by
Daniel Mark Adsit
B.S., Information Science, Systems and Technology
Cornell University, 2006
Submitted to the System Design & Management Program
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASSACHUET
OF
INSII E
JUN 2 6 2014
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created.
Signature of A uthor...........................................................................................................................
Daniel Mark Adsit
System Design & Management Program
January 14, 2014
Certified by .....
Accepted by ...................
..................................................................
Michael A M Davies r)
S~~e turg MIT S oan chool of Management
Thesis Supervisor
IV
Patrick Hale
Director, System Design & Management Program
1

This page intentionally left blank.
2

by Daniel Mark Adsit
Submitted to the System Design & Management Program on
January 14, 2014 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Engineering and Management
The upstate New York regions are historically significant, but experienced economic decline throughout the later twentieth century. The New York State capital region, located approximately 150 miles north of New York City and west of Boston, has developed government, academic, and industrial institutions that influence economic performance and relationships.
Academic theories about cluster and agglomeration development indicate that complex productivity and network dependencies significantly impact economic sustainability and resilience, while entrepreneurial activity is a critical development factor in cluster dependencies.
Applied concepts from the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Laboratory (REAL) highlight innovative and entrepreneurial capacities linkages in the capital region, and opportunities for stakeholders to facilitate entrepreneurship.
Annually, over twenty capital region academic institutions dispatch thousands of graduates into the regional, national, and global economies with skills and experiences.
However, professional social network data indicates that significant fractions of regional graduates that demonstrate innovative and entrepreneurial capacities have departed in the past twenty-three years. Therefore, challenges exist to provide regional economic opportunities to these graduates.
Academic entrepreneurial ecosystems present economic opportunities for regional graduates, entrepreneurial ventures, and future jobs. A system engineering analysis reveals networked accelerator potential to enhance existing academic programs, improve venture success, and reduce student entrepreneurial risk.
Thesis Supervisor: Michael A M Davies
Senior Lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management
3

This page intentionally left blank.
4

Thank you to all who have contributed to the success of this project. It has been a long but worthwhile process, and I am sincerely thankful for each of you.
To God, for new opportunities and challenges.
To my family, Dr. Mark Adsit, Sylvia Adsit, Laura Adsit, and Jonathan Adsit for all your support through the years.
To Michael Davies, Senior Lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, for your guidance, feedback, good cups of coffee, and always making time for this project.
From the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Laboratory (REAL): e
To Fiona Murray, Associate Dean of Innovation, Alvin J. Siteman (1948) Professor of
Entrepreneurship, and Faculty Director at Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, for your guidance, source recommendations, and project feedback.
e
To Dr. Phil Budden, Senior Lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management and former
British Consul in Boston, for your perspectives on government initiatives.
From the MIT System Design and Management (SDM) Program: e e
To Pat Hale, Director of the MIT SDM program, for input and data collection support.
To Bill Foley for organizing our deliverables.
To all the other SDM staff who make our program and projects possible.
From MIT Engineering Systems Division:
* To Dr. Qi Van Eikema Hommes, MIT Research Scientist, for systems engineering techniques presented in MIT ESD.33. e
To the Fresh.Local.Food. team members Ryan Jackson, Alhely Almazan Morales, Brian
Hendrix, and Raymond Uros for a challenging opportunity to apply systems engineering techniques together.
* To Tom Allen, Howard W. Johnson Professor of Management, Emeritus for feedback on collaborative data collection.
From the New York State capital region: To the academic, government, entrepreneurial, industry, risk capital, and community stakeholders who provided essential context and input during this investigation.
5

This page intentionally left blank.
6

M otivation...........................................................................................
12
Chapter 1: Regional Cluster and Agglomeration Analysis in the New
York State Capital Region ................................................................. 14
1.1.1 A cadem ic context.................................................................................................
15
. 15
1.1.2 Commercial and industrial context ......................................................................
16
1.1.3 Regional economic stakeholder linkage ..............................................................
18
1.2.1 Productivity perspective........................................................................................
23
1.2.2 N etw ork perspective ............................................................................................
25
1.2.3 Entrepreneurial development perspective.............................................................
27
Chapter 2: Innovative and Entrepreneurial Capacities in the New York
State Capital Region ..........................................................................
2.1.1 Regional policies that develop "cluster" dependencies ........................................
32
2.1.2 Regional policies that facilitate entrepreneurship.................................................
33
2.1.3 MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration framework......................................
34
2.2.1 Innovative capacity ..............................................................................................
35
2.2.2 Entrepreneurial capacity .......................................................................................
40
2.2.3 Innovative and entrepreneurial capacities linkage................................................
46
Chapter 3: Innovative and Entrepreneurial Graduates in the New York
State Capital Region..........................................................................
48
3.2 .1 H ypothesis ................................................................................................................
49
3 .2 .2 M eth od ......................................................................................................................
50
3.2.2 Potential lim itations and risks.............................................................................
51
3.2.1 Graduates with innovative and entrepreneurial capacities....................................
54
3.2.2 Graduates with innovative and entrepreneurial capacities within the region .....
56
3.2.3 Implications of regional preference and economic opportunities......................... 58
Chapter 4: Academic Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Analysis in the New
York State Capital Region .................................................................
7

4.2.1 System stakeholders.............................................................................................
4.2.2 System boundary..................................................................................................
4.2.3 System controls...................................................................................................
66
. 69
4.3.1 Primary stakeholder needs ..................................................................................
4.3.2 System requirements mapping ..............................................................................
62
72
76
Chapter 5: Academic Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Concept Analysis .... 85
5.1 Academic entrepreneurial system concepts ................................................
5.1.1 Academic incubators and educational programs .................................................. 86
5.1.2 Entrepreneurial communities and networks.......................................................... 87
5.1.3 Entrepreneurial accelerators................................................................................ 89
5.2 Academic entrepreneurial ecosystem concept selection .............
5.2.1 Initial system concept selection ........................................................................... 92
5.2.2 Emerging system concept selection...................................................................... 96
Chapter 6: Conclusion..........................................................................
105

6
7
1
2
3
4
5
Academic publication subject areas within New York State capital region cities betw een 1990 and 2013 ................................................................................................
Currently operating innovative enterprises by founding year with primary locations in New York State capital region counties...................................................
Patents issued by year for enterprises founded within New York State capital region counties ...................................................................................................
38
44
47
Innovative and entrepreneurial graduates from four New York State capital region institutions between 1990 and 2012........................................................55
Fraction of innovative and entrepreneurial graduates currently within the N ew York State capital region................................................................................. action and feedback controls..........................................................................................
57
New York State capital region academic entrepreneurial ecosystem boundary............67
New York State capital region academic entrepreneurial ecosystem
70
1
2
3
Top fifteen employers in the New York State capital region ........................................ 17
Top fifteen patent assignees in the New York State capital region betw een 1990 and 2013 ...............................................................................................
39
Identified academic entrepreneurial initiatives at four institutions within the New York State capital region......................................................................42
4
5
6
7
8
Academic entrepreneurial ecosystem education requirements mapped to stakeholder needs......................................................................................................
78
Academic entrepreneurial ecosystem innovation requirements mapped to stakeholder needs......................................................................................................
80
Academic entrepreneurial ecosystem funding requirements mapped to stakeholder needs ....................................................................................................
82
Academic entrepreneurial ecosystem networking requirements mapped to stakeholder needs......................................................................................................
Summary of ranked academic entrepreneurial ecosystem requirements......................93
84
9 Initial academic entrepreneurial ecosystem concept selection analysis by ranked requirem ent .....................................................................................
10 Emerging academic entrepreneurial ecosystem combination concept selection analysis by ranked requirem ent .....................................................................................
94
97
9

As a Fellow in the System Design and Management (SDM) program at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), I focused on leveraging systems solutions to solve complex challenges in broad business contexts. Prior to MIT, I spent almost seven years designing manufacturing and supply chain systems in over fifteen countries around the world. These experiences provided me with a global perspective, a capability to interact in different system stakeholder contexts, and a renewed respect for the rich culture and people that shaped the first twenty-two years of my life in upstate New York.
The regions of upstate New York, positioned between New York City, New England,
Canada, and the Great Lakes, were historically significant in the early development of the United
States. Albany is strategically located on the Hudson River, and eventually became the state capital. The cities of Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo rose to prominence around agriculture, manufacturing, and milling industries following the development of the Erie Canal that linked the Hudson River with the Great Lakes. Around Rochester, an imaging empire with academic linkage emerged from firms such as Eastman Kodak and Xerox. George Eastman, who founded
Kodak, contributed significantly to the University of Rochester, and also to MIT.
Gradually over the twentieth century, upstate New York fell from prominence as the national and global economies became more complex. Agriculture and manufacturing became
highly competitive puzzles. Large and seemingly unstoppable institutions including Kodak and
Xerox gradually fell from grace, taking entire communities with them. Today, as one parallels the Erie Canal along the New York State Thruway, shadows of former industrial towns lie dormant along the roadside. Despite these economic struggles, I believe that upstate New York regions, with rich history, natural beauty, and determined people, can rise again in the national and global economies. As a graduate of the College of Engineering at Cornell University, I am a
10

product of New York's legacy and future. This is my home, and I feel compelled to dedicate my perspective and experience to realize its potential.
This investigation has convinced me that the New York State capital region has an exceptional legacy of innovation, hard work, educational opportunity, and resources. With such an evolved history, I am curious how we will engage nationally and globally. Our institutional and resource configurations will impact our integration into more complex economic systems than ever before. Whether we like it or not, the world will continue to change around us, and the way that we deploy, leverage, and network regionally will determine our continued position. In this investigation, I focus on economic sustainability in the capital region around Albany,
Schenectady, Troy and Saratoga Springs.
As we have seen powerful institutions crumble, we must develop natural dependencies, open infrastructure, and talent networks embedded in a strong, dynamic, and distributed regional foundation. We cannot afford monoculture, oligopolies, or institutionalism. New innovative entrepreneurial ventures are absolutely essential to develop this regional resilience, and a regional strategy must simultaneously engage our unique government, academic, industry, community, and entrepreneurial stakeholders to rapidly develop and retain innovative and entrepreneurial capacities. New acceleration concepts provide potential to rapidly develop innovative and entrepreneurial ventures and minimize the underlying risks.
I hope that this investigation facilitates future discussion about the types of institutions, networks, capabilities, and initiatives that are necessary for long-term regional competitiveness within national and global economies. While this certainly does not provide all the answers, it may serve as an opportunity to discuss different implementable concepts.
11

This project has two main components. The regional analysis discovers underlying unique innovative and entrepreneurial elements in the New York State capital region economy, while a system engineering analysis reconstructs these elements to produce a desired emergent property: innovative and entrepreneurial students who form integrated regional ventures that produce sustainable growth and jobs.
First, historical and recent dynamics in the capital region imply that it is necessary to understand what is happening, and what it means. This investigation analyzes this landscape in the context of modem academic theories about regional economic competitiveness to understand where we are as a region.
Second, having analyzed the region in the context of academic theories about competitiveness, it is still not clear what to do, or who should do it. To explore this, we turn to authorities that have studied emerging regions around the world, and identified policies and processes that make a difference. The key lesson is not to copy other regions, but discover our own regional strengths.
Third, based on the investigation of our region, it is necessary to measure one of the key factors of regional economic development: do our innovative and entrepreneurial graduates from our world class academic institutions stay in the region? Based on this, we can discuss the options to provide opportunities.
Fourth, we follow a systems engineering analysis to determine how academic entrepreneurial ecosystems can develop long-term sustainable opportunities for our innovative and entrepreneurial graduates. This emphasizes underlying stakeholder needs for system requirement generation.
12

Fifth, we leverage the system engineering analysis to select entrepreneurial ecosystem concepts for the region from existing and new concept models. This selection is based on the identified underlying system requirements.
Sixth, we provide recommendations to policymakers, academic leadership, industry leadership, and student entrepreneurs about how to best engage and benefit from innovative entrepreneurship in the capital region.
This process is a challenge, but leverages fundamental principles and methods to discover regional options. While there will always be debates about inputs and parameters, the system engineering process is the most important implication, and can be applied by anyone in any region.
13

1:
Towards the end of the twentieth century, upstate New York experienced significant economic downturn as national and global economic competitive factors changed. The New
York State capital region is located in the eastern upstate New York, and has an established collection of academic institutions, established industry, and successful entrepreneurial ventures.
Formal relationships have developed between these economic stakeholders, especially in semiconductor manufacturing and energy focus areas.
Academic theories and frameworks about cluster and agglomeration development from sources such as Porter (1998), Saxenian (1996), and Bathelt et al. (2004) explain that sustainable productivity and networks inherent in underlying location and culture result from complex regional economies, while Feldman (2005) directly attributes complex dependencies to entrepreneurial institution and resource development. In the capital region, it is important to analyze the regional relationships from these framework perspectives, while exploring opportunities to support entrepreneurship.
While formal relationships have been established between capital region economic stakeholders, the underlying dependencies implied through these academic frameworks do not appear based on the analyzed evidence. From the framework perspectives, it is essential for the capital region to pursue opportunities to expand participants, develop regional infrastructure that benefits all participants, foster underlying networks, and continue to support entrepreneurship beyond formal institutional boundaries and partnerships. Future discussions focus on how existing policies and stakeholders can contribute to these developments.
14

Upstate New York originally emerged as a prosperous group of agricultural, manufacturing, and milling regions oriented around the Erie Canal. As the national and global economies shifted towards the end of the twentieth century, upstate New York regions experienced economic decline.
The New York State capital region is located in eastern upstate New York, approximately
150 miles north of New York City, 160 miles west of Boston, and 230 miles south of Montreal.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2012 a total population of approximately 850,000 people was distributed across 2,300 square miles in Albany, Rensselaer, Schenectady, and
Saratoga counties. In comparison to nearby major metropolitan areas, these populations and densities are small.
Within this geographic and demographic region, the cities of Albany, Troy, Schenectady, and Saratoga Springs are the primary urban centers of economic significance, and range between ten to thirty-five miles apart separated by suburban communities. Albany is the state capital, with government influence over regional academic, commercial, and industrial activities. Alongside smaller towns, Schenectady and Troy are both historically vibrant industrial cities that have experienced recent economic stress, while Saratoga Springs hosts a popular raceway, casino, and state park, and is commonly considered a gateway to the Adirondack Mountains.
From an academic perspective, over twenty universities, colleges, trade schools, and other academic institutions are located within the capital region, including the State University of
New York (SUNY) at Albany, the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering
(CNSE), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, Union College in Schenectady, and
Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs. Additional institutions are listed in the Appendix by municipality.
According to the New York State Education Department, academic institutions in the capital region encompass a broad variety of academic programs, including basic sciences, engineering, nanotechnology, and business, that attract students from the local region, across
15

New York State, the domestic United States and international locations. This landscape, which in
2012 included over 64,000 "full-time equivalent" post-secondary level students enrolled in degree programs, emphasizes a rich academic legacy. The degree credit enrollment reflects an approximately twenty percent increase since 2010, which highlights increased regional academic influence.
The capital region academic institutions also actively contribute to published research. A query of the Scopus bibliographic database, containing 21,000 academic titles across 5,000 publishers, identifies over 50,000 academic publications between 1990 and 2013 with at least one author in Albany, Schenectady, Troy, and Saratoga Springs.
The New York State Department of Labor indicates that total non-farm employment in the capital region was approximately 450,000 in November 2013, with ninety percent of employees in "service providing" roles. Furthermore, approximately twenty-three percent of employees work in government, fifteen percent work in healthcare, and seven percent work in education. This distribution demonstrates historical dominance by specific sectors in the regional economy.
To provide further employment detail, Table 1 highlights the top fifteen organizations by number of employees as of November 2013 across Albany, Rensselaer, Schenectady, and
Saratoga counties, according to Dun & Bradstreet.
16

Organization
St. Peter's Health
Sector
Medical
NYS Department of Health
Government
Comptroller Office of the State of New York Government
United States Department of the Navy Military
Saratoga Hospital
Medical
KAPL, Inc.
Military
The Golub Corporation
Retail
Employees
15,188
5,800
4,000
2,800
2,500
2,200
1,936
Table 1. Top fifteen employers in the New York State (NYS) capital region, according to Dun & Bradstreet data.
There are a few key observations based on these top employers. First, the figures from the New York State Departments of Taxation and Finance, Environmental Conservation, Health,
Transportation, Motor Vehicles, and Education reflect the large percentage of workers employed through government agencies. This suggests that the state government exerts strong institutional influence over the capital region economy and culture.
Second, the capital region has a strong legacy of dominant national and global industrial enterprises, with government connections. For example, General Electric (GE), founded in
Schenectady in 1892, is the largest industrial employer in the region and maintains its global research headquarters in the region. The Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL) is a United
States Department of Energy contract laboratory currently operated by Bechtel Marine
Propulsion Corporation, but historically operated by other firms including Lockheed Martin and
GE. KAPL also maintains a United States Navy training facility near Saratoga Springs.
Third, other large commercial and industrial participants are based in the region. The
Golub Corporation is a privately owned supermarket operator based in Schenectady, Albany
Molecular Research (AMRI) is a contract pharmaceutical research and development laboratory based in Albany, and Mohawk Paper is a privately owned specialty paper manufacturer based in
17

Cohoes. While manufacturing and milling represent a historical upstate legacy, published New
York State Department of Labor statistics indicate that manufacturing employment in the capital region declined by thirty percent in the decade between 2000 and 2010. However, recently global semiconductor manufacturing firms have entered the region. GlobalFoundries is currently completing three semiconductor fabrication facilities near Saratoga Springs at a cumulative investment of $7 billion, as reported in the Albany Times Union. Other semiconductor manufacturing firms with a physical presence in the region include Tokyo Electron and IBM.
Fourth, despite the tumultuous economic patterns, smaller entrepreneurial participants have emerged and grown in the capital region. For example, GlobalSpec was founded in 1996 as a search engine for engineering parts, and is now a subsidiary of IHS, Inc. Crystal IS was founded in 1997 by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) faculty to develop semiconductor technology, and was acquired by Asahi Kasei in 2011. Vicarious Visions was founded in 1990
by RPI graduates as a video game producer, and acquired by Activision in 2005. MapInfo
Corporation developed locational technology solutions and was purchased by Pitney Bowes
Corporation in 2007. RPI students, leveraging technology to develop "rigid materials" out of fungi, founded Ecovative Design in 2007. Besstech was founded in 2010 by SUNY College of
Nanoscale Science and Engineering graduates, has developed an enhanced anode production process for batteries, and received over $200,000 in research grants in 2013, according to the
Albany Business Review.
Within the capital region, there are also examples of regional stakeholder linkage between academia, government and industry. Activities suggest this trend focuses particularly in manufacturing technologies and energy applications that reflect transitioning government, academic, industry and entrepreneurial regional economic stakeholder roles.
New York State has recently increased economic development and recovery activities. In
2002 the State of New York contributed $210 million to a "semiconductor research center" at the
Center for Environmental Studies and Technology Management (CESTM) at the University at
Albany, as reported in the Albany Times Union. This has become a facility at the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering.
18

