John Gardner

August 20, 2008

Going Native [While Staying Civil]

Any business or institution with distant, multiple locations knows the tension – aligning the mission, goals, and protocol of headquarters with the operational reality of the local branch office.   When do you ask permission? Seek forgiveness?  Plead ignorance?  You’ll find no written guide on how to be a good branch manager.  And, with WSU itself an assembly of nearly one hundred individual sites across Washington (the ‘grid’ as I’ve called it), a large part of our success depends upon how all these sites are collectively cohesive while locally relevant.

‘Going native’ implies being so locally enmeshed that one loses objectivity - long a challenge among governments, business, and science alike.  The U.S. State Department uses the practice of rotating locations among its staff in hopes of reducing the tendency of becoming too familiar, too sympathetic to local host country needs at the expense of the U.S. mission.  Business has a history of much the same technique, ‘transferring’ or ‘planting’ employees from corporate when deemed necessary to control the local branch (ever watch ‘The Office’ tension between Michael and Toby?). Even science develops its own enclaves, its own ‘paradigms’ as coined by Thomas Kuhn.  He has convinced me that scientific revolutions don’t occur until someone breaks (or unknowingly ignores) the rules of convention.

Having lived both ends of the tension - as branch manager and CEO – I’ve come to appreciate leadership at the local branch and the corner corporate office as necessary to make constructive change, and indicative of a dynamic, healthy institution.  In fact, if you read the new strategic plan from WSU, you’ll note our ambitions for excellence, as well as relevant local and global engagement.

Land grant universities have their own legacy of engagement using branch offices created through our research and extension missions. Usually traced to the economic or civic leadership of a state’s particular geography and demographics, many have powerful (even notorious) outposts in branch agricultural experiment stations or county extension offices.

Often, the success of these branch offices includes a history of one (or more in sequence) skillful, decades-long, resident superintendent or county agent who earned themselves a special respect among local civic and business leaders. These celebrated branch managers possess the diplomatic ability to effectively recruit and extract the human, physical, and financial resources from the main campus that match the needs, and take root in being matched (and appreciated) in the local community. And, rather than any ‘guide to being a civil native’ or professional training, I’ve found successful local engagement is a skill better learned through mentoring and apprenticeship than through being taught.

My own past experiences have also revealed the damage done by local leadership gone astray.  In fact, I’ve learned three profiles of the branch manager to avoid:

The Tyrant – motivated not by the mission of the university nor the locals, but rather have sought the branch office as a means to exercise their own power, boost a sense of self-importance, and play university and local leaders against one another in order to follow their own pursuits.

The Martyr – generally well meaning, but insecure. The need for acceptance by the local community is so great that they lose the will to represent the institution when its goals may be at odds with local leadership.  Wanting to avoid confrontation, they bring less and less from the university to the local community.

The Anarchist – those with a disdain for authority in first place. The branch office is a natural destination for such an orientation. Though often locally productive and popular, they damage the image and brand equity of the university as a whole.  They prefer to publicly criticize institutional flaws rather than work internally to fix them.

WSU is fortunate to have many excellent role models in leadership positions across our campuses and state.  Many have thrived for a decade or more serving the local community and bringing the best of the university to its doorstep.  Choose one of these mentors to emulate, and observe how they honor university and local wisdom. Become familiar with the skills and traits of a constructive internal navigator, negotiator, and change agent - an intrapreneur.  Rarely will it be necessary to choose between institutional policy and local practicality.

As we launch a new era at WSU, one where we are recommitting to local engagement across Washington and around the world, we’ll need savvy local champions.  While it may be far easier to describe, even spoof, the traits of the poor branch manager, we need to recognize and celebrate what excellent local leadership can do for the institution as a whole.  I’m confident Washington will respond and reward such a place.

Regards, John

May 15, 2008

A Whole New Kind of College

I attended Imagine Tomorrow, with hundreds of high school students coming to Pullman in a creativity contest related to energy.  I can only hope that we’ll be as creative in studying the feasibility for a virtual college of sustainability and the environment. Specifically, I’m hoping it advances our thinking regarding two issues of the skeptics – creating a ‘virtual’ organization and having ‘sustainability’ as the economic, social, and environmental goal.

