Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (required):

* Type your message here:
>Dave/Fred, > >I agree that cluster analysis is seriously flawed and >incomplete. More accurate is the model that >underlying the success of technology firms is a >premise that researchers, entrepreneurs and business >leaders work within regional and global social >networks that link innovative capacity, capital >formation, infrastructure, and end-user markets. > >I believe today’s technology environment is one in >which there is a great supply of ideas coming out of >research institutions, universities, and >private-sector labs. These ideas are crossing >disciplinary boundaries, or converging, in a very >natural progression of the current, rapid capacity for >innovation. This velocity of innovation is such that >the key people driving regional and social business >and capital networks either can’t keep up or don't >know how to value developments that truly compliment a >regional infrastructure. This is certainly true with >the micro/nano initiative. For the next generation of >ideas to have an opportunity to compete and succeed or >fail, innovative researchers and entrepreneurs may >come up with an alternative path to the capital, >customer and business networks. That may translate to >relocation from Oregon and giving up a familiar social >network in order to have access to capital or markets >simply because of proximity of an investor, etc. > >Yet the fact remains that geographic location is still >a key underpinning of success for nearly every >researcher, entrepreneur, investor and service >provider. Place matters. And the difficulty for >technical, business, financial, and economic >development communities is to divine the true value of >a specific location in terms of its imbedded resources >of institutions, business leadership, intellectual >capital, investor experience, business and >research-friendly government practices and stature >within specific sectors of the global community. > >The first step is for us to truly take inventory and >'face reality', as Dave said. Much of that has been >done. After that, trust is a big issue. Until our >institutions and business support organizations trust >each other, there's little foundation upon which to >collectively take risks and achieve big wins that may >not necessarily find winners in every component of the >community. Our leaders, institutions, firms and >support organizations need to step up, recognize and >fix their faults (and quit giving lip service to >'global competitiveness' without making the tough >decisions to deliver it), do alot of hard work for >very little immediate return and build up our most >promising resources, like micro/nano, some aspects of >software, medical devices, etc.  > >When I talk with folks in the community about the NEC >Cluster Study, I sometimes regret that we used the >word 'cluster', because it has become very much a >one-size-fits-all theory. Try Duncan Watts new book >'Six Degrees'. It's a very interesting piece. > >Thanks and I appreciate the time you've taken >to discuss these issues. As a region, we're stronger >when we question our assumptions, motivations and >methods. > >Tony

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.