University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The context of leadership in the development of California’s innovation hubs

(USC Thesis Other)

The context of leadership in the development of California’s innovation hubs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Running head: THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS

The Context of Leadership in the Development of
California’s Innovation Hubs

Submitted by

Mandale Robert “Rob” White

A Dissertation Presented to the
Faculty of the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development

December 2017

Copyright 2017

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS i
Abstract

To better understand how context can be a determinant factor on leaders in the
development of innovation clusters, this study reviews the social, political, and physical factors
present during the California Innovation Hub (iHub) program’s creation, early development, and
maturation over the period of 2009 to 2017.
Set against the backdrop of a global economic crisis in 2009, later denoted as the Great
Recession, the State of California endeavored to find ways to rapidly create jobs and increase
state revenues. Utilizing cluster strategies made popular by Porter (2000), the effort was focused
on fostering several new innovation ecosystems across the state, while taking full advantage of
the existing, robust entrepreneurial activities already taking place in Silicon Valley and San
Diego. The iHub program was intended to be a framework for the state to partner across sectors,
with specific leadership directed from academia and national labs, with the intent of realizing
increased opportunities that took advantage of latent innovation throughout California.
In the intervening time since inception, there have been several program changes at the
state-level and in the regional iHubs. Some programs are financially stable and provide many
resources to their respective regions, while some programs have been closed and subsequently
delisted from designation. To that end, this study focuses on the social, political, and geographic
settings of the first six iHubs, comparing the context of the successful iHubs to the those that
have struggled. By understanding how leaders act (and are acted upon) by the conditions around
them, the state can use this study to identify opportunities to improve the iHub program.
Keywords: Innovation, clusters, iHubs, ecosystem, context, leadership, management,
California.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS ii
Dedication
This manuscript is dedicated to my wife, Megan White, plain and simple.
For every hard quest we might accomplish in life, the support from those that love and
know us best is the well from which we draw our energy. When the words won’t flow, or the
thoughts don’t connect, it’s our family (and often our friends) that cheer us on.
For me, this has been a very long journey. And Megan has been there for every step.
Starting back in 2005, when I first wanted to go to graduate school to get my doctorate,
my wife didn’t know why it was important to me, but she encouraged me irrespective of the time
or the cost. And when my first try at a doctorate program from a university in Northern Ireland
failed due to changes in work and home conditions, she encouraged me to keep looking for a
way to make my dream happen.
When a chance to go back to USC to get my doctorate became a reality, she supported
me through the long weekends away while I attend classes, and the time spent researching and
collecting information. She rarely complained, and always encouraged me. So, when I wasn’t as
focused on the work of researching and writing (because there was almost always something else
more tempting to be done), she would remind me that this was my dream and that she would
continue to support me in whatever way she could.
Now we are at the end of the journey. And even though there are so many missed
moments because of the many (many!) hours of writing, I know for sure that she is proud of me.
Our lives going forward will be better, and richer in tone and tenor, because of the time I took to
do this work. But most of all, I learned that even when I am not at my best, my biggest fan is
always cheering me on! And for that, I am thankful. With much love, this is for you, Megan.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS iii
But I would be remiss if I didn’t also thank my dissertation committee - Bob Denhardt,
Peter Robertson, and Buck Koonce. It is from your kindness, thoughtful words, and rapid
feedback that this work was even possible! I would obviously rather spend time with you under
different circumstances, but your patience and guidance were applied judiciously and at the right
moments to be to make sure we made it to the goal.
And lastly, thank you to Deborah Natoli, director of the DPPD program. It is your
constant cheering for all of us that have been in this program that we have come to realize that
this work is actually possible. Some hills (or mountains) can seem so high and far, but you gave
me a compass and set me to work. Several times. For that, I will always be grateful!

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS iv
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Framework of the Study .................................................................................................................. 2
Subject of Research ......................................................................................................................... 4
Research Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 11
Contribution to Practice ................................................................................................................ 12
Chapter 2 - Literature Review ................................................................................................... 15
Scope of the Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 16
Innovation Systems ....................................................................................................................... 18
Innovation clusters and hubs. ............................................................................................ 19
Innovation ecosystems. ..................................................................................................... 21
Innovation Assets .......................................................................................................................... 24
Innovation Strategies .................................................................................................................... 26
Leadership in Innovation .............................................................................................................. 28
California iHub Program Development ........................................................................................ 34
How the iHubs got started. ................................................................................................ 34
Reasons to develop the iHub program. ............................................................................. 37
2009 RFP process. ............................................................................................................ 39
State established GoED. .................................................................................................... 40
State program changed – GoED becomes GO-Biz. .......................................................... 41
iHub Program Resources .............................................................................................................. 43
BTH resources – 2009. ..................................................................................................... 44
GoED resources – 2010 to 2012. ...................................................................................... 44
GO-Biz resources – 2012 to 2017. .................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3 - Methodology ............................................................................................................ 46
Review of iHub Program Resources ............................................................................................. 47
GO-Biz website. ................................................................................................................ 48
iHubs’ websites. ................................................................................................................ 48
Online Survey ............................................................................................................................... 49
Developing the survey. ..................................................................................................... 50
Survey participants. ........................................................................................................... 51
Survey Section 1 – background on survey. ....................................................................... 53
Survey Section 2 - participant information. ...................................................................... 54
Survey Section 3 - iHub program development – 2009. ................................................... 55
Survey Section 4 - proposals for iHub designation - 2009. .............................................. 56
Survey Section 5 - information about the iHub program - 2010 to present (2017). ......... 57
Survey Section 6 - iHub specific questions. ..................................................................... 58
Survey Section 7 - wrap-up. .............................................................................................. 59
Survey results comparison. ............................................................................................... 60

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS v
Chapter 4 - Comparative Study ................................................................................................. 61
Comparison of iHub Cohort in 2009 ............................................................................................ 61
North Bay iHub. ................................................................................................................ 67
North Bay iHub – partners. .................................................................................. 67
North Bay iHub – management structure. ............................................................ 68
North Bay iHub – performance measures. ........................................................... 69
Sacramento iHub. .............................................................................................................. 70
Sacramento iHub – partners. ................................................................................ 71
Sacramento iHub – management structure. .......................................................... 72
Sacramento iHub – performance measures. ......................................................... 74
San Francisco iHub. .......................................................................................................... 75
San Francisco iHub – partners. ............................................................................ 76
San Francisco iHub – management structure. ..................................................... 78
San Francisco iHub – performance measures. ..................................................... 78
i-GATE iHub. ................................................................................................................... 79
i-GATE iHub – partners........................................................................................ 80
i-GATE iHub - management structure. ................................................................. 82
i-GATE iHub – performance measures. ................................................................ 83
Palm Springs iHub ............................................................................................................ 85
Palm Springs iHub – partners. ............................................................................. 85
Palm Springs iHub – management structure. ....................................................... 86
Palm Springs iHub – performance measures. ...................................................... 87
OCTANe iHub. ................................................................................................................. 87
OCTANe iHub – partners. .................................................................................... 88
OCTANe iHub – management structure. .............................................................. 90
OCTANe iHub – performance measures. ............................................................. 91
Review of Resources Created by the State ................................................................................... 92
State RFPs. ........................................................................................................................ 93
iHub regulations. ............................................................................................................... 97
iHub overview reports. ...................................................................................................... 99
GO-Biz online resources. ................................................................................................ 100
GO-Biz 2016 website. ......................................................................................... 100
GO-Biz 2017 website. ......................................................................................... 102
Regional iHub online resources. ......................................................................... 106
2009 iHub Cohort – 2010 to 2017 .............................................................................................. 109
North Bay iHub. .............................................................................................................. 110
Sacramento iHub. ............................................................................................................ 111
San Francisco iHub. ........................................................................................................ 112
i-GATE iHub. ................................................................................................................. 113
Palm Springs iHub. ......................................................................................................... 114
OCTANe iHub. ............................................................................................................... 115
Update on iHubs Designated in 2010 and 2013 .......................................................................... 115
iHubs name changes. ...................................................................................................... 116
iHubs removed from designation. ................................................................................... 117
Online Survey About the iHubs .................................................................................................. 117
Results - Survey Section 2 – participant information. .................................................... 121

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS vi
Results - Survey Section 3 - iHub program development – 2009. .................................. 126
Results - Survey Section 4 - proposals for iHub designation – 2009. ............................ 131
Results - Survey Section 5 - information about the iHub program (2010 to present). ... 133
Results - Survey Section 6 - iHub specific questions. .................................................... 140
Results - Survey Section 7 - wrap-up questions. ............................................................ 145
Assessment of Survey Results .................................................................................................... 146
Survey results – who are the iHub leaders? .................................................................... 147
Survey results – how iHubs are led and under what context. ......................................... 152
Survey results – challenges encountered by iHubs. ........................................................ 155
Perspective from a Practitioner ................................................................................................... 158
How the iHubs got started. .............................................................................................. 159
Context for i-GATE formation. ...................................................................................... 160
i-GATE iHub proposal development. ............................................................................. 163
Early iHub program efforts. ............................................................................................ 167
State program change – GoED to GO-Biz. ..................................................................... 168
Intrinsic motivation for iHub proposal development. ..................................................... 171
Successes and challenges of iHub program. ................................................................... 172
Chapter 5 - Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations ........................................... 174
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 175
Who leads in iHubs? ....................................................................................................... 176
How is leadership in iHubs happening, and under what circumstances? ....................... 178
Challenges for iHub leaders. ........................................................................................... 179
Implications ................................................................................................................................. 180
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 182
Recommendations for GO-Biz. ...................................................................................... 182
Recommendations for the iHubs. .................................................................................... 183
References .................................................................................................................................. 185
Appendix A - California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (BTH) Resources
............................................................................................................................................ A
Appendix B - Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GoED) Resources .................... B
Appendix C - Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz)
Resources .......................................................................................................................... C
Appendix D - 2017 Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................. D
Appendix E - 2017 Survey Results .............................................................................................. E