Energy and environmental issues are the grandest challenges of our times.  We may debate the amount of supply remaining, but our fossil-fuel based energy supplies are finite.  We may disagree on the cause/effect, but the fundamental data revealing climate change are real.  And at the crossroads of this awareness, the world’s political, economic, and social institutions are attempting to practice what they believe sustainability means.  How might we create a whole new kind of organiztional form to research, teach, and serve the public concerning these dynamic problems?

My quick review of the WSU effort was eye opening as to how pervasively energy and environmental topics are imbedded in our university.  You’ll find them at all four campuses, in at least seven colleges and 37 or more departments.  These themes are found as a major portion of at least 30 undergraduate degrees and as a major topic of many graduate programs in five colleges.  They serve as the principle organizing themes of many of our centers (at least ten), and several unique, dedicated facilities (e.g. Wood Materials Lab, BSEL, ARC, etc.).  All are a part of the WSU ecosystem surrounding energy and environmental study. 

Given the breadth of involvement, how are we applying this expertise? The University of Washington is intent on a merger of existing units to focus on the environment.  Somehow, I don’t think consolidation is our solution.  We need to sharpen our focus on the cutting edge, the areas where we could really grow rather than be incremental.

As a goal, I’ve written about sustainability as the inclusion of social and environmental outcomes along with economic viability.  While most understand what is commonly referred to as the triple-bottom line  there is considerable skepticism in placing such a theoretical goal into the name of a college, much less having it as an institution-wide organizing principle as at Arizona State University.  What does sustainabilty mean at WSU?

Being ‘virtual’ in university-speak generally means offering distance education via online access or other media.  We have considerable experience with virtual media in our distance degree program, creating access to thousands of students who could not participate otherwise.   WSU has even been instrumental (via former President Sam Smith) in creation of the Western Governor’s University , an ever-growing online university.

Being virtual in terms of expanding the audience of learners is now leaping to worlds apart from our own.  An increasing number of universities, from Harvard to Northern Illinois, have even set up campuses and courses in the imaginary world of Second Life. 

We have far less imagination in forming virtual organizational forms around faculty.  Like most universities, we’ve relied on hierarchy and entities such as departments, schools, and colleges with a defined population and scope.  Inter-disciplinary centers, institutes and other forms have been successful when oriented around a specific expertise or focus, but few other organizational forms are common at WSU or elsewhere among universities.

As the world changes around us, I’ve often wondered why we’ve been so slow to explore and test new organizational forms.  We have some experiences in sector-specific consortia, such the Semiconducter Research Corporation.  Canada has it’s Networks Centres of Excellence. Another possibility is the young field of open innovation, which I feel could be instructive.  Largely explored in the private sector, it contains organizing principles that seek/unite internal and external ideas, with solutions that can quickly reach the marketplace through a number of routes.  In the words of Joel West, “open innovation is using the market rather than internal hierarchies to source and commercialize innovations.” That sure speaks to my ambitions for the kind of impact and relevancy I envision for this new college.

We’ll soon begin exploring the feasibility of the new college utilizing a small team of faculty along with outside expertise, especially with regard to sustainability as a goal and a virtual organizational form as the means.  Perhaps we should also include a few students in our group.  It’s hard to solve problems that you’ve helped create.

Regards, John

April 30, 2008

WSU: Washington’s Smart Grid

WSU was originally located through a competition among locales vying for a state institution within its local economy.  Manhattan, Fargo, Columbia…these are among the towns in other states – like Pullman in Washington – that won the prize.  The mandate of the land grant universities, unlike other kinds of higher education before (and since), was to create a home and hub of a state-wide network.  How do we see Pullman today? Certainly the home, but is it also the hub for WSU with spokes to other campuses and sites?  Or, is Pullman a major node on a grid?

Across the country, each state’s land grant has evolved into a model reflective of need.  Manhattan, KS remains as the solitary hub of a state-wide network while Berkeley, CA would find it difficult to make a similar claim among the vast UC System of differentiated, mature campuses.  

The unique geography and evolving demographics of Washington have shaped WSU.  First, WSU located agricultural experiment stations based on the landscape, and extension offices based on county boundaries across the state.  We’ve since added Learning Centers for place-bound distance education, small business development centers, and three additional campuses within regionally important population/service centers.  Today, the number of WSU sites numbers close to 100 - including one in the epicenter of the state’s economy in downtown Seattle.

Given the driving forces of rapid change, innovation, regionalism, and a global knowledge-based economy, how should we be shaping WSU’s model for the future?  Given my experiences here to date, I see increasing interdependence between Pullman and the other campuses, rural and urban, and those west/east of the Cascades.  WSU’s future model might best be represented as a grid that blankets the state, with our individual nodes both importing and exporting know-how and expertise as locally relevant.

Visualizing WSU as a flexible, self-forming grid also relates to our ability to rapidly adapt to changing conditions and needs.  Just as there is value in having local nodes across Washington, so too is there value in access to talent and knowledge from around the world.  Our work, such as the new initiative on global animal health, is indeed informed and applied in many places far from Washington, but such vibrant nodes enrich the entire grid.  President Floyd’s ambition for the proposed virtual college of sustainability and the environment is consistent with a vision of WSU as a vibrant, global grid.

I’m increasingly convinced that to maximize the value of a university like WSU in the future – to produce graduates with a relevant education, to effectively commercialize research that is applicable, and to be valuable and credible consultants to business and government – the university needs to be engaged with our communities, wherever they are, on a daily basis. 

Over the past several years, it’s been fashionable to think of ourselves (the research university) as an economic engine.  Being an engine alone will not be enough.  Both WSU and Washington will be better served by the connections that can and are occurring across our multiple locations – our own smart grid.  Let’s advance our thinking and practices in making WSU the most nimble, functional, and smartest grid we can imagine.

Always interested in your thoughts,

John

March 1, 2008

Can We Measure Our Influence on Economic Development?

I have always found it difficult to work on anything where I couldn’t observe progress.  Most of my life I relied on agriculture to fill this need, looking back at the furrow, the field, the farm, the year.  Sow/reap, birth/death, summer/winter – North Dakota never left one wanting for cycles.  My experiences in research and business have in many ways made for a natural evolution to the work on economic development today, and I relish contributing to the success of others.  Still, I am often left wondering what impacts I, our programs, and our university have had in terms of economic development.  Can we measure our progress?

Universities are competitive places, and there’s no lack of yardsticks.  Whether it’s the US News & World Report, the National Science Foundation, or our many professional societies – we’re rich in metrics.  Publications, patents, student population, win/loss records, endowment/gifting campaigns, alumni membership, student retention, research/grant expenditures, SAT/GRE/LSAT scores, licensing revenue, grade point averages….the list is exhaustive.  But do they measure how well higher education influences, and contributes, to the economy?

We are committed to building our own dashboard of metrics in hopes of providing indication of our progress.  Much, maybe most, of what we contribute to the success and durability of the economy is built into the workforce itself – thus very long-term in nature.  But just because much of our impact isn’t realized until years down the road is no excuse to not measure it as we go.  While not finished, let me offer our first thoughts, and invite your reaction, to the kinds of measures I think we should be paying attention to.

Our actions listed in order from where we could expect the most immediate, to most long-term impact….

Consulting and Assisting Business

Long the domain of the Extension faculty alone, today faculty and staff from across the institution are called upon to help address Washington’s needs and ambitions in economic development. The Small Business Development Centers are perhaps the most literate example at WSU, however faculty from many departments engage their expertise in the world outside academia.  We gauge our progress in the frequency and outcome of our contributions in consulting, educating, and advising Washington’s private business sector. 

Supporting Better Government and Community

Faculty and staff are called upon by all levels of governance to improve public policy by providing the analytics, and often facilitation of the process, research and deliberative skills needed for progress.  Tracking the efficiency of policies created and implemented through aide of higher education to government services, and the success of incentives to drive positive change could all be measured.

Fueling the New Economy with Ideas

Creativity is a university’s stock-in-trade, and WSU is one of Washington’s universities with a unique and broad research mission ranging in the fields of agriculture and veterinary medicine, to engineering, environmental sciences, communications and the humanities (among others).  This suite allows close coupling with many sectors within Washington’s economy. Our progress is measured by the many transactions necessary to move the best ideas to the marketplace, such as publications, books, copyrights, patents, grants, licenses, and businesses created.

Building Human Capital for the Future

Careers are shifting away from life-time company tenure and towards rewarding innovation, realized through a sequence of jobs and multiple employers. We can track our success not only by tracking graduate numbers and demographics and the ability to obtain quality jobs, but also to create new jobs and wealth - a key criteria of success in an entrepreneurial economy. 

Beyond these usual practices of measuring our own activities, another common practice among universities is to estimate economic impact in the greater economy.  Typically, economists use off-the-shelf multipliers and input/output models in an attempt to estimate this effect.  Unfortunately, many of these ‘economic impact studies’ are flawed and self-serving.  In fact, in a paper by John Siegfried and colleagues at Vanderbilt, they suggest that any university claiming a multiplier effect of greater than 2x is either misguided – or misleading.

Another approach I favor is taking some responsibility for the local, regional, and state economies themselves.  In other words, being willing to hitch our success on that of the success of the greater economy.  Personal income?  Poverty?  Housing costs?  Business starts?  Business failures?  Community GDP? State GDP?  Especially within the many business sectors where we have legimate influence - why don’t we keep track of these sectors as indicators (maybe even targets) of our effort? 

Some would suggest such an approach too risky, and that the sphere of influence of the university alone is too small to be held accountable for such sectoral or state economic statistics.  I see this as contradictory to our assumption that universities are economic drivers in the first place.  You can’t have it both ways.

So, along with the usual university yardsticks, look for selected local, regional, state economic indicators in our first economic development dashboard (see national statistics kept by SBA, or state statistics kept by CFED or Washington’s OFM.)  If we are to claim economic development as a modern-day manifestation of a public research university like WSU, then we need to be willing to hold some accountability for the success of our communities.  With expenditures of over ¾ of billion dollars annually, our task should be to leverage public funds through a combination of tuition, endowments, gifting, and grants/contracts earned by over 10,000 WSU employees in nearly 100 locations across the state in our own ‘grid’ of influence.  Let’s put our measures where our sights are.

Interested in your reaction.

Regards, John

January 25, 2008

Universities Do Economic Development?

Five Ways to Kill Community Ambition

From one who has left the university life to do business – and come back again – I can relate to those who are skeptical of how large a role universities really play in economic development.  Just this week the Tri-Cities invited economic development consultant Bill Fruth as a speaker to one of ‘east’ Washington’s hubs of business activity.  When asked about the role of universities, I understand he didn’t hesitate in his stock reply – few are good at it, and most are actually a negative factor in local economic development.

Having participated with Bill in one of his workshops, I have to agree with him.  While education is the key to most any kind of progress, it has a dark side.  In fact, hearing of his recent visit to the state reminds me of the five most prevalent ways I’ve observed universities kill even the most progressive of local economic development initiatives.

November 30, 2007

Washington: A [Clean] Tech Capital?

Can Washington take a lead role in solving the issues surrounding climate change, developing renewable energy supplies, improving environmental quality, and developing sustainable buildings, materials, and communities?

We certainly seem to have the political will.  A few weeks ago, as my phone screen revealed oil prices approaching $100/barrel, I watched and listened to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels host the 100+ mayors as they tallied over 700 cities now signed up to reduce their carbon footprint. Concluding that conference, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (author of the book on clean energy, Apollo’s Fire) lead a Congressional field hearing that prompted New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg to espouse the wisdom of a carbon tax.  And King County Executive Ron Sims recently visited Pullman with a clean, green message of his own – long demonstrated in his own political career.

We surely have the resume of experience.  Few geographies can claim such an intimate history of energy supplied, or coaxed, from nature.  Consider the extent of our hydropower from the series of dams on our river systems.  While the value and function of our natural resources need a holistic point of view, one can’t deny the low-cost energy this region has enjoyed from a natural source that carries no carbon burden.  And along the same dammed Columbia, sits the remnants of the Manhattan Project – where we researched, developed, deployed, and now practice restraint on the use of nuclear fission.

We definitely have the community ethic.  I know of few places where the landscape is so majestic, the people so bold, as to be dubbed a place called Ecotopia. The culture fictionalized in this 1975 novel (even by today’s standards) would describe an environmental ethic that is decidedly pro-technology, but selectively techno-centric.  Now, more than 35 years later, utopians rant in blogs about the region and its unique mix of environmental, economic, and social thoughts. While most Washingtonians don’t wear their environmental ethic on their sleeves (or blogs), most do go about their business in way that respects nature.

We also seem to have the talent.  Two public research universities and each with a skill set that seems to complement the other across the natural and social sciences of clean tech - with surprising little overlap. Even geograhpy seems worked out; UW clusters in Seattle and Puget Sound while WSU’s assets are spread across the state and its communities.  Beyond the public sector, private sector talent runs deep in technology-based fields, all which seem to include the ambition of achieving the ‘triple bottom line’ of economic, environmental, and social sustainability.  And no place can match the size and scope of Washington’s philanthropic sector, where hundreds of non-profits are focused on sustainable development.