In 2011, the state government launched the Regional Economic Development Councils
(EDC) to develop "strategic plans" and allocate development funds to statewide regions.
According to the 2013 EDC award report, Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady counties received over $31 million of EDC fund awards for development projects. The highest capital region EDC funded projects including $5 million to develop "apartments, supermarket, hotel, and banquet house" and $3 million to "provide heating and cooling to seven historic buildings" in Schenectady, and $2.5 million to "relocate" utilities for "medical office building, housing units, and parking garage" and $1.5 million for "interior fit up costs" for a regional high school in Albany. These investments significantly emphasize infrastructure projects, particularly around existing institutions.
Besides infrastructure projects, government initiatives support technology development.
According to the 2013 annual report, the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (NYSERDA) provided support and grants for energy-related economic growth and allocated $15 million to "Technology and Market Development," $16 million to "Energy
Research and Development," and $900,000 to the Saratoga Technology Energy Park (STEP) in
2012. These expenditures reflect particular industries and technologies, and are mostly statewide.
Finally, the state has also acknowledged entrepreneurs. Beginning in 2014, the START-
UP NY initiative provides ten years of "tax free" benefits to new businesses that locate within designated zones at statewide academic institutions and "certified" incubators. According to the
2013 EDC fund award report, Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady counties will also receive almost $900,000 from the Regional Development Councils for projects directly related to entrepreneurship, including $250,000 to establish two "Certified Business Incubators" at local academic institutions, and $550,000 to enhance a "maker" space in Troy.
From the academic perspective, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) established the
Center for Automation Technologies and Systems (CATS) in 1988 to conduct manufacturing process design with industrial partners, and includes regional partners including General Electric,
IBM, Pitney Bowes, Paper Battery, GlobalFoundries, KAPL, Crystal IS, Philips, Ecovative, and
Albany International. RPI also hosts the National Science Foundation (NSF) Smart Lighting
Engineering Research Center (ERC), which conducts research to improve lighting technologies efficiency and cost with over twenty global partners, including General Electric and Crystal IS.
According to the ERC website, the program was designed to encourage "collaboration" between
19

academic researchers and industry, and "transform" these industries through an
"interdisciplinary" innovation environment. The ERC program also provides practical experiences for students, and serves as an opportunity for innovative skill development within the capital region.
At the State University of New York (SUNY), academic and industrial linkage has emerged in semiconductor manufacturing. Since the initial $400 million public and private investment in 2002, the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) has partnered with global semiconductor industry manufacturers to provide shared equipment and fabrication space access, as reported in the Albany Times Union. As of 2013, CNSE claims a cumulative public and private investment of over $17 billion, 300 industry partners, and 140,000 square feet of "Class 1 cleanroom" laboratory space. CNSE also provides "workforce training," high school programs, seminars, presentations, museums, and other local outreach initiatives.
In addition to supporting established industry and community, the capital region academic institutions have developed programs and organizations to support entrepreneurship.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) hosts the Severino Center for Technological
Entrepreneurship and the Emerging Ventures Ecosystem (EVE) to provide entrepreneurial educational support resources for entrepreneurs. At the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and
Engineering (CNSE), the Energy and Environmental Technologies Applications Center
(E2TAC) includes six programs in collaboration with the National Science Foundation (NSF), including the iCLEAN virtual incubator program. Additionally, Siena College hosts the Stack
Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship to provide learning and entrepreneurial incubation, while Russell Sage College in Troy hosts the Incubator for New Ventures in Emerging Science and Technologies (INVEST) that provides physical resources and services. Finally, CNSE established the New York State Business Plan Competition in 2009 as an annual statewide prize competition for innovative student entrepreneurs.
Beyond academia, industry consortiums and groups have formed within the capital region. In 2011 the SEMATECH consortium for semiconductor manufacturing relocated from
Austin, Texas to Albany, as reported in the Albany Times Union. The New York Battery and
Energy Storage Technology (NY-BEST) consortium was created in 2010 to "position New York
State as a global leader in energy storage technology, including applications in transportation, grid storage, and power electronics" and has hundreds of members, including regional energy
20

entrepreneurial ventures. These initiatives highlight efforts to develop institutional integrations and relationships in specific focus areas.
From a regional development perspective, the Center for Economic Growth (CEG) is an industry organization in the capital region that seeks to expand economic opportunities. As part of its activities, the CEG supports multiple regional programs intended to expand "industry networks," including Bioconnex for biotechnology development, the Chief Executives Network,
"NY Loves Clean Tech," "NY Loves Nanotech," and Techconnex for information technology development. These formal program examples reflect regional linkage and development efforts.
Finally, there are eight chambers of commerce distributed throughout Albany, Rensselaer,
Saratoga, and Schenectady counties, as summarized in the Appendix.
21

The New York State capital region is geographically distinct, with multi-hour travel times to major metropolitan areas, and a commuter culture between local cities and towns.
Furthermore, the linkage between academic institutions, government, and industry stakeholders is evident from the formal relationships within the region.
To effectively analyze the capital region within continually reconfiguring national and global economic landscapes, it is necessary to reflect on academic frameworks that describe competitive advantage within regional clusters and agglomerations of economic activity. These frameworks provide context to analyze the underlying regional structure, and were selected to highlight the related underlying dependency themes between authors with diverging views. The organizational implications for these themes are critical for regional economic resilience and sustainability.
First, Porter (1998) proposes that "location" facilitates "productivity" that results in regional competitive advantage. In the capital region, while there exist specific focus areas such as semiconductor manufacturing and energy, the underlying dependencies in observed linkages have not emerged beyond formal relationships. Based on the framework application, the region should continue to pursue opportunities to increase the number of regional participants, while facilitating productivity from "informal" relationships.
Second, Saxenian (1996) proposes that regional competitive advantage does not depend primarily on locational productivity, but on the ability to leverage "culturally" inherent
"networks." While there is clear relationship evidence within the capital region, the observed
"institutional" and formal "boundaries" may restrict natural "collaboration." Based on this perspective, the region should continue to foster a networking culture beyond institutions.
Third, Feldman et al. (2005) proposes that entrepreneurially developed "configurations" result in regional cluster architectures and advantages over time. While entrepreneurial ventures and development initiatives clearly exist within the capital region, the framework suggests that future effectiveness will depend on entrepreneurial influence over academic, industrial, and governmental " resources."
22

Porter (1998) proposes that "interconnected institutions" develop "locational" configurations over time that "enhance productivity" through "competition" and "cooperation."
Porter (2000) organizes these concepts into a framework that emphasizes four cluster productivity types: "input conditions," "context for firm strategy and rivalry," "related and supporting industries" and "demand conditions."
Porter (1998) specifically emphasizes the importance of location in clusters, but provides limited elaboration beyond "linked activities" within a "geographical" boundary. In the capital region, the areas surrounding the cities of Albany, Schenectady, Troy, and Saratoga Springs represent a geographically distinct area that includes linked government, academic, and industrial institutions and resources.
Porter (1998) suggests that "government, universities, standards-setting agencies, think tanks, vocational training providers, and trade associations" configurations and influences contribute to "location" based competitive advantage within a region. In the capital region, the most recognizable institutions include government, academia, and large industry. Porter also identifies employees, "suppliers," "knowledge," infrastructure, and "customers" as resources within regional clusters. Doloreux and Parto (2005) relates these to innovation, commenting that
"innovative activity of firms is based to a large degree on localized resources." Within the capital region, there are various examples of such resources.
From the government aspect, institutions such as the Regional Economic Development
Councils and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority support economic and technology development with funding resources. However, these organizations are focused across the state, which is outside the geographical boundary.
From the academia aspect, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute has established facilities for lighting, automated manufacturing, nanotechnology and entrepreneurship. The SUNY College of
Nanoscale Science and Engineering includes semiconductor manufacturing and technology facilities in Albany, a solar development center in Saratoga county, a computer chip center near
Utica, micro-electromechanical systems and photovoltaic centers near Rochester, and a medical technology center in Buffalo. The regional academic institutions in the capital region produce
23

thousands of graduates in technical disciplines each year, although these graduates may not necessarily remain in the capital region.
Academic institutions and industrial enterprises also employ skilled workers, and develop knowledge in technical applications supported by state-of-the-art laboratories and facilities constructed with both "public and private" funds. These facilities also contribute to industrial
"complementarities," as exhibited by over sixty SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and
Engineering partners with physical locations in Albany, Rensselaer, Schenectady, and Saratoga counties. These are listed in the Appendix.
Outside academia, local ventures develop supply chain relationships with larger established enterprises, tech parks, tax schemes, partnerships, consortiums, and technology incubators. For example, the Tech Valley Center of Gravity in Troy provides a "maker space" and other resources for experimentation and innovative development.
From the trade association perspective, both SEMATECH and NY-BEST respectively serve as consortiums in semiconductor manufacturing and stored energy industries, also with broader application beyond the region. For example, outside of the capital region, NY-BEST is developing a shared battery testing and commercialization center in Rochester to serve consortium members.
Productivity between participants
Porter describes how regional clusters facilitate productivity in the global economy, emphasizing implied rather than organized relationships.
Modern competition depends on productivity, not on access to inputs or the scale of individual enterprise... a cluster allows each member to benefit as if it had greater scale or as if it had joined with others formally. (Porter 1998, 80)
Based on this definition, regional clusters improve all regional participant capabilities.
Institutions and resources form foundations for productivity, but inherent interactions that are difficult to replicate outside the cluster are critical. This means that the productivity between regional institutions is as important as individual institutional productivity.
Furthermore, Porter suggests that cumulative institutional investment may result in influence, but does not contribute to complex dependencies. Instead, regional development should focus on facilitating "market" opportunities, rather than institutional dominance. Within
24

the capital region, the historical size of public and private government, academic, and industrial institutions has potential to dominate the region.
Despite the institutional size in the capital region, there is evidence of existing and developing formal relationships between important and influential institutions. The previously discussed partnerships and consortiums have created new opportunities. Furthermore, many of these institutions employ outreach initiatives to draw others into the institutional spheres.
However, cluster productivity does not necessarily emphasize formal relationships.
Over consolidation, mutual understandings, cartels and other restraints to competition may undermine local rivalry... if companies in a cluster are too inward looking, the whole cluster suffers from a collective inertia. (Porter 1998, 85)
Rather than increasing institutional control, relationships within clusters reinforce productive "cooperation" and "competition" between all participants beyond formal relationships. These dependencies are incorporated into the complex underlying regional architecture, and emphasize "rivalry" to strengthen regional economic sustainability. Formal relationships based on "subsidies," exclusivity, legislation, or other non-locational factors do not contribute to Porter's regional cluster productivity definition.
While linkage has developed in the capital region, Porter argues that clusters provide instant advantage to all regional participants, as opposed to formal relationships and agreements.
Furthermore, this concept may broadly extend to many types of organizations, including cities, towns, government departments, academic institutions, large enterprises, small enterprises, economic development organizations, and community organizations. To develop cluster productivity, the capital region should emphasize structure and strategies to enhance these dependencies.
In contrast to locational productivity perspectives, Saxenian (1996) argues "proximity reveals little about the ability of firms to respond to the fast-changing markets and technologies that now characterize international competition." While this does not imply that proximity is disadvantageous, it means that efficiencies inadequately explain "differential performance" between regions, and proposes that deeper regional "networks of relationships" produce natural
"collaboration."
25

Saxenian remarks that regional participants inherit regional institution modes and behaviors.
By drawing a sharp distinction between what occurs inside and what occurs outside the firm, scholars overlook the complex and historically evolved relations among the internal organization offirms and their connections to one another and to the social structures and institutions of a particular locality. (Saxenian 1996, 42)
Therefore, the formal "boundaries" between enterprises, commercial associations, and academic institutions that embody underlying "social" functions indicate the natural behaviors within a region. These formal "boundaries" become inhibitors to "knowledge" transmission, and indicates that "historical evolution" provides information about types of "networks" that have developed. While Porter (1998) cites "personal relationships, face-to-face contact, a sense of common interest, and insider status" as important for productivity, Saxenian implies that monoculture from geographical, political, and institutional boundaries reduces network effects.
In the capital region, the short distances, short travel times between cities, and flowing suburban landscapes suggest a geographical structure that supports open networks. However, while there are clearly relationships within the region, independent municipalities, large industrial enterprises, dominant academic institutions, inner-city economic inequalities, eight separate chambers of commerce, and government divisions could restrict underlying networks based on formal boundaries.
Despite partnerships between government, academia, and industry organizations to exchange information across the capital region, institutional emphasis on formal interaction observed in economic stakeholder linkage examples could indicate over consolidation or oligopoly potential. Strategic initiatives should encourage open and dynamic interactions outside formal institutional boundaries.
As the underlying purpose for networks, Saxenian (1996) argues, "competitive advantage derives as much from the way that skill and technology are organized as from their presence in a regional environment." This means that how knowledge and resources are deployed regionally is as important as whether they exist, and dynamic regional networks encourage natural
26

collaboration beyond formal institutional boundaries. While Saxenian does not necessarily emphasize the same productivity approach as Porter (1998), this implies the same underlying regional dependencies.
From a collaboration perspective, the Scopus bibliographic database reveals that between
2005 and 2013, there were thirty-five joint academic publications between two prominent research institutions in the capital region. During the same period the database revealed over
12,000 joint publications between researchers at two prominent research institutions near Boston.
While this comparison is by no means exhaustive and joint academic publications are not the main focus of this study, this is intended to highlight a regional detail that may have underlying implications. A future study could investigate the historical patterns of academic publications in different regions to measure the impact on networks.
To improve collaboration between institutional boundaries, the capital region should design government, academic, and industrial investments to encourage open regional networks.
This will reduce institutionalism, and develop stronger underlying connections.
While sources such as Porter (1998), Saxenian (1996), and Bathelt et al. (2004) focus on existing cluster characteristics, Feldman (2005) et al. proposes a framework that directly maps regional "cluster development stages" with increasing sophistication based on entrepreneurial
"configurations." From this framework perspective, it is important to examine how entrepreneurs take advantage of "unique" regional elements such as government to shape the regional opportunities.
To exhibit this entrepreneurial cluster development effect, Feldman et al. (2005) follows a case study of Washington, D.C. that is directly relevant to the New York State capital region, as both share a government presence. In the capital region, which has experienced economic development activity, entrepreneurial cluster development concepts perhaps provide more relevant information than existing cluster descriptions.
27

Feldman summarizes the triggers for entrepreneurial action and cluster development regional impact.
Some initial change whether a crisis, a discontinuity in industry or an opportunity drives latent entrepreneurs to start companies. This sets into motion interactions in the institutional, economic and policy environments that, in turn, influence the success of a region by maintaining start-ups and furthering the maturation of the cluster to create stickiness (Feldman et al., 2005, 132)
Through this description, Feldman et al. implies the productivity and networks discussed in previous sources, but attributes the "development" process directly to entrepreneurship that takes advantage of specific regional "conditions" to advance itself. The critical factor is how the unique regional landscape is impacted by entrepreneurial activities, and results in compounded entrepreneurial and economic opportunity.
By starting companies, entrepreneurs act as the agents of change, draw on existing resources in the local environment and, in turn, add new resources to the environment. (Feldman et al., 2005, 130)
The above explanation references regional "resource" and institution development that entrepreneurs "influence." In the capital region, opportunities for entrepreneurs to "shape" the environment may exist around established industry, students, university technology, innovation programs, strategic government projects, and local supply chains. The key point is that these regional assets should reveal entrepreneurial opportunity.
Regional benefits
Feldman et al. (2005) proposes that entrepreneurial self-interest positively impacts the region in specific ways: new enterprises, profits, jobs, expertise, facilities, academic institutions, and relationships. This means that regional clusters formed from entrepreneurship significantly improve the regional resilience to "economic downturns."
While economic decline may prompt cluster-like action, Feldman et al. (2005) implies that organized initiatives rarely result in "sustainable" configurations, which instead must be cultivated from entrepreneurial "opportunities" and webs of resources developed through
28

entrepreneurial activity. These factors also reflect the same underlying regional dependencies observed through Porter's productivity and Saxenian's network collaboration. Therefore, regional development strategies should focus on initiatives that reduce underlying entrepreneurial risks and burdens.
In the capital region, regional development investments have emphasized infrastructure and strategic projects associated with established institutions. However, this entrepreneurial development framework implies that entrepreneurial enterprises are more tightly integrated into the regional economic architecture. Therefore, it is important to ensure that regional entrepreneurs are equipped to develop resources that will convert into more resilient regional conditions over time.
29

Despite the regional cluster characteristics and development perspective differences,
Porter (1998, 2000), Saxenian (1996), Bathelt (2004) and Feldman (2006) present remarkably related themes about regional competitiveness within the global and national economy.
Specifically, these sources emphasize natural interaction within regions: completing, collaborating, networking, and building between all regional participants and beyond formal institutional boundaries.
Based on the analyzed municipality, government, academic, industrial, and organizational linkage, leadership in the New York State capital region has made exceptional progress developing formal relationships and partnerships. However, academic themes suggest that cluster relationships are not actively managed. Clusters are highly complex regional systems where extraordinary dependencies naturally emerge from organic interactions. They simply happen.
In the capital region and beyond, collections of cities, towns, academic institutions, industrial enterprises, government agencies, bilateral relationships, consortiums, partners, and other formal organizations do extraordinary things, but not as a regional cluster. This is particularly clear because many of the relational advantages actually result from programs and initiatives with scope beyond the immediate region, such as the state. The distinction is subtle, but critical.
Finally, these sources suggest that institutional formality damages regional sustainability.
To move from collection to a regional cluster, the capital region strategy should allocate investments to support underlying productivity, connectivity, and entrepreneurship across the region. Even if responsibilities require broader engagement beyond the region, the region must facilitate opportunities for new enterprises to take advantage of unique underlying regional economic architecture distinct from other state, national, and global locations.
30

