A newly published report from the non-profit organization Greater Ohio and the Brookings Institution, suggests that innovation is one of the key assets needed to restore Ohio to the prosperity level the state enjoyed for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. The “Restoring Prosperity” agenda calls for a new era of innovation and a re-energizing of Ohio’s entrepreneurial culture. Specifically the report recommends the state:

• Preserve Ohio Third Frontier funding.
• Find creative sources of funding for innovation-based economic development.
• Significantly expand the state’s advanced manufacturing network.
•  Create micro-investment funds.
  

Where do we grow from here? As a new era beckons, we must recognize the real opportunities.

As our economy shows signs of life, we will encounter both new and familiar challenges.

Like previous recoveries, this one will be unique and create new opportunities for growth and prosperity while old business models collapse with changing consumer demands. Unlike recent recoveries, however, there are transformational macro-economic forces at work that will redefine our economy and our quality of life.

The era of inexpensive energy and urban sprawl has passed as we now compete against rapidly growing economies for energy and other key resources. The convergence of the information age, efficient foreign capital markets and seamless transportation networks has created a level playing field, allowing entrepreneurs to build companies virtually anywhere on the planet. Closer to home, we face an unfamiliar challenge of slowing population growth. The fact is that our rate of historic population growth is neither sustainable nor desirable. With nearly 20 million people living in Florida, we have reached adulthood, and it’s time for us to assume our rightful role as a leader in determining our own economic destiny.

This recovery is the dawning of Central Florida’s next economic era.

Finding so-called informal investors for a debt or equity financing in a small company isn't easy. It helps to understand who they are

If you're an entrepreneur, at one time or another you have probably sought to answer the question: "Where can I get the capital I need?" For most people, the answer is from their own savings or the existing cash flow of their businesses. But for some, it means seeking money from others.

The many sources of external capital for entrepreneurs range from banks to trade creditors to credit cards to venture capitalists. Getting a loan from an outsider is more common than getting an equity investment. And some sources, such as credit-card companies, provide small amounts of money to lots of people while others, such as venture capitalists, provide larger amounts to a handful of businesses. But one source frequently mentioned in books and articles is "informal investors," a term that lumps together friends, family, and business angels.

How Many Informal Investors Are There?

If you're going to look for debt or equity capital from a particular source, it's probably a good idea to know how much money that source tends to provide. So how prevalent is informal investing?

Business schools need to focus on bootstrapping, not only raising money from VCs.

I know I am entering highly contentious territory. Academia generally looks down upon entrepreneurs even as they teach entrepreneurship in business schools and other university programs around the world.

Meanwhile, I have come to observe that most business school programs have an extensive emphasis on fundraising, especially from venture capitalists, and very little pragmatic understanding of what it really takes to get a venture off the ground. As a result, business schools launch students into the real world with completely unrealistic expectations, set up to fail.

Last week I launched a discussion on my blog asking my readers in academia to weigh in on teaching bootstrapping in business schools. It generated an active discussion from which I will synthesize a few points.

The Smithsonian National Zoo just got a Pacific Giant Octopus. (Weeeelll, sort of. It's a baby, and currently only about three pounds. But it'll be giant someday, promise.) The little critter doesn't have a name yet, but he (they think it's probably a he, maybe) does have a web cam. The camera is set up to capture the octopus at feeding times—11 and 3 Eastern, daily. Which is, coincidentally, right about the time I could use a good cephalopod fix in my day.

Even better, this announcement led me to discover that the National Zoo has a ton of different animal web cams. Seriously, they're set up like a bunch of teenage emo girls over there. Lions, naked mole rats (!!), single-celled organisms, sloth bears (?!): You can watch 'em all live.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke is apparently greatly concerned about getting more federally funded research out of university research labs and into the market:

"the United States cannot afford to merely fund research and say a prayer that some entrepreneur will commercialize it down the road,"

So he's asking for advice on how to improve the commercialization of federally funded research. Here's a simple and practical idea that he almost certainly won't consider:

Get the Bayh-Dole Act repealed. Bayh-Dole, of course, was officially designed to do exactly what Locke is supposedly now looking to do. It specifically gave universities and other organizations the right to patent and control federally funded research, with the misguided belief that this would increase commercialization of federally funded research. The law was enacted thirty years ago, and we can now say, pretty conclusively, that it has failed and has only served to hold back commercialization efforts and to massively stifle federally funded research in a number of areas, through a series of (somewhat predictable, if you understand what monopoly rights do) unintended consequences.

TEMPE, Arizona—As a species of seeming feeble, naked apes, we humans are unlikely candidates for power in a natural world where dominant adaptations can boil down to speed, agility, jaws and claws. Why we rose to rule, while our hominin relatives died out, has long been a curiosity for scientists.

The study of our human nature encompasses a variety of fields ranging from anthropology, primatology, cognitive science and psychology to paleontology, archaeology, evolutionary biology and genetics.

