Brewed Fresh Daily

9 Responses to “Looking at the Third Frontier”

1. JS Says:
   February 5th, 2010 at 11:13 am

   The only interesting thing of any of these articles, PD included, is the lack of anything indicating shipping sales ready product.

   PD was very specific about the number of companies receiving money: 570. Yet the one company they barely mentioned doesn’t have a shipping product.

   Exactly how many of these are functional business entities, rather than macro economic chew toys?

2. Ed Morrison Says:
   February 5th, 2010 at 11:33 am

   Hmm. Good question. I have no idea.

3. JS Says:
   February 6th, 2010 at 7:50 am

   This is going to be voted on. In other words, you’re asking the voter to support the invisible “success” touted.

   Would you not be suspicious of a blanket pronouncement. And not one failure? …Ever? Hmmmm indeed.

   Ask yourself if your “voter sense” doesn’t tingle at this. This has to be voted on – right?

   What’s the goal: Commercialization? Isn’t that shipping, selling, commercially viable product, proven to show an advantage in a crowded market?

   America has a humiliating track record of great research and poor commercialization. So where does the reportage focus? Research. That’s shoddy reporting, plain and simple.

   It merely shows the reporter found inputs easier do cut and paste than wearing out some shoe leather tracking down the results every syllable of each article says are the goals.

   Trying to sabotage the vote? You couldn’t do better if you tried. But I never chalk up to paranoia that which obliviousness explains so well.

4. Ed Morrison Says:
   February 6th, 2010 at 2:56 pm

   JS:

   My guess is that you are a little too cynical. Your condemnation of the Third Frontier doesn’t ring true.

   Here, for example, is a report out of Dayton that describes a firm who used their grant to develop a more effective portable fuel cell.

   http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/third-frontier-making-progress-to-boost-dayton-area-economy-498501.html

   As for the U.S. having a poor record of commercialization of research, that’s also a bit of a stretch. The translation of research to commercial products — innovation — runs deep with many clusters across the U.S. I have been involved in a number of projects from nano-structured coatings for cutting tools to the development of trenchless technologies for underground drilling.

   There are continuous efforts to improve this translation process. In our own backyard, you might spend a little time at The University of Akron.

5. JS Says:
   February 6th, 2010 at 3:33 pm

   It’s not just getting a product out there, but competitive advantage.

   Why does it seem to be “a firm?” One. Maybe two. The PD also talks about one firm. Couldn’t we manage the extra few cents in phone calls to call three? …Five? …Fifteen? I mean, I know the PD is bad off, but this is ridiculous.

   If a newspaper wanted to remake itself, perhaps sitting down and compiling a list of fifty of the top firms with detailed case histories.

   My condemnation is reserved for the supporters of 3rd Frontier. The people stunned when their issues don’t pass. The ones who seem to dole information out crumb-by-crumb.

   You don’t have to be cynical to equate lack of information with disinterest in the due diligence and oversight endemic to such programs, you just have to be paying attention.

6. Ed Morrison Says:
   February 6th, 2010 at 4:13 pm

   Well, JS, it took me about five minutes to find a firm that is using its Third Frontier funding for product development. My guess is that it’s just not that hard for you — or anyone else — to do the same.

   You seem now to be blaming the PD for your lack of information.

7. JS Says:
   February 6th, 2010 at 5:20 pm

   “a firm”

   Yes, anyone can do a search and find one firm. It would be a pleasant change when the reporter does that several dozen times, CONTACTS each firm about sales figures, then presents a complete picture about the program.

   Self service reporting on economic development. Why read the articles? While we are no closer to finding out anything about 3rd Frontier as a program, we now know why newspapers are foundering.

   Perhaps the voters will do a few dozen searches before voting on this. Good luck with that.

   They are articles about development, written with a near exclusive focus on research. No problem there, apparently.

8. Ed Morrison Says:
   February 6th, 2010 at 5:35 pm

   JS. You’ve lost me.

9. JS Says:
   February 6th, 2010 at 6:46 pm

   When a reporter writes “Those entities are collaborating to move high-tech research and development to market” it leaves one unsatisfied when they don’t mention much about the market. One example does not give one an adequate impression of the entire Third Frontier program.

   Spend a billion or two on many programs, my hunch is you’ll turn up “a” success. The question of effectiveness remains.

   This has been running since 2002 so, if you’re wanting to read an article about T.F., then it stands to reason you may want to find out about results. (I’m using “you” figuratively, of course).

   If the article mentions 570 businesses received money, it does suggest you’re going to get an overview of the program outputs.

   One imagines due diligence and oversight would demand to know, pretty much, something about all 570. So, given some pretty impressive hype about this being an information age, our imaginary article would say…

   …While the average mortality rate of business startups is X, those receiving money from T.F. have a superior Y failure rate.

   …They employ more people, grow faster, or some sliver of detail which assumes the article isn’t a recycled press release.

   …Reveal 30 businesses have sales of $1 million or more, with another 20 set to break one million within the next year.

   Tax money has been spent already. Would not a voter expect to want to see what happened when making their voting decision to renew?

   If 567-569 businesses are left out, might not a sizable fraction of voters feel there is a lack of transparency? Will many really want to go and find a suitable representative fraction to find out what’s up with the whole program?

   Usually we look to a reporter to look at several dozen companies, and report on how the program is doing as a whole. Not that Third Frontier can show a few successes, but that success is the norm for a significant percentage of the 570.

   One company does not “economic development” make. Some articles talk of developing Ohio’s version of a Silicon Valley. More examples give that impression. One or two make it seem more like a pipe dream.