Text size
Update: A large number of commenters inquired about the location of specific cities on the chart that accompanies this article, or requested that we make available the data for the other cities. We appreciate the interest and have created an interactive version of the exhibit that will let you explore the other cities in the graphic. (19 March, 2009)
Co-author Luiz Pires responds to comments on this article.
The global recession is commanding most of the attention of business executives and government leaders. But they should not lose sight of innovation: managers know that the future of their businesses depend on it, and government leaders understand that the long-term growth prospects of cities and nations are tied to it. Even—perhaps especially—in times of economic turbulence, innovation remains the most important differentiator separating economic winners from also-rans.
McKinsey has partnered with the World Economic Forum to create an “Innovation Heat Map,” by identifying factors that are common to successful innovation hubs. As part of this effort, we have examined the evolution of hundreds of such clusters around the world and analyzed over 700 variables, including those driving innovation (business environment, government and regulation, human capital, infrastructure, and local demand) along with proxies for innovation output (for example, economic value added, journal publications, patent applications) to identify trends among the success stories. In the process, we have found patterns that suggest the critical ingredients required to grow, nurture, and sustain innovation hubs. At the same time, we have compiled thousands of data points that may be used to identify bottlenecks and benchmark the performance of cities, regions, and countries by measuring how they are evolving.
Click the image above to launch an interactive version in a new window.
Our analysis identified a set of fundamentals that are needed to establish a minimum infrastructure base. Criteria such as the quality of the physical infrastructure (for example, electrical, transportation, and telecommunications) and governance indicators (for instance, rule of law and government stability) are essential for a location to “earn the right to play.” Meeting this minimal threshold is an important prerequisite. Further improvements to this base, interestingly, are associated with only incremental growth in innovation capacity.
Once a base is established, innovation hubs must then develop a specific sector focus. Our analysis of the world’s most successful clusters shows that they have first established themselves as world-class players in an emerging specialty before expanding. This focus allows locations to concentrate limited resources, such as labor and capital, on developing competence and credibility. When successful, the result of these first two steps is the emergence of what we call an “innovation hot spring”: a small and fast-growing hub that relies on a small number of companies to establish itself as a relevant world player in a narrow sector. Our analysis indicates that these early innovation hubs have historically followed one of three primary paths.
While innovation clusters may grow quickly in the short term, only a small proportion of these promising hot springs stand the test of time. Most hit a ceiling of limited resources that severely constrains their growth.
Our work has shown that critical drivers of innovation vary from sector to sector. The local regulatory environment, for example, is a critical determinant for some sectors; for others, the availability of venture capital or the presence of a demanding local customer base are key. However, the single common factor that drives—or, indeed, constrains—innovation across all sectors is the availability of a well-qualified and specialized talent pool. While a hub’s initial success can often be fueled by relying primarily on local talent, the importance of attracting, developing, and retaining a vibrant base of world-class talent increases as clusters mature and grow in complexity.
While the need for talent is the same all over the world, different locations are currently facing very different challenges. Japan and Western Europe must overcome a severe demographic challenge—their fast-aging populations and growing number of retirees need to be replaced or their labor efficiency further enhanced. North America is struggling with the challenge of replacing a large number of highly specialized immigrants who are now choosing to stay or return home. Emerging Asian economies, while able to draw from a very large demographic pool, need to train a larger proportion of their population to reach world-class levels. They also must increase the attractiveness of their hubs to better compete for top global talent. While simply meeting basic infrastructure needs is sufficient to sustain initial growth, a region must establish itself as an attractive destination for global talent in order to establish itself as an innovation hub.
While focus is critical for emerging innovation hubs, as they mature, they need to broaden their portfolios of businesses and sectors. This diversification is vital to the long-term survival of an innovation hub—it allows the hub to survive the unavoidable downturns that affect specific sectors and provides the impetus for continuous reinvention. New innovators typically emerge in adjacent industries, or as hubs attract nonlocal players that want to capitalize on the local infrastructure and available talent. Our data indicate that, depending on the strategy, mature innovation clusters will evolve toward one of the following categories:
The data-driven methodology of the Innovation Heat Map sheds new light on the innovation process and allows for an objective diagnosis of both innovation output and local bottlenecks. Going forward, we look to built upon this approach to evaluate conventional wisdom about the drivers of innovative environments and thus bring new perspectives to this vitally important topic.
Text size
Commenting is closed for this article.
Send an e-mail to let us know how we can make our site better.
Is the United States on the verge of being pummeled by a technological hurricane? Professor Amar Bhidé says no and explains why the US is able to stay ahead.
Intriguing article.
Posted 10 November 2009, 04:31 by George Kalakanis
this article has encouraged me for innovation map.
i am thinking to make an innovation map of a country. any body can help me, please
Posted 26 August 2009, 01:11 by rahmat
Building an innovation cluster also needs monitoring of “micro” parameters at a company / organisational level.
Over 2007/08 I had surveyed 9 organisations (14 seperate organisational units) in Eindhoven, The Netherlands (one of the ‘hot spring’ regions in Europe) for their Innovation / Idea management capabilities.
This was based on a simple 5 level Capability Scale which I had created based on Leadership, People, Process, Technology parameters.
Based on my findings, although ‘Diversity’ corresponds with the mapping in the heat map in this article, I found that there is further concentration of innovation capabilities in only specific organisational units and is not spread across the organisation.
