US Competitiveness Project - Advances as for dec 2012

523 views

Published on

This a small presentation by Rivkin and Porter. Taken from the 2012 Faculty Workshop at Harvard Business School. All the copyright of this presentation belongs to HBS, I am just sharing the information of this very interesting project.

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
523
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

US Competitiveness Project - Advances as for dec 2012

  1. 1. PROGRESS REPORT ON THEU.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECTM.O.C. Faculty WorkshopJan W. Rivkin (with Michael E. Porter)11 December 2012
  2. 2. AGENDA• Project design and progress• What business leaders can do to restore U.S. competitiveness• What Washington can do to restore U.S. competitiveness U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  3. 3. INITIAL PROJECT DESIGN May June Faculty members July writing on 12 key topics2011 August • Research September question October • Definition Alumni Leaders from manufacturing, survey services, high-tech, life sciences, November • Workshops healthcare, finance, investment, December Summit unions, media, nonprofits, policy, January sciences, academia February March Special Outreach2012 April issue of program Harvard • Alumni May Business clubs June Review • MBA July Program U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  4. 4. CORE FACULTY TEAM• Mihir Desai • Gary Pisano• Joe Fuller • Michael Porter (co-chair)• Bill George • Jan Rivkin (co-chair)• Robin Greenwood • Bill Sahlman• Allen Grossman • David Scharfstein• Rosabeth Moss Kanter • Willy Shih• Tom Kochan (MIT) • Dick Vietor• David Moss • Matt Weinzierl• Nitin Nohria U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  5. 5. ASSESSMENT OF ELEMENTS OF THE U.S. BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT (2011) 40% Weakness but Improving Strength and Improving ENTREPRENEURSHIP FIRM MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITIES 20% PROPERTY RIGHTS INNOVATION CLUSTERS CAPITAL MARKETS 0% COMMUNICATIONS HIRING AND INFRASTRUCTURE FIRING -20%U.S. trajectory LEGAL FRAMEWORK -40% SKILLED LABOR MACRO REGULATION TAX CODE -60% POLICY K-12 EDUCATION LOGISTICS SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE -80% POLITICAL SYSTEM Weakness and Deteriorating Strength but Deteriorating -100% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Current U.S. position U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  6. 6. THE PROJECT IN 2012 Conducting Getting the Catalyzing research word out action January February March April • Inventory of May business June actions (BCG)2012 July • Role of business August • Federal policy September priorities October • Survey II November • Individual faculty efforts December January2013 February March U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  7. 7. HBS SURVEYS ON U.S. COMPETITIVENESS 2011 SURVEY 2012 SURVEY• 9,750 HBS alumni • 6,836 HBS alumni • 1,025 members of general public• Elements of the business • Elements of the business environment environment• Overall competitiveness • Overall competitiveness• Location decisions • Federal policy proposals• National suggestion box • Business actions to improve competitiveness U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  8. 8. THE PROJECT IN 2012 Conducting Getting the Catalyzing research word out action January February March Special Outreach April issue of program • Inventory of Harvard • New York May business Business • MBA June actions (BCG)2012 Review • Charlotte July • Role of business • DC August • Federal policy September priorities • Fortune • Bay Area October • Survey II • Economist • Chicago November • Individual • Detroit • Wall Street faculty efforts December Journal January • Atlanta2013 February • Boston March • Cincinnati • Houston U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  9. 9. THE PROJECT IN 2012 Conducting Getting the Catalyzing research word out action January February March Special Outreach April issue of program • Inventory of Harvard • New York May business • NYC alumni Business • MBA June actions (BCG) effort on skill2012 Review • Charlotte July • Role of business • DC gaps August • Federal policy • DC visits September priorities • K-12 education • Fortune • Bay Area • Survey II effort October • Economist • Chicago November • Individual • Detroit • Wall Street faculty efforts December Journal January • Atlanta2013 February • Boston March • Cincinnati • Houston U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  10. 10. AGENDA• Project design and progress• What business leaders can do to restore U.S. competitiveness• What Washington can do to restore U.S. competitiveness U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  11. 11. WHAT BUSINESS LEADERS CAN DO TO RESTORE U.S. COMPETITIVENESS1. Vigorously pursue productivity and profitability within the business a. Position the company to draw on U.S. strengths b. Perform in the U.S. those activities that can thrive here2. Tap the many opportunities to build the commons and benefit the business a. Improve skills b. Upgrade supporting industries c. Support innovation and entrepreneurship d. Bolster regional strength3. Stop narrowly self-interested actions that undermine the commons, especially in government relations U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  12. 12. WHAT BUSINESS LEADERS CAN DO TO RESTORE U.S. COMPETITIVENESS (11 SURVEYED ACTIONS)1. Vigorously pursue productivity and profitability within the business a. Position the company to draw on U.S. strengths b. Perform in the U.S. those activities that can thrive here: RESHORING2. Tap the many opportunities to build the commons and benefit the business a. Improve skills: INTERNAL TRAINING PROGRAMS, APPRENTICESHIPS, COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARTNERSHIPS b. Upgrade supporting industries: SUPPLIER MENTORING, LOCAL SOURCING c. Support innovation and entrepreneurship: RESEARCH COLLABORATIVES, STARTUP INCUBATION d. Bolster regional strength: REGIONAL INITIATIVES, CLUSTER INITIATIVES3. Stop narrowly self-interested actions that undermine the commons, especially in government relations: BUSINESS-WIDE ADVOCACY U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  13. 13. DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF ACTIONSAMONG WORKING RESPONDENTS IN FIRMS WITH U.S. OPERATIONS 700 600 500 Number of respondents 400 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Number of actions taken by respondents firm U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  14. 14. NUMBER OF ALUMNI WHOSE FIRMS TAKE SPECIFIC ACTIONS IN THEIR U.S. OPERATIONS Internal training programs Regional initiatives Research collaboratives Business-wide lobbying Startup incubation Apprenticeships Local sourcing Cluster initiativesCommunity college+ partnerships Supplier mentoring Reshoring 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Number of respondents Yes No Not applicable Dont know Did not reply No U.S. business activity Not working U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  15. 15. CLUSTER ANALYSIS Sideline sitters (n = 1,056) Business advocates (n = 449) Cluster initiatives Cluster initiatives Business-wide Business-wide 3.00 Regional initiatives 3.00 Regional initiatives advocacy advocacy 2.00 2.00 Internal training Internal training Reshoring Reshoring programs programs 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Startup incubation Apprenticeships Startup incubation Apprenticeships Community Community Research Research college+ college+ collaboratives collaboratives partnerships partnerships Supplier mentoring Local sourcing Supplier mentoring Local sourcingOverrepresented: finance & insurance, professional services Overrepresented: professional services, construction & real estate,Underrepresented: manufacturing finance & insurance Underrepresented: manufacturingBased on respondents with no missing data on business actions. U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  16. 16. CLUSTER ANALYSIS Regional innovators (n = 414) Supply chainers (n = 350) Cluster initiatives Cluster initiatives Business-wide Business-wide 3.00 Regional initiatives 3.00 Regional initiatives advocacy advocacy 2.00 2.00 Internal training Internal training Reshoring Reshoring programs programs 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Startup incubation Apprenticeships Startup incubation Apprenticeships Community Community Research Research college+ college+ collaboratives collaboratives partnerships partnerships Supplier mentoring Local sourcing Supplier mentoring Local sourcingOverrepresented: healthcare, educational services Overrepresented: manufacturing*, wholesale / retail trade,Underrepresented: wholesale / retail trade construction & real estate Underrepresented: finance & insurance*, professional servicesBased on respondents with no missing data on business actions. U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  17. 17. CLUSTER ANALYSIS Human capitalists (n = 498) Do-it-alls (n = 390) Cluster initiatives Cluster initiatives Business-wide 3.00 Business-wide 3.00 Regional initiatives Regional initiatives advocacy advocacy 2.00 2.00 Internal training Internal training Reshoring Reshoring programs programs 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Startup incubation Apprenticeships Startup incubation Apprenticeships Community Community Research Research college+ college+ collaboratives collaboratives partnerships partnerships Supplier mentoring Local sourcing Supplier mentoring Local sourcingOverrepresented: professional services Overrepresented: manufacturing*Underrepresented: none Underrepresented: finance & insurance*Based on respondents with no missing data on business actions. U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  18. 18. AGENDA• Project design and progress• What business leaders can do to restore U.S. competitiveness• What Washington can do to restore U.S. competitiveness U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  19. 19. WHAT WASHINGTON CAN DO TO RESTORE U.S. COMPETITIVENESS 1. Create a sustainable federal budget (revenue ↑ and spending ↓) 2. Ease the immigration of highly skilled individuals 3. Reform the corporate tax code (loopholes ↓ + statutory rates ↓) 4. Move to a territorial tax system for U.S. multinationals (taxes on repatriated profits ↓↓) 5. Aggressively address distortions of the international trading system 6. Carefully streamline regulations affecting business 7. Enact a program to improve logistics and communications infrastructure 8. Responsibly develop newly accessible American gas and oil reservesNote: This list was prepared by Professors Michael E. Porter and Jan W. Rivkin in order to spark discussion. It does not represent the position of Harvard Business School or ofother HBS faculty. U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT.
  20. 20. ASSESSMENT OF POLICY PROPOSALSBY STRONGLY LIBERAL AND STRONGLY CONSERVATIVE ALUMNI Corporate Streamlined tax reform 100% Ryan tax plan regulations High-skill / budget Right immigration 90% to work Portion of Strongly Conservative alumni 80% somewhat or strongly agreeing Responsible Sustainable Territorial energy federal budget 70% tax code extraction Intl trading Infrastructure 60% system investment 50% 40% Clean-energy 30% incentives 20% 10% Buffett rule 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Portion of Strongly Liberal alumni somewhat or strongly agreeing U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
  21. 21. ASSESSMENT OF POLICY PROPOSALS BY U.S. ALUMNI AND GENERAL PUBLIC 100% 90% Infrastructuresomewhat or strongly agreeing investments Responsible 80% Corporate energy extraction Portion of general public tax reform 70% Clean-energy incentives Sustainable 60% Buffett Intl trading federal budget rule system Streamlined 50% regulations Right Ryan tax plan to work / budget 40% High-skill immigration 30% Territorial tax code 20% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Portion of U.S. alumni somewhat or strongly agreeing U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

×