Despite all this - all that Washington has to offer - the Bay Area of California represents an even deeper cluster, viewed by some as competition, by others as collaborator.  While the UC Berkeley alumni magazine would not be considered unbiased, a recent story it ran contains a humbling account of the depth and breadth of the research institutions of northern California. And as for financing attracted by those institutions and the entrepreneurs they spawn, the Bay Area is, and remains, the epicenter for venture capital in all areas of clean technology.

So, what are some next steps in best utilizing Washington’s strengths in contributing to a sustainable future?  Let me offer a few.

First, we need to ensure we are literate in the important areas of environmental and energy issues.  While always useful to study from a wide range of materials, hype on all sides suggests more careful attention than usual to noting sources.  A place to start is with known quantities such as presentations from thinkers like Harvard’s John Holdren.  There are many others.

Second, we need to inventory Washington’s assets.  I’ve briefly mentioned UW and WSU, but we also have one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s national labs, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland.  In addition to the research, we have DOE’s national outreach center in Olympia – WSU’s Extension Energy Program. And we have a new collaborative forming to join the public, private, and philanthropic interests in the Washington Clean Technology Alliance.

Third, we need to be sure to identify unique strengths beneficial to the national and global agenda.  The challenge of cellulosic liquid fuels needs the expertise of someone like WSU’s Norm Lewis, who has already been tapped by others nationally.  UW’s depth in computer science and PNNL’s energy conversion expertise are other assets in demand by the broader research community worldwide.

Lastly, we need to further develop our ethic, our voice and how we are going to express it.  Are we about the disciplinary topics (energy, environment), the goal (sustainability), or the means of achieving an end (clean technology)?  It is no surprise that the term ‘clean tech’ has become the accepted norm in the venture capital community. Clean tech represents a term that signifies the investment community’s belief that entrepreneurship and opportunity are better drivers of innovation than regulation and penalties.

I am convinced Washington will play a major role in this all too important part of our future lives.  I just don’t know yet exactly what it will be.

Regards, John

November 1, 2007

Comparing Hi-Tech Ambitions

I’ve recently had the privilege of observing three other U.S. geographic regions working to earn (or keep) their university/government/private sector economic development engines running. 

Organized by the WA state Senate Committee on Economic Development, Trade and Management, we’ve examined San Diego, Salt Lake City, and Atlanta.  Each proved instructive and unique.  And each has much to say about what we might devise as a Washington strategy to advance the work begun in SHB1091.  That was the legislation that established the concepts in our state of using both geographic clusters (innovative partnership zones) as well as the research talent (creation of innovation research teams) to keep Washington among the new economy hotspots across the country.

Spontaneous Generation

There once was a time that the recipe for creating mice included no more than a pile dirty rags, a bit of wheat, and dark room for 21 days.  The concept of spontaneous generation has been debunked for nearly 400 years, and after visiting San Diego, I think their humility in suggesting all it takes is good weather, research, talent, and money can be equally dispelled.

Believe it or not, it was as recently as 1985 that leaders among San Diego’s public universities, private research institutes, and civic-minded local business interests decided they needed to create a new San Diego; one that added a knowledge-based economic engine to the region that had long survived on military spending and tourism.  Just over twenty years later, the determination and culture they established has created over 1,000 new technology-based companies which have attracted over $10B in investment.

Today, San Diego’s cluster of biomedical, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, IT and independent research institutes is among the most concentrated in the world, and is documented in a study by Harvard Business School’s Michael Porter, among others.  In addition to the leadership of the institutions which sparked this cluster, it was the glue of a locally started non-profit begun at University of California San Diego - Connect - that has since grown into the central, independent, non-profit advocacy organization fostering the continued growth and alliance among local government, research and business communities.  The mutual trust and respect of public and private interests, independent and proprietary research, and overall collaboration are noteworthy.

Y’all Come Back Now, Hear?

It was 1990 when Georgia’s political and business leaders realized that they were missing something from their usual economic development activities of using incentives to recruit new companies, aligning workforce development to enhance and retain their existing businesses’ competitiveness, and developing infrastructure upon which Georgia’s economy could be balanced.  And worst, their very own public research universities were competing with one another. They created a mechanism to bring them back to the table, and collaborate, in the Georgia Research Alliance (GRA).

