Tag Archives: government promotion

Ushahidi Harnesses Technology for Public Good

Posted on by


Patrick Meier is an international consultant, who specializes in early warning and crisis mapping projects. He is the director for applied research at DigiActive and member of the Ushahidi advisory board.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.

The use of Ushahidi, which means “testimony” in Swahili, around the world demonstrates how technology innovation and the new capabilities it brings about can be harnessed for public good. Ushahidi is a free and open source platform that allows virtually anyone to publicly crowdsource [outsource a task to a group of people through an open call on the Internet asking for contributions] and dynamically map vital information that almost immediately can be used to take action.

At its heart, Ushahidi is a Web-based aggregator of information. The user-friendly platform can be used to map online news, email content, Tweets, text messages, pictures and YouTube footage, for example. It has been used to power citizen-based election monitoring in Afghanistan and Mexico; coordinate disaster response in Haiti and the Philippines; promote crime reporting in Atlanta and Nairobi; track the swine flu outbreak and human trafficking.

In response to the Haiti earthquake, student volunteers at Tufts University’s Fletcher School in Boston and the Haitian Diaspora used Ushahidi to map relevant content from multiple media sources and incoming text messages from Haiti in near real-time. Ushahidi worked with several key partners on the ground to set up a phone number where people in Haiti could send free text messages with their location and most urgent needs. Ushahidi volunteers triaged and mapped thousands of incoming text messages in near real time, which provided emergency responders with actionable information to rescue individuals trapped under the rubble and thereby save lives. Several weeks after the Haiti disaster, student volunteers at Columbia University also used Ushahidi to map the post-earthquake needs in Chile.

I am sure that in the future we will come up with more innovative ways to use existing and emerging technologies for public good.

See also Patrick Meier’s blog iRevolution.

Medical Innovation by Way of Helping Poor

Posted on by


Christine Kurihara is the manager of special projects in the Stanford Biodesign Program at Stanford University.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.

Many academic programs that focus on health care innovation in developed countries have begun to explore ways of reaching overseas underserved populations with low cost devices and diagnostics. We primarily focus on domestic U.S. needs, but try to find synergies between domestic and overseas components of our Biodesign Program.

In 2001, we launched a fellowship and a course that teach the process of inventing medical devices and accept 8-12 fellows and 50-60 students per year since. The focus has been on training, but several companies launched by graduates of the program actually develop medical devices.

Two independent programs we operate prepare fellows for designing inexpensive medical devices that meet the needs of rural health care in underserved areas of India and East Asia. (First India fellows came to Stanford in 2008.)

We see potential in creating synergy among different parts of Biodesign. We want to see whether the frame of mind developed to find low-cost solutions in India can be recreated in different economic environments. If the cost constraints applied to the India projects affect the thinking of U.S. students and fellows, they may come up with less costly solutions when they design devices for the U.S. market, in a small way helping to address the rising costs of U.S. health care.

To explore that potential, we partnered with the California Healthcare Foundation. Some of our second-year U.S. fellows study needs in Safety Net health centers, hospitals and clinics which serve uninsured or medically underserved patients. The needs identified by fellows drive a new kind of development process that aims at lower cost, simpler design, the use of basic materials and a quicker lab-to-market process. This is not to say we are dumbing down the technology. We simply try to find a way in which cost considerations play a major role in designing new devices.

We have learned much about what that means and how to approach related issues. For example, pediatric needs almost always represent a small market segment and thus rarely drive innovation in the traditional model, the creation of a startup supported by angel or venture investments. Instead our second-year fellows have created a website where they post the needs they discovered during visits to pediatric hospitals. These needs are visible to the entire community of innovators, physicians, parents, engineers, and others, who may have ideas on how to solve related issues. The hope is that the website will help parties identify ideas they have interest in and provide a platform for them to work together on developing the most promising concepts. Those parties could include special interest groups able to fund the development of a particular product.

We have little to report on results as the Web-based project began only recently. However, we continue to explore ways to engage key stakeholders through this platform.

Fusion that Works

Posted on by


Imran Qidwai is the president of Zaviah, a high-tech consultancy firm, and a managing partner at Totten Energy Services, an energy company, both in Boston.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.

What do you do when you want $1 billion in investment to come your way? You prepare to grab it. That’s what New England Clean Energy Council(NECEC) is trying to do.