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS vii
List of Tables

Table 1: General Overview of Inaugural iHubs......................................................................... 8
Table 2: Comparison of iHub Cohort in 2009 .......................................................................... 64
Table 3: Comparison of iHub Management and Leadership in 2009 ................................... 65
Table 4: Justification Listed in iHub Proposals ...................................................................... 66
Table 5: Survey Question 8 – Motivation Behind Role in iHub Program (2009) ............... 127

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS viii
List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of iHubs ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2: Schematic describing iHub concept from 2010 RFP ............................................... 36
Figure 3: SARTA management structure - 2009 proposal ..................................................... 73
Figure 4: SARTA goals and benchmarks - 2009 proposal ...................................................... 75
Figure 5: SFCED Goals - 2009 proposal ................................................................................... 79
Figure 6: i-GATE management structure - 2009 proposal ..................................................... 83
Figure 7: i-GATE performance metrics - 2009 proposal. ....................................................... 84
Figure 8: Palm Springs goals - 2009 proposal. ......................................................................... 87
Figure 9: OCTANe management structure - 2009 proposal. .................................................. 91
Figure 10: OCTANe measurement criteria - 2009 proposal. .................................................. 92
Figure 11: Coordinator criteria – iHub RFP ........................................................................... 94
Figure 12: Coordinator criteria – round II iHub RFP. ........................................................... 96
Figure 13: Assembly Bill 250, Holden – iHub coordinator structure. ................................... 97
Figure 14: Restated management structure requirement. ...................................................... 98
Figure 15: Current GO-Biz innovation and entrepreneurship web page. .......................... 103
Figure 16: Current GO-Biz iHub website subpage. .............................................................. 105
Figure 17: iHub operational timelines. ................................................................................... 110
Figure 18: Response outcomes for iHub survey. .................................................................... 118
Figure 19: Survey question 4 – time periods respondents engaged in respective iHubs. ... 123
Figure 20: Survey question 5 – roles and years engaged in iHubs. ...................................... 125
Figure 21: Survey question 7 – specific role in iHub development – 2009. ......................... 126
Figure 22: Survey question 14 – sectors most beneficial to iHub program development. . 131
Figure 23: Survey question 19 – aspects most beneficial to iHub program partnerships. . 135
Figure 24: Survey question 20 – aspects most challenging to iHub program partnership. 136
Figure 25: Survey question 21 – current sectors providing strongest engagement. ........... 137
Figure 26: Sectors providing strongest engagement – 2009 vs. 2017. .................................. 139
Figure 27: Survey question 22 – state-level iHub program benefits local program. .......... 141
Figure 28: Survey question 24 – desired funding levels for iHub program. ....................... 142

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 1
Chapter 1

Introduction
This study is focused on the social, political, and geographical conditions (context) that
led to actions by leaders, including the outcomes from that action, during the initial development
and subsequent operations of the California Innovation Hub (iHub) program.
More specifically, how did the changing economic conditions at the tail-end of the Great
Recession of 2007-2009 (Rich, 2013) precipitate initial reaction, and subsequent proactive
responses, by leaders to form innovation clusters? And how did the changing conditions impact
the ongoing leadership of the iHubs as the context in which they operated changed from one of
economic uncertainty and political support, to that of flagging engagement?
Understanding this context helps to define conditions that can be used to increase the
effectiveness of leadership at the regional and state-level for the ongoing iHub operations, while
identifying gaps in state policy that will support reaching desired outcomes for these innovation
clusters.
Formed in 2009 under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration, the state of
California initially sought actions to address its increasingly dire fiscal condition (California
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency [BTH], 2009), which were primarily triggered by
the Great Recession. Though the iHub program was not specifically focused on leadership, early
solicitations were directed at the regional and state context that then precipitated action by
leaders at the local and regional level.
Due to the cursory amount of currently available public information on the California
iHub program, and because the majority of documentation that was readily available for review

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 2
focused on the initial six iHub designations, this study will primarily provide assessment of that
cohort, with only minor discussion surrounding the other ten iHubs that have been designated
since 2009.
This study relies on review of early documents from the state designation process, some
intermittent summary reports, a survey of previous and current participants conducted
specifically for this study, and my anecdotal perspective from being a practitioner and a
participant in the formation of one of the initial iHubs. As such, the study also serves as a
memorial/milestone marker for the history of the iHub program, by documenting its early history
to the extent possible and including this information in one place.
As the state has modified the iHub requirements and desired outcomes over the last eight
years (2009 to 2017), the context under which these iHubs have operated has changed as well.
Therefore, this study focuses on assessing who has been leading in each iHub region and at the
state program office, and under what conditions.
Framework of the Study
The idea of clusters was widely popularized starting in the late 1990s by Michael Porter
of the Harvard Business School, where he described them as a “geographically proximate group
of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field,” with an “array of
linked industries and other entities important to competition” (2000, p. 16). He goes on to
describe that clusters include “companies related by skills, technologies, or common inputs,” as
well as “universities, think tanks, vocational training providers, standard-setting agencies, [and]
trade associations… that provide specialized training, education, information, research, and
technical support” (2000, p. 16).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 3
There is considerable research on the process of innovation (creativity) as a part of
leadership, on the role of leadership in the development of innovation clusters, and on the
management and governance of innovation networks. Structures and measurement of effective
leadership within networks have also been greatly discussed within the literature, though these
are not the primary focus of this study.
By using the gap in leadership assessment recognized by Sydow, Lerch, Huxham, and
Hibbert (2011), in which “leadership research so far has neglected regional clusters as a
particular context, while research on networks and clusters has hardly studied leadership issues”
(p. 328) this study focuses on how context can affect leadership in the formation of regional
innovation clusters. Borrowing from three questions posed by Sydow et al. (2011, p. 329) on
how context impacts leadership in cluster development - 1) “who leads in clusters?”; 2) “how
and under which circumstances” [do they lead]?; and 3) “what are the particular challenges of
this context?” – this study adopts these questions as a framework for the discussion.
Specifically, what causes leaders to act during the process of innovation cluster
development? And how does the environment in which cluster development activities are
occurring impact decision-making? To get to the answers for these questions, we can use context
as the driver for leadership action.
Additionally, to better understand how context may have influenced the formation and
operation of the iHub program, review of the literature in defining innovation clusters, how they
operate, and typical outcomes is pertinent.
To that end, using the information from the iHub designation process and subsequent
operations, as well as feedback from the survey of iHub participants, this study compares the

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 4
different structures of each iHub (who leads), what was the regional context during formation
(circumstances), and what challenges each iHub has faced.
Subject of Research
The significance of the global economic uncertainty on state revenues led the California
state Legislature to conclude that development of more innovation would be a positive factor in
creating economic growth, and they requested that the California Council on Science and
Technology (CCST) conduct a review of the science and technology innovation ecosystem, with
a specific focus to study “recommend actions for maintaining S&T leadership and
competitiveness in an increasingly globalized economy” (CCST, 2010, p. 7).
At the time, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Office was coordinating the
development of the Regional Economic Recovery Work Plans (RERWP), which were required
from each region to access federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds
made available to the state (BTH, 2009). The ARRA and work plans process was managed
largely by utilizing resources from BTH, California’s lead economic development agency
because in 2003 the offices for “the Technology, Trade, and Commerce Agency were closed for
being ineffective” (Lawrence & Cummins, 2017, pg. 53).
The RERWP process “emphasized the importance of supporting and fostering innovation
in order to grow California’s economy” (BTH, 2009, pg. 3). As a result of these activities, the
Governor’s Office decided that additional attention needed to be focused on development of the
innovation assets across the state, with particular focus on knowledge and innovation cluster
development as a way to increase business activities, and therefore revenue.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 5
California was not alone in its endeavors, as many public agencies had previously
identified promotion of innovation clusters at the national, regional, and local level as a way of
supporting knowledge creation, competitiveness, business development, and economic growth
(Cassidy, Davis, Arthurs, & Wolfe, 2005).
Kellerman’s (2015) book Hard Times: Leadership in America addresses a similar
sentiment that happened at the national level during that time period, stating “it is difficult to
exaggerate the degree to which in the past few years Americans have been fixated on the
importance of innovation, and on the question of how to spur the U.S. to… stay ahead or get
ahead. Leaders in each of the different sectors – especially but not exclusively the public and
private – have been inundated with facts and figures, with reports and commissions, all dedicated
to ‘securing our economic growth and prosperity’ through innovation” (p. 155).
To that point, and demonstrated at the national level, the economic downturn as a social
context was a significant driver in pushing for increased innovation that might benefit economic
growth, as highlighted in the following partial excerpts from Kellerman (2015, p. 155) (citations
were included as shown):
In 2011, the Brookings Institution produced a paper titled “A Dozen Economic Facts
About Innovation,” which argued that the pace of innovation in the U.S. has “slowed
during the past four decades” and that “reinvigorating the momentum of innovation that
benefits all Americans is imperative” (Greenstone & Looney, 2011 as cited in Kellerman,
2015, p. 155).
A report produced for several high-level government agencies, including the Council of
Economic Advisors, cautioned that “America’s future economic growth and international