Representatives of each of these disciplines gathered February 19-22 at a workshop, "Origins of Human Uniqueness and Behavioral Modernity," staged by Arizona State University's Origins Project to discuss recent advances in their respective fields.

Led by ASU professors anthropologist Kim Hill and paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean, co-organizers of the event, the panel of scientists agreed to adopt a working definition that human uniqueness is the "underlying capacity to produce complexity," and to think of behavioral modernity as "the expression" of those capacities.

We've noticed a common thread among many companies these days. When thinking about innovation - most seem to be heavily focused on providing incremental features and benefits as a cornerstone for their competitive advantage. What seems to elude many executive leaders is a lack of understanding that people do not buy products, they buy into meanings.

Maybe the reason for this is simply the physics of most organizations inhibits radical innovation and the competitive advantage that results. What matters the most to people is not the function of a product, but their emotional, psychological and cultural connection to what a product means to them. The key to sustained competitive advantage for companies is to innovate around meanings rather than function and performance. Radical Innovation does not happen when you bring people an incremental improvement of what they already know. Rather, radical innovation (and market leadership for that matter) is the result of 'proposing' an unexpected meaning. This meaning, unsolicited by user needs, once discovered, turns out to be the very thing people were waiting for!

There are countless examples of companies who have mastered this. Of course, Apple is an easy one. And there are other compelling examples. Back in the early 80's, Seiko and Casio were driving technological innovation in quartz watches, believing people wanted technical precision. However, a Swiss watchmaker realized people cared more about self-expression than technical precision. Swatch was born and proved to be a radical innovation of meaning that created radical market success. While Seiko and Casio were closely observing user needs and existing meanings, Swatch created new ones.

Researchers at X-Ray Optical Systems Inc. in East Greenbush have developed an analyzer that can instantly measure the amount of lead and other toxic metals in body fluids -- a big improvement over current blood tests that can be expensive and time consuming.

But even with a demonstration product in his hands, CEO David Gibson says his company doesn't "have the cash to take it from that to the marketplace." Instead, "we're sitting there in the valley of death," Gibson said, referring to the time span between product development and commercialization -- where sometimes even the most promising ideas go to die.

Legislation before Congress seeks to bridge that gap for a select group of entrepreneurs, such as Gibson, who have recently used federal dollars to develop new technologies. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam, would create a new grant program for companies whose federal research and development dollars are drying up -- just as they begin focusing on pushing new products to market.

Nothing like putting your heart and soul into innovation, and then getting this:

Harsh Reality of Innovation - Apple and Google
Man, tough audience. But very much in keeping with some the best advice on innovation. Which is, you can't have innovation without some failure along the way. It's inevitable.

That advice is both true, and glib. Innovation consultant Jeffrey Phillips catches the right spirit when he says:

"Another thing about 'failure' is that we try to kid ourselves that failure is a 'good thing' a learning opportunity. Well, not in most cultures.

This is the reality of innovation. It's tough. The more disruptive an innovation, the tougher it gets. And we're in the middle of seeing how it plays right now with Apple iPad and Google Buzz.

Don’t miss out on these great upcoming events, especially the Small Business Summit on March 16th – which features an appearance by Anita Campbell, Founder of Small Business Trends. (Note that several events in this week’s list have upcoming early bird deadlines.)

This list of events, conferences and webinars for growing small businesses and entrepreneurs is brought to you twice a month as a community service by Small Business Trends and Smallbiztechnology.com

Product development is a wild animal. It's unimaginably powerful, but you have to make sure it knows who's in charge – at every moment. Oh, and it might bite your head off anyway.

This is true whether we're talking about software, media, or tangible commercial products. And the most common complaint I've heard from leaders is that development is out of control. Here are some telltale messages from the development team:

"We'll be done in 2-3 weeks"
Translation: We're working on things as they come up

"We need a little more money"
Translation: We're working on things as they come up

"We've found a few last things that need to be fixed"
Translation: We're working on things as they come up

American competitiveness in engineering, technology and science. Unfortunately, while American competitiveness and innovation in these areas continues to wane, little has been done (except talking) about it! Yesterday, Intel and 24 venture capital funds announced that they plan to invest $3.5 billion in American startups and early stage ventures over the next two years. Further, in addition, several of America’s leading technology companies including Google, Cisco Systems, Intel Microsoft and 13 others pledged to add as many as 10,500 jobs into 2010—mainly by hiring Americans graduating from colleges with degrees in computer science and engineering.

The initiative, named the Invest in America Alliance was formed in response to “steadily declining long-term investments in education, technology and human capital” that has been taking place in the US for past 20 years or more. Put simply, the American education system is not training enough qualified individuals to allow the US to compete with other emerging technology and engineering powerhouses that include China, India Finland, Korea and the Netherlands.

For the eighth consecutive year, the University of Rochester is among the top ten institutions in the country in the amount of royalty revenue it received from licensed technologies. The University ranked ninth in the nation in 2008 in license income according to the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM).

