When I was teaching strategic planning in the late 80's and early 90's, Michael Porter's work was an absolute godsend. His writings provided a way to focus discussion and thinking on what competitive strategy was and why it mattered. From there he went on to get involved in economic development, touting the idea of place-based clusters of firms as the focus for future growth. His reputation for his work on competitive strategy gave his economic development work great currency.
Only recently have we begun to realize that the increased importance of global connectivity has made his approach less fruitful. Sometimes reality does follow his model: similar firms in the same location share resources in order to compete. However, these days it seems to be much more common for companies to compete by connecting with other firms anywhere in the world based upon the functions they can perform together, not because they are in the same industry or related industries in the same place.
I'm beginning to wonder if Richard Florida is the next Michael Porter. His work on the "creative class" has been a great help in getting us to focus on the importance of high-value added design related occupations. But it may be getting to the point where Florida's ideas are as much a hindrance as help to thinking about the "talent" question.
The "creative class" is essential, but it is not the only type of talent we need. For example, we have a chronic shortage of welders and machinists in the US. Pushing even more kids into math and science programs and building an endless supply of the latte bars and climbing walls won't solve that problem. Indeed, an iconoclastic report out of the Urban Institute even suggests we may have too many engineers in the US. So, like Porter, Florida's ability to craft a compelling phrase (i.e., Porter's "industry clusters," and Florida's "creative class") may obscure as much as it illuminates.
More on all of this later.
Only recently have we begun to realize that the increased importance of global connectivity has made his approach less fruitful. Sometimes reality does follow his model: similar firms in the same location share resources in order to compete. However, these days it seems to be much more common for companies to compete by connecting with other firms anywhere in the world based upon the functions they can perform together, not because they are in the same industry or related industries in the same place.
I'm beginning to wonder if Richard Florida is the next Michael Porter. His work on the "creative class" has been a great help in getting us to focus on the importance of high-value added design related occupations. But it may be getting to the point where Florida's ideas are as much a hindrance as help to thinking about the "talent" question.
The "creative class" is essential, but it is not the only type of talent we need. For example, we have a chronic shortage of welders and machinists in the US. Pushing even more kids into math and science programs and building an endless supply of the latte bars and climbing walls won't solve that problem. Indeed, an iconoclastic report out of the Urban Institute even suggests we may have too many engineers in the US. So, like Porter, Florida's ability to craft a compelling phrase (i.e., Porter's "industry clusters," and Florida's "creative class") may obscure as much as it illuminates.
More on all of this later.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment