economic development | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Measuring an industrial hub’s success

What should measure the success of technology incubators and hubs? London’s Google Campus gives us some clues.What should measure the success of technology incubators and hubs?

A short article appeared on London’s City AM website yesterday discussing the successes of Google’s Campus and the government’s Tech City initiative.

What jumped out of that story is the quote from Benjamin Southworth, the former deputy chief of the Tech City Investment Organistion, that London’s first tech IPO is “probably 18 to 24 months away”

Southworth’s comments raise the question of how do you measure the success of initiatives like Tech City, does a stockmarket float indicate success of business or tech cluster?

The debacle of Australia’s Freelancer float which saw the shares soar over 400% on the first day of trading certainly doesn’t indicate anything promising about the startup scene down under apart from the opportunities for those well connected with insiders on Australian Security Exchange traded stocks.

In London’s case, Google’s Campus gives a far better indicator of what tech hubs and industrial clusters can add to an economy – £34m raised from investors in the 12 months to October 2013, 576 jobs created and 22,000 members of its coworking space.

Google’s statistics raise an interesting point about the different objectives for the stakeholders in incubators and hubs; entrepreneurs want money or glory, investors want returns, corporate backers want intellectual property or marketing kudos, governments want jobs and politicians want photo opportunities with happy constituents.

These different objectives means there are different measures for success and one group’s success might mean bitter disappointment for some of the others.

What the various partners define as success is something anyone involved in an incubator or hub should consider before becoming involved, in that respect it’s like a business or a marriage.

Into the ruins of Bedlam – visiting the industrial revolution’s birthplace

A quick tour of the Industrial Revolution’s birthplace.

Nestled in a quiet wooded valley near the modern town of Telford in the English Midlands is the birthplace of the industrial revolution.

Today the three quiet villages — Coalbrookdale, Coalport and Ironbridge are quaint little communities but two hundred years ago they were the powerhouse of the Industrial revolution.

ironbridge-wooded-valley — The hills around Ironbridge

Coal and ironstone mining in the district started in medieval times with the locals having a wide range of words to describe different types of coal — Lancashire Ladies, Randle and Clod being just a few terms.

Iron had been smelted at Coalbrookdale from the late 16th Century however the arrival of potmaker Abraham Darby in 1709 that catalysed the industry with his method to reliably use coke for the blast furnaces.

coalbrookdale-by-night — Coalbrookdale by night – the Bedlam furnaces at their peak

Further downstream, the Madeley Wood smelter became infamous as the bedlam furnaces, named after the noise and confusion of London’s notorious asylum.

With the new reliable way to smelt iron and a string of blast furnaces along the valley, production skyrocketed and the valley’s natural advantages of accessible coal, iron and water meant it became the centre of the industrial revolution.

Increased production meant more workers and people flocked in from the surrounding agricultural communities — not in a dissimilar way to today’s experience in China.

That increased population meant more slums, what is today’s cute village was once sqaulid poverty, albeit an improvement on the life of an agricultural worker. Epidemics were common with 32,000 lives lost in cholera in 1831-2.

Despite the squalor of the workers’ quarters, the ironmasters were proud men and Coalbrookdale’s new bridge could only be build of one material — iron.

ironbridge-cast-iron-coalbrookdale — “This Bridge was cast at Coalbrookdale”

Ironmasters like John Wilkinson and Abraham Derby III were also ferocious promotors of their product and the bridge stands as a proud, strong advert for the strength of Coalbrookdale’s iron. Wilkinson himself built the first cast iron barge a few years later and was eventually buried in a cast iron coffin.

boy-and-black-swan — Boy and Black Swan cast iron statue

Eventually though the smelters of Coalbrookdale began to lose their competitive edge as mining and blast furnace technology improved, the ironmasters responded with moving into decorative and intricate cast iron features like the Boy and Swan statue that now graces the gardens of the Coalbrookdale Iron Museum.

ruins-of-bedlam-at-ironbridge — The ruins of the bedlam blast furnaces at Coalbrookdale

Despite their successes, Coalbrookdale’s slide continued, with coal production peaking in 1871 and a steady decline over the following century.

Today, there’s not a lot of industry in Coalbrookdale except for one plant that keeps the area’s engineering tradition running.

For Britain, the question is how the nation’s economy continues it’s engineering traditions, 45 minutes drive away is a relic of Twentieth Century industry — the Austin motor works at Longbridge.

Today an assembly plant fills a small corner of the formerly sprawling factory site and over it flies the flag of it’s new owners. The People’s Republic of China.

We live in interesting times.

London’s quest to be the next Silicon Valley

How London is building its place among the global technology centres

In November 2010 British Prime Minister David Cameron set out his vision for London becoming the centre of Europe’s digital economy.

“We’re not just going to back the big businesses of today, we’re going to back the businesses of tomorrow.” Cameron said. “We are firmly on the side of the high-growth, highly innovative companies of the future.

Three years later London’s tech scene is booming with more than fifty incubators across the city and over three thousand digitally connected businesses in the Shoreditch district.

Building London’s resurgence

Gordon Innes, the CEO of the city’s economic development agency London and Partners, puts this down to a combination of factors including a young and diverse population coupled with being a global media and finance centre.

At the time of Cameron’s speech the cluster of tech startups around Shoreditch’s Silicon Roundabout area was already firmly established and the British government was acknowledging the industry’s successes.

“What we did, what the mayor did, what the government did,” Innes said, was to make sure that we removed as many barriers as possible to let the sector grow as rapidly as possible.”

The value of teamwork

Part of that effort involved business leaders, London & Partners, the mayor’s and Prime Minister’s advisers meeting on a regular basis to thrash out what the tech sector needed for the UK’s tech sector to thrive.

“There were changes to the tax credits for R&D and an important one was the Enterprise Incentive Scheme,” says Innes.

“Linked to that was a recognition of the need to link angels and high net worth individuals to be educated about the sector. It’s not just enough to balance the risk through the tax code.”

Another success for the UK startup sector was the British government introducing an entrepreneur’s visa that makes the country more attractive to foreign founders of startups.

Having built an community of tech startups, the city is now looking at how to grow the sector. “The big priority over the next few years is growing your business in London.” Innes says.

“Making sure you’ve not only have access to angel finance but also to stage one and stage two venture fund capital, you’ve got access to capital markets through new groups on the stock exchange and the AIM market.”

One of London’s big challenges is linking the city’s strong financial sector to the tech industry with a range of organisations like London Angels and City Meets Tech.

Sharing the vision

A notable point about the successes of London & Partners and Tech City UK is the co-operation between the levels of government along with having a shared vision of where the city should sit in the global economy.

Having a unified, strong and consistent vision is probably the best thing governments can offer a growing entrepreneurial or industry hub.

“Government can’t create that but government can certainly support it or, if it’s not careful, can destroy it,” says Innes.

London is showing how to support a growing sector of their business community, other cities need to be taking note how they can compete in a tough global market.

Are industrial hubs a thing of the past?

Do services like Alibaba and oDesk mean industrial hubs are things of the past?

Since the beginning of civilisation, industry hubs have formed the basis of cities and regions, but is the internet removing the need for like minded businesses to group together?

Tomorrow I’m at a breakfast featuring Porter Erisman whose film Crocodile in the Yangtze tells of the rise of China’s Alibaba and the adventures of its founder, Jack Ma.

Jack Ma’s Alibaba is the eBay of manufacturing, connecting factories and buyers around the world. A visitor to the site can buy anything from childrens’ clothing to tractor gaskets, all cheaper by the container load.

The rise of Alibaba tracks the development of sites like oDesk which bring skilled workers together. It’s becoming easier for businesses of all sizes to tap global workforces and supply chains.

In the past, industrial hubs and cities have developed due to the proximity of workers, suppliers and materials. Today, it may well that with all the resources being a mouse click and a credit card away from an entrepreneur it’s no longer necessary for these hubs to develop.

Whether industrial hubs do develop in the future will depends on individual sector’s needs for natural resources, face to face contact and short supply chains, but it’s worthwhile thinking whether location remains important for modern economic development.

Ending the motor industry’s 1950s delusions

Can governments kick their habit of supporting the motor industry and focus on 21st Century industry investments?

Today Ford announced the pending closure of its Australian manufacturing operations, bringing to an end ninety years of the company building automobiles down under.