2:
Previously analyzed academic sources indicate that strong natural dependencies embedded in competition, collaboration, and networks result in resilient economies and prevent economic downturn in regional clusters and agglomerations. Furthermore, entrepreneurial activity is a significant factor in dependency development, and regional strategy should support entrepreneurship.
However, the policies and strategies to effectively develop regional dependencies and entrepreneurship are not obvious. Policymakers and stakeholders already develop economic linkage through partnerships and support entrepreneurial initiatives. Furthermore, it is not clear how existing economic stakeholders integrate with these policies and strategies.
Additional academic regional cluster and entrepreneurial development policy perspectives advocate for strong people, access, and entrepreneurial opportunities within the region. Meanwhile, the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Program (REAP) framework explains that innovative and entrepreneurial capacities linkage across regional stakeholders can leverage existing strengths for entrepreneurial development. This framework clarifies that both innovation and entrepreneurship are required for growth and development.
In the New York State capital region, applied concepts from the MIT REAP framework reveal innovative and entrepreneurial capacities patterns. These patterns highlight opportunities to improve regional capacities linkage.
31

To develop regional cluster dependencies, Bresnahan et al. (2001) argues that policies should encourage quality people, companies, and access across the region. To facilitate entrepreneurship, Feldman et al. (2005) suggests strategies and policies should provide regional
"opportunity" for entrepreneurs.
The MIT Regional Entrepreneurship Acceleration Program (REAP) proposes a framework that integrates policy perspectives, and describes regional development through innovative and entrepreneurial capacities linkage across regional stakeholders supported through cluster and acceleration mechanisms. This framework implies that New York State capital region development requires both innovative and entrepreneurial capacities, and should emphasize existing regional strengths.
Bresnahan et al. (2001) acknowledges regional cluster and agglomeration descriptions in existing academic sources, but remarks about deficiencies in "development" and associated policy recommendations. The study embarks on a "comparative" analysis of "emerging" regional clusters throughout the world, based on innovative "technology development" patterns similar to the entrepreneurial Silicon Valley origination.
Bresnahan et al. (2000) identifies specific common "factors" in early regional growth that includes quality "technical and managerial labor," enterprises, access, market integration, and a
highly "collaborative" approach. From a policy perspective, developing regions should
"position" themselves to benefit from growth "challenges" in established regions to leverage these growth factors.
Many of the policy implications are simple and classical: invest in education, have open market institutions, tolerate and even encourage multinationals, tolerate and even encourage a brain-drain. (Bresnahan et al., 2001, 856)
Based on this assessment, the New York State capital region could position distinguishing assets such as education, empty spaces, infrastructure, and investment into compelling offerings compared to nearby established regions such as Boston and New York
32

City. The underlying implication is whether the region takes full advantage of its capabilities, investment, and talent.
Even though these recommendations suggest policy roles, Bresnahan et al. (2001) highlights "the foolishness of directive public policy efforts to jump-start clusters or to make topdown or directive efforts to organize them" to demonstrate an underlying entrepreneurial role in cluster and agglomeration development. This means that effective policies establish the
"foundation" for development, but do not attempt to control the underlying organization of
"specific industries or technologies to be sponsored."
Porter (1998) agrees with this argument for neutral cluster development policies, remarking, "governments should not choose among clusters, because each one offers opportunities to improve productivity." From these perspectives, the capital region should examine incentives and policies to determine whether the underlying effects encourage development and growth.
The Feldman et al. (2005) observation that "looking at a successful region in its full maturity, however, may not provide prescriptive information about how such regions actually develop" suggests that regions often attempt to import growth. This agrees with the Bresnahan et al. (2001) argument against "jump-starting" clusters, but emphasizes that regional attempts to compete should not simply copy other regions.
In Washington, D.C., Feldman et al. highlights reductions in government jobs and a
"highly skilled" workforce as triggers for entrepreneurial activity and cluster development, although acknowledges a variety of possible triggers. In the New York State capital region, high levels of government and institutional influence could also harbor entrepreneurial triggers.
Feldman et al. acknowledges that policy "opportunities" exist to help entrepreneurs find opportunities.
Areas for public policy intervention to help create supportive and positive decisions of individuals to become entrepreneurs, and the ways in which an entrepreneurial culture develops and takes hold. (Feldman et al., 2005, 139)
33

However, this perspective emphasizes policy opportunity, not control. It suggests that the overall "environment" should be open and available for entrepreneurs to "leverage", and institutional activity should facilitate regional entrepreneurial venture formation in the region.
Feldman (2005) echoes previously analyzed sources that discourage attempts to promote single institutions, industries, or technologies that do not result in the underlying "sustainable" dependencies. When developing regional strategy for economic development investments, infrastructure, and programs, policymakers should focus on initiatives that support and facilitate regional connectivity and opportunity across all participants, and allow underlying cluster effects to "emerge".
In the capital region, regional development should reduce the inherent entrepreneurial risk, avoid pre-selecting winners, and support ventures that exploit existing challenges as opportunities.
As a participant in the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Laboratory (REAL) led by Professor Fiona Murray and Dr. Phillip Budden in 2013, I explored comparative worldwide entrepreneurial acceleration strategies. Through this laboratory experience, I was introduced to the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Program (REAP) framework that explains regional "innovation-driven enterprise" (IDE) development as integrated "innovative capacity" and "entrepreneurial capacity," supported by complex relationships between entrepreneurial, academic, governmental, established enterprise, and "risk capital" stakeholders.
Beyond this framework, the REAP program comprises a broader initiative that "brings together diverse regional teams from across the globe committed to accelerating their regions' innovation-driven entrepreneurial ecosystems as drivers of regional prosperity and job creation" in a format that supports regional framework application.
This experience molded my perspectives on integrated innovative and entrepreneurial capacities in the New York State capital region, and allowed me to envision the region from different stakeholder perspectives. In particular, the existence of influential government, academic, and industry stakeholders reflects a regional characteristic with potential to significantly influence innovative entrepreneurial activities.
34

2.2
Aulet and Murray (2013) distinguishes "innovative" entrepreneurial ventures from traditional small business, which implies that both capacities are required for regional development and growth.
By innovation, we mean new-to-the- world ideas in the technical, market, or business model domain. The notion of being innovation driven is critical as it emphasizes the entrepreneur's awareness of the need to build competitive advantage, whichfor an entrepreneur can only be done by taking today's resources and doing something distinctive with them. (Aulet and Murray, 2013, 3)
From this perspective, innovation expands economic possibilities, while entrepreneurship transforms innovations into marketable products. Feldman et al. (2005) elaborates on this relationship: "entrepreneurship facilitates the realization of innovation, as firms are formed to commercialize and advance new ideas." Products develop from ideas that become innovations, while entrepreneurial ventures assume the risk to realize them. There will be many failures for each successful venture, and it is important to leverage the unique regional people, institutions, and mechanisms to minimize these underlying risks and capture benefit.
The underlying strength of the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration framework is the regional system, with emergent properties that depend on unique regional stakeholder linkage that impacts innovative entrepreneurial development. It is important to analyze these underlying innovative and entrepreneurial capacities interactions in the New York State capital region to understand the regional system, and how it impacts new venture opportunity.
While innovation is applied in different contexts, Professor Murray defines "innovative capacity" in the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Laboratory as the "ability to develop new to the world innovations from inception through to the market," and highlights factors that influence innovative capacity across regional stakeholders, including people such as researchers and students, infrastructure such as academic institutions, research funding, intellectual property policies, networking, facilitation mechanisms such as innovation spaces, and aspects of regional
35

innovation "culture." This definition provides a basis to consider the innovative factors, activities, and opportunities that impact innovative capacity in the capital region.
Innovative capacity factors
From the academic stakeholder perspective, the presence of over twenty academic institutions is a significant contributing innovative factor in the capital region. Institutions vary widely in purpose, size, financial model, and focus, but host faculty, publish innovative research, develop students, maintain publicly and privately funded research laboratories, and collaborate around practical industrial processes relevant to national and global industry.
From the government stakeholder perspective, the state government presence provides potential that other regions do not have. Government is the largest employer in the region, which incorporates a highly skilled workforce that lives in the area and consumes its services. The government also maintains infrastructure, serves as a model for New York State, and is a gatekeeper for innovative research and development funding.
From the industry stakeholder perspective, the capital region contains established national and global enterprises, including General Electric, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory,
Pitney Bowes, and GlobalFoundries. These enterprises employ thousands of engineering and technical workers, collaborate with academia, contribute to infrastructure and facilities, and encourage government to develop public and private assets.
From the entrepreneurial stakeholder perspective, the academic and industry presence facilitates opportunities for innovative students, faculty, and employees with intimate regional knowledge to develop complementary innovations. Innovation facilities, such as the Tech Valley
Center of Gravity "maker space" in Troy and the developing NY-BEST battery development center in Rochester, provide opportunities for experimentation and exploration.
Innovative activity
Academic publications are an important measure of innovative activity because they provide a foundation for new ideas and technologies. Based on academic publication data from the Scopus database, the over 50,000 academic publications between 1990 and 2013 within the primary capital region cities span a range of over fifteen academic subjects, summarized in
Figure 1. In this data, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is affiliated with over 18,000 publications
36

and the State University of New York (SUNY) with over 12,000 publications. Therefore, publications in the capital region are significantly influenced by engineering, medicine, physics, and materials science disciplines that align with existing institutional and industrial affiliations.
Interestingly, energy is represented in the publication subjects, but is not one of the most dominant. While innovation areas are not the primary subjects of this investigation, this factor is nonetheless peculiar considering the regional energy focus.
37

Patents are another innovative activity in the capital region that indicates practical inventions with potential commercial value. New York is located in the United States, and therefore inherits national intellectual property policies. Patent aggregation in modem databases provides essential query access to records by assignee and inventor location, including details about who is developing and will benefit from inventions.
Using the PatSnap analysis tool, a query of inventors located in cities and towns within
Albany, Schenectady, Saratoga, and Rensselaer counties revealed 14,328 patents issued between
1990 and 2012. The cities and towns used in this query are provided in the Appendix. Based on these patent records, the top fifteen assignees represent approximately seventy-five percent of all patents identified, as summarized by fraction in Table 2.
Assignee
IBM
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
SABIC Innovative Plastics IP B.V.
Sterling Winthrop Inc.
Momentive Performance Materials Inc.
% Share
5.1%
1.5%
0.9%
0.4%
0.4%
Albany Molecular Research, Inc.
Molecular Optoelectronics Corporation
0.4%
0.3%
Total (in top 15) 75.4%
Table 2. Top fifteen patents assignees in the New York State capital region between 1990 and 2013, from PatSnap query.
Based on these patent results, there are a few high-level observations. First, on average approximately 650 annual patents were issued in the twenty-two years between 1990 and 2013, or approximately 760 patents per 1 million in population. The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) indicates that 121,886 domestic patents were issued in in 2012, or
39

approximately 387 patents per 1 million in population. In the capital region, this reflects a vibrant pattern of innovative activity.
Second, many patents in this period were assigned to large organizations based outside the capital region. If patents assigned to organizations in the top fifteen list that are not primarily located in the capital region are removed from the regional data, then the total number of patents issued between 1990 and 2012 is reduced to approximately 3,500. This reflects approximately
160 annual patents per year over twenty-two years, or 190 patents annually per 1 million in population. Comparatively, this figure is lower than the 2012 United States average of 387 million patents per 1 million in population in 2012.
Third, when organizations in the top fifteen list that are not primarily located in the capital region are removed from the data, five assignees remain: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
(RPI), Plug Power Inc., Albany International Corp., Albany Molecular Research, Inc., and the
Research Foundation of the State of New York (SUNY). Both RPI and SUNY reflect key academic institutional patent influence.
Innovative capacity strategies
The capital region has significant innovative capacity that centers on academic and industry institutions. While these institutions provide economic benefits, institutionalism could reduce individual and collaborative innovation. Potential improvements could emphasize innovation outside existing institutions, programs or policies that provide qualified individuals or small ventures with access to laboratories, opportunities to collaborate with large industrial enterprises, or maker space enhancements. The most important implication is the need to leverage this innovative capacity towards regional development and growth.
2.2.2
While entrepreneurship describes many different activities, Professor Murray defines
"entrepreneurial capacity" in the context of the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration
Laboratory program as the "ability to start and build new to the world businesses from inception to maturity," and highlights factors that influence entrepreneurial capacity cross regional stakeholders, including people such as experienced entrepreneurs, infrastructure such as business
40

incubators and parks, business funding such as investment or lending, policies such as formal incorporation procedures, facilitators such as accelerators, and entrepreneurial "culture" in the region. This definition helps to uncover the unique entrepreneurial factors, activities, and opportunities in the capital region.
To analyze entrepreneurial capacity in the capital region, academic, community, risk capital, accelerator, government, and entrepreneurial stakeholders were analyzed to uncover the underlying unique patterns and structures in the capital region. This activity provided important details about the mechanisms and programs that support entrepreneurship in the region.
From the academic stakeholder perspective, a key entrepreneurial capacity factor in the capital region is the deployment of people, infrastructure, funding, and capability development with programs that support entrepreneurship. Beyond traditional academic programs, institutions provide specific educational, mentoring, networking, support, recognition, competition, funding, incubation, and infrastructure resources and programs. These identified resources are summarized for four capital region academic institutions in Table 3.
Based on the regional data, there are clearly many factors in the capital region to develop entrepreneurial capacity, especially within capital region institutions. However, there are also potential organizational challenges. While there are coordination efforts, including the annual
New York State Business Plan competition, academic offerings are generally institution specific and overlap.
41

Beyond academic institutions initiatives, Empire State Development and the Business
Incubator Association of New York State identify fourteen total incubators, technology parks, and facilities that support entrepreneurship, as summarized in the Appendix. These initiatives clearly demonstrate regional intent to foster entrepreneurship, although do not necessarily indicate regional coordination or strategy across all participants.
Government programs such as the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority provide funding for energy related entrepreneurial ventures. However, the 2013
Regional Economic Development Council awards allocated only four percent of approximately
$31 million in development funds for Albany, Rensselaer, Schenectady, and Saratoga counties directly toward entrepreneurship. This suggests that there is significant entrepreneurial funding opportunity to transform the regional economy. Finally, at least two angel investor organizations operate within the region.
Aulet and Murray (2013) remarks that innovative entrepreneurship brings "new to market ideas," and emphasizes that innovations themselves are not products. Even though innovation occurs in the capital region, it is important to understand new enterprise patterns.
To obtain data about capital region innovative enterprises, currently operating enterprises with primary business locations within Albany, Rensselaer, Schenectady, and Saratoga counties and founding years between 1990 and 2012 were obtained from Dun & Bradstreet. To distinguish innovative enterprises from local small businesses, the results were manually filtered
by NAIC code and business purpose. Figure 2 reflects the currently operating enterprises established in the past twenty-two years for each capital region county.
The currently operating enterprises do not provide an indication of the number of enterprises that were founded in a particular year because enterprises may have ceased or otherwise exited. However, they do indicate that new enterprises have been continuously formed in the capital region, and imply that entrepreneurs are active. Additionally, it reveals unexpected trends. For example, Saratoga County does not contain significant academic entrepreneurial initiatives, but reflects high levels of operating enterprises founded in the past twenty-two years.
This could be explained by many factors, including higher entrepreneurial potential, a more sustainable environment, or growth.
43

Discussed literature indicates that entrepreneurs will take risk and initiative, but regional policies should provide support. Based on enterprise creation data, entrepreneurs exist in all counties, but additional networks may help to connect them. This is especially important considering that enterprise formation is strong in Saratoga County, which does not contain as many active academic entrepreneurial initiatives. However, Saratoga does benefit from other initiatives, including the Saratoga Technology Energy Park and the solar development center in
Halfmoon.
Beyond networks, Aulet and Murray (2013) highlight substantial commercialization and financial cost for innovative enterprises. Therefore, additional funding may help establish ventures, and regional development funds should be allocated directly towards these projects.
While entrepreneurial ventures may not have the glamor of infrastructure, the ultimate regional venture impact will significantly compound.
Gans and Stem (2003) observe "a key management challenge is how to translate promising technologies into a stream of economic returns for their founders, investors, and employees." This means that innovative achievements do not matter unless enterprises can profit, and the authors suggest a framework for innovative entrepreneurs to "commercialize" products when different levels of disruption and "complementary assets" control exists.
Considering the position of large and influential capital region academic and government stakeholders, along with extremely high cost emerging semiconductor manufacturing and energy regional focus areas, this particular factor is relevant because established enterprises that have invested in complementary resources are unlikely to support entrepreneurial competition. Gans and Stern (2003) highlight professional investor potential as "intermediaries" in transactions with established enterprises.
While there is limited organized investor capital in the region, the academic and government institutions could serve these intermediary roles based on existing relationships with established enterprises. It would be encouraging for institutional stakeholders to translate entrepreneurial initiatives into direct interventions with established industry participants, especially when publicly funded assets or investments are involved.
45