Launched in 2007, it aims to accelerate New England’s clean energy economy by building a community of stakeholders and a world-class cluster of clean-tech companies. If the council members – clean energy firms, venture capital funds, major financial institutions, local universities, large commercial end-users and others – set up an effective system of education, training as well as technology development and technology adoption, the region may get $1 billion in clean-tech investment by 2012, according to a 2008 report from several consultancies.

This system already has taken shape to a large degree. NECEC has worked with the Massachusetts legislature to design the framework for a clean energy seed grant program and a green jobs initiative.

Recognizing that successful new businesses are created by repeat entrepreneurs and experienced executives, NECEC launched the Clean Energy Fellowship Program, an intensive, 3-month educational “boot camp” focused on transitioning entrepreneurs and corporate officers from other tech industries into the clean energy sector. This was in response to a key finding of the report that insufficient entrepreneurial talent was the biggest obstacle to clean-tech innovation in the region. The first group of 12 fellows graduated from the program in 2008.

Some of the 25 “graduates” of 2009 banded together to launch the Clean Energy Fusion Center in Waltham, in the heart of Boston’s famed Rt. 128 high-tech cluster. This so-called “syncubator,” a business incubator designed to develop synergies between startups from related sectors, has become home to some early-stage clean-tech companies. As part of the center, I and Paul Sereiko have started an energy services company to provide commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal building owners and long-term tenants a one-stop shop for renewable energy projects. We take them from selecting appropriate technology to financial engineering, using all available federal and state incentives and finding financing. Another venture — Seven Solar — launched by the program’s fellows has already graduated out of the center into a building where it plans to set up pilot manufacturing.

NECEC must be doing something right as in February it was ranked the second best clean-tech cluster worldwide by Sustainable World Capital, a firm that connects institutional investors with ecologically sustainable companies. I hope this means we are getting closer to the $1 billion pot.

Accelerate Innovation: Engage the User

Posted on by


Thomas Jelle is the managing director of Wireless Trondheim Ltd and an assistant professor in the Department of Telematics at Norwegian University of Science & Technology.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.


Since the emergence of social media such as Facebook, consumers have a new way to share their opinions with providers of services and products. If enough consumers have similar interests and speak with a united voice, they are likely to be heard. They provide valuable feedback to producers, allowing them to adapt their existing products to new trends or user demands.

Across Europe users have been heard and have had influence on products and services. But why not use consumers in the product development process as well? It can be of great value if done correctly.

Developing new products or services, especially those involving advanced technology, can take years. Even if you have an idea for a product or service that is perfect the day you came up with it, that product or service may be obsolete once it hits the market as society’s and users’ needs change. By involving the consumer in all stages of product development, you will be able to adapt your product to the changing trends and avoid costly or impossible changes just before your product is ready. By keeping the processes open and involving the user, you can accelerate innovation while minimizing the risk of a product failure. Furthermore, this will ensure that when your product reaches the market, it will really sell, and that is what innovation is all about.

Governments that want to pave the way for innovative initiatives should help establish arenas for open innovation [making the boundaries between the firm and its environment more porous to facilitate two-way innovation transfer]. These are arenas, or “living labs,” where producers can develop and test products together with the consumer. Several living labs have been set up in Europe in the last few years, and they are starting to spread to other parts of the world.

I believe that the best way to utilize living labs is to link them with business incubation centers or universities, while maintaining close ties between the public sector and businesses. In Norway, we have set up Wireless Trondheim Living Lab as a collaborative effort between the public and private sectors, with the Norwegian University of Technology and Science as a key player. So far the results are promising, with new companies being established and new products being developed. Wireless Trondheim Living Lab and three other Nordic living labs have developed a toolbox that describes the experience of and techniques for user-driven innovation.

Breaking The Rulz

Posted on by

Tina Seelig is the executive director for the Stanford Technology Ventures Program at Stanford University.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.

We so often define ourselves by our professions, our income, where we live, the car we drive, our education, and even by our horoscope. Each definition locks us into specific assumptions about who we are and what we can do. 

What if you challenge the underlying assumptions? What are the consequences—good and bad—of getting off the prescribed path? What happens to those who break the rules? Larry Page, co-founder of Google, gave a lecture at Stanford in which he encouraged the audience to break free from established guidelines by having a healthy disregard for the impossible. That is, to think as big as possible and be flexible if things don’t unfold as planned. This approach plays an increasing role in the innovation process.

Rules are often meant to be broken. This concept is captured in the oft-used phrase “Don’t ask for permission, but beg for forgiveness.” Most rules are in place as the lowest common denominator, making sure that those who don’t have a clue what to do stay within the boundaries.