Ford’s announcement is small on a global scale – the Broadmeadows factory built 40,000 cars out of a worldwide supply of sixty-three million – it does illustrate some major structural issues facing both the global automobile industry and the Australian economy.

An Automotive Depression

Over capacity has been the curse of the automobile industry for decades as governments have propped out producers around the world.

KPMG’s 2012 Global Automotive Survey forecast the global industry would be 20 to 30 percent over capacity in 2016.

This doesn’t seem to worry industry executives or their government supporters, as KPMG reported;

Alarmingly, most auto executives still seem to regard the risk of overcapacity and excess production as a necessary evil to remain competitive. As the rapid growth of recent years eventually slows down, manufacturers that fail to address overcapacity could face some tough decisions.

Ford’s Australian executives could at least be credited with facing some of those tough decisions.

Many governments though are still in denial as they continue to subsidise motor manufacturers in an effort to copy the industry model that worked for the US Midwest during the 1950s.

Indeed, the Australian government in 2008 committed 5.2 billion dollars to support their domestic industry through to the end of this decade. Ford’s announcement today coupled with General Motor’s cutbacks last year show that policy is in ruins.

At the Ford and government press conferences, journalists pressed the Prime Minister and the Ford Australia’s CEO about repaying some of the millions of corporate welfare doled out to the multinational over the last decade. Naturally little was to be said about that.

In a stark comparison to Ford Australia’s announcement, US electric car manufacturer Tesla Motors repaid a $465 million US government loan.

While no-one can say Tesla’s future is certain, at least US investors are putting their money on 21st Century technologies instead of propping up declining industries of the last century.

Australia’s predicament

The car industry is just one sector that faces global overcapacity – ship building, real estate and mining are just three with similar excess production.

For Australia, the mining industry is winding down investment as worldwide production capacity expands. At the same time, the blue sky projections of China’s resources demand are being challenged.

While the mining boom comes to an end, Australia now has to face the consequences of the nation’s economic decision to focus on resources and property speculation in the 1990s and early 2000s.

As the Thais and Indonesians found in 1997, and the Irish and Icelanders a decade later, economies based on unsustainable foundations seem to work fine until suddenly they don’t.

It may well be that Australia is about find out what happens when the economic tide suddenly changes.

One bright side is that the government has the best part of five billion dollars to invest in new industry – assuming Australia’s politicians can wean themselves off their 1950s view of the world economy.

Image of Ford Australia celebrating 50 years of Falcon Production courtesy of Ogilvy Communications.

Silicon Valley’s network effect

How do cities emulate industrial centres like Silicon Valley and San Francisco

Philip Rosedale, the founder of Second Life and various others startups has an interesting take on why San Francisco and Silicon Valley are the centres of the tech startup world.

He puts the region’s success down to the network effect where like minded groups share knowledge and encourage each other.

If you want to create a vibrant start-up ecosystem somewhere else that is competitive with San Francisco and Silicon Valley (and this is starting to happen right now in places such as Boulder and Austin), you want to do two things: You want to pack the people working together into as dense an area as possible, with public areas and co-working venues where they will see each other constantly, even when they aren’t working in the same company. And then you want to encourage them to let down their guard and be as open as possible about what they are doing.

Of course the network effect doesn’t just apply to the Silicon Valley tech startup model, it’s just as true for China’s manufacturing hubs, South Korean shipbuilding or historical centres like Detroit’s motor industry and the English Midlands during the industrial revolution.

We shouldn’t forget that fifty years ago governments sought to to emulate Detroit’s success and a century ago cities strived to be like Birmingham.

That’s something we should keep in mind when looking at ways to emulate Silicon Valley – in trying to copy today’s successes, we may be mimicking a model that has already peaked while overlooking our own unique advantages and the opportunities in new industries.

For cities striving to become world centres of industry, it might be best to first figure out what they do well and then find a way of attracting the smartest people in that field to move there.

Then again, it may just be that most industrial hubs are accidents of history and the best we can do is try to attract smart people to our communities.

Tasmania and the travelling circus

Big events are good for giving a local economy a short term boost, but how does Tasmania build its economic foundations?

“We bring in almost everything,” says V8 Supercars director Mark Perry as he guided journalists around Launceston’s Symonds Plains racing track.

