This website is owned and managed by David Hochman as an independent consultant on technology-based (sometimes called technology-led or innovation-led) economic development (tbed).
The site contains informational pages about me as shown above, links to certain of my projects as shown in the side column, and also occasional blog-like posts in inverse chronological order below. Only the most recent posts show on the front page, but you can search the entire site (or the Web) via the Google bar at left toward the bottom.
If you are interested in learning about tbed, consider the short reading list at my on-line tbed bookstore. If you buy a book here you are dealing with Amazon, but I get a commission. I don’t choose (and don’t necessarily endorse) the ads below that are served by Google’s mysterious algorithms.
Filed under Uncategorized by 
The Innovations in American Government Award administered by the Ash Center at the Harvard Kennedy School is again looking for nominations for innovative government programs, including in the category of community and economic development. The deadline is March 1st.
Winners of the Innovations competition are eligible for awards of up to $100,000 for replication and dissemination. You may apply directly or you can be referred through an adviser to the program, which assures that program staff will follow up with you to make sure you are eligible and that you successfully complete the application.
This year, as in 2010, I am serving in an advisory role and charged to scout out good candidates. If you know a government program that’s eligible (please see this document for guidelines), especially in the economic-development area, please get in touch with me, and I’ll make sure the Ash Center staff get your name and follow up with you.
Public-private partnerships, which are common in my end of the economic-development world, should know that only programs administered under the authority of one or more governmental entities are eligible (federal, state, local, tribal and territorial).
If you apply, good luck!
Filed under News by
Three years ago, when the merger between NYU and Polytechnic University was just under way, I wrote a well received opinion piece arguing that aggressive development of New York City’s university-based engineering research programs might prove key to its ambitions to become a center of technology-based business development. I even argued that competition in this arena (between NYU-Poly and Columbia) would be salutary. Apparently, someone was listening, but not exactly in the way I expected!
Some months ago, New York City issued a “request for expressions of interest,” seeking to identify academic institutions anywhere in the world that might want to develop what the City called an “applied science and engineering research campus.” Today, the City announced that it had received 18 expressions of interest, and clearly had met its goal of stimulating worldwide interest. Represented in the pool were a number of strong U.S. institutions (some being usual suspects, and others a bit of surprise) and also institutions in Canada, France, Finland, India, Israel, Korea, Switzerland, and the U.K. Pretty impressive!
The obvious question is why even try and bring in outside institutions — as good as they might be — rather than get behind the growth ambitions of the three largest in-city engineering research programs? Why start from scratch when you can build on gathering strength? Engineering is engineering, and it can be done well or badly, with strong commitment to industrial partnership or not, but there’s nothing magic about Stanford, Cornell, Purdue, or Carnegie Mellon. It’s about size, scale, momentum, and institutional leadership, and the home teams will always be larger than the NYC “satellites” of institutions based elsewhere. So why the competition? No one has been able to give me a good answer, so what follows is purely my own speculation. Feel free to contradict me in the comments.
More on The responses are in to NYC’s ‘applied sciences campus’ RFEI
Filed under Commentary by
The latest UMDNJ/Rutgers reconfiguration plan: implications for research and economic development
Tags: New Jersey, R&D expenditures
First the [former Merck CEO Roy] Vagelos Commission; then the [former Governor Tom] Kean Commission; just this past week, the final report of the UMDNJ Advisory Committee. Here’s a recap of what’s happening with the reorganization of public medical education in New Jersey, and my own evaluation of the outcome, emphasizing the impacts on research budgets (a matter which is underplayed in the advisory committee report).
Since 2003, New Jersey has moved in fits and starts to undo the damage done more than four decades ago under former Gov. William Cahill, who in 1970 — perhaps angered by what he saw as gold-plated research facilities or maybe for more prosaic political reasons following the 1967 Newark riots — severed the Rutgers Medical School from the state university and attached it instead as the new Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) to what was then called the College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (CMDNJ).
That move placed under different institutional ownership facilities that were actually across the street from each other, requiring crippling negotiations between two bureaucracies for any major bioscience research projects, significantly constraining both public universities’ abilities to contribute to regional economic development.
Beyond that, what eventually became UMDNJ was a unique beast, a health-sciences university spread across four widely separated campuses. Among its eight graduate and professional schools were no fewer than three different medical schools, two allopathic and one osteopathic (don’t ask), and one university-owned teaching hospital. It was truly an ungovernable nightmare, and one that soon and unendingly got into trouble.
More on The latest UMDNJ/Rutgers reconfiguration plan: implications for research and economic development
Filed under Commentary by David Hochman