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 6
competitiveness depend on our capacity to innovate” (National Economic Council (NEC)
et al., 2012 as cited in Kellerman, 2015, p. 155).
Another report drafted in part by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC)… sent a
similar message, warning that whatever the advantages the U.S. enjoyed in the past, they
are in danger of eroding, with dire consequences. Other countries have become “better
educated… and “our manufacturing sector lost ground to foreign competitors.” How to
combat this decline? Again, through innovation: “Innovation is the key driver of
competitiveness, wage and job growth, and long-term income growth” (DoC & NEC,
2012 as cited in Kellerman, 2015, p.155).
The National Governors Association got on the innovation bandwagon by… drafting a
document titled “Innovation America: A Final Report.” It similarly insisted that
innovation is “the hallmark of a successful economy.” It claimed that innovation
introduces new ideas, ultimately determines what is produced, and finally affects how
production itself is organized (Fitzpatrick, 2007 as cited in Kellerman, 2015, p.155).
Each of these reports and documents was focused on addressing the need for economic
stimulus in the U.S. and they appear to be largely devoid of describing the leadership required to
address the issues at hand, with an almost singular focus on the conditions driving the need.
It is clear from the list of reports highlighted by Kellerman (2015), each extoling the need
for innovation to revive the economy in some fashion, that context was the primary driver that
resulted in leaders taking an active role in the development of clusters or hubs during this period.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 7
The unique circumstances due to the economic recession (context) also pushed action
based on the environmental factors - rather than purposeful leadership - as a primary driver in the
development of the California Innovation Hub program. This is demonstrated by the focus of the
state’s two solicitations for iHub designation in 2009 and 2010 on economic development
outcomes (BTH, 2009) rather than demonstrated leadership that could deliver those outcomes.
Utilizing the ongoing RERWP process, and endeavoring to take full advantage of the
state’s previous investment into the UC Institutes for Science and Innovation (created in 2000),
BTH created the California Innovation Hub (iHub) program to “modernize California’s approach
to fostering innovation and entrepreneurship” (BTH, 2009, p. 3). BTH subsequently released an
RFP to establish regional iHubs throughout the state. And though conceived from the RERWP
process, the iHubs were not specifically targeted to receive ARRA funding.
The RFP identified that the intended goal was to identify a minimum of six regions in the
state that would serve as examples of innovation ecosystems. Responses to the RFP required
information on assets, geographic boundaries, partners, goals, and evaluation of performance
measures as part of the submittal (BTH, 2009). But the solicitation was vague on requirements
for leadership of each iHub, aside from identifying an iHub coordinator (manager).
Though most of the respondents did demonstrate the structure of the
management/leadership team as part of their proposal, it seems clear that the state was more
focused on the context surrounding the development of the iHubs, and the networks they would
create, rather than on articulating the specific way each iHub would be led.
Clearly, the state intended increased economic development activity from the solicitation,
but very little assessment or study has been done on the context, collaborative networks, or

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 8
sectorial leadership in each of the regions that led to development and execution of these
innovation hubs.
The innovation cluster cohort of six iHubs compared for this study is included in Table 1
below. The information includes the names of the iHubs (including any previous names each
iHub may have used), their locations, and websites (as applicable).

Table 1: General Overview of Inaugural iHubs

Name Geographic Location Website

North Bay iHub
(associated with SoCo Nexus, and
previously the Sonoma Mountain
Business Cluster)
North San Francisco Bay No website available
(formerly
http://northbayihub.org/)
Sacramento iHub
(now associated with I/O
Foundation, previously associated
with SARTA)
Sacramento Region No website currently
available
(formerly
https://www.sarta.org/)

San Francisco iHub
(sometimes mistakenly referred to
as the Greater Mission Bay Area
iHub in the 2009 designations)
San Francisco City and County http://sfced.org/about/sfced-
initiatives/ihub/

i-GATE iHub East SF Bay/Tri-Valley http://www.igateihub.org/
Palm Springs iHub
(formerly Coachella Valley iHub)
Palm Springs Area http://cvep.com/iHub.html
OCTANe iHub
(formerly Orange County iHub)
Orange County http://www.octaneoc.org/
Source: BTH, 2009; GO-Biz, 2017

Figure 1 created by the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-
Biz) in 2013 identifies the names and geographic distribution of all 16 of the iHubs designated at
the end of 2013, including the inaugural six iHubs included in this study. As noted in Table 1

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 9
above, names for some of the iHubs have changed and those on the figure represent the names at
the time the document was created in 2013.
In addition, each of the respective iHub organizations was originally initiated by different
sectors – some by business groups, some by governmental agencies, and others by a cross-
sectorial consortium approach.
At the time of this study, significant transitions in leadership had occurred within each of
the six iHubs since their initial designation in 2009. Additionally, both program and focus areas
had shifted in four of the six, one of the iHubs had gone defunct, and one was in the process of
attempting to reconstitute the program.
Identifying and comparing the regional context that led to the development of an iHub in
each of these six regions would highlight some of the commonalities of iHub leadership and
assist in the continued operations or reconstitution of the remaining programs.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 10
Figure 1. Location of iHubs (GO-Biz, 2013). Figure depicts all 16 iHubs, with the 2009 cohort
names (as of 2013) and location highlighted in red.
= Name and corresponding location of iHub

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 11
Research Purpose
For the purposes of examining how context can be a determinant factor in leadership in
the development of innovation hubs, this study reviews the social, political, and physical factors
present during the iHub program creation, early development, and maturation over the period of
2009 to 2017.
To assess that context, and its relative impact on leadership for innovation hub (regional
cluster) development, this study seeks to:
1) Establish the relative conditions (context) at the local, state, and federal level during
the development of the iHub program based on documents from the state;
2) Compare the local and regional social, political, and geographical conditions that led
to a response to the RFP by the regional leadership for each iHub, using information
from the RFP submittal documents to compare conditions across regions;
3) Create a comparative examination of the initial leadership structure of each of the
iHubs, and compare that with the current structure;
4) Survey state-level representatives to identify both historic and current factors relevant
to the context of the program;
5) Survey leadership from each of the iHubs - including initial RFP respondents,
previous and current executive boards, and the past and/or present iHub
manager/coordinator - to determine what local, regional, and state conditions existed
at the time of proposal preparation and designation;

