To survive in this dynamic world, companies have to make significant changes to how they are structured. One of the solutions to overcome this challenge is to work as a thriving ecosystem. This means working with multiple stakeholders as a network. Pharma companies, for instance, are increasingly sourcing new molecular entities from startups because the variety of innovative strategies means more chances of success. (Geilinger and Leo, 2019).
Related to the pharma industry, in March 2021, I co-published the academic paper, “What Corporates Can Do to Help an Innovation Ecosystem Thrive— and Why They Should Do It in the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology.” I co-wrote the publication with Susan Windham- Bannister (the former CEO of the Massachusetts Live Sciences Center, a one-billion-dollar investment fund for biotech innovation) and Diana Joseph (founder of the Corporate Accelerator Forum in the San Francisco Bay Area). This paper provided a framework for how Boston successfully built its “innovation capacity” in the life sciences and became one of the most innovative places in the world in just twenty years.
In 2008, then-Governor Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts legislature created a ten-year, one-billion-dollar initiative to transform Massachusetts from a leading life sciences academic research hub to a world-leading life sciences innovation hub, where new technologies could be translated, developed, and commercialized. Today, Boston is recognized as the best life science ecosystem globally. Patrick’s team, including Susan Windham-Bannister, focused on building the long-term goal of innovation capacity: knowing how to produce one innovation after another on a sustained basis. In Windham-Bannister’s framework, innovation capacity was built around five enablers.
🔍 Key Enablers of Innovation:
1️⃣ Academic Culture:
Gap: Many of the academic research institutions generally were not participating actively in translational research activities, the formation of new companies, or in academicindustry partnerships.
Targeted investments: Grants to enable academic institutions to hire Entrepreneurs-In-Residence (EIRs); Grants to junior faculty who were interested in translational research; Funding for incubating spaces on university campuses to enable start-up activity.
2️⃣ Entrepreneurial Culture & Risk Capital:
Gap: The greater Boston region received significant amounts of National Institutes of health (NIH) research funding but much less risk capital was flowing into Boston and Cambridge to support entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial culture also was suboptimal.
Targeted investments: Funding for business plan competitions at Massachusetts academic institutions to encourage the formation of start-up companies; Formation of a fund for pre-Series “A” companies to support achievement of key funding milestones, attract subsequent (larger) investment; Assistance to large corporates and investors in getting an expedited, “early look” at promising start-ups and new life sciences technology across Massachusetts.
3️⃣ Workforce: While research talent was abundant, more operational skills were needed. Internships and new curricula helped bridge this gap.
Gap: While the availability of research talent was strong in the region, there was a smaller pool of operating talent — individuals with the skills to raise capital and grow young companies.
Targeted investments: Funded Internships at start-up companies to provide training experiences and pathways into the industry for entrylevel workers; Funded the development of new curricula that supported the development of skills needed by industry; Funded the creation and build-out of new training facilities.
4️⃣ Infrastructure: Significant funding went into creating cutting-edge research spaces, commercial lab spaces, and incubators for startups.
Gap: The region needed a larger inventory of incubating, accelerating, convening and commercial (wet and dry) lab spaces. In addition, the region needed “cutting-edge” research spaces to further strengthen new areas of research and translation where Massachusetts had the opportunity to become a center of excellence.
Targeted investments: Fund cutting edge, shared research spaces; Fund the build-out of commercial lab space and new co-working, accelerating and incubating spaces for start-ups; Fund incubating and “maker” spaces on the campuses of colleges and universities.
5️⃣ Thriving Ecosystem: To build a cohesive network, grants encouraged collaboration, and convening spaces helped “connect the dots” across the industry.
Gap: The region lacked a well-coalesced relationship network across, which enabled all stakeholders to connect, find needed resources and leverage the existing expertise.
Targeted investments: Fund grants and activities that required collaboration; Cost-share with industry on sponsored research with academia; Fund convening spaces and convening activities; “Connect the dots” across the cluster; Promote a shared vision.
Boston succeeded because it utilized a backbone organization called Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MSLC) to build a thriving ecosystem. The multi-layered nature of this network, which included investors, founders, scientists, and corporations, resulted in new pipelines for resource transfer throughout the network. They made diversity (different stakeholders and talents) and collaboration core principles. They also defined a clear purpose, a long-term shared view, and a structure to attract players.
Question for anyone interested to build startup ecosystems, especially in Europe:
What do you think are the most critical factors in transitioning from an academic hub to an innovation powerhouse in your industry or region? Share your insights!
To share this knowledge with Diana, we then in 2020-2021 did a world’s tour of innovation ecosystems
Enjoy the listen! https://ecosystemshow.buzzsprout.com/
https://corporateacceleratorforum.com/ecosystem-show/#S2
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350163423_What_Corporates_Can_Do_to_Help_an_Innovation_Ecosystem_Thrive_–_and_Why_They_Should_Do_It