Created and annually funded by state government but run by an independent non-profit, the GRA is the product of southern politics that trusts their own.  Armed with ~$30M per year as incentive funding they recruited a board and established an operation that made it difficult for the universities to say no.  Now, Georgia Tech, University of Georgia, other publics, and even Emory as a private university with a research medical school, seem to enjoy a thriving partnership that began with a shotgun marriage.

Over 15 years old, the GRA uses the same principles upon which it was founded.  Over $400M of public funding has been directed (without competitive proposals) at three principal functions: first to recruit research faculty, second to provide up-front and on-going infrastructure support for the researchers (not buildings), and third to fund the commercialization program intended to pull technologies toward the marketplace, landing new businesses and jobs in Georgia.  In addition, they fully expect - even require - that public funds are leveraged with university and/or private sources at each step along the way.

To date they have recruited 57 new researchers, increased their competitiveness for federally sponsored research, spawned 125 new companies, and enhanced both the engineering and medical attractiveness of Georgia.

Thou Shall Create Jobs

Meanwhile over in Utah, the Boston-Austin-San Diego phenomena was being carefully watched.  March 2006 marked legislative approval of a master plan so specific, so focused, that I doubt it could happen in few places other than the tight culture of Utah.  USTAR is the acronym for the all-inclusive, state government-run Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative. Prompted by the Utah brain-drain, the plan is to create high paying, exciting jobs as the key to retain, and to welcome back, Utah natives.  Led by recognized leaders such as the Zions Bank CEO, the governor, and others, the plan is a highly directed effort towards catalyzing university research to result in technology-based economic development.

Utah’s plan is based on a 30-year prospectus detailing the state investment of hundreds of millions into research facilities, the recruitment of USTAR research faculty, and commercialization strategies and outposts across the state that are to be served by the state’s two research universities.  In FY07 alone, Utah allocated $50 million to initiate the planning and design of a Bio Innovations Research Institute at Utah State University and a Neuroscience and Biomedical Technology Research building at the University of Utah, $15 million was allocated for the hiring of research teams to complement existing strengths at the respective research universities, and $4 million was designated for the state-wide technology outreach program.

I don’t mean to infer the effort is without detractors, nor tension.  Technology-based economic development is viewed with considerable suspicion in Utah’s vast rural stretches long dependent upon mining, ranching, and other natural resource-based business interests.  Too, there are those watching and wondering if this isn’t simply a plan that will only continue to grow Salt Lake City and other urban centers at the expense of the other 85% of Utah.  Time will tell.

Economic Development - Washington Style

Long riding on the success of disruptive, unplanned, and pervasive technologies and economic success, the state of Washington is one without a long legacy of economic adversity. The Klondike Gold Rush, lush timber stands, fish (that jump in your boat), and pioneering global businesses in aviation, IT, and retail all seemed to have happened without a plan.  Why start now?

Perhaps because of our success, we also find ourselves in the midst of inspired minds from around the world.  And watching what’s happening in the mid-east, in Asia, and across the US is making many consider what we must do to maintain the culture and quality of life we’ve come to expect. 

There are lessons learned from all three visits, and one can’t help but be impressed by the time and effort being taken by our leaders in government.  All want to ensure we craft a plan that both has the impact we’d expect, but also suits our culture and state. It must be a plan driven and owned by the private sector, while enabled by the public sector.

Watch the future of the business/government/university partnership evolve across Washington in the months ahead.  It will undoubtedly color the future of our state.

Regards, John

October 18, 2007

Inspired Enterprise - creating a Washington “Skunk Works”

Any large organization struggles to keep up with change.  I’ve always found it a bit ironic that universities spawn the most radical of new ideas and creativity – while also often being the refuge of stubborn hold-outs.   Hired to be a change agent, I’m greatly interested in the capacity and speed with which WSU handles and embraces change.  While very new universities (many for-profits) are starting up, at least a few very old universities are actually shutting down. Can our major public universities prepare themselves rapidly enough for the coming future?

Like it or not, we former occupants of the ivory tower are now in the cross-roads of the new information-based economy.  With the premium on ideas as the principle societal driver – places like WSU have emerged as the kind of key institutions that can help make, or break, regional economies.  We have an obligation to the state and its people to do all we can to prepare the way for the kind of entrepreneurial, dynamic, vibrant and world-leading economy we’ve come to expect in Washington state.  Further, as a land-grant university, WSU has a state-wide responsibility, both in the hottest of new technology sectors – but also in the most remote of geographies, the most challenged of industries, the most disadvantaged of citizens.