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 12
6) Use the survey tool to assess perceived sectorial engagement at the time of initial
designation and currently, including how specific sectorial involvement was
impactful to the capacity of the organization; and
7) Assess how historic and current context has affected the iHub leadership in achieving
their stated goals as originally outlined in their RFP responses (proposals).
By assessing the conditions that created the iHub program, and looking for comparability
between the iHubs for programmatic successes and challenges, this study endeavors to inform
the state why some iHubs in the cohort have had relative success while others have gone defunct.
This contextual understanding can be useful in determining what additional tools need to be
implemented by the state to ensure successful implementation of the iHub program and any
future iHubs that might be designated.
Contribution to Practice
As stated on the GO-Biz (2017) website, the state has a strong desire to encourage
economic activity and investment in innovation, intending to “provide an advantage to
Californian firms through the introduction of new technologies, processes, research and
development (R&D) solutions into its existing business practice.”
In the effort to accomplish the task of developing innovation clusters, many organizations
search for the right mixture - or ‘secret sauce’ - for how to start cluster development or optimize
an innovation ecosystem. As stated in the Startup Ecosystem Report by Startup Genome (2012),
the report was developed to help “policy makers understand where they sit in the global startup
ecosystem” and ‘how they can improve their odds of success” (p. 2).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 13
Startup Genome goes on to track through two more successive reports (2015, 2017), and
have suggested that measurement of factors like funding, talent, and mindset helped to determine
the most successful innovation ecosystems in the world. Silicon Valley is used as the base case,
injecting bias into all of the data sets due to the subjectivity introduced with that comparison.
None of the factors measured to determine the relative success for innovation ecosystems in any
of the report years (2012, 2015, or 2017) included a leadership or management index.
The point for this discussion is that even well-respected and robust assessments of
innovation clusters focus on context rather than leadership. As pointed out by Isenberg (2011) in
the Harvard Business Review, there is no list or specific activity that makes one cluster work
well while others may struggle and the term ‘Silicon Valley’ is ‘abused by public leaders, and
touted by experts as a model” (p. 1).
Context (social, political, and geographical) of an innovation cluster, and the physical
infrastructure of a region, can influence the ability of leaders to collaborate. Using the lens of
context to understand the processes that the State of California put into place to address an
identified need, the responses that it garnered from the individual regions, and the resultant
outcomes of how the program has been implemented, provides a sharper focus to identify factors
that shape the success of a region’s innovation ecosystem.
Distinct organizational, programmatic, and management factors that have contributed to
an iHub’s success in meeting its outlined goals can help inform leadership in other regions of
ways to supplement or apply some of the exhibited factors (like difference in the sectors that
make up leadership or the focus on specific programs) to lead to their own relative success.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 14
The results of this study are also useful to the state as GO-Biz prepares to re-assess the
program in 2017 and 2018, as discussed in subsequent sections. But beyond direct applicability
to the state’s iHub program, other regions or states can utilize this assessment as a template to
begin to understand how context plays a role in the development of innovation clusters and its
resultant impact on leaders in those ecosystems.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 15
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The literature review for this study has been conducted to answer the question of how
context of an environment affects the leaders who work to create innovation clusters. With a
series of questions from Sydow et al. (2011) as a framework, and a particular focus on the
inaugural six California iHubs, this study strives to assess:
• Who was identified as leadership for each iHub;
• How and under what circumstances they were designated and how they have
performed since designation; and
• What are the challenges that each iHub has faced since designation (Sydow et al.,
2011)?
Determining the social (environmental) conditions during iHub program startup and
operations, specific focus on the task at hand and the specific leaders involved in the activities of
creating and managing (Denhardt, Denhardt, & Aristigueta, 2016) for each iHub can provide
insight into the contextual factors that were present.
Kellerman’s (2015) view on the context of leadership – specifically social, economic, and
geographical - is that it is a primary driver in why leaders act and is a determinant in the
effectiveness of those actions. Because leadership was only a subtext to the original discussion of
the iHub formation (BTH, 2009), this concept can be applied in assessing the iHub program,
especially taking into account the national and global economic dynamics of the time.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 16
To better understand the background of innovation as it may relate to the formation of the
iHubs, the following subsections discuss innovation as it relates to systems (including clusters,
hubs, and ecosystems), assets, strategies, and leadership. Discussion is also given to the activities
used in conducting the literature review.
Specific focus and review on networks and collaboration was not conducted, other than
as a minor reference in the cluster and ecosystem discussions, as that area of research is
tangential to the focus of this study on context and leadership.
A section specific to the iHub program history (based on available literature) has also
been included, including initial development activities for innovation clusters, subsequent
designation of iHubs, changes in the state program office, and review of the program outcomes
through two annual assessments.
Scope of the Literature Review
As part of this study, many articles and books were reviewed in the topic areas of
innovation, leadership, strategy, cluster development, economic development, and the creative
class. Though context and how it affects leadership in the area of innovation was the primary
focus, resource materials across the innovation continuum were cursorily reviewed in search of
specific discussions regarding innovation cluster development and the role context had on
leadership.
Additionally, web-based resources associated with the key search terms of ‘innovation
leadership’, ‘leadership in innovation’, and ‘cluster leadership’ were reviewed, including
websites of:

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 17
• The iHubs;
• Business organizations that study and assess innovation activities, including the Bay
Area Council- http://www.bayareacouncil.org/, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
(SVLG)- http://www.svlg.org, and California Forward (CAFWD)- http://cafwd.org/;
• Associations that focus on technology transfer and commercialization of research in a
business setting, including the Association of University Research Parks (AURP) -
http://www.aurp.net/;
• Business associations focused on innovation and entrepreneurship, including the
Kaufman Foundation- http://www.kauffman.org/;
• Universities, including University of California, Davis-
https://gsm.ucdavis.edu/department/institute-innovation-and-entrepreneurship,
University of Wisconsin- https://www.wisconsin.edu/economic-
development/innovation-advancement/, and Stanford University-
http://create.stanford.edu/;
• National labs, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)-
https://www.llnl.gov/, and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)-
http://www.sandia.gov/;
• Research institutes, including Battelle- https://www.battelle.org/, and Concurrent
Technologies Corporation- http://www.ctc.com/.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 18
Though review of these web resources influenced the general aspects of this study,
references are provided where specific material or concepts have been noted.
Though not used as a source for specific research, popular articles on innovation and
entrepreneurship from online magazines like Wired, Fast Company, Governing, GovTech, OZY,
Red Herring, and New City were also reviewed to gain a sense of the innovation ecosystem in
various regions.
Lastly, informal conversations and discussions were held with academic colleagues,
professionals in innovation businesses, and practitioners in the innovation sectors to gain
perspective on how research might be conducted concerning the topics of leadership and context
in review of the iHubs. Some of these individuals were included in the survey as previous
participants in iHub-related activities.
Each of these resources was used to help tailor a literature review for this study that
would provide the foundation upon which further assessment could be conducted to answer the
specific questions around how context influences leaders in innovation cluster development.
Innovation Systems
Over the last few decades, innovation has become a popular term applied to areas as
diverse as policy, social conditions, economics, and leadership. One topic included broadly in
this term is the encouragement by policy makers of business development activities through
encouraging entrepreneurship, startup formation, development of makerspaces, and establishing
incubators, or more simply, the development of an innovation ecosystem.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 19
Since regional context (the environment) is likely to be one of the most significant
influences in leadership, a discussion of how innovation clusters are formed (both purposefully
and organically) is relevant.
Innovation clusters and hubs.
Early concepts regarding innovation clustering are often attributed to Joseph
Schumpeter’s work in the early 1900s (Fagerberg, 2004; Carlsson, 2003; Sweezy, 1943) and to
Schumpeter’s predecessor Leon Walras (Hospers, 2005).
But it has been largely recognized that innovation clusters in particular became more
widely discussed by policy makers, business organizations, and governments after Porter (1998;
2000) published several articles on clusters and innovation. Porter & Stern (2001, pg. 29) more
specifically point out that “innovation and the commercialization of new technologies takes place
disproportionately in clusters – geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and
institutions.”
Federal focus on innovation cluster development in the U.S. started as early as the
Reagan Administration in response to declining federal support for research and development
(Keller & Block, 2013). A 2010 survey by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration (U.S. EDA) also demonstrated the interest in innovation cluster
development, with over 800 cluster initiatives underway in the U.S. by state and local
governments, industry organizations, or academic institutions.
Fallah (2005) describes innovation clusters as overlapping initiatives that lead to a shared
collaboration. They can be defined as geographies with related interests, typically including

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 20
businesses in a related supply chain, and usually anchored by a research center and university.
To demonstrate his point, Fallah (2005) describes historically well-known regional clusters that
are readily identifiable: Switzerland for watches; Paris for fashion; Hollywood for motion
pictures; Detroit for automobiles; and Silicon Valley for technology, especially in electronics.
Recognizing life-cycles in cluster development is important in supporting a culture of
innovation. Pounder and St. John (1996) note that major programs and projects within a cluster
go through four stages of a life-cycle stages, including: startup; expansion; maturation; and
refinement (which could lead to decline).
Cluster development activities that were popularized by Porter (2001) have subsequently
been embraced by governments at all levels, who have since adopted the vernacular of clusters to
promote national, regional, and local competitiveness, innovation, and growth (Cassidy, et al.
2005).
Those governmental efforts to foster regional innovation cluster development have
focused the federal government on taking advantage of the significant investment already in
place around national labs and federally-funded research institutions and universities. In his 2011
State of the Union speech, President Obama specifically outlined opportunities for job creation
using existing assets and previous federal investment. This message was again echoed by the
Obama administration in the Startup America Program and the Presidential Memo on
Technology Transfer from October 2011, which specifically called on federal agencies to create
plans for technology cluster development around federal research institutions.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 21
Innovation ecosystems.
Another way to discuss the arrangement of clusters and the various mechanisms is to
think of them as an ecosystem. In the book The Death of Competition, James Moore (1996) has
often been credited as the originator of definition of the ‘business ecosystem’ (Gilbert, 1998).
Gilbert describes Moore’s’ view of a business ecosystem where individuals and organizations are
the organisms inhabiting the economic community (1998).
In her paper for the National Science Foundation, Jackson (2011) notes that “an
innovation ecosystem models the economic rather than the energy dynamics of the complex
relationships that are formed between actors and entities whose functional goal is to enable
technology development and innovation” (p. 2) Like in biology, an “ecosystem is a complex set
of relationships among the living resources, habitats, and residents of an area, whose functional
goal is to maintain an equilibrium sustaining state” (Jackson, 2011, p. 1).
The term ‘innovation ecosystem’ was popularized by Hwang & Horowitt (2012) in their
book The Rainforest, detailing their observations on factors that made Silicon Valley a
recognized leader in innovation. Like a rainforest (biological ecosystem), an innovation
ecosystem is made up of many differing actors (species), environmental conditions, and resource
levels, where unrivaled niches can be rapidly filled by innovation (mutations). In an innovation
ecosystem, the many actors (individuals and organizations), physical places, resources
(investment, mentoring), and official and unofficial interactions are what cause innovation to
occur.
Jackson (2011) explains that in “this context, the actors would include the material
resources (funds, equipment, facilities, etc.) and the human capital (students, faculty, staff,

