,413 10,145 39,660

Public Expenditure on

Education (as Percentage of

Total Public Expenditure)

(GDP)

23.1 (5.4) 14.4 (5.3)

Population Groups All (25/34) (55 -64) All (25/34) (55/64) All (25/34) (55/64)

Upper Secondary Education

(as Percentage of Age Group) 85 – 91 – 75 21 – 24 - 12 88 – 87 - 86

Tertiary Education (as

Percentage of Age Group) 46 – 54 - 36 15 – 18 - 8 39 – 39 - 37

Advanced Tertiary Education

(as Percentage of Age Group) 23 – 28 - 19 14 – 17 - 7 30 – 30 -28

Education at a Glance 2007, OECD

PISA 2006 Results in Science

Percentage of students at each proficiency level

Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Canada 2.2 7.8 19.1 28.8 27.7 12.0 2.4

Mexico 18.2 32.8 30.8 14.8 3.2 0.3 0.0

USA 7.6 16.8 24.2 24.0 18.3 7.5 1.5

Percentage of students at each proficiency level

Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6

Canada 2.2 7.8 19.1 28.8 27.7 12.0 2.4

Mexico 18.2 32.8 30.8 14.8 3.2 0.3 0.0

USA 7.6 16.8 24.2 24.0 18.3 7.5 1.5

STATE STATE STATE STATE

DF 3

0

Guanajuato 6 Yucat án 5 Aguascaliente

s1

Estado de

México

1

3

Oaxaca 6 Chiapas 4 Colima 1

Puebla 1

1

Quer étaro 6 Michoac án 4 Guerrero 1

Coahuila 9 Tamaulipas 6 Sonora 4 Hidalgo 1

Jalisco 9 Sinaloa 6 Baja California

Sur

3 Nayarit 1

Morelos 9 Chihuahua 5 San Luis Potos í 3 Tabasco 1

Veracruz 9 Durango 5 Campeche 2 Zacatecas 1

Baja

California

8 Nuevo Le ón 5 Tlaxcala 2 Quintana Roo 0

STATE STATE STATE STATE

DF 3

0

Guanajuato 6 Yucat án 5 Aguascaliente

s1

Estado de

México

1

3

Oaxaca 6 Chiapas 4 Colima 1

Puebla 1

1

Quer étaro 6 Michoac án 4 Guerrero 1

Coahuila 9 Tamaulipas 6 Sonora 4 Hidalgo 1

Jalisco 9 Sinaloa 6 Baja California

Sur

3 Nayarit 1

Morelos 9 Chihuahua 5 San Luis Potos í 3 Tabasco 1

Veracruz 9 Durango 5 Campeche 2 Zacatecas 1

Baja

California

8 Nuevo Le ón 5 Tlaxcala 2 Quintana Roo 0

Universities and institutions Universities and institutions

granting doctoral degreesgranting doctoral degrees (by state)by state)

Public policies regarding S&T

Closed economy

1980 20001960

Population Growth

Industrialization

Urbanization

One-party government

Public universities expansion

(full professorships )

National Energy Labs

National Health Institutes

Sectorial Funds

Population Growth slow down

Industrialization

Urbanization

Communications

End of one party government

Economy begins to open Open economy

Public universities growth

Private universities growth

Non university S&T centers

National Council for Science and Technology

National Researchers System

Competitivenes and

innovation at State

level

Public universities R&D growth

Private universities R&D growth

Non university S&T centers

Technology /Innovation

Centers

FIELD Programs %

Agriculture Sciences 42 8

Health Sciences 55 10.4

Education and Humanities 80 15.1

Natural and Exact Sciences 111 21.0

Engineering and Technology 116 21.9

Social Sciences and

Management

125 23.6

TOTAL 529 100.0

FIELD Programs %

Agriculture Sciences 42 8

Health Sciences 55 10.4

Education and Humanities 80 15.1

Natural and Exact Sciences 111 21.0

Engineering and Technology 116 21.9

Social Sciences and

Management

125 23.6

TOTAL 529 100.0

Doctoral Programs by Field of Study

CONACYT, 2007

Doctoral Degrees Granted (per year and field of study)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

