SSTI Digest

The Washington Technology Center (WTC), the state's science and technology organization that stimulates growth in the state, is seeking someone to become Federal Program Development Manager. WTC helps Washington companies develop commercially viable technology through statewide programs and services. The purpose of the position is to ensure that appropriate federal programs and funding opportunities are identified and funding secured for WTC programs. The position provides the necessary program development activity to ensure strong and sustainable support of WTC business areas.

One of the more common topics in the information requests SSTI receives regards how to do or what are good examples of innovation indices or S&T report cards — compilations of statistics and data presenting a geographic area's standing against similar areas across several metrics thought to be useful guides in assessing economic health or potential for growth.

Why is that? Can it simply be dismissed as another example of how America's fascination with superlatives and comparatives pervades nearly every aspect of society? Claims for the biggest, the fastest, the richest, the first, the strongest, the top 100, etc., and the counter arguments against the claims can be found throughout our culture. Are indices the muscle-flexing machismo element of tech-based economic development?

Probably not.

An important aspect of all indices, regardless of their geographic orientation, is that each is created with a different purpose or goal in mind. As a result, each index has an inherent or implicit bias toward the data collected, the manner in which the data is manipulated and presented, and the conclusions drawn or policy recommendations made.

When considering the various indices that have been prepared, it is important to be aware that differences do exist and not to think all the indices are interchangeable. Indices will have some common elements and measurements to them; however, subtle and substantial differences may also exist.

An important aspect of all indices, regardless of their geographic orientation, is that each is created with a different purpose or goal in mind. As a result, each index has an inherent or implicit bias toward the data collected, the manner in which the data is manipulated and presented, and the conclusions drawn or policy recommendations made.

When considering the various indices that have been prepared, it is important to be aware that differences do exist and not to think all the indices are interchangeable. Indices will have some common elements and measurements to them; however, subtle and substantial differences may also exist.

Seven indices introduced below are followed by a sample of the similarities and differences that exist among them.

Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)

The Progressive Policy Institute provides one of the most widely used barometers of states' relative positions in technology-based economies. State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Economic Transformation in the States offers an innovation-oriented public policy framework for the states to foster success in the New Economy. PPI contends states that overhaul traditional approaches to economic development and replace them with a new approach focused on boosting skills, entrepreneurship, technology and quality of life are best prepared to prosper in the New Economy.

Even when indices are trying to measure the same activity or characteristic this may be done utilizing different measures and some indices may include indicators not used in others. A matrix presenting the common indicators among the national indices is available here. Examples of these differences and similarities follow: (Please note that not all indicators for all indices are mentioned.)

Led by Massachusetts, which released its first innovation index in 1997, states have been creating indices in an attempt to track changes and transformations in their own economies. Many of these indices look at some of the same characteristics such as investment capital, industrial productivity, technology workforce development, business development and many others.

The following outlines some of the similarities and differences in state indices. For the purpose of this comparison, indices from (Alaska, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi and Washington) are used. A matrix presenting the common indicators among the state indices is available here.

Indices also are created at the regional and local level as well. Once again, while there is some crossover in measures, there are also significant differences that reveal some regional variation and shifts in priorities. This section highlights: regional indices for Washington D.C. (Potomac) area, Silicon Valley, Tri-Cities area in Washington State, the Roanoke region and Philadelphia; and national metro area studies compiled by the Progressive Policy Institute, the Milken Institute, the Brookings Institution and AEA. A matrix presenting the common indicators among the local indices is available here.

Some characteristics that STTI has found to represent a good index would contain some, if not all, of the following:

One of the more popular sections of the SSTI Weekly Digest — according to our annual surveys of readers — are the periodic useful stats, which point to or present comparative statistics across cities or states. Fortunately, because we try to standardize the information for more meaningful interpretation, several of these tables provide useful data for developing a local or state innovation index. The following webpage provides a list of all 56 useful stats articles and tables included in SSTI Weekly Digest since the series began in May 2000: http://www.ssti.org/Digest/Indices/usefulstats.htm

Additional links that can be helpful in compiling data for innovation indices and that are frequently used in the indices cited in this issue are:.

More than $11 million in two New York State Assembly grants will support several new incubators for Brooklyn and Queens. The investments were recently announced by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly members representing the two boroughs.

A $4 million investment for the creation of a SUNY Downstate Advanced Biotechnology Incubator project aims to spur the development of a new cluster of biotechnology and medical technology companies in Brooklyn. The project will provide affordable space, services and access to resources essential to start-up companies engaged in the commercialization of technologies developed at SUNY Downstate, as well as to other biotechnology and medical start-ups and early stage companies.

Once completed, the Advanced Biotechnology Incubator will accommodate approximately 32 new start-up companies that are expected to create an initial 200 jobs, with an estimated 400 new jobs within five years.

Michigan's NextEnergy Center, the central component of Gov. John Engler's $50 million fuel cell initiative, will be located within Wayne State University’s Research and Technology Park in Detroit, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) recently announced. Wayne State is situated in the Woodward Technology Corridor, one of 11 SmartZones located across Michigan.