2.2.3
The previous regional innovative and entrepreneurial capacities analyses provide insight into the existing picture and possible strategies. First, academic research and patent activity demonstrated innovative capacity, primarily in the context of dominant institutional configurations. Second, counties with enterprise formations demonstrated entrepreneurial capacities, although not necessarily within counties with academic initiatives. Besides capacity existence, the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Program framework clearly emphasizes "linkage" as a key component of regional development. Therefore, in addition to analyzing each capacity individually, it is important to analyze the combined system impact.
Using the PatSnap analysis tool, patent data between 1990 and 2012 with both inventors and assignees located within cities and towns in Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady counties was combined with enterprise formation data from the New York State Division of
Corporations. The cities and towns used for the patent query are provided in the Appendix.
Academic and individual assignees were manually filtered from the data. The remaining organizations were matched between patent and state enterprise data, and categorized by enterprise founding year. Figure 3 reflects the patents issued each year for 133 enterprises founded in the capital region between 1990 and 2007. Enterprise founding dates after 2007 were ignored to account for potential patent issue delay.
While there are no clear trends from this data, there are a few relevant observations. First, the number of new innovative entrepreneurial enterprises created each year over the seventeenyear period has remained relatively constant, with an average of approximately seven enterprises created annually. Second, the total number of patents assigned appears to be higher for older enterprises, which is expected because older enterprises will accumulate more patents over time.
Third, based on earlier observations about institutional innovation combined with this annual measure of innovative new enterprises, innovative and entrepreneurial linkage does not appear to have increased in the past seventeen years. While patents are certainly only one perspective on innovation, this suggests that future strategies should leverage regional assets to connect innovative and entrepreneurial capacities.
46

3:
In the New York State capital region, economic conditions have changed over time.
Influential institutions significantly impact regional relationships, while future economic sustainability depends on underlying dependencies and innovative entrepreneurial venture creation. Furthermore, policymakers have different mechanisms to influence these regional factors. While the region has demonstrated innovative and entrepreneurial capacities, the linkage can be improved.
Over twenty regional academic institutions in the capital region with different curriculums dispatch thousands of annual graduates into the global economy with skills and experiences that develop into innovative and entrepreneurial capacities. Therefore, it is important to understand how many of these innovative and entrepreneurial graduates remain in the capital region. Social network data indicates that over time, many innovative and entrepreneurial graduates have departed.
Graduates are the future regional innovative entrepreneurial blood. While institutionalism may have been important in the past, future growth depends on innovative entrepreneurial ventures that will ultimately develop sustainable regional dependencies, growth, and jobs.
Therefore, it is necessary to explore opportunities to capture innovative and entrepreneurial graduates for long-term regional contribution.
48

To understand innovative and entrepreneurial capacities in the New York State capital region, it is important to explore regional graduate capacities and behaviors. In this investigation, regional graduates are measured across three standardized dimensions.
First, graduates are measured for innovative capacity. Innovative capacity relates to the ability to produce new ideas and technology with commercial potential. It is important to measure because it indicates people who develop revolutionary ideas that will become the foundations for new products.
Second, graduates are measured for entrepreneurial capacity. Entrepreneurial capacity relates to the ability to commercialize innovative technology into products, and develop sustainable enterprises that will flourish. It is important to measure because it indicates the people who transform ventures into future opportunities and jobs.
Third, graduates are measured for location. Location indicates where innovative and entrepreneurial graduates are currently demonstrating value. It is important to measure because it indicates whether the innovative and entrepreneurial graduates who have developed within regional institutions have remained.
Based on the literature surrounding entrepreneurship, the creation of new innovative enterprises is critical to regional economic sustainability. According to the MIT Regional
Entrepreneurial Acceleration Program framework, it is necessary to combine innovative capacity as a source of new ideas and entrepreneurial capacity to commercialize innovations through new regional ventures. Within the capital region, the different programs at universities, colleges, trade schools, community colleges, schools and other institutions impact regional innovative and entrepreneurial capacities development, but the underlying region must sustain these capacities for future growth.
In consideration of the observed historical economic, institutional, and innovative entrepreneurial enterprise dynamics in the capital region, it is hypothesized that regional opportunities exist for graduating students with essential innovative capacity, but do not provide
49

complimentary opportunities and linkage for entrepreneurial capacity. This hypothesis is not intended to criticize any particular regional stakeholders, but instead highlight the changing competitive dynamic that impacts the region.
3.2.2
LinkedIn is a popular and established professional social network, and offers a profile that summarizes one's professional career, including academic institutions attended, industry positions held, organizational memberships, and one's geographic location. This information is aggregated and used to provide access to professional services such as referrals, networking, job postings, and other opportunities.
Through the Linkedln "Find Alumni" feature it is possible to browse alumni from an academic institution. This feature provides a summary of graduates based on current location and profile content. These results may be filtered by professional factors and location to identify specific populations. The appendix provides an overview of the LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature.
One filter in the LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature is the "What they do" categorization.
According to the official LinkedIn blog, this categorization allows one to "see what types of jobs they are doing" and "the types of jobs they pursue." By observing the resulting profiles from individual filters including "Research," "Education," " Information Technology,"
"Entrepreneurship," "Operations," "Finance," "Purchasing" and "Sales" from the "What they do" categorization, the feature clearly returns profiles for graduates who work in related roles.
In addition to selecting filters individually, it is possible to select many values simultaneously from the "What they do" categorization. When selecting two or more values from the categorization, the returned results contain matches for any combination of the values. This is clear because the total number of results for multiple selected values is less than the total when selecting each value independently, which accounts for overlap.
Using the "What they do" categorization, the "Engineering" and "Information
Technology" values measure innovative capacity because graduates will be involved with technology applications in the "jobs they are doing." Engineers will be exploring new technology potential, and developing new applications. While other categories such as "Research" could contribute to innovative capacity, it is not clear that such categories are sufficiently narrow.
50

Furthermore, the "Entrepreneurship," "Finance," "Marketing," "Product management," and
"Business development" values measure entrepreneurial capacity because graduates are involved with commercialization or enterprise building in the "jobs they are doing." People in these roles will be associated with starting, funding, commercializing, and new venture contexts.
Another filter in the Linkedln "Find Alumni" feature is the "Where they live" categorization. This categorization provides geographical options including metropolitan values such as "Greater Boston Area" and entire country values such as "United States" or "Spain." This categorization can be applied in combination with the "What they do" categorization.
For graduates located in the capital region, one of the available categorization values is the "Albany, New York Area." When creating a profile, if the user enters a zip code for locations within Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady counties, that user's location is automatically recognized within the "Albany, New York Area." Therefore, the "Albany, New
York Area" location approximates the capital region.
By selecting combinations of categorization values for graduates and evaluating the profile details, it is possible to construct regional innovative and entrepreneurial graduate capacity measurements over multiple years. Based upon its characteristics, we argue that the
LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature provides sufficient information from professional profiles to measure graduate innovative and entrepreneurial capacities within the local capital region.
Based on this method to analyze local graduate innovative and entrepreneurial human capacities using the LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature, there are clearly challenges and drawbacks.
First, the sample may not accurately reflect all graduates. Second, it is possible to misinterpret the data. Third, participation in a specific activity or enterprise does not necessarily indicate mastery. Fourth, it is impossible to trace the underlying capacity source to the capital region.
These potential limitations are discussed in further detail.
Possible alternative approaches to collect information about graduate capacities include collaboration with local academic institutions or direct surveys. However, we argue that graduates have already revealed capacities and locations openly through professional social networking services that have recently emerged as important tools to communicate, map and
51

pursue economic opportunities throughout one's professional career. While social networks may not provide access to full graduate profiles, social networking is one method to identify patterns from a larger sample than could be practically obtained through alternative approaches.
Furthermore, profiles reflect a continuous professional brand subject to peer scrutiny.
One potential challenge with the "Find Alumni" feature is the risk of an incomplete sample, where certain types of graduates may be more likely to appear in the results than others.
Even though LinkedIn is a popular professional social network service, not every potential graduate will be covered. Therefore, visible profiles in the "Find Alumni" feature may reflect more graduates who share their professional and educational history through social networking.
For example, in 2012 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy conferred degrees to 1,613 students, while the "Find Alumni" feature reflects 1,294 students who graduated in 2012, or approximately 80% coverage.
Based on generational differences, the results may contain higher proportions of graduates from later years. In comparison, the "Find Alumni" feature reflects profiles from 950 graduates from 1991, a reduction of approximately 25% compared to 2012. However, it is unlikely that social network behaviors significantly differ by geographical location, which is the ultimate factor that impacts the regional capacities measurements.
Another potential challenge with the LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature is the risk of data inaccuracy or misinterpretation. This could mistakenly select or overlook graduates with or without either innovative or entrepreneurial capacities. Based on the profile data, the "Find
Alumni" feature categorizes users with the values for "What they do." For users who have identified themselves as graduates or employees, there is no external verification. However, considering that LinkedIn is a social network with publicly reviewable profiles, it seems unlikely that inaccurate profiles would proliferate.
In addition to the risk of inaccurate profile data, the algorithm for "What they do" relies on automatic interpretation. The algorithm could simply mis-categorize profiles with correct academic and work histories. However, conducting manual reviews of sample profiles mitigates
52

this risk because innovative and entrepreneurial capacities are abstract concepts without specific distinguishing criteria. While the "Find Alumni" algorithm may in fact produce variation in the results, the lack of any standard reduces the impact.
Participation does not indicate mastery
Another potential challenge with the LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature is the difference between participation and mastery. In this circumstance, the profile experiences do not necessarily guarantee an innovative or entrepreneurial capacity, which may depend on the duration, depth or other dimension of involvement. Therefore, some measured values of innovative and entrepreneurial capacities may be overestimated based on inaccurate details.
Despite this challenge, large samples will likely balance different experiences, while negative experiences may contain valuable lessons and information.
Inability to trace capacity source
Even though the LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature reflects certain characteristics for local graduates that indicate either innovative or entrepreneurial capacities, that does not necessarily mean that those capacities developed within the capital region academic institutions. Instead, those characteristics may have developed in extracurricular activities, professional activities, or experiences at academic institutions elsewhere. Therefore, capacity presence should not be confused with causality, which is not possible to trace with this data. Regardless, the patterns and behaviors of local graduates are known, and this investigation is related to the current location of the capacities, not where they developed.
53

To analyze innovative and entrepreneurial capacities in the New York State capital region, graduates from 1990 through 2012 with innovative and entrepreneurial roles were identified using the LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature for four recognized academic institutions within Albany, Schenectady, Rensselaer, and Saratoga counties. The data for innovative and entrepreneurial capacities were considered from the two primary perspectives.
First, all graduate data across twenty-two years was analyzed for innovative
"Engineering" and "IT" roles and entrepreneurial "Entrepreneurship," "Finance," "Marketing,"
"Product management," and "Business development" roles. This provides an overview of innovative and entrepreneurial capacities among historical capital region graduates.
Second, the same graduates that demonstrate innovative and entrepreneurial capacities were analyzed to determine the fraction within the capital region. By analyzing this fraction, it is possible to understand which capacities remain in the region, infer how different capacities may affect graduate retention, and propose how graduates are impacted by regional opportunities.
While the results did not significantly validate the original hypothesis about entrepreneurial capacity linkage, they have significant implications for how academic institutions can influence graduate retention, and how the region can influence opportunities for innovative and entrepreneurial graduates.
For the past twenty-two years, it is important to understand the total number of capital region academic institution graduates that demonstrate innovative and entrepreneurial roles.
While this does not necessarily indicate the origin of a demonstrated capacity, it does provide a measure of the roles that graduates from local institutions ultimately develop. Figure 4 reflects graduates from four regional academic institutions between 1990 and 2012 that demonstrate innovative and entrepreneurial capacities, based on data collected through the Linkedln "Find
Alumni" feature.
54

Based on the patterns, the number of graduates that demonstrate entrepreneurial capacities is clearly higher in earlier years, while overall the graduates have become more innovative. In total over the twenty-two years, approximately 15,000 graduates demonstrate innovative capacities and 13,000 graduates demonstrate entrepreneurial capacities. Compared to earlier measures of recent regional academic institutional development, this trend suggests a recent shift towards innovative capacity.
For innovative and entrepreneurial graduates in the past twenty-two years, the fraction of graduates within the region reveals whether sufficient opportunities exist. This is important to discuss potential enhancements to improve regional opportunities for innovative and entrepreneurial graduates. Figure 5 reflects the innovative and entrepreneurial graduates from the four academic institutions in the region between 1990 and 2012 that are currently located within the capital region, based on data collected through the LinkedIn "Find Alumni" feature.
56

Based on these patterns, approximately thirty percent of recent graduates that demonstrate innovative and entrepreneurial capacities are located within the capital region. However, as the number of years since graduation increases, this fraction decreases significantly. For graduates from 1990, there are approximately 11% of innovators and 7% of entrepreneurs in the capital region.
For most years, the innovative curve dominates the entrepreneurial curve. This suggests that the region is slightly more likely to retain innovative graduates than entrepreneurial graduates, although not as significantly as proposed in the hypothesis. However, the effect also indicates that many earlier regional innovative and entrepreneurial graduates have departed, and does not appear to vary based on positive or negative economic cycles over the twenty-two years.
Despite the discrepancy compared to the original hypothesis, the observed patterns in graduate innovation and entrepreneurial capacity retentions have important implications for the capital region. While academic sources argue that innovative and entrepreneurial capacities linkage is critical for regional growth and development, it assumes that capacities exist.
First, it is clear that regional graduates demonstrate both innovative and entrepreneurial capacities, with higher numbers of innovative graduates. This happens even though the entrepreneurial capacities measured encompass a broader set of roles, and suggests potential to create and enhance new technologies for innovative enterprises.
Second, as the time since graduation increases, both the retained local graduate innovative and entrepreneurial capacities demonstrate a steep decline. This may indicate that graduates remain in the area for an initial period, or may also indicate that the region has gradually improved innovative and entrepreneurial graduate retention.
Third, while a higher fraction of entrepreneurial graduates originate from earlier years, higher fractions of those graduates have also left the region. This suggests that while the region continues to produce more innovative graduates, many of the entrepreneurial graduates have departed. This could represent challenge to transfer entrepreneurial capacities for new enterprise development.
58

Finally, regardless of the underlying explanation for the trend, the already departed innovative and entrepreneurial graduates represent a capacity transfer challenge. Earlier statistics from the New York State Department of Education indicated that students enroll in capital region academic institutions from around the world, and the capital region must develop mechanisms to retain this innovative and entrepreneurial talent.
In an analysis of regional dynamics, Storper and Scott (2009) discuss theories about regional preferences, and argue that continually compounding economic opportunities are primary regional selection factors. Innovative and entrepreneurial graduates need opportunities to leverage knowledge and skills in the region, perhaps by establishing innovative entrepreneurial ventures. This prompts the question of how academic experiences can improve the regional economic opportunities for graduates. As academic institutions have already demonstrated entrepreneurship support, it may be possible to expand these opportunities through existing programs.
59

4:
The prior analysis provided an overview of the New York State capital region economy, with perspectives from established academic literature about regional industrial clusters, agglomerations, and development. These sources suggest that innovative entrepreneurship is critical to develop underlying regional dependencies for economic sustainability.
Based on an analysis of the professional social network data from capital region graduates over the past twenty-two years, challenges exist to retain graduates that demonstrate innovative and entrepreneurial capacities. Innovative entrepreneurial graduates need opportunities, which can be established through entrepreneurial ventures and compound into future growth and jobs.
Academic entrepreneurship initiatives at local institutions enhance available resources to student innovative entrepreneurial ventures. To further investigate academic entrepreneurial programs within the capital region, a system engineering analysis is performed to understand the interactions across multiple stakeholders, discuss system boundary relationships, explore the system control mechanisms, identify stakeholder needs, and propose underlying system requirements.
The most important aspect of this investigation is the system analysis process, not the parameters or results. Readers who deem the final results to be unsatisfactory are encouraged to apply these system analysis processes on their own regional data and examine the resulting implications.
60

The MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Program framework emphasizes the innovative and entrepreneurial capacity linkages across regional stakeholders, including academia. These concepts were analyzed for the New York State capital region within Chapters
2 and 3. Prior analysis from Feldman (2005) explored entrepreneurial impact to regional growth in the context of resource "configurations," and emphasized regional "opportunities."
Rothaermel et al. (2007) observes that academic institutions have recently become more
"entrepreneurial" due to changing factors in finance, law, and technology resulting in non-
"traditional" academic offerings such as tech parks and incubators. Rothaermel et al. concludes through a literature inventory that academic entrepreneurial research is becoming "mainstream," and further explores institutional economic roles. As academic institutions develop entrepreneurial "systems," the opportunities and configurations for student innovative entrepreneurial ventures will depend on the underlying regional characteristics.
While academic institutions have traditionally focused on research and education, this transition emphasizes practical capabilities that directly impact the economy. Etzkowitz et al.
(2000) proposes a model referred to as the "triple helix" that incorporates "overlapping" connections between government, industry, and academia. The authors suggest that academic institutional entrepreneurship benefits both the regional economy and the underlying institution
by mobilizing existing research and teaching capabilities in coordination with stakeholders, and presents a "dynamic society, emphasizing entrepreneurship, firm-formation and risk-taking" that continuously reconfigures institutional positions. This analysis implies regional institutional reinvention based on the local resources and configurations.
Based on these stakeholder models, academic institutions in the capital region should continue to support, allocate resources, and explore different concepts that engage all regional stakeholders to expand student innovative entrepreneurial capacities. Academic entrepreneurial ecosystems have emerged as regional concepts, and provide significant potential to impact the regional economic opportunities.
61