201 225 264 251 324 403 510 701 833 826 1076 1075 1238 1414 1678 1910 2085

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

201 225 264 251 324 403 510 701 833 826 1076 1075 1238 1414 1678 1910 2085

FIELD %

Agriculture 7.3

Health Sciences 13.0

Education and Humanities 12.5

Natural and Exact Sciences 27.6

Engineering and Technology 15.2

Social Sciences and Management 24.4

TOTAL 15,014 100.0

FIELD %

Agriculture 7.3

Health Sciences 13.0

Education and Humanities 12.5

Natural and Exact Sciences 27.6

Engineering and Technology 15.2

Social Sciences and Management 24.4

TOTAL 15,014 100.0

IMCO with WEF data.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

47

33

3231

42 42

48

55

Correlation IMCO-WEF = 0.94

Mexico ’s loss of competitiveness (1996 -2006)

54

2006

3232

31

424242

4245

424748

4855554854

WEF

545530 545530

545532545533

IMCO

Mexico’s economy is heavily oriented to well established areas and

sectors rather than to those associated with the new economy

Com

merc

ial

Goods

• Industrial Production

• Commodities and primary products

• Components

• Raw materials

• Computer Equipment

• High Tech Equipment and Machinery

• Software & Patents

• Marketing and Innovation -Intensive Goods

•Tourism

Serv

ices a

nd

non c

om

merc

ial

Good

•Transportation

• Basic Services

• Banking

• Freight services

•Communications

• Capital Market

• Entertainment

IMCO

Old Economy New Economy

Pattern of development and innovation potential

Innovation

S&T Human Resources

Internet Users

Employed population with HE

Guanajuato

Micro Electro Mechanical Systems Cluster

• Design centersUniversidad Nacional Aut ónoma de México, Mexico CityInstituto Nacional de Astrof ísica, Óptica y Electrónica, PueblaUniversidad Autónoma de Ciuda Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico ACJ,MexicoUniversidad Popular Autonoma de Pueblas , Puebla

• Innovation Labs Network• Manufacturing capabilities

• Interested sectors• Packaging Cluster, Paso del Norte

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMT), Socorro, NM , USANew Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USATecnol ógico de Monterrey, Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, M éxicoUniversidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, M éxicoUniversityof Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USAEl Paso Community College, El Paso, TX, USATVI Community College, Albuquerque, NM, USACIMAV Advanced Materials Lab, Chihuahua, MexicoSandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, USAWhite Sands Missile Range, White Sands, NM, USADelphi, Ciudad Juárez , Chihuahua, M éxico Bi -National Sustainablity Laboratory , Santa Teresa, New Mexico , USA

1. Area: 30,320 km 2

2. Population 2008: 5.02 millions (4.70 % total Mexico).

3. Labor Force IV trim 2007; 2.01 million persons

4. State GDP 2007:29, 561 million USD; Growth 2007, 3.8 %.

5. Recent Investments in Guanajuato: 2,992.1 million USD

State of Guanajuato

150,800 businesses

Only state having 14 middle -size cities with over 100,000 habitantesOnly state having 14 middle -size cities with over 100,000 habitantes