"We received more revenue in 2008 from our licensed intellectual property than at any other point in the University's history," said Joel Seligman, president of the University of Rochester. "This achievement is a testament to the exceptional quality of our scientific community and the ongoing support of government, the business community, donors, and our research partners in academia and industry."

The annual licensing report released this month by AUTM shows that the University of Rochester received $72.3 million in royalty payments for patented technologies that it has licensed to companies. That year the University also made $361.6 million in research expenditures, was issued 25 U.S. patents, applied for 74 new patents, and formed 6 start-up companies based on University technologies. The data in the AUTM report lags by a year and only contains information for 2008.

Who pays for innovation? Around the world, the leader is the United States. And within the United States, the leader is private industry.

That’s one of the takeaways from a new report published by the National Science Foundation, titled “Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010.” It is full of smart graphs and data on innovation around the world.

First, let’s take a look at trends within the United States. One highlight was this chart, which shows what portion of research and development spending has been financed by which parts of the economy over the last half-century:

Two weeks ago, I attended the Front End Innovation Europe Conference (FEI Europe) held in Amsterdam. One of the highlights was seeing the car in the picture above in person. Yes, they drove it into a large conference room inside the Hilton Hotel. It is the 2010 BMW Vision EfficientDynamics Concept car, and it is even more cool in person than in the photo. It's BMW's answer to the green car revolution. Though perhaps a little late to the game, I suspect it will eventually prove to be a huge success as they continue to do engineering with more style than most other car makers. In addition to seeing the car, we got to hear directly from Adrian van Hooydonk, the Director of Design of BMW Group and mastermind behind the group that developed the car. They clearly rose to the challenge of eloquently working Future Sustainability into their brand of the Joy of Mobility in a record amount of time.

We also received a lesson from Josephine Green, a well-known leader in trends and strategy from Philips Design, on Engaging with the Future Differently. It was a real eye opener for many. We also heard fantastic examples of innovation in conjunction with universities from Sigvald Harryson with Copenhagen Business School that left us all realizing the vastness of the untapped resources lurking around our universities. The event concluded with a superb presentation from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and an interactive session that literally no one wanted to leave. All in all... a huge success! If you missed FEI Europe, don't miss FEI USA 2010 in Boston this coming May (see editor's note for 20% off). I suspect it to be equally as tantalizing.

Egged on by more than 160 venture capitalists, including several Indian Americans, US Senators John F Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and Richard Lugar, Indiana Republican, have introduced a legislation to create jobs in America and increasing America's global competitiveness by helping immigrant entrepreneurs obtain visas to the United States.

The bill by Kerry and Lugar, chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, titled The StartUp Visa Act of 2010, will allow an immigrant entrepreneur to receive a two-year visa if he or she can show that a qualified US investor is willing to dedicate a significant sum -- a minimum of $250,000 -- to the immigrant's startup venture.

The legislation would amend immigration law to create a new EB-6 category for immigrant entrepreneurs, drawing from existing visas under the EB-5 category, which permits foreign nationals who invest at least $1 million into the US, and thereby create 10 jobs, to obtain a green card.

Under Kerry and Lugar's bill, after proving that he or she has secured initial investment capital and if, after two years, the immigrant entrepreneur can show that he or she has generated at least five full-time jobs in the United States, attracted $1 million in additional investment capital or achieved $ 1 million in revenue, then he or she would receive permanent legal resident status.

Sharing his thoughts in the Harvard Business Review, author Scott Anthony believes that content questioning is the real enemy of innovation.

Anthony says that “What About…” questions – the ones which endlessly ponder every possible scenario and variable surrounding an idea or plan are what stops real innovation in its tracks.

And what’s the solution?

Action.

He explains:

So what’s the alternative? Substitute early action for never-ending analysis. Figure out the quickest, cheapest way to do something market-facing to start the iterative process that so frequently typifies innovation. Be prepared to make quick decisions, but have the driver of the decision be in-market data, not conceptual analysis. In other words, go small and learn. Pitch (or even sell) your idea to colleagues. Open up a kiosk in a shopping mall for a week. Create a quick-and-dirty website describing your idea. Be prepared to make quick decisions.

Forget Monster, CareerBuilder, or Craigslist. In this super-competitive job market, employers have to go beyond just posting on job boards to make sure they're reaching top candidates.

If you want to avoid sifting through a huge stack of poor-fit resumes, you might want to consider embracing creative recruiting.

From adding interactive group interviews to the recruiting process to actively looking for talent in unusual places, we've created a list of ways companies are innovating the hiring process.

Robb has been tracking the demand for six types of tech jobs since last October: application developers, network engineers, technology sales, technology marketing, technology product management, and technology product marketing, using publicly-available postings on employment sites like Indeed and Monster.com.

In February, Robb noticed a big uptick in openings in the Boston area: 30 percent across those six categories.

The chart below shows where the hiring has been happening over the last three months or so: the biggest gains were in tech product marketing, and hiring in tech sales started to perk up only recently.