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.
I find it very hard to believe that you omitted 18 important cities like Bangalore, Shanghai, Sydney, Shenzhen etc. because they “charted off the map”. At 20% CAGR cities chart off the map?
Which naturally puts into question the remaining results in totality.
Posted 20 March 2009, 03:46 by Rohin Dharmakumar
By limiting to patent issuance and using that as a proxy to innovation skews the degree of innovation created and it’s social impact.
We need to view the innovation against the success of business managing to capitalize a patent to generate new business ideas. There’re many patents that do not contribute in terms of new business ideas and generating wealth.
The heat map is good data source but do not contribute further to any intelligence on innovation. Would be interesting to using these data source to analyze its impact on innovation further.
Posted 19 March 2009, 20:45 by vinash gopalakrishnan
Interesting that Texas cities Dallas-Ft Worth, Houston and Austin are listed but not San Antonio despite being light years ahead in military, medicine and biotech innovation.
Posted 19 March 2009, 16:52 by JT
This article is purely representative of the scenario in USA and some parts of Europe where there is recognition in the eshtablishment that registers patents in the USA. Mpre than half of the world’s population lives on the other side of the globe and the dramatic growth rates in this region would not have been possible without innovation. Streets in China and India are filled with people who innovate to earn livelihood. This and only this is the reason for dramatic growth rates as compared to the rest of the world. Its sad that this article does not seem to transcend geographical boundries beyond areas where US patents’ registration are considered the only real data of innovation and innovation benchmark.
Posted 9 March 2009, 05:47 by Nagaraj GN
A very interesting article. Gives a good insight on the situation as it stands now. Not sure though about the cause and effect relationship.
1. It will be good to take a few examples from this list and look at how it all started. Probably, it was fuelled by a dynamic entrepreneur/ company trying to cater to a newly identified need or a strong desire to differentiate offering. Others might have followed suit to expolit the opportunities created from that.
2. As commented by others already, it would be good to be able to search the list.
Posted 8 March 2009, 23:25 by Kannan Gopalakrishnan
Where are the hubs of the financial innovations? They are driving 25% of the GDP in the USA and UK. All these magical credit default swaps, collateral debt obligations, sophisticated futures contracts. This attracts the best and brightest pool of talents on the planet. What a waste.
Posted 6 March 2009, 13:34 by Paul
To get a fuller comparative picture, shouldn’t there be some sort of normalization procedure,such as dividing the number of patents by the city or region/country population?
Posted 6 March 2009, 11:11 by Daniel Wagner
I’ve got to say, that diagram violates nearly every principle of good data visualization.
Also, why are you using “Average growth of US patents” as a metric of innovation in non-US clusters? I’m sure there are many meaningful innovations made in these places that do not end up as US or tripartite patents.
Also, no indication of the time lag involved in going from research to commercialization and patenting – this chart may be a better measure of where innovation WAS happening 3-5 years ago.
Posted 6 March 2009, 08:42 by Anthony Townsend
Editor’s note: Read co-author Luiz Pires’ response to comments on this article.
Posted 5 March 2009, 18:57 by What Matters
Find the innovation hotspots on the interactive Innovation Heatmap here: http://www.weforumihm.org
Posted 5 March 2009, 18:04 by Matthias Lüfkens