Regional Innovation Ecosystems: The Role of the University in Fostering Economic Growth Ross DeVol Chief Research Officer Milken Institute Caltech Giant High Level Forum, Leading Innovation Ecosystems 10/14/2013
Presentation overview Long-term regional growth process Regional economic innovation ecosystem Measures of the university role Technology transfer Human capital formation Silicon Valley: a case study in innovation University innovation policies and culture to foster economic success
Long-term regional growth process Large regional differences in growth Few barriers to flow of economic activity Export-intensive activity is critical Manufacturing is an export sector Healthcare services can be an export
Factors affecting disparity in regional growth Existing industrial structure Cost of doing business: Tax rates, capital costs, wage rates, space costs, energy costs, health care costs, etc. Labor force skills, access to markets and capital Research, development and innovation capacities Quality of place issues
Regional Innovation Life Cycle Knowledge Creation Clusters and Networks Universities and Research Institutions Federal R&D Regulatory Environment Industry Consortia and Partnerships Industry R&D M&A Activity Proof of Concept Licenses Testing Patents Entrepreneur Conception Formation Maturity Growth Product Pipeline Economies of Scale Value - add New Economy Strategies and Milken Institute Incubation/ Research Parks Venture Capital Labor Market/ Graduates Technology Transfer Clinical Trials/Prototype Collaborations/ Partnerships Regulatory Approval Business Planning Job Creation IPOs/gazelles Commercialization
Research and Development Inputs Composite Map 2013
Risk Capital and Entrepreneurial Infrastructure Composite Map 2013
Human Capital Investment Composite Map 2013
Technology and Science Workforce Composite Map 2013
Technology Concentration and Dynamism Composite Map 2013
State Technology and Science Index Composite Map 2013
Per capita income & Tech and Science Index Income relative to working age population $US Thousands 55 50 Actual Predicted 45 40 35 30 25 AL AZ CO DE GA IA IL KS LA MD MI MOMT ND NH NM NY OK PA SC TN UT VT WI WY AK AR CA CT FL HI ID IN KY MAMEMN MS NC NE NJ NV OH OR RI SD TX VA WAWV
Measures of the university role Tech transfer 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
University biotechnology publication ranking Top 30 30. University of Toronto 26. Case Western Reserve University 14. Univ. of WI, Madison 8. Washington University 9. University of Washington 27. Cornell University 21. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1. Harvard University 13. Rockefeller University 11. Yale University 17. Univ. of Oxford 3. University of London 15. Univ. of Cambridge 23. Universites de Paris (I-XIII) 25. Univ. of CA, Berkeley 4. Univ. of CA, San Francisco 24. Columbia University 12. Stanford University 10. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles 6. Univ of CA, San Diego 22. Univ. of TX at Dallas 16. Baylor College of Medicine 28. Univ. of NC at Chapel Hill 29. Yeshiva University 29. SUNY at Yeshiva University 5. Univ. of Pennsylvania 7. Johns Hopkins University 18. Duke University 20. Kyoto University 19. Osaka University 2. University of Tokyo Top 10 11-20 21-30
University biotech patent ranking Top 30 13. University of Michigan 9. Univ. of WI, Madison 27. Univ.of Minnesota 22. Washington University 26. University of Utah 25. Univ. of British Columbia 7. Univ. of CA, Berkeley 2. Univ. of CA, San Francisco 4. Stanford University 17. CA Institute of Technology 23. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles 8. Univ of CA, San Diego 1. University of Texas 29. Univ. of Chicago 30. Univ. of Alabama 14. McGill University 11. Harvard University 18. Yale University 28. MA Institute of Technology 6. Columbia University 5. Cornell University 16. Rockefeller University 15. Univ. of Pennsylvania 20. Thomas Jefferson University 3. Johns Hopkins University 10. University of London 24. University of Oxford 21. Tel-Aviv University 12. Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem 19. Univ. of Melbourne Top 10 11-20 21-30
University technology transfer and commercialization index Top 10 Patents Issued Score Licenses Executed Score Licensing Income Score Startups Overall Rank Institution Name Score 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
U.S. university licensing income Actual vs. fitted US$ Millions 60 Actual Values Fitted Values 50 40 30 20 10 0 Universities in Descending Order
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
Real GDP per capita of U.S. metros Actual vs. predicted, 2010
Share of employment in human capital intensive occupations Top 10 among the largest metropolitan areas (2006 2010) Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0
Patents and GDP per capita In 261 U.S. Metropolitan Areas Real GDP per capita (US$ thousands) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10-6 -5-4 -3-2 -1 0 1 2 3 Patents per thousand people (ln) Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Moody's Analytics, Science-Metrix, Milken Institute.
Conclusions: Technology transfer Gaps remain between research quality and commercialization outcomes Commercialization increasing over time U.S. tops in research and commercialization Other countries making sizeable investments
Conclusions: Human capital formation 1) Make higher education more affordable 2) Make higher education more accessible 3) Increase higher education graduation rates 4) Strengthen coordination between higher education institutions and industries 5) Promote research and development