The initial data from my survey led me to conclude that organisations (in Eindhoven) needed not only to ensure that their innovation capabilities are growing and are sustainable but are also well spread out across the organisation.
Only then will a region / cluster be able to move towards a ‘Dynamic Ocean’ zone.
Posted 15 July 2009, 12:22 by Ashish Dharap
With all respect but thats map is a typical view on the world with the eyes of the united states.
Silicon valley? the biggest “dynamic ocean” sorry i have tears in my eyes. 80% of all patents are trash or copied ideas. Like Apple and the magsafe connector just steel a old patent of 1939 and apply it new. Thats an innovation? I think to measure the map of innovation you guys should only consider patents what is applied in at least 3 or 4 main market countries may like a template only patents what is applied in US, ,Japan and germany are valid to be count in the innovation map and I m pretty sure you will see a quiet different picture of your map.
BR
Peter
Posted 22 May 2009, 21:31 by R.P.S
I was not able to read all the comments but I was very happy to see that many are against the use of patents as a proper measure to innovation. I hope soon this becomes a common practice and spread all over so we can really start measuring innovation correctly.
I work in research (social sciences) and many fall under the mistake (in my opinion) of using the data available instead of the right one.
Editors note: Luiz Pires, one of the authors of this article, responded to this and other issues that arose in the scores of comments we received, in a second article. In fact, patents were just one of several measures used to gauge innovation. See Luiz's full response here.
Posted 29 April 2009, 13:51 by Carlos Vivas
While I applaud the efforts behind analyzing the vast amount of indicators to find patterns that explain certain macroeconomic innovation trends I disagree with the idea of measuring innovation based on number of patents. The effectiveness of our (US) patent system to measure innovation effectively across industries is questionable. How many of these patents are actually converted into real innovations? This problem is exasperated when we involve the patent systems of the countries across the globe.
This analysis assumes minimum infrastructure base as a qualifier to level the playing field. Though I do appreciate the intent of this assumption, this approach leaves out the countries who innovate despite of poor infrastructure such as India and China. An alternate approach could have been a weighted cluster that focuses on the efficiency of the clusters to demonstrate the untapped innovation potential due to lack of infrastructure.
These clusters provide an opportunity to explore some correlations. Hot Springs regions’ growth is correlated to untapped natural resources and recent influx of skilled immigrants. This might explain Canada and Australia being Hot Spring regions due to their untapped natural resources and the immigration policies designed to attract highly skilled an well educated prospective immigrants.
To make this analysis even more compelling I would like to go back few years more than the current nine years of data and choose time-based visualization such as Gap Minder. This might reveal some interesting patterns about how the clusters grow from small to big and vice versa and change quadrants as the years go by. This visualization would not only allow to add filters but would also allow to track relative progress of a subset of clusters. We might also be to see how the clusters move from silent lake to dead pool since they cannot innovate themselves out of the current crisis e.g. auto and manufacturing regions in the US.
I have a detailed post at:
http://cloudcomputing.blogspot.com/2009/03/creating-nurturing-and-sustaining.html
Posted 10 April 2009, 01:30 by Chirag Mehta
Isnt it a good time to set up an “insitute of Innovation Management” in India. Some interesting points to note, are:
* In India, EDUCATION is a low risk, assured return business. The demand for quality and “branded” education is very high.
* Recent trends in the global economy, have thrown up important opportunities for “innovation”:
- Frugal Manufacturing – with launch of the NANO, a $ 2000 family car, a huge low cost manufacturing eco-system is underway. This eco-system will have a global impact.
- Emerging market innovation (“Fortune at the bottom of the Pyramid”) is area of immense interest for Multinational companies, especially to address markets like India, Brazil, etc.
- New marketing concepts such as Online Marketing, Rural Marketing (e.g. in India), offer growth opportunities, in an otherwise gloomy economic scenario.
Posted 7 April 2009, 11:55 by Ramesh Adavi
I think the use of the quantity of patents generated in a particular area is a poor proxy for amount of innovation. It has been my experience as an engineer at various companies that have developed patentable things and long-time observer of technological companies and innovation, that most innovation occurs at companies that are too small to have the resources or time to pursue the patenting of innovations. It is also my opinion that patents are really not that useful most of the time for improving the amount of money that a company can make from an innovation. The legal costs and cultural reluctance to deviated from patented ideas once they have been patented means that companies frequently reduce the speed of improvement of their value proposition when they patent something, and capitalism usually finds a way of giving money to those that have the better value proposition. This chart is cool, but it is really mostly looking at the intensity of the activities of companies that aren’t really start-ups any more.
Posted 25 March 2009, 02:46 by Jay
If talent is an absolute necessity, then some countries need to do serious thinking on the laws being introduced to limit this talent from the reach of other resources like infrastructure [geography, cause not all countries have the capital/infrastructure to support new ideas] and environment.
At this stage of the economy you want governing bodies to be the last thing to pin down talent outsourcing.
Posted 24 March 2009, 10:34 by Nikhil Kabadi
Hockessin, Delaware? A Silent Lake clustered with New Haven, Baltimore and Pittsburgh? Really? Please help me understand this? Maybe I should move back!
Posted 23 March 2009, 19:16 by Scott Ashwell