Subscribe: E-mail | RSS
Topic: Innovation
Building an innovation nation
4 March 2009
  • Comment on this articleComment
  • Print this articlePrint
  • Link to this articleLink to this
  • Bookmark and Share this article Share
  • 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.

Exhibit: Mapping innovation clusters

Click the image above to launch an interactive version in a new window.

Creating a cluster: Of fundamentals and focus

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.

  • Heroic bets: large, government-led, targeted investment efforts that focus on a specific promising sector and provide substantial initial support in the form of subsidies, tax holidays, and direct investments, to name a few. While this has been an attractive option for many locations, it has historically been a challenging path: governments are often ill equipped to identify the right sectors, to define nondistorting incentive structures, and to ensure an effective path out of the initial support phase.
  • Irresistible deals: regions that are able to attract established companies (often foreign players) who want to capitalize on a significant local advantage, such as low cost of qualified labor or access to large local markets. When done effectively, the location can build on this base to add greater value over time, moving, for example, from manufacturing to basic engineering to design and innovation. To be successful, regions need to create mechanisms that encourage the effective transfer of knowledge to the local ecosystem, as well as tools and processes to raise the skills of the local labor pool.
  • Knowledge oases: locations with a critical mass of highly specialized talent (for instance, a large research university or government R&D lab). These hubs capitalize on breakthrough technical advances for commercial success. This path is less frequently successful, however. It requires that locations attract the capital and entrepreneurial skills needed to bridge the chasm between idea creation and commercialization.

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.

Nurturing the cluster: Securing the talent base

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.

Sustaining the cluster: Sowing the seeds of reinvention

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:

  • Dynamic oceans: large and vibrant innovation ecosystems with continuous creation and destruction of new businesses. Leading innovators and primary sectors change organically as the hub frequently reinvents itself through significant breakthrough innovations.
  • Silent lakes: slow-growing innovation ecosystems backed by a narrow range of very large established companies that operate in a handful of sectors. These clusters are frequently the source of a steady stream of “evolutionary” innovations and step-wise improvements.
  • Shrinking pools: innovation hubs that are unable to broaden their areas of activity or increase their lists of innovators and so find themselves slowly migrating down the value chain, as their narrow sector becomes less innovation driven and increasingly commoditized.

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.

Back to top

  • Comment on this articleComment
  • Print this articlePrint
  • Link to this articleLink to this
  • Bookmark and Share this article Share
  • Text size
Increase text size Decrease text size

Comment [46]

Agree? Disagree? Let us know what you think. Please include your full name with your comment. Comments may be edited.

  • It is not necessary that Innovation is confined to the places where the development of concept/idea/technology occurs.
    Innovation can happen at the places where the these concepts/ideas/technologies are consumed.

    In the age of internet and possibilities to network, it is hard to identify innovation with a specific geography.

    How about Virtual Innovation Hubs?

    Posted 5 March 2009, 16:59 by Srinivasa Rao S

  • Very interesting analysis, but I’m not convinced about taking US pattent as the best indicator of innovation worldwide. What would the graph look if you were refering to European Pattents instead ?

    Posted 5 March 2009, 12:10 by Xavier Boileau

  • Love how New York, NY is no where seen on this map. Very fitting and congrats. Wall Street.

    Posted 5 March 2009, 10:54 by Ross

  • I commend the authors for looking for clues on ways innovation nations can be built. But I think the focus should be more on how clusters are formed and nurtured…and sustained.

    The classic – Silicon Valley – should be fleshed out more, particilarly the role of Stanford University (especially Terman’s role) and the critically important role of the venture capital fraternity…all working together.

    There are other variations of how Silicon Valley emerged and continues to flourish.

    I would encourage those of you who are interested to read Michal Porter’s article on clusters in the Harvard Business Review, November 1998. He covers them broadly.

    Sam Felton

    Posted 4 March 2009, 11:34 by Sam Felton

  • I have to say that I agree with most comments here, that the number of patents is not necessarily and indication of innovation but rather a reflection of the assets and resources of the cluster or region.

    What is interesting to measure in my opinion is the efficiency of the cluster, input vs output. Not many clusters will be able to compete with Silicon Valley or San Francisco, but that does not mean it is not innovative. A small(er) city can have much higher efficiency of R&D input vs. output.