One indicator of the recognized link between higher education and the economy is the creation of administrative positions with economic development in the titles.  When I first accepted such a position in Missouri there were probably a couple of dozen such new VPs across the country.  Today, my count comes close to one hundred. I consider it nothing more than a sign of the times.  If we are successful, we’ll put ourselves out of a job.  The role of economic development as a logical mission and outcome from higher education will be everyone’s responsibility – not just those who carry the title.

Thus my challenge: how to best work with faculty, staff, businesses, elected officials, and philanthropists to move all of us towards instinctively behaving like WSU has a stake in the new economy, and the next Washington?  It cannot be driven by authority. It must be driven by vision.  Participation can’t come through assignment, but the desire of a voluntary group.  It can’t promise too much or be too visible - else risks won’t be taken.    And any new initiative must be for the sake of the common good and pure achievement. There is no room for selfish or irresponsible behavior.  We must earn — and keep — the public (and administrative) trust.

I’ve come to the conclusion that we need a Skunk Works.  Pioneered by Lockheed Martin, it provides the kind of place large organizations have been turning to for innovation from within for over 50 years.  Boeing’s special place is their Phantom Works.  Apple is famous for their secret, code-named projects. Let’s establish a place where we can safely think, design, test, and launch new ideas for WSU and the state.

I intend to establish the Skunk Works to work on a handful of projects at a time. It will be comprised of volunteers, invitees, and others from across state.  Project activities will be carried out on-line, using an electronic portfolio-based approach that is being piloted by the WSU Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology.  Though experimental of itself, it should allow small motivated teams to work on specific projects while allowing others to observe the process.

The first projects?

Measuring Progress – can we estimate the health and vitality of the Washington-based businesses?  What value can we attribute to higher education?  To WSU?  Are we aiding the efforts of start-ups?  Small business?  Mid-sized and large corporations?  What is our influence on trade and global development?  Where are the gaps among the public/private/philanthropic efforts?

Focusing on the Frontier – as Washington’s land grant university, we have a special obligation to the places that are seemingly being left behind in the new economy.  Which ideas and opportunities are place-bound?  Which are not?  What incentives could be developed to generate new-age partnerships in old-age communities?

Entrepreneurship – there is perhaps no set of skills more important to the future of WSU and Washington than those tied to the concept of entrepreneurship.  Not all of them are inherited – some can be taught, others caught.  What ongoing programs can we develop and/or expand for students, faculty, staff, small businesses, and technology-based businesses?

Having spent my first 100 days getting to know the literal and figurative landscape of Washington, I intend to continue building relationships, but also initiate real projects launched from the Skunk Works that will either thrive or fail – but my hopes are they foretell the big ideas of WSU’s future.

Regards, John

October 16, 2007

Seeking Public Good from Private Interests

Originally published in John’s Journal: Research and Development by the University of Missouri. Copyright 2006, Curators of the University of Missouri.

Public research universities are faced with the ongoing challenge of finding the best combination of funding sources to match their missions. The relative proportion of funding from the state, tuition and fees, services, gifts and endowments and granting agencies all contribute to the character and capabilities of the institution.

By its very nature, the economic development mission exposes the tension between the university as a public good and the individual interests of the private sector. How do we deal with industry funding and influence? Can our researchers serve both students and their own inventive interests? Can increasing our engagement with private business interests really equate to greater impact and furthering the public good?

While highly successful in competing for federal funding, the University of Missouri has received comparatively little financial support from industry. The University of Missouri-Columbia usually garners no more than about 5 percent of grant dollars from the private sector, and our other UM campuses receive proportionately less private support.

Our aim is to do more than simply increase industry funding. We hope to attract private sector partners to improve the value of our research and to engage those partners in both the university and state economies. Among our strategies are the following:

Research Agreements – Life science companies and early stage venture firms are two examples of private sector partners for the University. We seek allies that respect our basic research and are willing to provide funding in exchange for further development rights and to bring the results to market on behalf of both the company and the University.