Academic entrepreneurial ecosystems exist within environments that influence system design. The overall regional economic environment is composed of institutions, relationships, and knowledge that have iteratively developed over time and engage within a broader academic environment of research, education, infrastructure, and economic initiatives. These containing or interfacing systems exist with different landscape, culture, network, and incentive structures that influence venture development. Furthermore, while entrepreneurship seems like "good" policy, academic institutions are not naturally prioritized or incentivized towards entrepreneurial venture support.
To understand how academic entrepreneurial ecosystems operate within broader systems in the New York State capital region, it is important to explore the unique stakeholders, determine the resource, organizational, and influential boundaries that impact academic entrepreneurial ecosystem relationships, and analyze the system control actions and feedback mechanisms that determine system performance. To be successful, ecosystem stakeholders must recognize mutual interactions to produce desired emergent properties.
System stakeholders are entities with significant "interests" in how the system functions, and include any individuals or organizations that provide, consume, organize, develop, fund, operate, or otherwise interact with academic entrepreneurial ecosystems. Stakeholder identification helps to guide the needs and system requirements process, and determine how interactions between stakeholders and with external entities can deliver improved system value.
For academic entrepreneurial ecosystems in the New York State capital region, the stakeholders were identified through careful investigation and analysis of the complex regional economy from current events, published documents, and interviews with stakeholder representatives. Many potential stakeholders exist across interfacing systems, but it is necessary to distinguish between internal academic entrepreneurial ecosystem participants, while also
62

observing and considering the incentives and interactions with exterior entities that facilitate or inhibit system function.
It is also important to recognize that the distinctions between stakeholders are blurred, and should therefore be considered from the perspective of roles rather than individual people.
These factors influence the boundary, and also differentiate primary system stakeholders.
Students become innovative and entrepreneurial graduates. In the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem, students identify innovative product ideas and attempt to commercialize them within entrepreneurial ventures. Student entrepreneurs struggle with competing needs and goals. For these reasons, the student entrepreneur is challenging to satisfy, but is also critical to understand. Without the student entrepreneur, the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem implodes, which highlights its role as primary stakeholder.
Students enter academia to obtain skills, knowledge, and qualifications for a future profession, and graduates are presented with an array of options that align with personal, family, and societal expectations of self-worth, such as full-time employment and a regular wage from well-respected companies. In the capital region and the rest of the United States, education costs are expensive, and often borrowed. This combination of financial and emotional factors constrains graduation options.
Entrepreneurs start ventures to commercialize innovative ideas into successful products, and see opportunities where others do not. However, entrepreneurship also requires business skills, market savvy, specialized knowledge, established relationships, and other capacities that may be learned or experienced. Additionally, innovative enterprises require significant financial support, and often follow a long, expensive, and initially fruitless path that may ultimately lead nowhere. Entrepreneurial ventures are high risk and potentially high reward.
Student and entrepreneurial obligations may conflict and limit potential options. Even if entrepreneurship is an option, it is difficult to balance conflicting financial and lifestyle obligations, incentives, and risks. In the capital region, one student entrepreneur emphasized the challenge to "eat, pay my student loans, and keep the business running."
63

Therefore, student entrepreneurs are paradoxes that need resources to lessen burdens, rapidly develop skills, legitimize the process, facilitate connections, compete, and improve ultimate success probability.
Faculty
Faculty is the stakeholder group located at the center of the academic institution, and the innovative front lines of the developing entrepreneurial ecosystems. From this position, faculty conducts scientific research, educates, improves institution stature, and inspires students to succeed. In academic entrepreneurial ecosystems, these responsibilities merge inspirational, advisory, organizational, and strategic roles that challenge traditional academic experience.
Traditionally, faculty lead scientific research projects that advance knowledge beyond known limits to contribute to societal, professional and institution reputation. Through this process, there are structured mechanisms for student participation, such as formal classes or research assistantships. Cumulative participation qualifies the student to participate in postgraduation economic activity. Overall, faculty transfers knowledge for practical use.
In academic entrepreneurial ecosystems, the lines become blurred. Faculty may provide new learning opportunities that support student entrepreneurial ventures. Faculty may serve as program organizers, advisors to student clubs, gatekeepers to experts, advocates for resources, mentors to founders, or architects of new educational experiences. These activities may compliment existing responsibilities, but may also compete for time and focus.
Academic administrators
Academic administrators are the stakeholder group that is responsible for coordinating strategy and organizing resources within the academic institution. Administrative roles may overlap with other roles in the institution, but leverage other student, faculty, industry, government, and alumni groups to advance academic program development, research, facilities, and funding. Therefore, decisions are based on both strategy and tactics, which ultimately highlights how competing influences and incentives may impact the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Many factors are important for the academic administrator role. First, a competitive student base helps to improve institutional stature, learning, and fundraising. Second,
64

government relationships may be critical for research, infrastructure, and economic rejuvenation programs. Third, effective industry coordination may help commercialize research, coordinate facilities, and develop lucrative partnerships and consortiums. These factors may influence administration decisions, and have been observed within capital region institutions.
Based on this complex web of factors, academic administrators manage relationships that affect academic entrepreneurial ecosystems. Influential and established enterprises that provide funding for facilities may compete with student entrepreneurial ventures. Successful entrepreneurial alumni may provide resources for an entrepreneurial infrastructure. Public funds, policy, or prospective student interest may prioritize entrepreneurial initiatives, and encourage unique educational programs, facilities, and financial assistance. Academic administrators create an opportunity portfolio based on complex factors and incentives.
Entrepreneurial experts
Entrepreneurial experts are the stakeholder group with established business enterprise success. Members can be decomposed into many different roles and functions, but may have experience commercializing innovation concepts, starting ventures, growing enterprises, serving as corporate executives, or performing roles in law, consulting, or finance. They bring practical backgrounds that are critical for student entrepreneurs to quickly learn and develop from within academic entrepreneurial ecosystems.
In collaboration with other stakeholders, entrepreneurial experts transfer practical knowledge to student entrepreneurs in different ways. Experts may mentor student entrepreneurs about practical strategies and concepts, provide connections to critical customers or suppliers, or take a more hands-on role within particular enterprises. Other possibilities exist, but entrepreneurial experts fill an industry or business knowledge gap within the traditional academic environment.
Underlying regional culture and networks significantly influence entrepreneurial collaboration. To engage entrepreneurial experts in academic activities, the incentives must align. In regions where open collaboration is not natural, it may be difficult to initially engage entrepreneurial experts when concerns about competition, intellectual property, or complementary assets are involved.
65

There are other participants that interface or interact with stakeholders across the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem boundary. Government, risk capital, customers, and resources are outside the system boundary because these external entities provide critical system interface points, but are not positioned within academic entrepreneurial ecosystem controls.
Government agencies and departments collaborate with academic institutions on economic policy, research funding, or other regulations. Government also interfaces with both entrepreneurial and established enterprises around business regulations and finances. It is important to understand the corresponding interrelations and dependencies.
Established enterprises also develop relationships and partnerships with academic institutions for research, resource, and infrastructure projects. Entrepreneurial ventures compete with established enterprises for customers, suppliers, and complementary assets. It is important to understand how established enterprises impact academic institutions, and therefore student entrepreneurial ventures.
Risk capital sources invest in entrepreneurial ventures and established enterprises. They may provide guidance and exert influence over ventures, and it is important to understand the opportunities to integrate within the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Within the capital region, distinguishing regional economic characteristics impact the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem boundary. The region is composed of four counties with populations that would likely struggle independently, but also exhibit dominant institutional independence. Traditionally large enterprises may create competitive challenges for new ventures, while regional academic institutions have developed complex industry and government relationships.
Academic institutions have also developed an array of entrepreneurial programs that bring together students, faculty, and established entrepreneurial experts to foster innovative products and venture development. The diagram in Figure 6 reflects the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem boundary, while connections that cross the dotted line represent interactions beyond the ecosystem boundary.
66

I I 0

Academic entrepreneurial ecosystem boundary examination highlights resource, organizational, and influential interactions between the entrepreneurial ventures, academic institutions, established enterprises, and government. These interactions impact the incentives and relationships between underlying student entrepreneurs, faculty, academic administrators, and entrepreneurial expert stakeholders.
First, entrepreneurial ventures engage in complex relationships with academic institutions beyond traditional student roles. Student entrepreneurs may leverage infrastructure, consume resources, transform innovative research into products, and engage faculty in collaborative entrepreneurial projects. Meanwhile, academic institutions also form partnerships with established enterprises, which benefit from academic infrastructure and research.
Relationships with established enterprises may compete for resources and intellectual property with academic entrepreneurial ecosystem ventures. Entrepreneurship has higher risk and more uncertainty than traditional initiatives such as sponsored research, government partnerships, and traditional education. In these circumstances, the strategic challenge to reconcile new opportunities with the traditional academic mission inspires intervention from successful entrepreneurs. This is apparent from deliberate initiatives to establish entrepreneurship at regional institutions, such as the Severino Center at the Lally School of
Business at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Stack Center for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship at Siena College.
Second, entrepreneurial ventures potentially engage in complex competitive and cooperative relationships with established enterprises. Entrepreneurial ventures may sell similar products, require similar complementary assets or intellectual property, compete for customers, or share suppliers. However, entrepreneurial ventures may also build supplier and customer relationships with established enterprises, along with interpersonal relationships with leaders.
Business leaders may advise or support student entrepreneurs as experts, and over time student entrepreneurs will become established enterprises leaders, and engage with future students. In many circumstances, these experts do not expect significant reward, but are simply interested in community involvement.
Third, other complex relationships exist. For example, while long-term economic growth and jobs may ultimately result from maturing entrepreneurial ventures, established enterprises may exert influence over politicians for their benefit. Additionally, outside risk capital may exert
68

influence over student entrepreneurs or existing enterprises, and provide resources that benefit entrepreneurial ventures.
Academic entrepreneurial ecosystems may inherit traditional program architecture, or expand traditional boundaries. For example, the New York State Business Plan Competition organized by the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering is a new concept that integrates students from the state and region. Other examples include the StartUp Tech Valley and Business Opportunities for Success Summit (BOSS) initiatives at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, which emphasizes community programs. Cross-institution or cross-department collaboration may address certain underlying institutional boundary challenges.
System controls describe the actions that stakeholders take to influence system performance, and the feedback that impacts future action. Dr. Qi Van Eikema Hommes from the
MIT ESD.33 Systems Engineering program introduced control diagramming within complex systems to describe stakeholder behaviors.
In control diagrams, the "controller" is any stakeholder performing an action or receiving feedback. The "object" is the entity that is acted upon, and may produce an output that is influenced by the action. The controller performs actions on the object through "actuators," which result in changes to the object that affect the outputs. The controller observes the output through "sensors" that affect future actions. As the controllers observe either positive or negative feedback, the actions are adjusted.
Within the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem, the controls represent the key action and feedback to develop institutional innovation and entrepreneurship. These controls are critical processes influenced by traditional and new institutional structures. Academic administrators with authority, funding and infrastructure to develop innovation and entrepreneurship within the institution exhibit underlying control for policies and programs. These are primarily accomplished through faculty and entrepreneurial experts, who support student innovative entrepreneurial ventures. The stakeholders measure various forms of feedback.
System control diagramming concepts are used to describe the actions and feedback within the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem, as indicated in Figure 7.
69

First, academic administrators develop innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic environment, which requires resource coordination. Academic administrators may allocate funds, form partnerships, develop initiatives, and create infrastructure to pursue institutional innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovation strategy seeks to leverage innovative people and assets for new discoveries. Innovation status may be assessed by signals such as intellectual property created, innovative resources developed, or number of students graduated.
Entrepreneurship seeks to support innovation commercialization, and may be influenced
by economic, student, alumni, or government influence. Entrepreneurial status may be assessed
by IP licensed, financial returns, or ventures formed. As discussed in the boundary relationships, these initiatives may conflict with other traditional roles, such as research partnerships with larger enterprises.
Second, faculty and experts transfer skills to students to encourage innovative entrepreneurial activity. Faculty may leverage the resources from administrators to enhance instructional and research programs to develop student innovative capabilities. Based on the results from projects, exams, and prototypes, faculty may adjust and enhance education offerings.
Entrepreneurial experts transfer entrepreneurial skills to student entrepreneurs for product commercialization. With resources from administrators, experts may provide skills, mentoring, strategy coaching, and connections to equip student entrepreneurs to successfully commercialize products. Based on business plans, products sold, and ventures funded, entrepreneurial experts may adjust and enhance the entrepreneurial transfer approach.
Third, student entrepreneurs develop innovative commercial products in entrepreneurial ventures from faculty and entrepreneurial expert support. Based on product testing, customer development, and supplier factors, student entrepreneurs adjust the product and venture development to continually evolve within the academic environment.
71

It is important to prioritize the underlying stakeholder needs, and map these needs into measurable system requirements to analyze the overall academic entrepreneurial ecosystem and select concepts applicable to the New York State capital region.
To understand the local stakeholder needs, interviews were conducted with student entrepreneurs, faculty, industry experts, academic administrators, government representatives, and investors throughout the capital region. These interviews focused on basics, wants, constraints, challenges, innovation, technologies, and other innovative entrepreneurial venture development aspects within the academic environment. A high level summary of the interview stakeholder groups is provided in the Appendix.
The needs identification process is not necessarily straightforward. The International
Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Handbook refers to "surveys, focus groups, prototypes, and product beta releases" as potential methods and tools to uncover stakeholder needs. Through an "exploratory research" process, the capital region academic entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholder needs became clearer, and reflect an opportunities and constraints space that challenges traditional academic institutional environments.
Various challenges affected this process to uncover the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem mechanics. First, stakeholder needs are difficult to identify within developing ecosystem contexts. For example, student entrepreneurs do not necessarily know the experiences or challenges they will encounter. Second, stakeholders may not necessarily be prepared to reveal underlying system challenges. For example, institutional politics, culture, or intellectual property may inhibit disclosure. Third, stakeholders may simply misunderstand the underlying system boundaries or controls. For example, student entrepreneurs may not be aware of all relationships and incentives within surrounding environment. These challenges were managed by conducting a broad study with many different ecosystem participants.
72

The local economic configuration, competing incentives, and institutional interactions foreshadow the stakeholder needs complexity. To facilitate analysis of the tradeoffs between stakeholder groups, these needs have been organized into four primary categories across all stakeholders: efficiency, environmental, financial, and relationship. Even though these needs occasionally compete, it is important to remain objective and receptive to concepts that can strategically align the regional ecosystems. Furthermore, while it may always be possible to refine these needs, we propose that the identified needs substantially reflect the primary stakeholder interests.
Efficiency stakeholder needs
Competitiveness is the ability to distinguish between peers, and is important for all academic entrepreneurial ecosystem primary stakeholder needs. Efficiency impacts stakeholder competitiveness at all levels.
For student entrepreneurs, advantages that established enterprises have developed over time impact venture efficiency. Bureaucratic formalities inhibit rapid student entrepreneurial venture formation success. Support must reduce overhead, repetition, licensing, human resources, legal, and registration obstacles for developing products and ventures.
First, student entrepreneurs need start-up efficiency while completing a degree, working a part-time job, or raising a family. This may include developing knowledge about markets and regulations for commercialization, and skills in negotiation, leadership, and product development to compete with established enterprises.
Second, student entrepreneurs need access to technology, including intellectual property they have developed at academic institutions. While established enterprises may be able to perform licensing reviews and negotiations, student entrepreneurs need straightforward, streamlined, and expedited mechanisms to acquire the technology.
Third, student entrepreneurs need efficient access to inputs and materials. Established enterprises may have preferential supplier arrangements that are impractical for entrepreneurial ventures. Academic institutions may have relationships to facilitate this access for students.
For faculty, efficiency relates to academic knowledge advancement. Faculty need to produce new successful discoveries, enhance academic reputation, publish academic research and acquire research funding. While these needs do not depend particularly on academic
73

entrepreneurship, it is important to consider academic efficiency for faculty entrepreneurial ecosystem responsibilities.
For academic administrators, efficiency relates to institutional position and reputation.
While entrepreneurship may be important, the impact to traditional academic efficiency is complex. Administrators need to efficiently manage student, industry, faculty, and government relationships to develop infrastructure, partners, research, and academic programs.
Entrepreneurship may enhance efficiency with certain relationships at the expense of others.
For entrepreneurial experts, there are likely many efficiency motivations. However, the need to maintain recent connections to the innovative technologies and ventures within academic entrepreneurial ecosystems is clearest. While these experts often have extensive business experience, there may be lucrative cutting-edge opportunities within academic entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Environmental stakeholder needs
The academic environment is a portfolio of infrastructure, resources, collaboration, and relationships with potential to serve different stakeholder needs. Its configuration into groups of specialized departments provides the foundation for knowledge creation, while integrated facilities and equipment provides potential for collaborative exchange.
For student entrepreneurs, access to facilities is a critical factor for venture development.
Student entrepreneurs need space for product development or testing that conveniently integrates with the student lifestyle. Based on the particular venture, student entrepreneurs may have different laboratory, information technology, advanced equipment, or other specialized needs.
Furthermore, cost may be prohibitive for individual ventures, but more feasible for sharing.
Sharing is clear even for established enterprises based on resource development models at the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering and the New York Battery & Energy
Storage Technology consortium that emphasize shared infrastructure and equipment. However, these needs are amplified for student entrepreneurs with limited resources, and highlight potential for new approaches that maximize productivity and knowledge exchange within academic entrepreneurial ecosystems.
For faculty, academic administrators, and entrepreneurial experts, facilities are also a significant environmental factor. Faculty need physical spaces for research and teaching, and
74

specialized equipment within the academic environment. Academic administrators need to manage the appropriate use, accountability, and safety of these spaces and equipment. From traditional academic perspectives, these applications may significantly eliminate or restrict space and resource availability for entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurial experts need effective spaces to interact and collaborate with student entrepreneurs.
Financial stakeholder needs
Financial needs are intimately integrated with most other stakeholder needs, and significantly impact ecosystem stakeholder incentives and actions. They determine program and venture feasibility.
For the student entrepreneur, financial needs reflect the simultaneous student and entrepreneur roles. Students often pay for multiple years of basic living expenses without income, which may continue during the early venture years. They also must cover traditional education expenses such as tuition, while mechanisms for educational financing are structured for traditional employment. Entrepreneurial ventures also require substantial capitalization, which alternative funding mechanisms such as business plan competitions may not sufficiently provide. These factors reflect substantial financial needs for student entrepreneurs.
For faculty and academic administrators, financial needs reflect academic initiative priorities and obligations. Faculty need funding for research and education, while administrators need external funding from government, industry, students, and alumni to continue institutional operations and enhance infrastructure. It is also important to ensure asset return on investment.
For entrepreneurial experts, immediate financial considerations may not be significant, but relate to innovative student access. Entrepreneurial students may be critical sources of future opportunity.
Relationship stakeholder needs
Formal and informal relationships are both critical factors within the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem. Furthermore, these relationships must be effectively developed to obtain expected benefits.
For student entrepreneurs, relationships are focused around augmenting existing capacity to facilitate a successful venture. First, student entrepreneurs need access to expertise, advice,
75

introductions, market insight, referrals, and guidance. Second, student entrepreneurs need access to customer relationships that represent critical opportunities to generate revenues from commercialized innovative technologies. Third, student entrepreneurs need access to supplier relationships, which often develop naturally through years of interactions. Fourth, student entrepreneurs need to manage relationships with family, friends, and peers that involve success measures, such as employment in large corporations, high salaries, and reliable health insurance that are unrealistic short-term goals for student entrepreneurs.
For faculty and academic administrators, relationships involve the research, educational, and development activities performed in the academic institutions. Faculty needs relationships with students and other faculty to advance research and education. Academic administrators need effective relationships with stakeholders in surrounding environments, including students, alumni, industry, and government. Entrepreneurial experts share similar relationship needs to expand opportunities with other stakeholders.
The International Council on Systems Engineering Handbook indicates that requirements
"express the intended interaction the system will have with its operation environment and are the reference against which each resulting operational service is validated." Therefore, it is necessary to accurately map requirements to deliver stakeholder needs and verify system performance.
System requirements are identified for the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem based on the primary stakeholder needs.
To facilitate analysis and discussion, the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem requirements are decomposed into four primary areas: education, innovation, funding, and networking. These decompositions reveal patterns in the system requirements, and help to determine potential implementation concept model structures within existing academic institution program architecture.
For each stakeholder need and system requirement combination, the need satisfaction contribution is indicated numerically by range, with (+2) indicating a highly positive contribution and (-2) indicating a highly negative contribution. Final rankings facilitate future academic entrepreneurial ecosystem concept analysis because each system requirement
76

contributes to the underlying need based on the weighted product of each score. The weights are determined for each need based on overall academic system impact, but primarily based on academic entrepreneurial ecosystem impact. While other systems engineering implementations may use different numerical scores, this method provides a sufficient multiplier to highlight the most important needs, but still includes contributions from lower weighted needs.
Education requirements
The education system requirements describe the traditional coursework, instruction, and internship contributions toward stakeholder needs satisfaction. These requirements were selected to highlight configurable parameters within the academic model that can be optimized for entrepreneurship. Table 4 maps all five identified academic entrepreneurial ecosystem education requirements to respective stakeholder needs.
The ranked educational requirements based on need contribution emphasize new approaches to traditional instruction and content, while retaining the underlying strengths of traditional academic atmospheres and format. Requirements that maximize student entrepreneur, faculty, and entrepreneurial expert stakeholder coordination resulted in higher rankings, while requirements related to types and amounts of coursework resulted in lower rankings.
The " [x] percent of entrepreneurial courses shall be taught by adjunct industry instructors" requirement highlights the importance of injecting new entrepreneurial influences into the traditional academic experience, and reflects an opportunity to build connections between academia and industry.
77

