"The
notion that the world around us is continuously evolving is a
platitude; we rarely grasp its full implications." -
"Prey," Michael Crichton
Minnesota ended the 20th century as an unusually vibrant
business center, with the reputation of "fighting above our
weight class." But now there is a sense that globalization is
intensifying competition at the very time that the state has been
resting on the laurels of past success.
What can we do to position Minnesota for success in the 21st
century?
On the racetrack of this global economy, the danger is in
weighing down the car with extra gadgets instead of focusing on
faster, lighter, better. The gadgets can take many forms: excess
taxes (personal, corporate, workers compensation); regulatory
hurdles for creating new companies and jobs, and organizational
resistance to change.
Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian-American economist, is famous
for his description of economic growth being rooted in
"creative destruction." According to Schumpeter, in
business, as in life, change is constant and equilibrium is a
fantasy.
Call it creative destruction or old-fashioned change; it is
more fun after the fact than during the process. But it is
critical for our future success.
Benchmark globally, not locally
Minnesota has a worldwide reputation in health care and
medical technologies, manufacturing and agricultural processing
and distribution. But the Mayo Clinic, Medtronic, 3M and Cargill
matter globally because they compete globally, not locally.
Are state planning and subsidies the solution? Probably not.
I've been an executive recruiter for advanced technology
startups since 1986. During that period, I've seen backwaters such
as Austin, Texas, and Research Triangle Park in North Carolina
grow into thriving technology centers. In contrast, 15 years ago
Portland, Ore., was one of the top centers for supercomputing. It
is no longer on the map for computing technologies. Neither is
Minnesota.
I have not seen state planning or subsidies make any
significant contribution to new-venture creation. Did state
agencies create Medtronic or Cray Research or Control Data? Did
they play a role in Silicon Valley at any point in its evolution?
Once a business is created, it is either robust enough to
answer to the market, or it will wither and die. Government
subsidies for businesses of any sort are solutions to political
dilemmas, not economic ones. There are two arenas in which
government can effectively contribute:
1. Easing the tax and regulatory burden on companies. Gov. Tim
Pawlenty has shown courage in insisting that Minnesota match
Wisconsin, rather than Massachusetts, in its social services
policies and budgets. There is more to be done here, particularly
in re-engineering the regulatory bureaucracy.
2. Strategic investments in research and development. These
will almost certainly have high returns on investment over time.
But to make this promise real, we must raise the bar on our
educational institutions.
The University of Minnesota is the state's only world-class
research university. Its de-facto monopoly status is a weakness,
not a strength, as it is forced to be all things to everybody.
Asking a monopoly to become more market-driven contradicts
everything we have learned about the power of competition.
Other campuses of the University of Minnesota and Minnesota
State Colleges and Universities System (MnSCU) must become better
known nationally for the quality of their engineering and science
graduates.
One way to spur creativity in technology education and research
would be to create a second engineering research university in the
state. Call it Minnesota Technological Institute and model it on
small, high-quality engineering research schools such as the New
Jersey Institute of Technology or Illinois Institute of
Technology. There are dozens of schools like this nationally --
first-rate applied engineering Ph.D. programs with global
reputations. These schools don't have the name recognition of MIT
or Cal Tech, but are highly respected in their areas of focus.
Consider Michigan's example. It is not plausible for Minnesota
to create a second research university modeled on Michigan State.
It would cost too much and be too ambitious. But modeling Michigan
Technological Institute is viable -- a small, first-rate
Ph.D.-granting engineering school (hockey team and all).
Imagine this scenario of higher education in Minnesota:
1. The University of Minnesota main campus remains a
world-class research institution, like Michigan or Wisconsin. It
is less distracted by political pressures of being asked to be all
things to all people.
2. Minnesota Technological Institute for the Lifesciences,
centrally located between the Twin Cities and Rochester, is
nationally recognized for the quality of its research and its
masters/MBA Program in Engineering.
3. Minnesota State Bemidji is recognized globally for its
pioneering work in wind energy management systems.
Now imagine the implications of these centers of excellence for
business growth in Minnesota.
Is this scenario realistic? Will it be realized in 2008 or
2025?
Minnesota is known for its "Quality of Life." But
that quality is not a cultural attribute -- it is excellence,
plain and simple.
Do we have the fortitude to raise our standards, to insist that
we build new pockets of excellence in industry, research, and
education?