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 22
industry researchers, industry representatives, etc.) that make up the institutional entities
participating in the ecosystem (e.g. the universities, colleges of engineering, business schools,
business firms, venture capitalists (VC), industry-university research institutes, federal or
industrial supported Centers of Excellence, and state and/or local economic development and
business assistance organizations, funding agencies, policy makers, etc.)” (p. 2). Though not the
only type of organizational construct used to discuss these type of business arrangements, when
describing innovation ecosystems, regional clusters are an oft cited example of these interactions.
A common set of elements that appear to be present in many innovation ecosystems, and
are most pronounced in regions exhibiting a high degree of relative success, are described by
Walshok (2011) to include:
• Large competitive basic research institutions;
• Facilities and land dedicated to research and education;
• High levels of patents and technology licenses;
• Angel and venture capital essential to starting and developing businesses;
• Talented workforce, including inventors, technology entrepreneurs, and start-up
veterans; and
• Access to global partners and markets for advanced technology products (p. 47)
Walshok (2011) also notes that these assets need to be present to catalyze the activities
that result in innovation, and they would be difficult for a region to put in place without

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 23
significant community and government will. Additionally, these assets can typically take years
(sometimes decades) to be fully realized as contributing towards the ecosystem of innovation.
Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh (2004) identified that collaboration has subsequently
emerged as a result of challenges in industry and academia and constitutes a variety of
organizations that are “largely autonomous, geographically distributed, and heterogeneous” (p.
439) in operations, culture and goals. Manifesting in many forms, collaborative efforts can be
realized through a variety of organizations, both virtual and physical.
To reinforce the growing popularity of innovation ecosystems as a field of study, modern
economic development activities in California such as sector and innovation cluster
development, entrepreneurship, and technology transfer and commercialization are assessed and
studied regularly by organizations as diverse as the Kauffman Foundation, the Association of
University Research Parks, Battelle, California Forward, CCST, the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group, and The Bay Area Council.
However, defining innovation clusters, hubs, and ecosystems is rendered more difficult
because these terms have become comingled in the popular literature. Doloreux & Parto (2005)
specifically note the definitional confusion by stating that “the diverse variety of regional
innovation system types results in a significant degree of ‘definition confusion’… making it
difficult for a researcher and policy makers to envisage what a regional innovation system is or
should be” (p. 148)

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 24
Innovation Assets
Both Florida (2003) and Walshok (2011) point out that while working towards cluster
development, it is important to identify the existing assets and characteristics of the region to
create the beginnings of a culture of innovation. This reinforces the need to evaluate the
environmental context for an innovation ecosystem as a determinant of possible outcomes.
To support the activity of collaboration, Porter (2001) describes three major
characteristics that support clusters:
1. Presence of a large labor pool;
2. Availability of raw materials, supplies, components, consultants, and other inputs at a
lower cost; and
3. Knowledge exchange which leads to innovations.
Researchers have focused on this third element as a prominent key advantage to clusters
due to the nature of outputs that can come from the exchanging of ideas. It seems clear that
regions with infrastructure that supports academic and research institutions, however small, are
poised to best take advantage of this culture of innovation.
Agglomeration economies refers to the advantages that businesses might enjoy within
certain regional locations. This is typically due to three explicit reasons: a contiguous pool of
skilled technical workforce; a local supply chain of unique goods and services; and, continuous
knowledge transfer across firms and organizations (Krugman, 1991).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 25
As an example, identifying and then creating the right conditions for proactive land use
through zoning and planning can take several years and governments are unlikely to be able to
then provide that land at a subsidized price. Attraction and creation of significant investment in
basic research and academic institutions can also take many years to manifest the positive
aspects of an innovation culture.
In reviewing technology clusters that act as economic engines for a geographic area, it
becomes clear that there are key components that must be in place to efficiently activate that
engine. Areas like Silicon Valley and Route 128 in Boston clearly have the historical context,
the infusion of significant research programs, monies and local support by the government, and a
culture of entrepreneurial research activities (typically from universities) (Etzkowitz, Dzisah,
Ranga, & Zhou, 2007).
They also take advantage of a significant presence of research universities. In Silicon
Valley, there is UC Berkeley, Stanford University, UC San Francisco, Santa Clara University,
and San Jose State. At Route 128-Boston, there is Harvard University, MIT, Boston College, and
Boston University. And there are extensive linkages between these universities and industry,
often created due to research activities at these universities (Mowery & Sampat, 2003).
The resulting environment that creates business startups and opportunities for rapid
growth in companies can be attributed to several factors, most important of which is that these
regions are centered near research or academic institutions (Sturgeon, 2000).
When supported by the local industry groups, it appears that “knowledge spillovers” tend
to favor and positively impact the region in which the research was conducted. This seems to be
attributable to both the need of entrepreneurs to be near resources that might foster successful

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 26
commercialization of the invention (where the invention was created) and to the supportive
structures that the local government agencies have put in place to foster the knowledge-based
industry (Trajtenberg, Jaffe, & Henderson, 1997).
Universities also play a major role in the development of knowledge-based economies,
with governments seeking “to increase the rate of transfer of academic research advances to
industry to facilitate the application of these research advances by domestic firms” (Mowery &
Sampat, 2003).
These government initiatives seek to link the university research to industrial application
through such activities as creating science parks, business incubators, and public seed capital
funds. Mowery and Sampat (2003) highlight two types of policy-making activities that should be
implemented by government to have a positive impact on the success of economic development:
(1) creation of policies that encourage the formation of regional economic clusters and spin-offs
based on the research done by a university or research institution; and (2) creation of polices that
stimulate university patent and licensing activities.
Unfortunately, this change in focus by governments is challenged by a narrow focus in
policy discussions that fails to fully embrace the complexity of the innovation process and
unmitigated impacts on institutions like universities (Christopherson, Kitson, & Michie, 2008).
Innovation Strategies
Under Prajogo & Ahmed’s (2006) relationship model for innovation strategies,
successful implementation of the strategy is dependent upon the relationships between (1)
innovation stimulus, (2) innovation capacity, and (3) innovation performance. In the model, the

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 27
stimulus is provided by leadership, management, creativity, and knowledge; the capacity is
dependent upon the technological and research and development (R&D) abilities; and the
performance is the output of product or process.
What this model demonstrates is the need for a guiding force (stimulus), the ability for
the innovation ecosystem to respond (capacity), and the resultant output or outcome
(performance). If an innovation system is deficient or missing any of these elements, then the
collaborative opportunities are also equally diminished.
To support innovators directly, Aggarwal (2003) encourages governments to conduct the
following activities:
• Actively construct the physical and virtual infrastructures for emerging industries;
• Be supportive and adaptive; and
• Play a nuanced role, rather than directly investing in state-owned enterprise.
A positive outgrowth of the efforts to begin the activity of building an innovation culture
means that entrepreneurial technology companies can often drive the need for a highly educated,
nimble workforce to a region. Attracting just a few entrepreneurs to a region (possibly through
incentives) can create a growing need for engineers, scientist, and professionals (such as
accountants, media/marketing consultants, and lawyers) in that region. When working towards
supporting cluster development, it is important to identify the existing assets and characteristics
of the region in order to create the beginnings of a culture of innovation (Florida 2003, Walshok
2011).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 28
Christopherson et al. (2008) notes that public policy activities need to encourage the
cluster development efforts at all levels of government. And it appears that an additive factor can
be a nationalized system of technology development (Godin, 2009) which creates strong
capabilities within the technology sectors (Fagerberg, 2008). As described by Saxenian (2008),
workforce training and development is also a key component to creating a sustainable innovation
system. And Leslie (2000) highlights that the reason many clusters do not excel is the lack of
access to significant investment, specifically angel and venture capital.
As discussed by Walshok (2011) and Porter (2001), the benefits of technology clusters on
regional prosperity are significant, but it is imperative to translate the entrepreneurial activities
actions that assure the employment and prosperity to the rest of the social structure (middle and
working class). “This requires civic leadership that values a diverse economy and prosperity for
all. It also requires economic development professionals who know how to think in very
comprehensive ways” (Walshok, 2011, p. 43).
As a supporting mechanism, Muro & Kenan (2011) suggest that government should
create comprehensive policies and incentives (possibly subsidies) that can be implemented at
international, federal, state and local level to encourage innovation and cluster development.
Leadership in Innovation
Though there is considerable research on the process of innovation (creativity) as a part
of leadership, there is very little discussion in the literature (outside of popular writing) with
respect to the conditions under which leadership played a role in the development of innovation
clusters.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 29
As described by Sydow et al. (2011), leadership research has largely centered “on
leadership in dyads, groups or organizations, neglecting socially more distant, ambiguous, and
complex contexts,” which include “national cultures, ethnic communities, and the now
omnipresent inter-organizational arrangements such as strategic alliances, supply networks,
public-private partnerships, or regional clusters and innovations systems.” (p. 328)
They also point out that “despite the prevalence of clusters… and the obvious but very
diverse role of leadership…, leading (in) clusters has hardly been studied” (p. 329) To further
emphasize that point, they further state that “when the term ‘leadership’ is… used by cluster
researchers, even the very basics of leadership research are not taken into consideration” (Sydow
et al., 2011, p. 329).
In Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Denhardt et al.
(2016) note that leaders’ creativity comes from several sources, including:
• Individual’s inner motivations are essential to creativity (Amabile, 1999 as cited in
Denhardt et al., 2016, p. 73);
• Social environments influence creativity (Scott, 1965 as cited in Denhardt et al.,
2016, p. 73); and
• Creativity is often achieved by adapting innovations from other places (Chesbrough,
2003 as cited in Denhardt et al., 2016, p. 73).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 30
Differing combinations of influences such as skills, motivations, behaviors, and
environmental factors (Koestler, 1964; Denhardt et al., 2016) can also lead to some leaders being
able to achieve their goals, while others would fall short.
Among the first to propose switching the focus from traits and behaviors of leaders to
context, Fielder (1967) was focused on the contingencies of the situation in order to better
understand the efficacy of a certain form or style of leadership (Sydow et al., 2011).
Fielder (1967) found that organizations also affect a leader’s ability to lead based on the
three characteristics of 1) position power, 2) task structure, and 3) personal relationships between
the leader and the members. Position power is the power the group bestows on the leader, often
reflected in a title or through specific authorities. Task structure defines the amount of
enforceability to follow a directed set of steps versus lack of structure, often leading to creativity.
And personal relationships are a determining factor in the success (or failure) of leadership
effectiveness.
The differentiation between power and leadership is that power serves the interest of the
one wielding the power, whereas leadership serves the shared interests of both leader and
follower (Burns, 1978). Bass (1999) notes that transactional leadership is simply an exchange-
based relationship (wielding power) and does not encourage experimentation (innovation). But
transformational leadership uses influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and
consideration of the individual (Bass, 1999; Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2011).
Sydow et al. (2011) describe that leading others is “short-hand for a particular
organizational member… or an organized collectivity of individuals from a particular
organization making things happen on behalf of their organization or the cluster” (p. 330).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 31
Kellerman (2015) proposes that “leadership is a system consisting of three moving parts,
each of which is equally important and each of which impinges equally on the other two” (p. 2).
She outlines the “three parts” as first the” Leader”, second the “Follower”, and third the
“Context” (p. 296).
The Kellerman (2015) goes on to note that a discussion on context is largely absent when
assessing leadership – and specifically that context which is more distal, and not proximate to the
leader. She laments that the shortcomings of the many texts that have been written on how to be
a leader, and suggests that because the situation determines particular action, we should instead
focus on the “framework for seeing the setting within which work gets done” (p. 1).
Because leadership research should not be proximate, but instead deal with the larger
circumstances, Kellerman (2015) specifically notes that “when leaders come to understand this
more expansive environment, they will similarly come to understand those other, less accessible
components of context – ideological, political, economic, cultural, technological, and financial,
among others – with which, inevitably, they have also to contend” (p. 4).
As informed by Yammarino & Dansereau (2008), Sydow et al. (2011) assess that
“regional clusters appear to be not only particularly complex, ambiguous, diverse, and dynamic
contexts for leadership but also require, more than other contexts, a multi-level approach… and
“this type of complexity may be indicative of future leadership contexts” (p. 329).
In assessing regional collaboration, Accordino (2011) found that broad success started
from a handful of leaders. These ‘boundary-spanning’ individuals have typically looked for
opportunities beyond jurisdictional, institutional, or sector boundaries. They came from a variety
of backgrounds, including business leaders in large and small firms, university presidents and