The innovation system requirements describe how research and innovation activities within the academic environment enhance the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem. These requirements were selected to emphasize adjustments to the traditional institutional strengths that contribute to entrepreneurial venture success, but also pose strategic challenges. Table 5 maps the four identified academic entrepreneurial ecosystem innovation requirements to respective stakeholder needs.
Based on the need contribution, the highest ranked innovation requirements relate to academic institution intellectual property processes for student entrepreneurs, while requirements about research, development costs, facilities, and equipment surprisingly reveal less significant rankings. This reflects a bureaucratic pain area for student entrepreneurs.
The "institution shall facilitate IP for student inventions for [x] percent of ownership" requirement suggests that leveraging existing academic institution capabilities to protect student entrepreneurial technology would significantly alleviate a substantial burden, while also providing potential institutional financial return. Accordingly, successful student entrepreneurial ventures will benefit the institution, and create joint incentives.
This requirement reflects not only ownership, but also process. If every student entrepreneur must navigate through red tape, then overall student entrepreneurship will be negatively impacted. Universities such as MIT have already implemented straightforward technology practices through the Technology Licensing Office (TLO), and academic institutions that have not developed transparent and efficient practices should consider standard and expedient procedures for student technology protection and license.
Overall, these innovation requirements imply that underlying institutional research structure does not necessarily require a complete overhaul, but that institutions should embrace new emerging student entrepreneurial ventures as partners.
79

The funding system requirements describe how venture funding impacts different stakeholder needs. These requirements were selected to highlight both the underlying funding challenges for innovative entrepreneurial ventures, and also the traditional institutional funding conundrum: there are always too many programs and not enough funds. Table 6 maps the five identified academic entrepreneurial ecosystem funding requirements to respective stakeholder needs.
Based on the need contribution, the highest ranked funding requirements relate seed funding. The highest rank is assigned to the "seed funding shall be no less than [x] per venture" requirement, which suggests that entrepreneurial ventures require a minimal dose of venture start-up funding. This aligns with observed academic literature about intense financial demands for innovative enterprises. This reflects the importance of simply getting ventures off the ground.
The lowest ranked requirements relate to academic ownership and borrowing. The lowest rank of the "academic institution shall retain [x] percent of venture ownership" requirement suggests that direct ownership stakes in student entrepreneurial ventures is too specialized and risky. Academic institutions are not ventures themselves, and becoming businesses or professional investors is likely too detached from the academic mission or expertise.
These requirements align with earlier innovation requirements about institutional technology ownership. It makes sense for academic institutions to own the technology, but not the venture. Academic institutions understand the technology, but entrepreneurs should determine the best way to market. If the ventures are successful, the institutions will ultimately benefit. Further analysis could compare student entrepreneurial venture investments with traditional academic investments to determine if any ownership model is appropriate.
From a recognition or prestige perspective, institutions associated with continually successful entrepreneurial ventures may become more competitive with government, established industry, and risk capital. Based on these factors, new funding and financial aid models could emerge based on these requirements.
81

The networking system requirements describe how connectivity impacts underlying stakeholder needs. These requirements were selected to expose inherent disadvantages in traditional academic environments that prevent student entrepreneurs from developing essential regional networks. Table 7 maps five identified academic entrepreneurial ecosystem networking requirements to respective stakeholder needs.
The network requirements emphasize breaking the institutional boundary. This means that while the academic institutions may support connectivity, the underlying networks outside the institution are most critical. Entrepreneurial ventures should not remain within the institution forever. They should grow, graduate, and recycle. It is important to observe that networking includes four of the top ranked requirements based on needs contribution, which highlights the importance of networked culture in entrepreneurship.
The highly ranked requirement that "entrepreneurs shall meet [x] new and experienced entrepreneurs per week" is an activity that encourages breadth and frequency. The highly ranked requirement that "student entrepreneurs shall spend at least [x] hours per week in hacking spaces" emphasizes the physical collaboration to rapidly develop skills and connections.
While academic programs facilitate these experiences, entrepreneurs must branch outside the institution. It is critical to consider the requirement potential outside the institution. While the academic institution may help to facilitate connections, ecosystem concepts should leverage strategies that deliberately detach student entrepreneurs from institutional boundaries.
83

5:
The observed patterns in innovative and entrepreneurial capacities in the New York State capital region indicate that opportunities are necessary to retain regional graduates. Academic entrepreneurial ecosystems provide economic opportunities for innovative and entrepreneurial graduates, and will result in future regional growth and jobs over time.
Academic entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholders, boundaries, controls, needs and requirements were analyzed based on the interactions, influences, and incentives within the regional environment through stakeholder interviews. These system engineering outputs impact the ecosystem configurations that will succeed.
For academic entrepreneurial ecosystems in the capital region, system concepts are considered from existing local concepts, entrepreneurial literature, and potential modern alternative concepts. Based on these considered concepts, seven concept models are analyzed, including network and single-institution physical, virtual, and accelerator models. Systems engineering concept selection mechanisms score concept models based on identified underlying system requirements to identify the most compelling combinations.
The final emerging concepts emphasize regional network importance, and may inspire regional concept implementation strategy.
85

Different academic entrepreneurship ecosystem concepts have emerged for the New York
State capital region based on changing institutional perspectives and roles. First, academic programs and incubators emphasize sustaining early enterprises through education, mentoring, and practical industry experience. Second, open communities and networks provide opportunities to collaborate across broad groups, including collaborative "hacker" spaces. Third, entrepreneurial accelerators emphasize rapid innovative entrepreneurial venture development within short-term programs.
While the similarities and differences indicate that there is no standard system concept, many concepts appear adaptable to different regional academic and economic environments.
Furthermore, content overlap emphasizes the importance of evaluating each concept based on its implementation detail rather than name.
In the capital region, educational, support, competition, incubation, and facilities ecosystem concepts exist within institutions. Generally, these programs are organized institutionally, as previously summarized in Table 3. Educational programs span courses, curriculums, degree components, entrepreneurs in residence, mentoring, internships, peer organizations, and other formats that have developed within academic structures. Many programs include industry involvement, which is critical for stakeholder linkage.
Empire State Development and the Business Incubator Association of New York identify fourteen "technology" incubators and technology parks within the capital region, distributed across Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady counties, including academic institutions.
These incubators have various goals, focuses, locations, programs, and services to support young enterprises, including associations with select academic institutions. This highlights the regional commitment to student entrepreneurship, but also the diverse incubator approaches.
Within academia, physical incubators, including the Incubator for New Ventures in
Emerging Sciences and Technologies at Russell Sage College and the East Campus Biotech
Business Incubator at the University at Albany, provide office, laboratory space, and other
86

services to support entrepreneurship. In 2010, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute closed a physical incubator, highlighting a strategic shift from physical resources, as reported in the Saratogian.
While resources are important for entrepreneurial ventures, this strategic shift from physical incubators suggests that ventures may be incentivized to remain rather than emerge.
However, according to the 2013 Regional Economic Development Council award report, both
RPI and the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering each received $125,000 grants to establish "certified" business incubators, apparently related to Start UP NY tax-free zone initiatives. This represents another potential strategy shift, with uncertain implications.
Virtual incubators, including the Emerging Ventures Ecosystem at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute and the Incubators for Collaborating & Leveraging Energy and
Nanotechnology (iCLEAN) at the SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering provide similar support services as traditional incubators, but without dedicated physical spaces. This approach seeks to support entrepreneurial ventures through different stages, and provides innovative and entrepreneurial programming. It is also important to emphasize that both examples are focused on specific technologies.
The type of programs and services offered is an important aspect to consider within academic institutional context. Certain incubator implementations incorporate aspects of entrepreneurial "accelerators," which are discussed in further detail in section 5.1.3. While traditional academic initiatives have common goals and capabilities to encourage and support student entrepreneurship, the overall organization reflects single institutional strategies.
Networks are an important theme in regional and entrepreneurial development concepts.
Saxenian (1996) argues that more robust "networks" produce competitive advantage in regional agglomerations, while Professor Fiona Murray from the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial
Acceleration Laboratory emphasizes the "linkages" between different regional stakeholders.
While it may be challenging to envision networks outside institutional boundaries, they are critical for regional dependencies. In the capital region, robust networks may be especially critical for economic resilience.
87

Feld (2012) cites dissatisfaction with the entrepreneurial development "dynamic" as the reason for pursuing entrepreneurial "community" concepts. While funding is important, entrepreneurs must quickly sample skills and expertise to successfully commercialize innovations within ventures. Feld highlights the "give before you get" approach in entrepreneurial communities, which suggests that entrepreneurs reach beyond traditional boundaries to help others. The 2011 Startup Weekend Report highlights related social benefits, such as "opportunities to work outside daily skill sets, meet new people, and learn the processes
by which products and companies are built" (Startup Weekend Report 2011).
Besides relationships, teams and collaboration are important within communities and networks. In the 2011 Startup Weekend Annual Report, Marc Nager describes the intent to
"harness creativity and human potential by empowering individuals and teams to build and validate solutions to the opportunities and problems." These collaborative initiatives allow participants to take advantage of interactions and knowledge that might not develop through individual activities, and mobilize untapped innovative and entrepreneurial capacities within the ecosystem. Even in dynamic regions such as New York City, David Tisch highlights how "many of the mentors did not know each other" within entrepreneurial landscapes (Feld 2012).
In the much smaller capital region, applying the community model across the entire region may help to leverage underutilized regional human entrepreneurial capacity. In late 2013, the Severino Center for Technological Entrepreneurship at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute launched the Startup Tech Valley "meet-up" initiative to develop a collaborative regional entrepreneurial community. Over time, community programs may strengthen regional networks and develop natural collaboration.
"Maker spaces" are a specialized community-based innovative concept that emphasizes collaborative experimental environments that include physical incubator aspects. Outside of academia, maker spaces have emerged nationally and globally, including the Resistor in New
York City and the Hacker Dojo near San Francisco. These facilities provide a venue to mingle and meet around creative projects. In academia, the MIT Hobby Shop was founded in 1937 as a collection of wood and metal tools for community designs and creations. This facility remains vibrant, completed an expansion in 2013, and provides shared access to many modem machines.
In the capital region, the Tech Valley Center of Gravity was founded in early 2013 as a
"federation of makers, hackers, crafters, and artists who share camaraderie, space, and resources
88

to do our tinkering." This facility provides access to community resources for innovative enterprises. According to the 2013 Regional Economic Development Council (EDC) award report, the Center of Gravity will receive over $500,000 in grants to expand operations and services.
Entrepreneurial acceleration is a recently emerging concept to quickly develop entrepreneurial skills and ventures. Feld (2012) distinguishes between acceleration and incubation, emphasizing that incubation provides resources to sustain ventures, while acceleration jump starts new ventures. Both incubators and accelerators are intended to "foster economic development," but support entrepreneurship for different purposes and in different ways. Professor Fiona Murray from MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Laboratory emphasizes acceleration to identify promising ventures before substantial resources have been committed.
The Global Accelerator Network (GAN) was established in 2011, and encompasses approximately fifty accelerator organizations worldwide modeled after Feld's TechStars accelerator. GAN does not encompass all accelerators, and other recognizable implementations include Y Combinator, MassChallenge and Seedcamp.
Many well-known entrepreneurial accelerators have been successful with internet-related ventures, and emphasize quick skills in a short period of time through a "cohort" program offering. The underlying implementation mechanisms and duration are not uniform. Across different accelerator programs, durations may vary from single weekend events to multi-month immersions with mentoring, coaching, and education experiences that resemble academic and summer camp hybrids.
Accelerator concepts also exhibit different financial models. For-profit accelerators such as TechStars and Y Combinator take venture equity, while non-profit accelerators such as
MassChallenge do not. However, both financial models attempt to improve the underlying venture health, and produce a stronger entrepreneurial community. In comparison, simple monetary prize competitions are less likely to contribute to venture health because they do not support the full development path.
89

Academic entrepreneurial accelerators are organized around the incentives and "assets" that already exist within the institutional environment (Feld 2012). Academic institutions have traditionally focused on research and teaching with laboratories, faculty, libraries, and students.
Academic accelerator environments leverage this infrastructure and environment, and prepare students to rapidly engage in entrepreneurial roles. This reinforces the education and graduation paradigm, and provides a deadline for venture progress.
During the MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Laboratory (REAL), Professor
Fiona Murray, Faculty Director of the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, explained that the MIT Global Founders Skills Accelerator (GFSA) provided seed funding at "milestones," advising, mentoring, and short-term learning experiences for thirteen student ventures in 2013.
Bill Aulet highlights how MIT has realigned programs to allow students to "build their entrepreneurial knowledge and skills so they reach escape velocity after graduation" (Feld 2012).
In the capital region, the Innogen accelerator was established in association with Union Graduate
College in Schenectady in 2011, as reported in the Albany Business Review.
Extending academic accelerator concepts within the capital region to quickly develop innovative entrepreneurial student ventures could leverage existing stakeholders. Academic institutions already influence the regional economy, and regional networks could flourish through an accelerator model. Existing institutional incubators represent entrepreneurial commitment, but focus on a later complementary stage of the entrepreneurial puzzle.
Finally, all regions are not the same. Single institution accelerators that have worked in larger regions may not directly transfer to the capital region.
90

5.2
The analysis and concept selection process should guide implementers through concepts based on identified underlying system requirements, and inspire regional academic entrepreneurial ecosystem development.
First, academic physical incubator concepts emphasize rich resource environments such as office and laboratory facilities, and business support services such as internet access, library privileges, and supplier relationships. Physical incubator models may be single institution initiatives (concept A) or network initiatives across multiple academic institutions that combine resources and expertise within the region (concept B). Institutional maker spaces are a physical concept that emphasizes collaborative opportunities and resources for innovative development
(concept C). While successful maker spaces have been established outside of academia, this analysis only concerns maker spaces within the academic entrepreneurship system boundary.
Second, academic virtual incubator concepts emphasize entrepreneurship programming such as seminars, entrepreneurial support services such as entrepreneurs in residence and mentoring, and industry networking opportunities. Unlike the physical incubator concepts, virtual incubator concept models do not provide dedicated physical facilities and resources.
Virtual incubator models also may be single institution initiatives (concept D) or network initiatives across institutions (concept E), and operate with the interpretation that skills and support are the critical factors for student entrepreneurial venture success.
Third, accelerators provide short-term experiences to rapidly develop innovations and entrepreneurial ventures. Accelerator models may also include single institution initiatives
(concept F) and network models across institutions (concept G). They are distinguished from traditional incubators as programs based on entrepreneurial teams, seed funding, standard development tracks, a specified period of time, and angel investment potential.
To analyze and select concepts, a Pugh-style score is applied that indicates how each concept contributes to each underlying system requirement, with (+2) indicating highly positive contribution and (-2) indicating highly negative contribution. According to the earlier system engineering analysis, requirement ranks were previously calculated based on weighted stakeholder needs. The sum-product of each score and requirement rank provides total scores for each concept model, which are then presented in competition-style order (Ist,
2 nd,
3
rd...) to
91

indicate emerging concepts. Higher scores and lower ranks indicate better performance compared to underlying system requirements.
While different approaches to Pugh-style analyses may exist, we argue that this approach best accounts for the underlying requirement rank differences, while not causing any requirement to completely dominate the analysis. Furthermore, it is important for lower ranked requirements to still be reflected in the final results.
Initially, previously discussed concepts A, B, C, D, E, F, and G are analyzed separately using the described Pugh-style method. Concept selection is a multi-stage process, with possible future recombination to capture strengths from multiple emerging initial concepts. The initial academic entrepreneurial ecosystem requirements from Chapter 4 are summarized by requirement rank in Table 8. These requirements are used to analyze each concept model reflected in Table 9. The reasons for particular concept scores for this analysis are provided in the Appendix.
Existing implementations may already include aspects of multiple concept models, and may also undergo continual development. During initial academic entrepreneurial ecosystem concept selection, it is important to clarify that concept models intend to capture distinguishable score differences, and do not directly correspond to any specific existing implementations in the capital region or elsewhere.
For analysis purposes, physical models are assessed only on the resources and facilities that stimulate student entrepreneurial ventures, virtual models are assessed on programming services that support entrepreneurs, and accelerators are assessed only on short-term acceleration features. While implemented concepts may combine multiple models, these combinations will be assessed in a later section.
92

