Regional vision plan integration and implementation : phase II : final report - Page 71 |
Previous | 71 of 161 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
65
C. Governance of the Organization
Governance here refers to not only those actors have authority to make policy
decisions, commit resources, etc, but also those who participates in the process. In cases
where the lead state government economic development agency implements the cluster
strategy, governance in terms of authority will still remain ultimately with the state
legislature and governor. But the formal participation of private sector representatives at
various stages of the process may de facto change the governance structure because of the
informal influence of the private sector actors. For states in which new organizations
have been formed, there is often a board of directors that has been given authority to
approve policies and resource allocation decisions. These boards are usually appointed
by the governor or a combination of state legislative leaders and the governor. In some
cases, such as Florida, the governor personally chairs the governing board.
The aspect of cluster-based strategies most critical to success is the ‘buy-in’ of
key leaders – both public and private sector as well as of the universities – to both the
structure and the process. What is more important than the formal roles of various actors
is the extent of meaningful participation by key stakeholders. In particular, private
industry involvement, including leaders from the general business community and
knowledgeable representatives of firms in each of the clusters, seems to be a necessary
condition for cluster-based strategies to be successful.
D. Formal vs. Informal Cluster Teams
Although all states have some type of cluster teams, they vary in terms of their
degree of formality. Some states have well-defined and formal structures for the cluster
teams in order to allow such teams to be efficient working on their own, and to achieve
accountability both within the team and with the lead umbrella organization, whether a
board of directors or the state cabinet official such as a Secretary of Commerce. For
example, Virginia forms teams that have official and formal membership, but also official
responsibilities of each partner that joins the team. This model, however, requires a large
amount of time, energy, and commitment supplied essentially by citizen and private
industry volunteers. Some states, such as Oregon, have found that such energy and
commitment has been hard to sustain in many cases, making it increasingly difficult to
have full participation at meetings.
The case for having informal cluster teams is to conserve the limited time and
energy of citizens and industry representatives. Meetings are time consuming and to be
effective require considerable organization and preparation. An alternative structure that
some states have used to address this problem is for the designated lead staff person for a
given cluster in the economic development organization to make individual contacts with
particular team members either for either soliciting or sending information when needed.
The disadvantages of this type of approach to cluster teams include the loss of a variety
of points of view from a number of different stakeholders, and the likelihood that some
will feel marginalized and hence disinvest entirely from the process.
Object Description
Description
| Title | Regional vision plan integration and implementation : phase II : final report - Page 71 |
| Full Text | 65 C. Governance of the Organization Governance here refers to not only those actors have authority to make policy decisions, commit resources, etc, but also those who participates in the process. In cases where the lead state government economic development agency implements the cluster strategy, governance in terms of authority will still remain ultimately with the state legislature and governor. But the formal participation of private sector representatives at various stages of the process may de facto change the governance structure because of the informal influence of the private sector actors. For states in which new organizations have been formed, there is often a board of directors that has been given authority to approve policies and resource allocation decisions. These boards are usually appointed by the governor or a combination of state legislative leaders and the governor. In some cases, such as Florida, the governor personally chairs the governing board. The aspect of cluster-based strategies most critical to success is the ‘buy-in’ of key leaders – both public and private sector as well as of the universities – to both the structure and the process. What is more important than the formal roles of various actors is the extent of meaningful participation by key stakeholders. In particular, private industry involvement, including leaders from the general business community and knowledgeable representatives of firms in each of the clusters, seems to be a necessary condition for cluster-based strategies to be successful. D. Formal vs. Informal Cluster Teams Although all states have some type of cluster teams, they vary in terms of their degree of formality. Some states have well-defined and formal structures for the cluster teams in order to allow such teams to be efficient working on their own, and to achieve accountability both within the team and with the lead umbrella organization, whether a board of directors or the state cabinet official such as a Secretary of Commerce. For example, Virginia forms teams that have official and formal membership, but also official responsibilities of each partner that joins the team. This model, however, requires a large amount of time, energy, and commitment supplied essentially by citizen and private industry volunteers. Some states, such as Oregon, have found that such energy and commitment has been hard to sustain in many cases, making it increasingly difficult to have full participation at meetings. The case for having informal cluster teams is to conserve the limited time and energy of citizens and industry representatives. Meetings are time consuming and to be effective require considerable organization and preparation. An alternative structure that some states have used to address this problem is for the designated lead staff person for a given cluster in the economic development organization to make individual contacts with particular team members either for either soliciting or sending information when needed. The disadvantages of this type of approach to cluster teams include the loss of a variety of points of view from a number of different stakeholders, and the likelihood that some will feel marginalized and hence disinvest entirely from the process. |
