The IPL newsletter: Volume 20, Issue 406

The Future of Work in America: People and Places, Today and Tomorrow

McKinsey Global Institute
This report examines the divergent impacts that automation may have on the future of work at the local level in the United States.  Analysis of 315 cities and 3,000 counties under various automation forecasts yields disparate outlooks, with urban core, urban periphery, and niche cities best positioned for future employment growth.  The report categorized U.S. cities and counties into 13 archetypes based on attributes such as economic health, business dynamism, industry mix, and labor force demographics. Twenty five megacities and high-growth hubs, where 96 million people live, have generated most of the nation’s job growth since the Great Recession.  By contrast, 54 trailing cities and roughly 2,000 rural counties that are home to one-quarter of the US population have older and shrinking workforces, higher unemployment, and lower educational attainment. Automation technologies may widen these disparities at a time when workforce mobility is at historic lows.

Evolution and Co-evolution of Regional Innovation Processes

Michael Fritsch, Muhamed Kudic, and Andreas Pyka, Regional Studies
This editorial to a new special issue of Regional Studies summarizes the state of academic research on the ‘evolution and co-evolution of regional innovation processes.’  This editorial outlines the general theme of the special issue and briefly summarizes the main results of the contributions. It ends with some critical considerations and an outlook on future research needs.

Ideas for Pennsylvania Innovation: Examining efforts by competitor states and national leaders

Robert Maxim & Mark Muro, Brookings
This report examines innovation policy options to return the state of Pennsylvania to its previous status as an innovation leader.  The report notes that the state should build upon strong regional assets such as a robust university system that generates significant R&D, as well as a set of capable technology-based economic development programs that operate across the state.  A policy scan surveys ongoing initiatives in states seen as both competitor states and as national innovation leaders that contend with challenges similar to Pennsylvania’s.  The report highlights 20 initiatives currently underway that states have designed to achieve the following outcomes: create an evidence-based state innovation strategy; strengthen business R&D in the state; bolster state investment in early stage financing; and mitigate significant spatial divergence.

Building Excellence: The Expert Panel on Leading Practices for Transforming Canadian Science Through Infrastructure

Council of Canadian Academies
Following Budget 2018’s commitment of $2.8 billion to renew federal science laboratories, Public Services and Procurement Canada asked the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) to assess the evidence on leading practices for federal S&T infrastructure investment decisions. The question was worded as follows: “What is known about leading practices for evaluating proposals for science and technology infrastructure investments that is relevant to Canadian federal science for the future?”

 In response, the Panel examined evidence for reviewing research infrastructure proposals in:
• Australia: National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS);
• Canada: Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI);
• Denmark: Nationalt Udvalg for Forskningsinfrastruktur [National Committee for Research Infrastructure] (NUFI);
• European Union: European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI);
• Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung [Federal Ministry of Education and Research] (BMBF);
• United Kingdom: Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC);
• United States: Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC). 

CCA’s Building Excellence report distills key theoretical and practical considerations in developing principles, criteria, decision-making structures, and processes for assessing and investing in collaborative S&T infrastructure. 

Guiding Principles and Criteria

Leading practices in decision-making for S&T infrastructure investments take into consideration four principles: scientific excellence, collaboration, feasibility, and broader impacts.

• Scientific Excellence: Evaluations of scientific excellence for government S&T infrastructure investments differ from those in academia or industry because they must include consideration of government mandates, which can frequently shift.  Therefore, infrastructure investments that promote flexibility, connectivity, and modularity of facility design can enhance future adaptability to changing needs. 
• Collaboration: S&T infrastructure designed to facilitate collaboration can amplify science outcomes and lead to solutions for complex challenges. Collaborative S&T infrastructure proposals highlight the ways that new users can find opportunities for engagement within a facility, and support building relationships by addressing potential barriers to access.
• Feasibility: Assessing the long-term feasibility of proposed S&T infrastructure requires consideration of ownership, governance, and management.  This is particularly the case for shared facilities. The report recommends a stage-gated process allows for the evaluation of various aspects of feasibility (e.g., technical, financial, managerial, social, regulatory, environmental) by scientific and non-scientific professionals.
• Broader Impacts: The evaluation process for proposed large-scale S&T infrastructure investments should include consideration of the project’s broad economic and social impacts.  Though future impacts are difficult to assess, proposals can be evaluated on the credibility and logic of the pathways to expected impacts.

Design of Decision-making Processes and Advisory Structures 

• A “Middle-out” Approach to Developing Proposals: Funders should request proposals that address specific objectives and manage a process in which the S&T community refines proposals collaboratively. Compared to strictly top-down and bottom-up approaches, a ‘middle-out’ approach better facilitates relationship building from the outset of the proposal.  This allows the S&T community to co-create promising proposals that meet government needs.
• Strategic Roadmapping: A clear vision and strategy for prioritizing S&T infrastructure investments (e.g., roadmapping) is critical to the decision-making process. The report notes the value of conducting high level assessments so as to facilitate making timely S&T infrastructure investments. Co-creating roadmaps with stakeholders can also provide an opportunity to develop collaborative relationships.