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 32
administration, and politicians, as well as others. Ultimately, the degree of success from
collaborative efforts was dependent on the constant support of these leaders by the communities
in which they served (Accordino, 2011).
To successfully create collaboration and foster innovation, “boundary-spanning
networking activities between the business and science and technology communities are
essential” to building “a community of innovation, out of which comes shared knowledge,
mutual trust” and “increasing willingness to collaborate and take risks” (Walshok, 2011, p. 47).
Additionally, boundary spanning individuals act as leadership nodes (or fulcrums) with
other organizations (Tushman, 1977; Hwang & Horowitt, 2012), leading to the concept that these
individuals possess a capability to create direction, alignment, and commitment across
boundaries, fields, or sectors to achieve a higher vision or goal (Ernst & Yip, 2009).
Regional clusters also provide a way to assess leadership in a new context because they
are 1) an “organizational form of economic activity [that] is definitely on the rise” (Sydow et al.,
2011, p. 328) and 2) “extremely ambiguous, diverse, complex, and dynamic” (p. 329).
Cartwright & Zander (1960) further describe leadership as having two functions –
achieving tasks and building of relationships. Denhardt et al. (2016) describe it as the idea of
consideration versus initiation of structure, explaining that leadership was previously thought of
as formal position of power, but might be better framed as a process occurring throughout
organizations as ‘shared leadership’.
In the case of each of the iHubs, a model of shared (or collaborative) leadership is
apparent based on the need to collaborate across multiple sectors. This leadership approach of

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 33
influencing others to achieve goals and outcomes (Pearce & Conger, 2003) can be accomplished
using the skills of negotiating, brokering and resolving conflict, all of which are required when
multiple groups and interests are working together and no one group or person is completely in
charge (Crosby & Bryson, 2005). This shared leadership can also be described as broadly
distributed across the members of the group (Bennis & Townsend, 2005).
This context of collaboration can be further defined using the concept of connective
leadership (Lipman-Blumen, 2000), where leaders achieve goals through direct, relational or
instrumental achieving styles. The direct achieving style – intrinsic, competitive, and power-
oriented – seeks to master one’s own tasks. The relational achieving style – vicarious,
contributory, and collaborative – seeks to help others achieve their tasks. And the instrumental
achieving style – entrusting, social, and personal – seeks interaction amongst diverse groups to
create collaborations (Denhardt et al., 2016, p. 199).
Like Kellerman (2015), this study does not focus on the leaders or the followers from
each of the six iHubs, though some discussion will be given to these players and their roles.
Instead, this study looks to catalogue the context at the local, state, and federal level at the time
of the iHub program inception and the conditions within each iHub’s geography that caused the
leaders (and followers) to create or adapt a regional cluster to fulfill the state’s intended program
outcomes. By understanding the context, it is possible to then make comparisons between the
iHubs to assess reasons why some of the iHubs have had programmatic success and are
financially stable, while others have either gone defunct or been completely reorganized.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 34
California iHub Program Development
As a reaction to the failing global economy and reduced state revenues, in 2009 the State
of California focused specific attention on the activity of creating new innovation clusters and
recognizing those that already existed (like Silicon Valley) (BTH, 2009).
How the iHubs got started.
At the national level, President Barak Obama and his administration had been rapidly
searching for ways to spur innovation. As previously described in Hard Times: Leadership in
America, Kellerman (2015) reflects on some of the national level efforts to spur innovation
cluster development, with organizations like the Brookings Institution and the National
Governors Association also reflecting those sentiments in their popular writing (as cited by
Kellerman, 2015).
BTH had been using the RERWP process to identify job creation and revenue
opportunities for the state. One of the outcomes from the process in early 2009 had been
engagement with the national labs in California through the CCST to identify ways to encourage
economic development, specifically job creation, through innovation cluster development. The
state and other organizations, such as the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area
Council, had spent considerable time assessing the economic downturn and worked to identify
ways to jump start the economy of California (BTH, 2009). It was at that time that the state had
also been experiencing significant budget shortfalls and was looking for ways to increase
revenue.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 35
Knowledge nodes - universities, national labs, and research institutions – had been
engaged in working with the state to find ways to increase the rapid deployment and
commercialization of research and technology. Even the national labs had begun to realize that
they needed to be more actively engaged in stimulating innovation and the resultant economic
development activities needed to spur the economy.
The national labs in California were viewed as a particularly important partner in the
development of innovation clusters, especially the Livermore-based DOE labs, since their
partnerships had not been as developed as other national labs, like NASA’s Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) at California Institute of Technology (Caltech), DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab (LBNL), or the US Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
(SPAWAR).
One way that the Obama administration had signaled its intent to focus on innovation
across federal agencies as a way to stimulate economic development was the January 2009
appointment of Steven Chu, Ph.D. to the post of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy
(U.S. DOE). At the time, Dr. Chu was the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and a
co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997.
As stated on the DOE’s current website “Dr. Chu was charged with helping implement
President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs” (U.S. DOE, 2017).
By encouraging innovation clusters to develop around innovation nodes like universities
and research institutions (Figure 2), while also recognizing existing organized business clusters
throughout the state, the efforts by BTH to establish the iHub program were intended to create a

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 36
certified program to provide a platform for research clusters, young technology companies,
government entities, venture capitalist investors, and non-profit economic development
organizations to work together to foster innovation and job creation throughout California (BTH,
2010)
On September 10, 2009, the State of California issued a document titled Innovation Hub
(iHub) Guidelines, which was a request for proposals by BTH, the lead economic development
agency for the state at the time. The RFP noted that BTH is “committed to preserving a climate
that promotes innovation and entrepreneurship in the face of increasing global competition,”
while recognizing the “importance of supporting and fostering innovation in order to grow
California’s economy” (BTH, 2009, p. 3).