If you ask someone how to go about making a movie, starting a company, getting into graduate school, or running for political office, you will usually get a long recipe that involves getting incrementally more support from those who are already in these fields. It involves agents and seed funding and exams and approvals. The majority of people choose to follow those rules – and others don’t. It is important to keep in mind that there are often creative ways to work around the rules, to jump over the traditional hurdles, and to get to your goal by taking a side route. Innovation thrives in environments that are flexible enough to allow creative minds to break free from established rules so that they can carve new paths. 

This is an adapted excerpt from What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20, published by HarperCollins in April 2009

A New Landscape Challenges Science Parks

Posted on by

Guest blogger Ilkka Kakko is the managing director of Karostech, a Finnish firm that designs and implements worldwide a new concept of collaborative innovation environment.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.

Being a pioneer deep in my heart and entrepreneur in my soul, I love to discover emerging signals and follow them to see their potential to make a large-scale impact in the business world and society. Currently, I am excited about future changes in the global innovation landscape.

The near future of innovation environments and supportive organizations is suggested by the increasing power of individuals and collaborative networked organisations (CNOs) to enhance creativity and support action to innovate. [CNOs are digital networks used to search for information and to share knowledge between peers to solve problems and create services and products.] The complexity of traditional organizational structures and increased market requirements for flexibility call for better usage of resources and connectivity to global competence pools.

This will set a new stage for regional and national business development organizations in general, and science and technology parks in particular. Instead of focusing on local resources and established groups, these organizations should really test those resources and groups’ attractiveness in the global arena. The key players in a new innovation landscape are truly nomadic and well inter-connected: they work and live in a world powered and inspired by CNOs. More and more vital innovation activities happen outside science parks as their traditional model is not fulfilling the needs of “freelance” entrepreneurs.

So a new approach is needed. It calls for a third generation of science parks. Main elements of the new approach include a network oasis, [a collaborative environment designed to inspire spontaneous and guided interactions of individuals and groups] a hybrid of different elements such as social media and professional virtual communities. In a network oasis, the digital platforms, which enable community building, are embedded in the physical environment in a similar way as GLOW screens in the Global Oasis Network site in Joensuu Science Park in Finland. [GLOW is a blend of real and virtual worlds designed to expand possibilities for communication, knowledge storage and exchange of ideas.] Such an environment encourages diversity at all levels and surely respects serendipity. In fact a new management paradigm – serendipity management [facilitation of talent aimed at finding unexpected, emergent and tacit competencies] – is emerging.

To be competitive nowadays, a science park has to attract nomadic talent and at the same time be able to create sustainable professional communities and “sticky knowledge” [locally produced knowledge that circulates and diffuses easily within its community, but is not easily transferrable outside.]

Can Research Parks and Incubators Spur Development?

Posted on by

Guest blogger Anthony Townsend is director of technology development at the Institute for the Future, a California-based research group.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.


For over 50 years, the research park model has spread throughout the developed world as a tool for technology-based economic development. The main idea behind this movement is that real estate development can seed the long-term growth of new technology industry clusters.

Today, we see the research park model being copied widely in the developing world. Africa’s first research park – the Innovation Hub in South Africa – demonstrates the possibilities of research parks to spur innovation by incubating university research spin-offs. Developing economies throughout the Global South are building research parks at a rapid pace.

However, just as the research park model matures, the nature of basic scientific research and technological innovation is changing rapidly. Science is more global than ever, presenting new opportunities for scientists in the developing world to connect to traditional centers of research, and participate in their work. The development of products and services based on new technologies is being rapidly accelerated through new design, manufacturing and distribution tools.

These trends suggest that the research park model – which focuses solely on land and leasable space – will need to grow up in order to spur developing economies. It will need to connect better globally, in order to package and deliver value to distant markets for talent and intellectual property. At the same time, we’ll need to rethink the physical design of research parks because innovation networks don’t have to be confined to a single campus or building – they span entire neighborhoods, cities and metropolitan regions.

For more information, visit the Institute for the Future’s report on the future of research parks, Future Knowledge Ecosystems. See also my blog.

Research Universities: Engines for High-Tech Entrepreneurship

Posted on by

Guest blogger Jonathan Ortmans is president of the Public Forum Institute, a non-partisan organization dedicated to fostering dialogue on policy issues. He also serves as a senior fellow at the Kauffman Foundation.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.

Almost all of us enjoy technologies born in university labs or benefit from new business spawned through the dissemination of technologies from the university to the marketplace. Universities have been the lifeblood of many vibrant economies, such as Silicon Valley, whose heart is Stanford University. Considering the positive, economy-wide impact of commercialized university-developed technologies, a key question for policymakers is, “Are we are maximizing this impact?”