    Posted 4 March 2009, 10:57 by Rune G. Nilssen

  • Very interesting analysis. But I suggest that patents are more about INVENTION than INNOVATION. Innovation is about taking knowledge and using it in new and effective ways. Particularly commercializing.

    Nevertheless, this kind of analysis is a beginning.

    One of the challenges for effective government support of innovation is that good policy is frequently not good politics. We know much more about nurturing innovation than we are putting into practice, already.

    Thanks again for an interesting article.

    Posted 4 March 2009, 10:09 by Susan Abbott

  • My 30 years of experience, as both an academician and technology sector CEO, tell me this is a nice collection of information, but nothing more. There is no value assessment of individual or clustered groups of patents, thus innovation is not really addressed, only patent issuance. There are a significant number of useless patents that do not represent innovation, and innovations that are not patented. If you can present innovation and it’s value to society in such a way, then it becomes interesting.

    Posted 4 March 2009, 03:49 by Dr. Fisher

  • This heat map would be far more useful with more valid measurements. The measure this map uses is U.S. patents. Well, great, so Silicon Valley trumps the rest of the world in US patents. But something tells me that a VERY different picture would be painted if the measure was in Japanese patents, or Chinese, or Indian.

    And patents only describe corporate technology innovations. What about scientific innovations? Or innovations in the soft sciences, like psychology?

    Not that any of those pictures would be more accurate, but my point is only that US Patents is going to paint a very US-weighted, purely commercial-tech picture of innovation.

    Still, I think this is a step in a good direction.

    Posted 4 March 2009, 02:53 by Sans Talbot

  • Two observations. One about the comments and one about the article.

    There was a time when the only reply to McKinsey’s or a HBR article were from a few (probably carefully filtered) readers. I believe that Instant feedback from many readers should make the authors more careful about their conclusions. Mckinsey. Welcome to the groundswell. Even you are not immune to it.

    My observation about the article is that even though geography matters a lot, it is becoming a bit less relevant today. My company for example, designs products in California and Germany, builds them in Bangalore and applies for a patent in France. Where exactly is the center of innovation. It is a bit hard to pin down.

    Posted 4 March 2009, 01:38 by Prashanth Padmanabhan

  • I agree with the other comments regarding raising issue with the correlation between patents and innovation. I think that a variety of factors define what is innovation and filing a patent is only one factor, and in my personal experience one of the less critical elements to delivering successful innovation outcomes.

    If a broader range of factors was used, I suspect we would see a very different set of graphs.

    The data is also quite old, 2006 is a long time ago with a very different global economy.

    Thanks for the research, look forward to updates.

    Posted 3 March 2009, 18:55 by simon spencer

Commenting is closed for this article.

Send an e-mail to let us know how we can make our site better.

01 Apr 2010 · 09:45:33 PM GMT
This is well known that money makes us independent. But how to act when one has no cash? The one way only is to receive the personal loans or just bank loan.
—personal loans

In response to Nurturing the innovation reef

05 Jan 2010 · 10:38:34 AM GMT
Gross oversimplification on many different levels. I like the resulting dialog, questions and comments more than the article.
—thesullster

In response to Nurturing the innovation reef

10 Nov 2009 · 04:31:17 AM GMT
Intriguing article.
—George Kalakanis

In response to Building an innovation nation

07 Oct 2009 · 05:55:13 AM GMT
While I support the ideas presented, I think it is narrow minded to talk about the “national” perspective. It is not necessary to keep educated immigrants in America for Americans to benefit from their deeds. We live in a global economy a...
—Bengt Bjorck

In response to Nurturing the innovation reef

05 Oct 2009 · 05:16:06 PM GMT
I want to associate myself strongly with the comments here regarding the relationship between smart immigration policies and innovation. I was the project director for the recent Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, sponsored by the Cou...
—Edward Alden

In response to Nurturing the innovation reef

04 Oct 2009 · 06:54:40 PM GMT
Silicon Valley has created a technological innovation ecosystem. Since the economy is 80% service, the ecosystem for developing innovative services that truly serve human and community needs is not as well developed here. BVA is supporting developm...
—Darlene Crane

In response to Nurturing the innovation reef