Req. # System Requirement Description
3.5 Venture shall receive angel investment after $[x] seed capital expenditure
4.1
4
Student entrepreneurs shall spend at least [x] hours per week in
"hacking" spaces
3.1 Seed capital shall be no less than [x] per venture
4.2 Students shall meet [x] new and experienced entrepreneurs per week
Ventures shall engage at least [x] percent of networks from each primary (4) capital region county
1.4 [x] percent of entrepreneurial courses shall be taught by adjunct industry instructors
2.1 Institution shall facilitate IP and license in exchange for [x] percent
1.1 Entrepreneurship instruction shall cover [x] subjects
1.2 Students shall complete at least [x] credits in entrepreneurship research for degree
1.3 Students shall complete paid entrepreneurial internship for [x]
3.2 Ventures shall obtain [x] percent of seed funding from grants
4.3 Entrepreneurs shall meet [x] potential customers and suppliers per week
4.4 Ventures shall obtain [x] percent of support from "crowd" sources
2.2 Ventures shall share [x] percent of development and testing
2.3
2.3 industry average
2.4 At least [x] percent of R&D shall use institutional space and
2.4 equipment
1.5 Venture shall consume less than [x] hours during academic term
3.3 Academic institution shall retain [x] percent of venture ownership
3.4 Entrepreneurs shall borrow no more than [x] per year
Req. Rank
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
4
5
5
10
9
8
7
7
5
5
[x] denotes configurable system parameter
Table 8. Summary of ranked academic entrepreneurial ecosystem requirements.
93

J) c)
*z
.
q
C-V
Zr
., r
(z)
AO v
4S6
CV
Req.# Req. A
3.5
4.1
3.1
4.2
10
10
9
9
4.5
1.4
2.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
3.2
4.3
4.4
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.5
3.3
8
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
2
1
1
-1
-1
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
2
2
3.4 1 -1
Concept Score* 33
Concept Rank** 4
-1
2
0
-2
* higher is more important
** lower is more important
B
-2
0
-1
22
6
1
2
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
1
-1
0
-1
1
0
-1
C
-1
-2
0
20
7
1
2
2
2
-1
0
-2
1
-1
0
-2
-1
1
2
0
1
F
-1
1
1
1
0
0
-1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
59
2
1
1
1
1
E
-1
0
0
27
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
-1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
D
0
1
0
50
3
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
G
-1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
81
Cj
Table 9. Initial academic entrepreneurial ecosystem concept selection analysis by ranked requirement.
94

The initial concept selection reveals critical model and service patterns. Network models that span regional institutions may have broader regional access, which is critical for early-stage student entrepreneurs and ventures. Meanwhile, single institution models account for specialized expertise and resources, which may be critical for more established student entrepreneurial ventures.
The network accelerator (concept G) and the single institution accelerator (concept F) models emerged from the concept selection with higher scores for funding and entrepreneurial network requirements, especially in the network model that leverages broader regional effects. In the initial system concept selection, network accelerators (concept G) emerged as the highest scored concept based on contributions to highly ranked funding and entrepreneurial network requirements.
Entrepreneurial accelerators have an established funding process that separates strong and weak ventures. All ventures in accelerators receive seed funding for initial milestones
(requirement 3.1), and the prescribed venture acceleration path increases angel investment likelihood following graduation (requirement 3.5). Network accelerators may be able to maximize funding through broader regional connections, especially in areas with less active risk capital such as the capital region.
Accelerators also provide concentrated doses of entrepreneurial exposure during short program durations. They may attract participation from broader regional entrepreneurial experts
(requirements 4.2 and 4.3) based on shorter-term commitments, and facilitate student entrepreneurial interactions in highly collaborative and intense environments (requirement 4.1).
The incubator models emerged with higher scores related to expertise and resources that facilitate venture competitiveness. For example, incubators demonstrate strong potential contributions to traditional coursework, internship placement, industry expertise, government grants, intellectual property, facilities and resource requirements.
Physical incubators (concepts A, B and C) emphasized environmental factors and virtual incubators (concepts D and E) emphasized entrepreneurial capacity development. Single institution virtual incubators (concept D) and physical incubators (concept A) also emerged from their respective service categories. Network models were less compelling for factors that depend on institutional specialization and student proximity during the academic term.
95

Institutional maker spaces align with innovation and networking requirements, but integrate less within the academia. Facilities such as the Hacker Dojo and Tech Valley Center of
Gravity provide exceptional opportunity, and the networked presence within the overall community is a significant factor, but just not within the ecosystem boundary.
These results indicate that both access to entrepreneurial expertise and resources matter for different reasons, and at different levels.
5.2.2
The initial concept selection revealed two primary implications. First, network accelerators that engage academic institutions broadly across the region demonstrate compelling potential to select promising innovative student entrepreneurs for intensive development during short-term programs. Second, both virtual and physical incubators at single institutions leverage specialized expertise and resources to support sustained venture development.
Based on these implications, accelerators and incubators exhibit different purposes in venture development stages. To analyze these interdependencies, an additional Pugh-style analysis combines concepts G, D, and A. This combined concept assumes that a network accelerator develops a cohort of student entrepreneurial ventures annually, while a fraction of accelerated ventures graduate into virtual and physical incubation services at institutions with specific expertise areas.
This analysis attempts to uncover the emerging top-level academic entrepreneurial ecosystem properties based on underlying subsystem concept model interactions. As controls, a combination of concepts D and A represents single institution incubator that provides both physical and virtual incubation services, and a combination of concepts F, D, and A represents a single institution model that performs acceleration, physical and virtual incubation services. The emerging combination concept selection analysis uses the original ranked academic entrepreneurial ecosystem requirements previously summarized in Table 8. The emerging combination concept analysis is reflected in Table 10. The reasons for particular concept scores are provided in the Appendix.
96

CD ~1 -t CD

Concept model combinations help to understand underlying subsystem interactions within the overall academic entrepreneurial ecosystem. Simply adding scores does not appropriately capture these underlying interactions. While accelerators quickly jumpstart innovative and entrepreneurial capacities, incubators sustain this impact longer-term by leveraging unique institutional specialties. While these subsystem interactions may not always be constructive, they impact the focus, interaction, and venture stages.
First, accelerators and incubators have complementary focus. Accelerators emphasize quick venture development, while incubators may emphasize sustainable development. From this perspective, the incubator may bridge technical development that the accelerator cannot achieve within a short program timeframe. Core entrepreneurial exposure from the accelerator experience can guide technical development in the incubation experience.
Second, accelerators and incubators facilitate complementary interactions. Opportunities to rapidly connect entrepreneurs during a short-term network accelerator program may sustain more specialized long-term relationships in an incubator environment. "Hacking" experiences in the accelerator may allow student entrepreneurs to better collaborate around specialized resources and expertise in an incubator environment. However, as an example of destructive interaction between subsystems, institutional intellectual property may be more complex for ventures that transition from network accelerators to single institution incubators.
Third, short-term accelerators and longer-term incubators complement sequential venture stages. Academic institutions can support promising accelerated ventures through incubation, while government grants may prefer enterprises with demonstrated concepts. From an academic schedule perspective, student entrepreneurs can accelerate during the summer and transition into academically integrated incubation environments during the regular term. In combination, physical and virtual incubator mechanisms serve as a system real option, triggered by successful early-phase venture acceleration.
The difference between the network accelerator combination (concept G x D x A) compared to either the single institution accelerator combination (concept F x D x A) or the nonaccelerator combination is significant. The network accelerator incorporates broad regional networking alongside institutional specialization, which is reflected in multiple critical system requirements. Simply adding acceleration within the institution does not provide nearly as significant complementary effects.
98

This discussion has provided examples, but there are many ways to implement underlying accelerator and incubator concepts. Incubator concepts that leverage expertise and resources must facilitate access for student entrepreneurs, versus other competing institutional initiatives. Physical incubation implementations may provide dedicated resources for student entrepreneurs, or access to existing institutional facilities.
The critical factor in ecosystem design is underlying subsystem alignment to produce the desired emergent properties. To achieve this alignment, institutions must envision the overall regional strategy for student innovative entrepreneurial venture development, and incorporate opportunities based on unique strengths and capabilities.
99

6:
The New York State capital region is a historically developed government, academic, and industrial configuration with institutional linkage and influence over regional economic activity.
However, national and global economic competitive landscapes have changed, and regional cluster and agglomeration literature indicates that productivity and network dependencies are critical for regional economic competitiveness and resilience. Furthermore, these factors should emerge, rather than rely on formal institutional boundaries and relationships.
Organically developed innovative entrepreneurial ventures provide potential for sustainable growth and jobs. The MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Program has taken the lead to help develop regional innovative and entrepreneurial capacities based on unique strengths and stakeholder linkage. The concepts from this program are an important foundation for this investigation.
In the capital region, thousands of graduates emerge from influential regional academic institutions annually, and graduate retention is essential for innovative and entrepreneurial capacities linkage. Based on social networking analysis, a significant fraction of innovative and entrepreneurial graduates have departed, and therefore it is important to develop regional opportunities to sustain future graduates. Entrepreneurship is an opportunity that will continually benefit the region.
Academic institutions throughout the capital region have established entrepreneurial ecosystems to facilitate student entrepreneurship, and have demonstrated initiative and leadership through these programs. However, many programs exist within single institutions, and a strategy is necessary to rapidly develop underlying regional dependencies between student entrepreneurs and beyond institutional boundaries. These factors contribute to underlying academic entrepreneurial ecosystem stakeholder needs.
100

Entrepreneurial ecosystem implementations vary based on the underlying regional architecture, and a systems engineering analysis identified ecosystem requirements, and evaluated potential academic concepts for the capital region. While a network accelerator and institutional incubator combination emerged from concept selection, different concepts may be appropriate in different regions. For example, MassChallenge in the much larger Boston region combines accelerator and incubation elements outside an academic environment, and therefore does not rely on dominant institution support.
When embarking on this project, I recognized that influencing the perspectives of twenty academic institutions, government, and established industry in the capital region would be a challenge. It is always possible to find more data, produce counterexamples, or argue different perspectives. The intent of this investigation is not to provide all the answers or point fingers, but to demonstrate systems analysis principles that inspire discussion about sustainable regional entrepreneurial strategies for the capital region. Based on that assumption, the following recommendations for regional policymakers, academic leadership, business leadership, and student entrepreneurs discuss implications from this investigation.
101

Regardless of any particular concepts discussed, this investigation is not a criticism of existing policymakers who have tirelessly worked to bring opportunities to upstate New York.
The right decisions for innovative entrepreneurship may not be obvious or easy, and I hope that policymakers will consider these recommendations regardless of short-term incentives.
First, the necessary organization to integrate and compete within the national and global economies has changed. Institutions have crumbled, and embedded productivity and network dependencies provide regional sustainability and resilience. Institutionalism makes the region slow and vulnerable. We need a portfolio of opportunities developed from a continuously rejuvenating fabric of innovative entrepreneurial ventures.
Second, entrepreneurial acceleration requires funding, and returns will emerge over time.
Regional development funding has occurred within the region, but we need more contribution for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial ventures need enough. It may seem risky to just "give" money to entrepreneurs, but calculated risk will make the biggest difference.
Third, investments should be diversified, but not compartmentalized. They should turn regional weakness into opportunities, not reinforce existing strengths. Infrastructure and job training sound great, but entrepreneurial returns will continually compound. Advocate for entrepreneurs, and they will expand opportunities throughout the region.
Fourth, academic stakeholders are critical in the capital region, but institutional zones cannot be the only opportunity. We need entrepreneurship everywhere. Vacant buildings in our cities and towns are begging for occupancy. Entrepreneurs need flexibility, better transportation, and more efficiency. Not a hodgepodge of bureaucratic red tape. Make it irresistible for innovative entrepreneurs to integrate within the New York State capital region.
102

New York State academic institutions are world class, especially in the capital region.
Most other regions do not even compare, and that is because of the work that you have done.
Modern infrastructure and industry are important, but it is important to continue to evolve academic entrepreneurial ecosystems. Remember that competitiveness has changed, and our future depends on new practices.
First, the academic entrepreneurial ecosystem design must align with stakeholder needs.
The system must be open, not closed. It must be regionally networked, not institutional. It must accelerate ventures as quickly as possible and reduce underlying risk. Achieving these factors requires new culture, reduced formality, and a regional strategy that incorporates all stakeholders.
Second, question institutionalism. There is so much opportunity beyond the campus. Let the institutional guard down, at least for entrepreneurship. Encourage students to go to other campuses, network regionally, and collaborate on challenging projects with entrepreneurial potential. Aspects of this have already happened in the capital region, and institutions will be more competitive if they continue.
Third, network acceleration components can align with institutional models. Physical and virtual incubators leverage important institutional technology and resources for entrepreneurial success. A regionally networked acceleration strategy could focus on improving incubated ventures outside the academic term, amplify existing programs, and engage entrepreneurial students across the region.
Fourth, advocate for entrepreneurial students with larger established industry. Industry comes to academia for assumed advantages, and this will continue. Leverage those relationships to help student entrepreneurs access resources, inputs, laboratories, and technology. Arrange for customer and supplier relationships. Intervene for intellectual property. Resources are not everything, but they matter.
103

Regional, national and global competitiveness have changed. Prior assumptions about stability, monopoly, technology, and sustainability are irrelevant. The New York State capital region has so much potential.
First, you do not have a choice. New innovative entrepreneurs will always chase you, and will create their own opportunities. To compete, you must move quickly to develop new networks, skills, and capabilities across and beyond your organizations. Innovative and entrepreneurial capacities are abundant in the capital region, and you need them.
Second, integrate with the entrepreneurs. Follow your fellow business leaders who have made the first step. Get involved to stay competitive. You can give back, but it is not charity.
You will learn as much from innovative entrepreneurs as they will learn from you. You will be involved in the most recent, exciting technology developments that will transform your perspective and competitiveness.
Third, do not hide behind complementary assets and intellectual property. Entrepreneurs will find ways around them. The products and services today will not be the same tomorrow, and you need to know the possibilities. Entrepreneurs will be your customers and suppliers, and will help you to become more regionally productive, innovative, and integrated.
Fourth, leverage all regional stakeholders. Build the underlying dependencies that create regional competitive advantage. Expand your connections across all academic institutions, and develop opportunities to collaborate with networks of innovative and entrepreneurial students.
104

Your fellow entrepreneurs in the capital region have acknowledged that this is a long, hard road. It is frustrating and risky. Students you have a fresh perspective, and your entrepreneurial success depends on that advantage.
First, other stakeholders and institutions may not align with your entrepreneurial needs. If they do not provide the necessary opportunities, then seek them elsewhere. The capital region has many potential opportunities and experiences. Successful entrepreneurs will be excited to help you. Facilities such as the Tech Valley Center of Gravity provide exceptional opportunities to innovate. If you cannot find what you need, then band together to make it.
Second, regardless of institutional affiliation, go out in the region and become as networked as possible. Cross the institutional boundaries, even if you don't need to. Break the rules, and you will rewrite them. Meet student entrepreneurs from other regional cities and universities with similar interests. Reach people in the community who will help you. Use guerrilla tactics to find resources and get things done. Find the new programs in the region and use them. Become the community that you need to be successful.
Third, advocate for yourselves. Regional development prioritizes many projects and initiatives. Inform your policymakers and leaders about what matters. Demonstrate to established industry that they need you, if not now, then in a few years. Find the mentors who care (they exist). Go to an accelerator. Take advantage of momentum from past regional entrepreneurial successes.
Finally, do not give up. Innovative entrepreneurship is a critical economic element, and there is so much potential in the capital region. New York needs you much more than it realizes.
105

Institution City/Town (primary)
Albany Law School
Bryant and Stratton College
Empire State College
Albany
Colonie
Saratoga Springs
Hudson Valley Community College
Maria College
Russell Sage College
Troy
Albany
Troy
Schenectady Schenectady County Community College
Skidmore College
University at Albany (SUNY)
Saratoga Springs
Albany
Chamber City/Town County
Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber of
Commerce
Albany Albany
106

Schenectady County Chamber
Owae -116 a
Southern Saratoga County Chamber
Colonie Chamber of Commerce
Schenectady
Clifton Park
Latham
Schenectady
Saratoga
Albany
Company City/Town
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Air Products
Albany Valve & Fitting
Arsenal Business & Technology Partnership
Blasch Precision Ceramics
CHA
City School District of Albany
Troy
Glenmont
Schenectady
Watervliet
Menands
Albany
Albany
Ebara Technologies
General Electric
Hewlett Packard
Hudson Valley Community College (HVCC)
IEM Corporation
InterScience
Lockheed Martin
MTECH Labs
Marktech Optoelectronics
National Grid
Albany
Albany
Albany
Albany
Troy
Troy
Albany
Ballston Spa
Latham
Menands
107

Northeast Health
PlugPower
Precision Flow Technologies
Sony
Siena College
Tech Valley High School
Trinity Alliance
Valutek
Vistec Lithography
Albany
Latham
Albany
Albany
Loudonville
Rensselaer
Albany
Albany
Watervliet
City/town County
Alplaus
Averill Park
Ballston Spa
Schenectady
Rensselaer
Berne
Brunswick
Charlton
Coeymans
Saratoga
Albany
Rensselaer
Colonie
Day
Duane Lake
Saratoga
Albany
Albany
Saratoga
Schenectady
108