Six Economic Corridors

Yuriria

Ciudad M anuel

Doblado

Pur ísima

del

Rinc ón

Cortazar

Abasolo

Pueblo

Nuevo

Sta Cruz

de Juventino

Rosas

Comonfort

Silao

Guanajuato

Xich ú

Atarjea

Santa Catarina

Victoria

Doctor M ora

San Diego

de la Uni ónSan Luis de la Paz

San Jos é

Iturbide

Tierra

Blanca

Dolores Hidalgo

San Felipe

Allende

O campo

Le ón

San Francisco

del

Rinc ón

Romita

Irapuato

Tarimoro

Valle de

Santiago Jaral del

ProgresoHuan ímaro

Pénjamo

Cuer ámaro

Salamanca

Celaya

Apaseo

el G rande

Apaseo

el Alto

Jer écuaro

Acambaro

Tarandacuao

Coroneo

Uriangato

M orole ón

Santiago

M aravat ío

Villagr án

Salvatierra

Technologícal intensive

1. Energy

2. Biotechnology

3. Nanotechnology

4. Aeroespace

5. Information Technolog íes

6. Automotive industries

1. Intermediate Technology

2. Manufacturing

1. Agroindustries

2. Textile

3. Home appliances

South

North

Industrial Corridor

6.8% of State GDPGDP growth 2001-2007=18.3%

Industrial Corridor85.5% of State GDP

GDP growth 2001 -2007=27.4%



Yuriria

Ciudad M anuel

Doblado

Pur ísima

del

Rinc ón

Cortazar

Abasolo

Pueblo

Nuevo

Sta Cruz

de Juventino

Rosas

Comonfort

Silao

Guanajuato

Xich ú

Atarjea

Santa Catarina

Victoria

Doctor M ora

San Diego


San Jos é

Iturbide

Tierra

Blanca

Dolores Hidalgo

San Felipe

Allende

O campo

Le ón

San Francisco

del

Rinc ón

Romita

Irapuato

Tarimoro

Valle de

Santiago Jaral del

ProgresoHuan ímaro

Pénjamo

Cuer ámaro

Salamanca

Celaya

Apaseo

el G rande

Apaseo

el Alto

Jer écuaro

Acambaro

Tarandacuao

Coroneo

Uriangato

M orole ón

Santiago

M aravat ío

Villagr án

Salvatierra


1. Energy

2. Biotechnology

3. Nanotechnology

4. Aeroespace




2. Manufacturing

1. Agroindustries

2. Textile

3. Home appliances

South

North

Industrial Corridor



GDP growth 2001 -2007=27.4%



Yuriria

Ciudad M anuel

Doblado

Pur ísima

del

Rinc ón

Cortazar

Abasolo

Pueblo

Nuevo

Sta Cruz

de Juventino

Rosas

Comonfort

Silao

Guanajuato

Xich ú

Atarjea

Santa Catarina

Victoria

Doctor M ora

San Diego


San Jos é

Iturbide

Tierra

Blanca

Dolores Hidalgo

San Felipe

Allende

O campo

Le ón

San Francisco

del

Rinc ón

Romita

Irapuato

Tarimoro

Valle de

Santiago Jaral del

ProgresoHuan ímaro

Pénjamo

Cuer ámaro

Salamanca

Celaya

Apaseo

el G rande

Apaseo

el Alto

Jer écuaro

Acambaro

Tarandacuao

Coroneo

Uriangato

M orole ón

Santiago

M aravat ío

Villagr án

SalvatierraYuriria

Ciudad M anuel

Doblado

Pur ísima

del

Rinc ón

Cortazar

Abasolo

Pueblo

Nuevo

Sta Cruz

de Juventino

Rosas

Comonfort

Silao

Guanajuato

Xich ú

Atarjea

Santa Catarina

Victoria

Doctor M ora

San Diego


San Jos é

Iturbide

Tierra

Blanca

Dolores Hidalgo

San Felipe

Allende

O campo

Le ón

San Francisco

del

Rinc ón

Romita

Irapuato

Tarimoro

Valle de

Santiago Jaral del

ProgresoHuan ímaro

Pénjamo

Cuer ámaro

Salamanca

Celaya

Apaseo

el G rande

Apaseo

el Alto

Jer écuaro

Acambaro

Tarandacuao

Coroneo

Uriangato

M orole ón

Santiago

M aravat ío

Villagr án

SalvatierraYuriria

Ciudad M anuel

Doblado

Pur ísima

del

Rinc ón

Cortazar

Abasolo

Pueblo

Nuevo

Sta Cruz

de Juventino

Rosas

Comonfort

Silao

Guanajuato

Xich ú

Atarjea

Santa Catarina

Victoria

Doctor M ora

San Diego


San Jos é

Iturbide

Tierra

Blanca

Dolores Hidalgo

San Felipe

Allende

O campo

Le ón

San Francisco

del

Rinc ón

Romita

Irapuato

Tarimoro

Valle de

Santiago Jaral del

ProgresoHuan ímaro

Pénjamo

Cuer ámaro

Salamanca

Celaya

Apaseo

el G rande

Apaseo

el Alto

Jer écuaro

Acambaro

Tarandacuao

Coroneo

Uriangato

M orole ón

Santiago

M aravat ío

Villagr án

Yuriria

Ciudad M anuel

Doblado

Pur ísima

del

Rinc ón

Cortazar

Abasolo

Pueblo

Nuevo

Sta Cruz

de Juventino

Rosas

Comonfort

Silao

Guanajuato

Xich ú

Atarjea

Santa Catarina

Victoria

Doctor M ora

San Diego


San Jos é

Iturbide

Tierra

Blanca

Dolores Hidalgo

San Felipe

Allende

O campo

Le ón

San Francisco

del

Rinc ón

Romita

Irapuato

Tarimoro

Valle de

Santiago Jaral del

ProgresoHuan ímaro

Pénjamo

Cuer ámaro

Salamanca

Celaya

Apaseo

el G rande

Apaseo

el Alto

Jer écuaro

Acambaro

Tarandacuao

Coroneo

Uriangato

M orole ón

Santiago

M aravat ío

Yuriria

Ciudad M anuel

Doblado

Pur ísima

del

Rinc ón

Cortazar

Abasolo

Pueblo

Nuevo

Sta Cruz

de Juventino

Rosas

Comonfort

Silao

Guanajuato

Xich ú

Atarjea

Santa Catarina

Victoria

Doctor M ora

San Diego


San Jos é

Iturbide

Tierra

Blanca

Dolores Hidalgo

San Felipe

Allende

O campo

Le ón

San Francisco

del

Rinc ón

Romita

Irapuato

Tarimoro

Valle de

Santiago Jaral del

ProgresoHuan ímaro

Pénjamo

Cuer ámaro

Salamanca

Celaya

Apaseo

el G rande

Apaseo

el Alto

Jer écuaro

Acambaro

Tarandacuao

Coroneo

Uriangato

M orole ón

Santiago

M aravat ío

Villagr án

Salvatierra


1. Energy

2. Biotechnology

3. Nanotechnology

4. Aeroespace



1. Energy

2. Biotechnology

3. Nanotechnology

4. Aeroespace




2. Manufacturing


2. Manufacturing

1. Agroindustries

2. Textile

3. Home appliances

1. Agroindustries

2. Textile

3. Home appliances

South

North

Industrial Corridor



GDP growth 2001 -2007=27.4%


State of Guanajuato ’s Development Plan

Public policies needed

• Revamp education sector (starting at the

university level)

• Invest in multiplying number of PhD ’s

• Attract scientists (especially Mexican)

• Increase programs to foster demand of

technology and applied science

• Strengthen venture capital market

• Stimulate competition in key sectors

Pragmatic approach to introduce a cultural change

Change business

culture to accelerate

tehcnology adoption

Introduce changes

that can be more

readily introduced

(optimize SMES Fund )

Induce radical changes

through policies that detonate

use of high technology and

innovation (Structural

Changes in Higher

Education )

Impact

Time

Conclusions 1

Although:

• Mexico is still far away from building a knowledge society – We have a low educated population and are not investing enough i n human

capital formation and research

– Although our expenditure per scientist is not too low, we have a still small number of scientists and few of them are working in technology a nd innovation related activities, and there are even less in the productive an d services sectors

• Business corporations and companies invest little in innovation or R&D– Global or international companies because they rely on their hom e research

– Mexican large companies because they are either in traditional s ectors or in protected economic sectors; lack the culture and have no incenti ves to do; or are small and medium businesses struggling to survive financial

• Public policies have not yet attained the effective mix of incentives, programs and regulations to make Mexico ’s economy become more knowledge and information intensive.

Conclusions

• The number of higher education students keeps growing, as well as those of doctoral programs and of PhD ’s obtained.

• There is a general awareness in government and business circles that Mexico needs to become competitive and innovative in order not only to compete internationally but to attain a better society

• Many state governments, industrial and business associations, foundations and NGOs, or higher education institution are working in research and development or promoting initiatives, strategic plans, participating in network s and clusters focused on innovation, competitiveness and technology

• There are now some success stories.

These are signs that things will improve in the future

Commercial Scale (110 tpd)

Demonstration Facility (Ottawa, Canada)

NO Emissions from

Conversion of waste to

synthetic fuel gas and

other valuable co

products.

Proposed Facility for the

City of Los Angeles

Maximum

Value from Waste

Maximum Environmental Protection

Zero Risk to Community

Social Acceptability

99.8% Diversion from Landfill

regional innovation life cycle - milken institute...17 university of virginia patent fdn. 66.53...

Documents