Everything Mark showed us – a fleet of trucks, communications equipment, hospitality tents and the racing teams themselves would be packed up on Sunday night, shipped to Melbourne and flown to New Zealand for the next race.

The V8 Supercar management are very proud of their work, and they should be given the massive task they have, but it exposes a weakness in the Tasmanian economy in that almost all the high value employment and equipment has to be flown in.

Quiet times in downtown Launceston

Arriving into Launceston on the Friday before the races, it’s interesting how little hype there is around the event. In Sydney, San Francisco or Cannes there would be banners and flags around the city welcoming visitors, in Launceston there’s almost nothing despite the race meeting being one of the state’s biggest events.

It was also surprising how there were no downtown events to complement the main attraction.

Almost every major sporting event from the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup to the AFL Grand Final and Australian Open has some inner city satellite venues with big screens for the locals who can’t make it to the stadium.

Having those satellite events adds to the buzz and hype in the host city. Something that downtown Launceston needs at 7pm on a Friday night.

That lack of support by the community is notable, particularly in light of the $600,000 per year the cash strapped Tasmanian government pays in subsidies for the V8 Supercars.

I’m against government support for events like these, but if that money is going to spent it may as well be spent properly to maximise the economic benefits.

Subsidies like this would be even better if they were part of some grander economic plan, but like all the payments given to the film production, motor manufacturing and other industries, they are based more on populism than any strategy – the politicians may as well be giving free beer out in Launceston’s main street.

Why the community support is so tepid for the Supercars event is so tepid is something I’m going to be exploring in the next few days as I meet various business leaders in Launceston and Hobart to hear how the state is positioning itself in the 21st Century.

In the meantime, the V8 Supercars “travelling circus” has moved on, hopefully Tassie will have some more long term jobs to show for it.

Paul travelled to Tasmania and the V8 Supercars courtesy of Microsoft Australia

Beer and 3D printing lead a Belgian town into the future

One town in Belgium shows how new industrial hubs are developing around emerging technologies like 3D printing

While many cities and states are fighting to subsidise declining businesses others are becoming hubs of future industries. The story of Leuven and 3D printing is one of the latter.

A great article and accompanying presentation from Reuters illustrates some of the possibilities with 3D printing technologies.

Most of the article revolves around the Belgian company Materialise whose CEO, Wilfried Vancraen, has been a pioneer in 3D printing.

An interesting upshot of Materialise’s development is how the company’s hometown, Leuven, is promoted by the firm as the ‘world capital of beer and 3D printing.’

Calling yourself the ‘World Capital of Beer’ is a big – and one suspects risky – call in Belgium so it’s not surprising that the town itself doesn’t use the tagline.

Being the world capital of 3D printing though does have some allure of Leuven being able to build itself into one of the world’s hub for the new technology.

Those hubs are a feature of every industrial revolution – whether it’s Silicon Valley and the manufacturing centres of South East China today or the English ironworking and cotton milling hubs of the 18th Century.

For governments looking at attracting job creating industries, instead of desperately trying to attract the old industries of the 20th Century it might be worthwhile to consider what the community has to offer the business leaders of this millennium.

Leuven may or may not become one of the world hubs of 3D printing, but at least the city has a chance – those bidding for car factories, movie productions or prisons are destined to decline even if their bids succeed.

Beer pouring image courtesy of dyet and sxc.hu

New York celebrates its entrepreneurs with Made in NY

New York City shows how cities and nations have to promote their economic strengths

Part of a thriving industrial hub is having the business and skills that support the sector. If you’ve got them, you need to tell the world you’re open for business.

Somebody who is doing this well is New York City’s Office of Media and Entertainment which runs the Made In NY program.

While much of the focus of the program is on attracting film production, Made in NY recently branched out into promoting the city’s tech community boasting successful businesses like video sharing site Vimeo, tutor matching service Tutorspree and stock photography supplier Shutterstock.

Towards the end of the Shutterstock clip one of the staff mentions ‘drop bears’ – a little bit of Sydney argot creeps into the story.

It’s the Sydney connection that makes the Made In NY campaign so bittersweet, I was involved in setting up the Digital Sydney project for the New South Wales government.

While Sydney doesn’t have the size of New York’s or London’s tech industries it does share the advantage of being one of the most diverse cities in the world. The work of organisations like ICE in Parramatta is important in realising some of that potential.