There are several indications that the answer to that question is negative. The federal government invests nearly $50 billion a year in university research, but there are few initiatives to help bring the benefits of new technologies to consumers in an efficient manner. Robert Litan and Lesa Mitchell of the Kauffman Foundation have developed an idea that promises to address this problem. Their proposal has been named one of Harvard Business Review’s Ten Breakthrough Ideas for 2010. They call for creating an open, competitive licensing system for university technology. [University licensing offices receive invention disclosures from faculty, staff, and students, and license those commercially viable to industry in exchange for cash royalties to inventors and their departments and schools.]

Currently, most U.S. universities channel commercialization through centralized technology licensing offices (TLOs) established in the wake of the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. This system allowed universities to gain organizational benefits and economies of scale, but over time it has slowed commercialization by monopolizing the process. Many TLOs are short-staffed and inefficient. Litan and Mitchell call for freeing up the market in technology licensing. This would require an amendment to the rules of the Bayh-Dole Act to condition federal research dollars on allowing faculty members to choose their own licensing agents [private-sector entities that provide licensing services outside universities], something that the Commerce Department could do.

In the face of declining competitiveness, a jobs crisis, and economic slowdown, the optimal commercialization of university innovations could not be more important. It is time to update policies to encourage federally supported research to translate into new products and new businesses.

What the World Needs Now Is Innovation, More Innovation

Posted on by

Guest blogger Joachim von Heimburg is one of the leading practitioners of “open innovation,” with 30 years of experience in R&D and product development at Procter and Gamble. Since 2009 he has worked as an independent innovation guide.

Experts and entrepreneurs from around the world discuss what governments can do to promote high-tech entrepreneurship and what the shape of technology entrepreneurship will be in the future.


Climate change. Secure energy and water supply. Food production for the growing world population. These all pose challenges that require many innovations of a global scope. But is the world innovating globally?

Political leaders love innovation and want more of it. But do they support innovating outside their home turf?

It all starts with an entrepreneur identifying an opportunity to create value. Intellectual property rights define ownership of this value. The bigger the market, the more value is created, so more innovations will emerge in bigger markets.

Action required: Standardize and better enforce intellectual property rights across countries, creating bigger markets for innovations.

Innovations require balancing many forces. Some of them are within the control of the entrepreneur — like product performance. Some of them require trade-offs between the benefits of innovation and the risks to society. Think of cars. Although they kill thousands every year, many people drive to work every morning. But not all countries see risks in the same way. Compare the risk-benefit assessment of nuclear power in France vs. Germany.

Action required: Shape discussions assessing benefits vs. risks with the objective of bringing more innovations to the market.

In the political world, the whole world, innovation is often an orphan. Rarely can politicians show ownership for innovation on a global level in the way they can feel responsible for national research. Policies across borders often focus on risk reduction and thus favor the status quo. But innovation must venture into uncharted territory. Politicians – are you reading this? – you must accept a leadership role to help the world become more innovative. Yes, you can!

If Silicon Valley is High-Tech Heaven, Are Some Biz Clusters in Hell?

Posted on by

Silicon Valley generally is viewed as the epitome of pure private sector entrepreneurship, worth propagating in other places.

Yet, in the early years, the U.S. government helped to lay a foundation for this cluster of innovative startups and the venture capital funds supporting them, according to the recent book [add italics] Boulevard of Broken Dreams by Josh Lerner.

Many governments promote high-tech business because countries and localities that fail to make relevant investment often lag in innovation, business formation and economic growth.

Research parks or science parks combined with business incubators have multiplied around the world with the aim of commercializing advanced-technology ideas coming from universities and research institutes.

However, quite a few of these efforts fail because they are either misguided from their very conception or don’t take cues from the market.

As the character of science, entrepreneurship, technology and business changes, so must government programs designed to support high-tech entrepreneurship. Nobody knows yet where the evolution will take the now prevailing model of research parks/incubators. But those countries, regions, cities, universities, venture funds and potential entrepreneurs that embrace the change and try to make the best of it will benefit.

America.gov will publish in March a feature Web page related to these issues.

And to preview the topic, we have invited officials, experts, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs from around the world to blog on what makes relevant government-supported schemes work and what will be the shape of high-tech entrepreneurship that emerges in the future from the interplay of governments, venture funds, universities, researchers and entrepreneurs. Please join the discussion.