Building Clusters
One of the things that I have heard people say, is that Boise needs a technology cluster.
It used to be that clusters grew organically out of spin-offs of larger companies (Intel is the classic example). But more and more we’re seeing regions ‘manufacture’ clusters around certain industries.
This is beneficial to an area because it attracts a talent pool that multiple companies can draw from (among other reasons).
Let me ask you, what type of cluster should Boise try and establish? What type of cluster could we realistically build here? If someone says semi conductors, they will be shot. Or should/could we even create a cluster in the area?
Tac - there are all sort of things we call “clusters” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cluster for some idea ) Anyway, the term gets used glibly by policymakers who don’t actually understand all the nuances, but when we say “build a cluster” - we mean “How do we nurture a network of firms, their suppliers, customers, etc. to take advantage of agglomeration economies (in English: where they can all learn from each other).”
But.. what’s the point of a cluster?
A cluster represents an opportunity to build a sustainable competitive advantage. Where can Boise (or Idaho) be world-class and keep it world-class?
Nurture Existing Winners > Building from Scratch:
It’s a lot easier to start with existing competitive strengths & help those firms to be even more competitive (think Japan’s MITI in the 1980s). In fact, it may be foolhardy to create a new cluster from scratch. What is missing in the supply chain? What is missing in the value chain? The key is deciding what is winning and back the winning areas ruthlessly. (Though looking for new winners too.)
We have a first cut at where Idaho has a plausible chance at building long-term sustainable competitive advantages. Courtesy of bottom-up industry forums driven by INL, TechConnect and hosted by ICL, 4 key technology “platforms” were identified for the state, all of which make sense in the TV, I think: Imaging, Power/Energy, Biotech/Ag, New Materials. These 4 areas are where we can demonstrate reasonable evidence from businesses large & small, government, academic experts, et al. that Idaho can most likely grow a global competitive edge they can keep.
These aren’t the only areas, of course - these were the broad domains; they don’t even have to “high tech”. There was a multi-state project called INEAS that identified the leading clusters for each region of the state. [Well worth looking up.] We may have a film/video related cluster ramping up. We have a wine-related boom. Of course, we have a thriving tourism industry.
The short(er) answer to your question is that we need to:
a) map the territory,
b) find winners that will (or could be) winners tomorrow, then
c) back only those.
We have some pretty good intel (the 4 tech “platforms” plus the INEAS findings) but it might make sense for “somebody” to begin research to:
1) truly understand who & what already represents expertise & resources & global contacts
2) understand how they fit together and
3) only then can we start evaluating what is truly sustainable.
In short, a development roadmap. We align all our official resources to support the roadmap - to support the clusters identified. This is the winning formula almost everywhere - but only if the analysis is done right and if there’s the political will to stay true to the roadmap.
So…. who wants to start the roadmapping process?
(I’m happy to post more detail on how to do that, if there’s anyone still reading this entry, lol - just holler!)
Cluster…schmuster. Get ready for this all you little Idaho buckaroos. The House & Senate (not Idaho’s, you nuts?) has just passed 2 massive science, technology & education bills: HR 2272, or S 761.
Entitled (paraphrasing) “Creating Opportunities to promote S&T, Education, etc…” their combined bill, now in conference prior to Bush’s signature, will create a veritable Christmas tree of $10-12 billion yearly for states prepared to implement its provisions.
Sadly, Idaho is nowhere in that pack. Maybe the INL can get some of the $$$ for nuclear S&T and educational purposes, but the rest of Idaho hasn’t got a friggin’ prayer. Chalk this up to our slavish obedience to the agricultural school of white trash economics, et al (along with similar beliefs like… Qwest really is a “high-tech company” that’s giving us cutting edge service, and the UoI is a serious, major league university, etc, etc.)
Sorry to be so pessimistic, but Seneca the younger, said it best, “luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity” Idaho gets none of the three.