That potential is huge – having sizeable communities of East and South Asian language speakers gives Sydney a real opportunity in the Asian Century.

Unfortunately most of those communities live in Sydney’s West and while lip service is given to the needs of that region most economic development work focuses on corporate welfare for established interests and supporting inner city stuff that white folks like.

When I started at what was then the Department of State and Regional Development in 2009 I was told that many in the agency believed NSW stood for “North Sydney to Wooloomoolloo”, something that largely turned out to be true. The west of Sydney, like most of the state, took second place behind the wants of big business.

This is what’s encouraging about the Made In New York campaign, it promotes smaller business – although they all seem based in lower Manhattan staffed largely by a middle class monoculture, which seems to be a problem when you buy into hipster chic.

Hipster chic is one of New York’s strengths and that’s what every city and country needs to be doing in a global connected economy.

If you can’t define and articulate what it is you add to the economy, then you’re locked into the low value, small margin commodity end of the marketplace and that is a tough place to be.

The question for all of us, on a personal and a national basis, is do we want to be price taking commodity producers or do we want to develop the high value, growth business of the 21st Century.

New York City has made its choice, we have to make ours.

Going insane with government subsidies

Governments and taxpayers keep repeating the same failed strategies in attracting new industries.

Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

When it comes to funding the film industry it’s hard not to think that governments, and those who want a strong local film making communities, have all gone insane.

As discussed previously, the global producer incentive industry is a scam perpetuated by the major movie studios on gormless governments desperate for the glitz and glamour of having a Hollywood star or two come to town.

In Australia, governments are scratching around to raise change to attract a high profile Hollywood production once again – unsurprisingly to subsidise another remake of a fifty year old hit.

This is dressed up in the guise of helping build or maintain the local skill base or infrastructure. The water tank that’s expected to be used should the Aussies win the bid was built by the Queensland government in 2007 to attract aquatic themed movies, as the minister at the time said;

“As a result of having the water tank facility, the Government’s Pacific Film and Television Commission and Warner Roadshow Studios are currently in negotiations with a number of major studios requiring water tank facilities for their next major films.

“These projects under negotiation have an estimated value of $US370 million.”

Little of that money made it down under and the Gold Coast water tank stands largely unused as the Queensland and Federal governments failed to interest subsidy hungry movie producers.

When governments win those subsidised productions the local industry has brief sugar rush as providers struggle to find caterers, crew and extras required to film Superman XVIII or the fourth remake of Herbie The Love Bug. After a few months, the big producer folds their tent and moves on to the next city that spent millions attracting the studios’ favours.

Those involved in the big Hollywood production sadly go back to their day jobs and dreams of building careers in a vibrant local industry which has no chance of developing under the boom and bust cycle of major production attraction.

And so the cycle goes. At least today’s Sydney accountants can tell their kids how they once stood next to Keanu Reeves as an extra on The Matrix.

While Hollywood is the best organised at milking gullible governments, it isn’t just the film industry that pulls this scam off on taxpayers. If anything, the automobile manufacturers are probably the biggest beneficiary of government largess and produce more unloved bombs than the movie industry.

What’s particularly notable when governments announce huge licks of money for multinational corporations is just how small support is for the local industry in comparison.

A good example of this are the New South Wales film industry subsidies. The state’s Emerging Filmmakers Fund dispensed a grand $90,000 to local producers in 2012. This compares to the $6.6 million dollars spent by the state on attracting foreign productions.

Even that $6.6 million number has to be treated with caution as major productions can be subsidised from the state’s Investment Attraction Scheme – a $77 million slush fund put aside for attracting ‘footloose’ multinational business operations.

Generally payments from the IAS are ‘Commercial in Confidence’, or ‘Crooks in Collusion’ as some more cynical might put it, so it’s almost impossible for taxpayers to know how much has been lavished on attracting foreign businesses.

What is clear though is the government subsidies for foreign operators, not just in the film industry, dwarf the support given to local businesses.

During my short period working for the NSW Department of Trade and Investment more than one businessman asked me “why is your minister giving a slab of money to my overseas competitors rather than encouraging local businesses?”

It’s difficult to find a diplomatic answer that doesn’t imply that political and public service leaders are blinding the glamour and prestige of being associated with rich multinational corporations.