East Glenville
East Nassau
Galway
Grafton
Greenfield
Hadley
Hampton Manor
Hoosick Falls
Malta
Mechanicville
Milton
Nassau
New Scotland
North Greenbush
Pattersonville-Rotterdam Junction
Pittstown
Princetown
Ravena
Rensselaerville
Round Lake
Saratoga
Schenectady
Rensselaer
Saratoga
Rensselaer aOga
Saratoga
Saratoga
Rensselaer
Rensselaer
Saratoga
Saratoga
Saratoga
Rensselaer
Albany
Rensselaer
Schenectady
Rensselaer
Schenectady
Albany
Albany
Saratoga
Saratoga
109

Schaghticoke
Schodack
Scotia
Stephentown
Troy
Voorheesville
Watervliet
Westerlo
Wynantskill
Rensselaer
Rensselaer
Schenectady
Rensselaer
Rensselaer
Albany
Albany
Albany
Rensselaer
Incubator
Academic
Afati
Affiliation
City County
N/A Albany Albany Harriman Research and Tech
Campus
East Greenbush Technology Park N/A East Greenbush Rensselaer
Emerging Ventures Ecosystem (EVE) RPI
Innogen Business Accelerator
East Campus Biotech Business
Incubator
Incubators for Collaborating &
Leveraging Energy and
Nanotechnology (iCLEAN)
Union University
SUNY CNSE
Troy
Schenectady
SUNY at Albany East Greenbush Rensselaer
Albany
Rensselaer
Schenectady
Albany
110

M twPiunse " m s ne , PrOMM 1n6 em N -usInem Dweskpm.rw
Where they live
Unded States
Greater Now York CNy Area
Amany. NOEW YO- Area
Greate r Hoson Area
San V ancsco Bay Area total graduat
UbS
29
24
Where they work
: location d
43 r
Renmisrt Peltlechne Instfule
Regenefon Priarmaecutcals
See
TY
What they do
3
Hgsearcl
Inormuton Tecnnoogy
OPerations
Consuting halea ntepreneurship
Inane
Mtrketlngq
Prouct Nonaer:ent
MAsIneSS DevelopMenft
71
S9
35
28
27
20
13 j
189 students & alumni found Hide my connwcions
Note that the institution has been deliberately hidden from the screenshot.
Stakeholder Type Interviews
Academia
Established enterprise
Incubator/accelerator
7
2
6
Note that some interviews covered simultaneous stakeholders types with the same person.
111

1.2
1. j
1.2
1.2
1.2
Req. # Concept Score Explanation
B 0
M 9--mo
Educational programming not part of physical model is.
D 1 Coordinated educational programs, long term
1.1
E Coordinated educational programs, long term
FDA
1
1 Short/long term, narrower focus in single institution.
GDA
B
2
Short-term intensive instruction with broad focus during accelerator, with sustained focus in virtual incubator
1 Physical environment encourages research
D
E
FDA
GDA
SA.
B
0 Lack of physical environment
O Lack of physical environment
I It .
",~~
~
'I' j-0
'A
1 Research opportunities in physical incubator
.
1 Research opportunities in physical incubator
: -'
1.3
D
2 Opportunities for internships within incubated firms, broader access to firms
1 Opportunities for internships within incubated firms
1.3
1.3
E
1.3
FDA
GDA
2 Opportunities for internships within incubated firms, access to firms broader
1 Opportunities for internships within incubated firms
1 Opportunities for internships within incubated firms
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.
1.5
B
D
E
FDA
GDA
A
B
1 Network of broader network of potential instructors
1 Emphasis on programming may expand network of instructors
1
-1
Network of instructors, but possibly less intense program
Narrower connection to potential instructors
2
Network accelerator has broad connections to entrepreneurial expertise, while virtual incubator has connections to specialized industrial expertise
-2 Likely off campus, and time consuming all year
112

2.3
2.4
2.4
21
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
23
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
1.3
1.5
IS
1.5
1.5
C
D
E
FDA
A
B
FDA
GDA
B
D
D
D
E
FDA
GDA
B
D
E
E
FDA
GDA
B
D
-1 £ campw, 1k&$yism natis
0 All year, students can attend as desired
4W
-1
'A
Likely off campus, all year, students can attend as desired
2 Accelerate during summer, and sustain during regular term with integrated coursework
Accelerate during summer, and sustain during regular term with integrated coursework
O
1 Potential uncertainty of ownership due to network model
1 Innovation developed within university programs
-1
2
Potential uncertainty of ownership due to network model
Technology within single institution
-I
2 Institution owns physical resources, sharing
1 Possible ability to negotiate resources with institution
0
Unclear dynamics for intellectual property in transition from consortium accelerator to single institution incubator
Too decentralized to effectively negotiate resources with institutions
2 Institutional resources at all stages
2 Institutional resources at all stages
1 Shared physical incubator space and resources
N
0 Not in model
1 Not in model
Potential to share resources in accelerator environment, physical
1 incubation environment, and to find resources through virtual incubator
Potential to share resources in accelerator environment, physical
1 incubation environment, and to find resources through virtual incubator
2 Physical resource emphasis
1 Institutional connections
113

3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
Js
3.3
E
FDA
GDA
FDA
GDA
B
C _
D
B
D
E
E
FDA
GDA
B
D
E
FDA
GDA
B
D
BA
E
FDA
0 Physical resources not part of model
Short-term efficiencies during accelerator, and sustained efficiencies through physical incubator
Short-term efficiencies during accelerator, and sustained efficiencies through physical incubator
* 1~Sb
~ _&AMA,~
0 Typically does not provide funding
0 Typically does not provide funding
0 Typically does not provide funding
1
'K
Accelerators provide seed capital, possibly smaller pool due to smaller network
2 Accelerators provide seed capital
0 Less intimate connections to institutional relationships
1 Access to grants through institutional connections
0 Less intimate connections to institutional relationships
Accelerator provides for quick concept development, which can be translated into grant proposals during incubation
Accelerator provides for quick concept development, which can be translated into grant proposals during incubation
0 No clear link between specific institution and venture ownership
1 Partial link between institutional programs and venture ownership
0 No clear link between specific institution and venture ownership
-0
0
0
2
-Institutions can select to invest in successful ventures after acceleration. Clearer institutional ownership
Institutions can select to invest in successful ventures after acceleration, possible unclear ownership
4 ~ ~ ~
Higher cost to access physical incubator
~
Lower cost, no resources
Lower cost, no resources
Acceleration provides funds and quick concept development, which implies potential for sustained funding and access to
114

3A
3.4
G
GDA resources during incubated concept refinement
2
Acceleration provides funds and quick concept development, which implies potential for sustained funding and access to resources during incubated concept refinement
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
FDA
GDA
GDA
B
A
D
4.2
4.2
4.1
B
C
D
DA
B
C
D
-1
Physical incubators typically charge fees to ventures to cover facilities, which would increase the amount of seed capital rernired nrinr tn anael inveqtment
E
F
-
FDA
0 Virtual incubators typically provide programming services, do not incur typical facility costs of physical incubators.
which
0
Virtual incubators typically provide programming services, do not incur typical facility costs of physical incubators.
which
Accelerators provide initial seed investment and integration with
1 angel investors, but smaller network reduces changes of investment.
2
Accelerators provide initial seed investment and integration with angel investors, who may be further attracted by future university incubation potential
Physical environment, potential logistics issues getting students from all campuses
0 No physical spaces
0 No physical spaces
2 Short-term hacking in accelerator supplemented by long-term physical resources and collaboration
Short-term hacking in accelerator supplemented by long-term physical resources and collaboration
Entrepreneurs interacting with each other within the incubator.
Limited turnover, but broad reach.
1 Programs designed to connect new and experienced entrepreneurs.
115

4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
44-
4.3
E
FDA
GDA
A
B
0
Programs designed to connect new and experienced entrepreneurs, put potential logistical issues getting students there from different campuses.
Short-term intensive networking during accelerator becomes
1 long-term networking through virtual incubation, but smaller network reach.
2
Short-term intensive networking during accelerator becomes long-term networking through virtual incubation, broad network reach.
0
No clear correlation between meeting customers/suppliers physical spaces.
and
D
A
E
'F
FDA
1 Coordinated programs with industry, potentially customers and suppliers
1 Coordinated programs with industry, potentially customers and suppliers ft 4.
Intensive short-term networking during accelerator is combined with long-term relationships in virtual incubator
GDA
B
D
E
FDA
( DA
B
D
E
A,
0
0
Intensive short-term networking during accelerator is combined with long-term relationships in virtual incubator
1 Physical prototyping encourages crowd funding
No clear relationship
No clear relationship
1 Physical prototyping encourages crowd funding
1 Physical prototyping encourages crowd funding
0 Networking not part of physical model
0 Networking will be limited by institutional reach
1 Networking will be expanded to other counties
F5 DA
GDA
0 Single institution, no clear contribution to cross regional activity
0 tt~lw*ON~
2 Regional networking during acceleration phase will integrate more connected entrepreneurs into the incubation phase
116

1904. Schenectady Electrical Handbook: The General Electric Company. Schenectady Digital
History Archive. Available: http://www.schenectadyhistory.org/resources/seh/ge.html.
2010. The Decade in Review: New York State's Labor Markets, 2000-2010. Albany, NY: New
York State Department of Labor. Available: http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/PDFs/NYS-
Decade-in-Review-Full-Report.pdf.
2012. Degree-Credit Enrollment by Permanent Residence of Students. Albany, NY: New York
State Education Department. Available: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/oris/origin/DegreeCreditEnrollmentbyPermanentResiden ceforaSelectedlnstitution2012.pdf.
2011. Annual Report. Startup Weekend. Available: http://startupweekend.org/wpcontent/blogs.dir/l/files/2011/07/Official-Startup-Weekend-Report-2011 .pdf.
2012. Meet the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Class of 2012: An Overview of the
2 0 6 th
Commencement. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Available: http://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/3045.
2012. Student Origin, New York State. Albany, NY: New York State Education Department.
Available: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/oris/origin/home.html.
2013. Annual Report: Meeting New York's Energy Challenges. Report No. GEN-NYSERDA- ar2012/13-r- 1-v-1. Albany, NY: New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority. Available: http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publications/-
/media/Files/Publications/Annual-Reports-and-Financial-Statements/2013-Annual-
Report.pdf.
2013. Regional Economic Development Council Awards. Albany, NY: The New NY Works for
Business. Available: http://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/assets/documents/2013REDCBooklet.pdf.
2013. State & County Quick Facts. United States Census Bureau. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.
Aaron, K. Chip Facility Bound For Albany $403m Research Center Expected To Attract High-
Tech Firms, Jobs. The Times Union. July 18, 2002.
117

Albany Molecular Research (AMRI). Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.amriglobal.com/.
Allen, P. BESS Technologies Receives $218,000 Grant For Battery Research. Albany Business
Review. May 1, 2013. Available: http://www.bizournals.com/albany/news/2013/04/30/bess-technologies-receives-
218000.html.
Aulet, B., and F. Murray. May 2013. A Tale of Two Entrepreneurs: Understanding Differences in the Types of Entrepreneurship in the Economy. The Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation.
Bathelt, H., A. Malmberg, and P. Maskell. 2004. Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global
Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation. Progress in Human Geography. 28: 1:
31-56.
Business Opportunities for Success Summit (BOSS), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved
January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://rpihub.org/business-opportunities-tosuccess-summit-home/.
Bresnahan, T., A. Gambardella, and A. L. Saxenian. 2001. 'Old Economy' Inputs for 'New
Economy' Outcomes: Cluster Formation in the New Silicon Valleys. Industrial and
Corporate Change. 10: 4:835-860.
Business Incubator Association of New York State. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World
Wide Web: http://bianys.com/.
Center for Automation Technologies and Systems (CATS). Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cats.rpi.edu/program.
Center for Economic Growth. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ceg.org/.
Cornell University, College of Engineering. Available: http://www.engineering.cornell.edu/.
Cooper, R. Sch'dy Incubator Will Focus On Seed Money For Its Tech Startups. Albany Business
Review. April 8, 2011. Available: http://www.bizjoumals.com/albany/printedition/2011/04/08/schdy-incubator-will-focus-on-seed.html.
Corporation & Business Entity Database. New York State Department of State, Division of
Corporations, State Records & UCC. Available: http://www.dos.ny.gov/corps/busentity_search.html.
Crystal IS. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cisuvc.com/about/company-overview.
Degree Credit Enrollment. New York State Education Department. Available: http://eservices.nysed.gov/orisre/rcreditenrollment.jsp.
118

Doloreux, D., and S. Parto. 2005. Regional Innovation Systems: Current Discourse and
Unresolved Issues. Technology in Society. 27: 2:133-153.
Eastern NY Angels. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.easternnyangels.com/.
E2TAC. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.e2tac.org/e2tac/About.aspx.
Ecovative Design. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ecovativedesign.com/about/.
Emerging Ventures Ecosystem (EVE), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved December 7,
2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.rpi.edu/about/eve/about.html.
Empire State Development Technology/Business Incubators. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.empire.state.ny.us/WhyNewYork/Businesslncubators.html
The ERC Program. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://ercassoc.org/content/erc-program.
Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B. R. C. Terra. 2000. The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of the Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial
Paradigm. Research Policy. 29: 313-330.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chapters 8-9: 109-139.
Feldman, M. P., J. Francis, and J. Bercovitz. 2005. Creating a Cluster While Building a Firm:
Entrepreneurs and the Formation of Industrial Clusters. Regional Studies. 39: 1:129-141.
Gans, J. S., and S. Stern. 2003. The Product Market and the Market for "Ideas":
Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs. Research Policy. 32: 2:333-
350.
Global Accelerator Network. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://gan.co/.
GlobalSpec. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.globalspec.com/AboutUs.
Kodak. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.kodak.com/.
Hacker Dojo. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.hackerdojo.com/.
Incubator for New Ventures in Emerging Sciences and Technology (INVEST). Retrieved
December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sage.edu/invest/.
119

Inventory of Registered Programs. New York State Education Department. Available: http://www.nysed.gov/heds/IRPSL 1.html.
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.knollslab.com/.
Major Areas, Current Employment Estimates. New York State Department of Labor. Available: http://www.labor.ny.gov/stats/lscesmaj.shtm.
MapInfo. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mapinfo.com/.
MassChallenge. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://masschallenge.org/vision.
May, A. 1971. George Eastman and the University of Rochester: His Role, His Influence.
University of Rochester Library. Available: http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=3598.
Mergent Intellect (Dun & Bradstreet). Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the MIT Intranet: http://libraries.mit.edu/get/intellect.
MIT Global Founders' Skills Accelerator (GFSA). Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World
Wide Web: http://entrepreneurship.mit.edu/our-resources/mit-global-founders-skillsaccelerator/.
MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Laboratory (REAL). Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://real.mit.edu/.
MIT Regional Entrepreneurial Acceleration Program (REAP). Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://reap.mit.edu/.
MIT's Most Famous Donor, "Mr. Smith"-George Eastman, MIT Museum. Retrieved
December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://museum.mit.edu/150/72.
MIT Hobby Shop. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://studentlife.mit.edu/hobbyshop.
MIT System Design and Management. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://sdm.mit.edu/.
MIT Technology Licensing Office. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://web.mit.edu/tlo/www/.
Mohawk. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mohawkconnects.com/.
Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrma/installations/nsasaratoga-springs.html.
New York State Battery and Energy Storage Technology (NY-BEST) Consortium. Retrieved
December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ny-best.org/AboutNY-BEST
120

New York State Business Plan Competition. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.sunycnse.com/NYSBusinessPlanCompetition.aspx.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Retrieved
December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/.
New York State Regional Economic Development Councils (EDC). Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://regionalcouncils.ny.gov/.
New York State Thruway. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.thruway.ny.gov/.
NYCResistor. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nycresistor.com/.
Pasko, J. M. RPI Shifts Business Incubator Priorities: Closing Campus Facility To Focus On
Energy, Environment. The Saratogian. February 14, 2010. Available: http://www.saratogian.com/general-news/20100214/rpi-shifts-business-incubatorpriorities-closing-campus-facility-to-focus-on-energy-environment.
PatSnap. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the MIT Intranet: https://libraries.mit.edu/get/patsnap/.
PlugPower. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.plugpower.com/.
Porter, M. E. 1998. Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review.
November-December 1998: 77-90.
Porter, M. E. 2000. "Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a
Global Economy." Economic Development Quarterly. 14: 15: 15-34.
Price Chopper Supermarkets. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pricechopper.com/.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.rpi.edu/.
Rothaermel, F. T., S. D. Agung and L. Jiang. 2007. University Entrepreneurship: A Taxonomy of the Literature. Industrial and Corporate Change. 16: 4: 691-791.
Rulison, L. Plans for Fab 8 Area. The Times Union. November 26, 2013.
Rulison, Larry. Sematech Nears Albany Move. The Times Union. July 11, 2010.
Saratoga Casino and Raceway. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://saratogacasino.com/.
Saxenian, A. L. 1996. Inside-Out: Regional Networks in Silicon Valley and Route 128.
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. 2: 2:41-60.
121

Scopus. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the MIT Intranet: http://www.scopus.com.libproxy.mit.edu/home.url.
Seedcamp. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.seedcamp.com/.
Severino Center for Technological Entrepreneurship, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved
December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://scte.rpi.edu/programs.html.
Skidmore College. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.skidmore.edu.
Smart Lighting Engineering Resource Center (ERC), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved
December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://smartlighting.rpi.edu/.
Stack Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Siena College. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.siena.edu/cie.
START-UP NY. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://startup-ny.com/.
SUNY College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.sunycnse.com/AboutUs.aspx.
Haskins, C., K. Forsberg, M. Krueger, D. Walden, R.D. Hamelin, ed. Systems Engineering
Handbook. San Diego, CA: International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE).
TechStars. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.techstars.com/.
Tech Valley Center of Gravity. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.techvalleycenterofgravity.com/.
UAlbany NanoCollege Launches Solar Energy Development Center. Retrieved December 7,
2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.albany.edu/news/18243.php.
Union College. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.union.edu/.
U.S. Patent Statistics Chart, Calendar Years 1963 2012. United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO). Available: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/usstat.htm.
University at Albany. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.albany.edu/.
Vicarious Visions. Retrieved December 7, 2013 from the World Wide Web: http://www.vvisions.com/.
Xerox. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://www.xerox.com/.
Y Combinator. Retrieved January 7, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://ycombinator.com/.
122