Figure 2: Schematic describing iHub concept from 2010 RFP (GoEd, 2010, p. 4).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 37
Reasons to develop the iHub program.
The RFP (BTH, 2009) highlights that the findings from the Regional Economic Recovery
Work Plans (RERWP) were a primary catalyst for the iHub program development. The RERWPs
were initially created to determine distribution of federal ARRA funding to the regions within
California (BTH, 2009). The global economic recession (context), as described by Kellerman
(2015) and Sydow et al. (2011), clearly precipitated action on the part of the state to develop and
release the RFP for the iHub program.
As an economic development opportunity, this undertaking by California seemed to fit
well with the existing entrepreneurial and startup activities from well-known innovation centers
in California, like Silicon Valley and San Diego.
BTH (2009) seemed to indicate that this would be a driver by stating in the very first
sentence of the RFP that “innovation is what drives economic growth and California leads the
nation when it comes to generating new ideas and new ways of thinking’ (p. 3). The RFP
additionally stated that “iHubs have the ability to enhance California’s national and global
competitiveness by stimulating partnerships that accelerate investment and economic
development around research clusters” (BTH, 2009, p. 3).
A window into the context of the state’s view that the iHub program would become an
economic catalyst, the 2009 RFP (BTH) provides the following introductory statements:
iHubs represent the words innovative, inspiration, invention, ingenuity, investment, etc.;

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 38
iHubs have the ability to enhance California’s national and global competitiveness by
stimulating partnerships that accelerate investment and economic development around
research clusters;
The purpose of the iHub program is to promote collaboration and commercialization of
technology to stimulate job creation;
Companies and research institutions within the iHubs will benefit from enhanced
partnership opportunities, national and international exposure, and increased marketing
opportunities; and
The initial iHub cohort is to be focused on a broad representation of new and existing
organizations (at the time of designation), geographical distribution across California, and
rural and urban settings. (BTH, 2009, p. 3)
Though the impetus for California’s action in creating the iHub program can be clearly
linked to the economic conditions at the time, the specific drivers that motivated the individuals,
groups, and agencies to respond to the RFP seems less clear.
As development of the Work Plans progressed in response to the federal ARRA, the
California Governor’s Office was focused on the promise of innovation hub (cluster)
development as an economic tool (BTH, 2009). Activities by agencies across the U.S. to create
innovation clusters were reflective of the growing national dialogue of ways to address the poor
economic conditions (Kellerman, 2015).
The federal, state, and regional economic and social context during 2009 was also
reflected in the statement within the RFP that “iHubs have the ability to enhance California’s

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 39
national and global competitiveness by stimulating partnerships that accelerate investment and
economic development around research clusters.” The RFP went on to state, “the purpose of the
iHub program is to promote collaboration and commercialization of technology to stimulate job
creation” (BTH, 2009, p. 3).
The state’s view that innovation clusters would be beneficial to the economic health of
California is clearly stated, and it is within that context that this study looks at the factors of why
the iHub program was started, why it continued, and what challenges it faced during maturation.
2009 RFP process.
The RERWPs played a key role in the development of the iHub program because they
“emphasized the importance of supporting and fostering innovation in order to grow California’s
economy. Building on the RERWP process and the UC Institutes for Science and Innovation
created in 2000, the California Innovation Hub (iHub) program will modernize California’s
approach to fostering innovation and entrepreneurship” (BTH, 2009, p. 3).
Prior to the initial RFP in 2009, significant outreach was conducted in crafting the initial
program elements, including discussions with the national laboratories, California universities
and colleges, and existing innovation and economic development organizations (BTH, 2009).
The RFP was released in September 2009, and after an applicant pool of over 25 (see
Appendix A) successfully passed the letter of intent phase in October, they were invited to
submit a full proposal by November 20th. After a competitive selection process, the initial six
iHubs were selected and initially designated on February 4, 2010 by BTH (2010).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 40
State established GoED.
During 2010, the GoED office was established, the iHub program was moved from BTH
to GoED, and each of the initial six iHubs were re-designated under that program office in May
2010. The iHubs also worked with GoED to create a memorandum of understanding,
memorializing the shared goals and programmatic objectives.
The Schwarzenegger administration then formed the Governor’s Office of Economic
Development (GoED), which was formally established through Executive Order from Governor
Schwarzenegger in April 2010. This included incorporating the iHub program into GoED and
subsequent re-notification of official designation by GoED in May 2010 (GoED, 2010).
Though not the subject of this study, a subsequent RFP titled Innovation Hub (iHub)
Guidelines & Application – Round II (Appendix B) was released on April 22, 2010 by the newly
formed Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GoED). The RFP sought to select up to
three additional iHubs.
As a result of the Round II RFP, three new iHubs were designated in September 2010,
bringing the total to nine. These included:
• East Bay Green Corridor iHub (East Bay cities, Richmond to Hayward);
• iHub San Diego (Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties); and
• San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub (San Jose).
Both the 2009 and 2010 RFPs focused on identifying assets, geographies, partners, and
goals, with very little emphasis on leadership. But each of the RFPs provided considerable

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 41
discussion on the underlying economic conditions at the time and the justification for focus on
developing regional networks for innovation.
As demonstrated by the resource materials in Appendix B, GoED spent a considerable
amount of time in 2010 creating a program charter, branding materials, an iHub logo, and
memorandum of understandings (MOU) (which were signed by each of the iHub coordinators).
Shortly after the second round of designations happened in September, and due primarily
to the need to solidify the iHub program in the face of the upcoming election, three more iHubs
were designated in October 2010. These included:
• Central California iHub (Centered around Fresno, includes Merced to Tulare
Counties);
• Cleantech Los Angeles iHub (LA County); and
• Innovate North State iHub (Redding to Grass Valley).
More information on these iHubs is included in the 2013 status report by the University
of Southern California Center for Economic Development (USC CED, 2013) (Appendix C) and
the 2016 annual report by GO-Biz (2016a) (Appendix C).
State program changed – GoED becomes GO-Biz.
In early 2011, upon administration change from Governor Schwarzenegger to Governor
Jerry Brown, GoED activities (and therefore the iHub program) were slowed while the new
administration officials reviewed for the program for compatibility with the new administration’s

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 42
economic development goals and objectives (L. Stewart, personal communication, March 24,
2011).
By early 2012, GoED was renamed to the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic
Development (GO-Biz). Much of 2012 was spent setting up the GO-Biz program offices,
including the appointment of its first director, Kish Rajan, in September 2012 (Broder, 2012).
In September 2012, Governor Brown decided to continue statewide economic
development efforts started under GoED under the new brand of GO-Biz, which included the
iHub program. The iHubs were once again able to focus on the promise of what state-level
recognition and coordination could provide.
During 2013, GO-Biz worked with the California legislature to draft a bill that would
codify the iHub program into the new GO-Biz office. Assemblymember Chris Holden
introduced Assembly Bill 250 – California Innovation Initiatives on February 6, 2013 and the
bill was approved by the Governor on October 4, 2013, adding Article 6 (commencing with
Section 12099) to Chapter 1.6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Major initiatives of the bill, other than officially creating the iHub Program Office with
GO-Biz, included: issuance of a new RFP for iHub designation; identified the major activities
expected of the iHubs; and creation of the Innovation Accelerator Account within the California
Economic Development Fund of the State Treasury, providing GO-Biz with an official account
to accept innovation related gifts, bequests, and donations.
It is unclear if a subsequent RFP for ‘round three’ of iHub designations was released, as
no RFP was available for review, but a web-based news story on the California Economic