The real support local industries need is steady work producing products that play to their advantages, the sugar rushes of major movie productions or subsidised manufacturing only distort the market and may even damage the smaller local production companies as the wrong skillsets and infrastructure is built.

Done strategically as part of a broader, long term plan targeted subsidies to global industry leaders can work, but unfortunately few of the movie industry incentives or investment attraction schemes have that sort of thinking underlying them.

As budgets tighten with the deleveraging global economy, it’s going to be interesting to see how long governments can continue this sort of corporate welfare.

Film clapper image courtesy of Chrisgr through SXC.hu

Building Africa’s multinationals

Ashish Thakkar is one of the new breed of African entrepreneurs who will shape 21st Century business.

African business site CP-Africa has a profile on the continent’s youngest billionaire, 31 year old Ashish Thakkar, based on a recent interview with the Wharton Business School.

Ashish’s story is fascinating one, his family have been refugees twice – once from Uganda when Idi Amin expelled the Indian population and later in Rwanda – and each time his father rebuilt the family’s fortunes from scratch.

In setting up his own business at 15 with a $6,000 loan, Ashish surprised Dubai authorities who thought his age was a misprint. 16 years later Mara Group operates in real estate, tourism, manufacturing and IT services across 24 countries, the bulk of them in Africa.

The interview is an insight into how African economies are evolving and how the continent is just as diverse as the others – it’s as foolish to lump all African nations together as it is to consider all Asian or European countries as being the same.

An important point that jumps out of Ashish’s interview are his thoughts on attracting foreign investment;

We have a huge issue in Africa with unemployment. Unfortunately, a lot of our governments think the answer is foreign direct investment. It’s not.

This is one of the mistakes governments around the world make – it’s understandable as those big foreign corporations are impressive and rich, there’s also the kudos a politician or public servant gets from being seen as a great statesman consorting with global captains of industry, this is one of the attractions in the annual World Economic Forum meetings in Davos.

As Ashish points out, attracting big corporations is not the answer to building a thriving, modern economy. It requires the locals to take action, not just in the business sector but right across the community.

Waiting for a big corporation to come along to kick start your business community is just a cargo-cult mentality which rarely works.

That cargo cult mentality is alive and well in western nations, a good recent example was the campaign to get Twitter to open an Australian office in Melbourne.

Like Facebook, Twitter’s representation down under would be a government liaison staffer who would be best located in Canberra.

Campaigning for this only made Melbourne look like a bunch of provincial hicks, the city and state is capable of much better.

The sad thing is all our governments do this when squandering money subsidising multinationals to set up offices that were going to be set up anyway. Business books are full of betrayed cities like New London, Connecticut who gave away tens of millions only to see their great corporate saviour walk away a few years later.

It’s far better for government to spend those millions reforming business regulations and taxes to make it easy for local businesses to compete with multinationals and become the global leaders of tomorrow.

As one of the few parts of the world that isn’t facing the challenges of an aging population, Africa economies are in a good position to spawn a whole generation of entrepreneurs and corporations. It will be interesting to see if Ashish Thakkar is leading that generation.

Proudly designed in Gyeonggi

Asian manufacturers are moving up the value chain. Could Korea, China and Taiwan start competing with Apple?

“Designed by Apple in California ” is the boast on the box of every new iPad or Macbook. That the slogan says ‘designed’ rather than ‘made’ says everything about how manufacturing has fled the United States.

Last year the New York Times looked at Apple’s overseas manufacturing operations, pointing out that even if Apple wanted to make their product in the the US many of the necessary skills and infrastructure have been lost.

Now the US is facing the problem that Asian countries are looking at moving up the intellectual property food chain and doing their own designs.

In some ways this is expected as it’s exactly what Japan did with both the consumer electronics and car industries during the 1960s and 70s.

The big difference is that Japanese manufacturers travelled to the US and Europe to study the design and manufacturing methods of the world’s leading companies. In the 1990s and 2000s, the world’s leading companies gave their future competitors the skills through outsourcing and offshoring.

In the next decade we’ll see the latest consumer products coming with labels reading “Designed by Lenovo in Fujian” or “Developed by Samsung in Gyeonggi”.

For western countries, the question is what do we want to be proudly be putting our names to?

Image from Kristajo via SXC.HU