Start Ups – The University is now putting in place the facilities (such as incubators and research parks), the funding pipeline, and the policies to help encourage Missouri-based innovation to take root. Requiring management experience and the ability to spread the risk, partners such as Columbia’s own Centennial Investors, and venture firms outside mid-Missouri, make this alternative more realistic than past attempts.

Managing Conflicts of Interest – Serving at least two masters is part of the challenge any faculty member must accept before joining a public research university. The University is encouraging a culture of disclosure and transparency rather than avoidance and secrecy. There are few public/private boundaries that cannot be managed when approached with a genuine attitude of trust and goodwill.

Through the use of these and other tools, it is our hope that we can both broaden and deepen the impact of the University in the economy. It would be foolish to pretend that our commitment to economic development will not have its challenges. However, we must trust our ability to manage the important balance between the private enterprise and the public good. The University of Missouri and the state stand much to gain much from these public/private partnerships.

(A version of this entry was published in the Columbia Business Times.)

Regards, John

September 12, 2007

The Global State of Washington – Aspiring Social Entrepreneur

In the state of Washington, businesses, universities, non-governmental organizations and research institutes, along with hundreds of civic organizations, are committed to having a positive impact in the world through alleviating poverty, improving health, preserving the environment, enhancing rights and security and increasing opportunities for all people.

The Global State of Washington

While I believe creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship are all inherently personal, they are also traits that can achieve some scale greater than the individual(s) alone. The sphere of influence can be a family, a group, a business, a university, a state, a nation. The more I discover about Washington, the more I’m amazed at the evidence suggesting our state is a leading social entrepreneur.

I’ve long known the passion for many issues in the Pacific Northwest. My second week here, I was caught by surprise at the depth and tone of concern over climate change by a state legislator. At the time, I chalked it up to wide-ranging altruism I was beginning to increasingly observe. Despite weeks of travel, I have to admit that it was not until I really grasped the concept of ‘global health’ that it dawned on me: Washington is making a business of building a connection between the health of the people, the environment, and the economy.

‘Global’ health implies that it is not the circumstances of the developing world alone that must be considered in resolving the problem. The medical community, technology, wealth, education, trade, access, and cost of the developed world’s health system must be equally considered.

‘Global health’ evolved from a history of well-meaning compassion and financial aid in an effort to fix the problems of disease and illness among poverty-stricken areas of the world. But repeatedly we’ve discovered such programs last only as long as the funding, have little lasting impact, and in some cases, only deepen the problem.

Applying the concepts of entrepreneurship directed at global social change, however, bears watching. Rather than reinforcing the polar conditions of medical have’s and have-not’s, global health is a concept using the best of technology, innovative local adaptation, and developed-world investment (rather than aid) in building a new medical system from the ground up. Such social entrepreneurism earned Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank the Nobel Peace Prize last year for their work in Bangladesh.

The global health effort is not without problems and growing pains. If whipping infectious disease were easy, it would have been solved long ago. Like most of the big social problems of the day, there are global economics, global politics, and global differences among the usual suspects for any one cause - and an issue like health has many. But, even the most ardent critic has to admit the entrance of private/philanthrophic investment - the social entrepreneurs - are changing the way we all are thinking about health.

And according to a report released last week, global health is also good for Washington. The most recent data available (from 2005) suggest this new field generated $4.1 billion of business activity including over 40,000 total jobs and $143 million in Washington tax revenue. It is not only the Gates Foundation, but more than 190 other non-profit organizations working in the area including services, research, training, and education.

Washington’s desire to be global entrepreneur doesn’t end with human health. The Global State of Washington initiative, a collaboration of non-profit, for-profit, and both UW and WSU, is going about the business of steadily documenting Washington’s niche. It turns out Washington is a leading cluster of global sustainable development talent related to health, environmental issues, and poverty with more than 350 non-profits, and 290 for-profits. In fact, there are more non-profits related to global agriculture, natural resources - and other fields directly related to WSU - than there is global health.

Inventory of Washington-based non-profits based on field/issue by Barr, Curran, and Devine.

How fortunate we are to be the land grant university in a state that appears to have such an emerging and powerful leadership position world-wide. It is our asset, but also our challenge to match and fuel the kind of innovation this state has come to know and expect.

It could be said that the land grant ideal was among the most powerful institutions of social entrepreneurship created in 19^th century. Let’s find that same pioneering spirit, and be willing to scale up the creative works of our best students, faculty, departments, colleges, and units as we shape WSU for the future. We have a global state to serve.

Regards, John