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 43
Summit website stated that the four new iHub designations came “days after Governor Jerry
Brown signed [Assembly Bill] AB 250 to formally recognize the iHub program in the state”
(CAFWD, 2013). This statement appears to indicate that no RFP process was used, but instead
the approval by the governor of the 2013 founding regulations for the iHubs was the catalyst for
the designations. With these four new iHubs, the total number of designations increased to
sixteen.
Continuing through 2013 and up to the point of this study’s release (fall 2017), GO-Biz
continued regular meetings of the iHubs, provide state-level support and marketing of the
program, and endeavored to create two assessment reports (on by USC CED in 2013 and one by
GO-Biz in 2016). None of the activities led to additional funding generated by the state, and no
additional iHubs were designated after 2013.
iHub Program Resources
Though very little public information is available for the early history of the iHubs, at
several points in state’s management of the iHub program a variety of regulations, reports, and
online resources were developed that outlined procedural activities for the iHub program,
highlighted programmatic activities of the iHub program, and curated information about each of
the individual iHubs.
Some of the information outlined below has already been discussed in earlier sections,
but it is restated here to demonstrate the relatively small amount of resource materials available
regarding the iHub program history. Each of these resources was reviewed for this study. As
noted next to each item, resources not widely available from the state or online are provided in
the appendices to this study.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 44
BTH resources – 2009.
The following resources identified BTH’s specific focus and roles in development of the
iHub program in 2009. Documents for this section are included as Appendix A.
• September 2009 – RFP for first round of iHubs (BTH, 2009).
• October 2009 – Recommended to proceed list of 25 potential iHubs from Letter of
Intent process.
• October 15, 2009 – Notice to Proceed with full iHub proposal (letter to i-GATE,
example).
• February 4, 2010 – Notice of iHub designation letter.
• March 18, 2010 – Press release announcing inaugural iHub designations.
GoED resources – 2010 to 2012.
The following resources outline GoED’s program startup activities for the iHub program
from 2010 to 2012, with specific emphasis on marketing and brand development. Documents for
this section are included as Appendix B).
• May 19, 2010 – iHub official designation from GoED.
• April 2010 – Example MOU from i-GATE and GoED.
• April 22, 2010 – Round II RFP – Guidelines and Application
• June 1, 2010 – Founding charter with GoED.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 45
• 2010 – Map of regional locations of iHub initiative.
GO-Biz resources – 2012 to 2017.
The following resources outline GO-Biz’s ongoing program goals and the focus of the iHub
program, with specific emphasis on economic outcomes and job creation metrics. Documents for
this section are included as Appendix C).
• October 2013 - AB 250, Holden (2013) codifying the establishment of the new GO-
Biz office and the iHub program;
• 2013 - iHub promotional brochure (GO-Biz, 2013), including updated map of the
iHub regions;
• December 2013 – Overview report prepared by the University of Southern California
Center for Economic Development (USC CED) on behalf of U.S. EDA, titled the
‘California iHub Profiles and Indicators Report’ (USC CED, 2013);
• July 2016 - iHub Annual Report (GO-Biz, 2016a) (the only one to date); and
• March 2017 - Modifications to the 2013 iHub regulations by GO-Biz, specifically
Article 4 of Chapter 13 of Title 10, Sections 8300 to 8380 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), updated on March 22, 2017.
It wasn’t until the most recent changes to the iHub regulations in March 2017 (CCR,
2017) that a focus on management and leadership for the iHubs was specifically noted. This is
discussed more in the comparative study section.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 46
Chapter 3
Methodology
Much of my interest in the iHub program has resulted from being the co-founder, the
iHub coordinator, and ultimately the CEO of the i-GATE iHub based in Livermore, California.
Since the initial formation of the iHub program in 2009, I have been curious about why so many
organizations would collaborate around a single idea or activity, especially when there seemed to
have been no incentive as part of the program startup, such as new programmatic funding for
staff or a grant for facility and materials hard costs.
This curiosity wasn’t just to understand others’ motivations, but also to understand my
own actions as they related to creating one of the inaugural six iHubs.
To start, I had to gain a better understanding the conditions of the ecosystem during the
iHub program formation (2009 to 2010), several rounds of iHub designations (2010 and 2013),
and subsequent operations (2010-2017). To that end, six primary sources of public information
about the iHubs were reviewed:
1) 2009 and 2010 RFP documents from the state;
2) Submitted RFP responses from each of the six iHubs;
3) Current iHub websites and online resources;
4) Go-Biz’s website, promotional collateral, and the 2013 and 2015 summary reports’
5) 2013 founding regulations (AB 250) and subsequent 2017 updates; and

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 47
6) An online survey conducted in May 2017 of previous and current iHub managers,
proponents, and state-level representatives.
Each of these information sources was reviewed in relation to answering the questions
from Sydow et al. (2011) as outlined in the literature review section. Specifically, using the
social, political, and geographical conditions (context) in which the iHubs operated, this study
endeavored to assess the context of who, how, what circumstances, and what challenges may
have influenced leadership actions.
Additionally, my ongoing involvement in the iHub program since its inception provided a
unique set of experiences that are not catalogued in any other forum. At the discretion of this
study’s committee, I have created a section under the section on comparative study to describe
my personal and professional experiences from work during the program startup process, the
subsequent activities of actively managing an iHub, and my ongoing experiences as a partner
organization since leaving the i-GATE iHub. It is intended that the material provided creates
additional context to the subject matter presented in this study.
Review of iHub Program Resources
As mentioned in the previous section, there are only a few resources publically available
that chronicle the history of the iHub programs. Some documents have been included in
Appendices A, B, and C, which were acquired during my involvement as an iHub coordinator for
the i-GATE iHub. Some of the resources for this study (like state bill and regulation postings)
are available in well-archived systems and can be reviewed online. And some of the resources
are available online at the individual websites for GO-Biz and the iHubs.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 48
GO-Biz website.
The GO-Biz website was reviewed in both 2016 and 2017 as a source of programmatic
information. Review focused on assessing how GO-Biz described the iHub Program and what
emphasis was being put on economic factors in each year.
While this study was in progress, wording for GO-Biz website sub-page for the
‘Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ unit was modified slightly from 2016 to 2017, though
significant changes were made to the layout to emphasize a list of regulations. The sub-page for
the ‘iHub Program’ also had minor wording changes for 2017. But the most significant change
was that the number of iHubs was listed as 15 (instead of the 16 listed in 2016).
Additionally, a link on the 2017 iHub Program sub-page titled ‘iHub Regions’ links to a
table on another sub-page that depicts the current iHubs and the respective coordinators. On this
table, there were only 14 iHubs listed, meaning that two had been delisted. Missing from the
table were the North Bay iHub and the East Bay Green Corridor iHub.
iHubs’ websites.
To gain an understanding of the current operations of the iHub cohort, comparison of the
iHubs was conducted through review of readily available web-based information. By comparing
each iHub leadership structure from inception to current structure, and then comparing these
structures across the iHub cohort, the questions posed by Sydow et al. (2011) of the ‘who’ the
leaders are and ‘how’ is leadership being conducted can be readily assessed.
To the degree possible, information was assessed for sectorial make-up of the respective
management structures, organizational staffing structures (including apparent or stated resources,

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 49
like a paid executive director), relative financial health to execute their stated programs (as
disclosed online), and stated focus and activities for each of the iHubs. This comparison is
discussed in the subsequent sections.
This comparison of current online resources was then used to identify potential relative
trends in leadership, both in existing management structures and the social and economic context
within each iHub’s geography.
Online Survey
To assist in the comparison of the iHubs programs, leadership, and context, an online
survey (Appendices D and E) was conducted. The prospective participants included iHub
management, leadership, and key points of contact. Prospective participants were culled from the
2009 proposal for each iHub, their current website, and personal knowledge of key leaders.
Additionally, primary points of contact for the State of California from throughout the iHub
program history were invited to participate.
The survey provided opportunity for anonymity, allowing the participant to self-identify
only if they chose to provide contact information. The only personal information required was a
zip code to highlight geographic representation.
The survey questions, response choices, length, and tenor of the language were
coordinated with the dissertation committee and approved prior to conducting the survey.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 50
Developing the survey.
To develop the survey, questions were modelled directly from the solicitation factors in
state’s RFP (BTH, 2009). These included questions that focused on benefits from the program,
partnerships, leadership, purpose, goals, incentives, and reporting requirements.
Additionally, from my own personal participation in the iHub Program from inception in
2009 to the present (2017), factors that were commonly discussed during joint iHub management
meetings were used to guide some of the question creation. My participation in the iHub program
is discussed in more detail in the comparative study section, to provide context to the
programmatic information that cannot be gleaned from the available document sources.
The survey questions focused on these broad topic areas:
• Participant Information;
• iHub Program Development - 2009;
• Proposals for iHub Designation - 2009;
• Info About the iHub Program - 2010 to present (2017);
• iHub Specific Questions; and
• Wrap-up Questions (overall impressions).
The specific questions are discussed in the sections that follow.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 51
Survey participants.
An online survey was used to query the iHubs’ leadership (management, key contacts,
and stakeholders) from each iHub and the state on the conditions in which the iHubs were started
and subsequently operated (both past and present). Generally, the survey questions focused on
assessing the context in which the iHub program started and has since operated, including the
positions and sectors perceived to have provided leadership.
Initially, the survey was intended to target the previous and existing iHub boards and
management (executive director and key staff) as the primary participants. Two factors hindered
this approach: 1) one iHub had since become defunct (early 2017) and had no active list of
managers, while another one had gone through a complete shut-down in 2015 and re-emergence
in 2017 under a different (and still forming) management structure; and 2) many of those listed
in management positions did not have readily accessible emails or phone numbers available
through traditional online resources.
The prospective participants list was then broadened to include management and
leadership listed on the iHubs current websites (as available); primary points of contact listed for
each iHub on the GO-Biz website; the point of contact listed in the 2013 summary report
completed by USC CED; the point of contact listed in the 2016 annual report completed by GO-
Biz; and the primary points of contact, stakeholders, partners, and supporters identified in the
RFP proposals (SMBC, 2009; SARTA, 2009; SFCED, 2009; COL, 2009; COPS, 2009;
OCTANe, 2009).
Additionally, five prospective participants from past and current state-level iHub program
management were included in the request, which were identified based on personal knowledge of

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 52
the program history. These contacts included those involved in creating the program RFP,
initiating the program at GoED, and ultimately managing the program under GO-Biz.
This combined list from available sources generated 214 contacts as potential survey
participants. Where readily available, e-mail and/or social media contact information was
compiled. Contact information was also sought online through search engines, company
websites, LinkedIn, and Facebook.
Of the 214 potential participants, e-mail and/or social media contact information was
generated for 122 unique contacts. Information for the remaining 92 contacts could not be
readily located, as many of them had left their previous posts or were no longer associated with
the program. The majority had changed jobs with no information on new employment, and the
rest could not be found online through typical search engine techniques.
During the course of conducting the survey, information for 21 of the 92 contacts was
obtained through Facebook Messenger and/or personal interaction, growing the total potential
participant list to 143 unique contacts.
The online tool SurveyMonkey was used to generate the survey (Appendix D), including
question formatting. The survey period ran from May 19
th
to June 21
st
, 2017, with a request for
participation extended through an initial email generated by the SurveyMonkey system. The
email introduced the purpose for the survey, provided some background, and included a link to
the online survey tool. The same background information from the email was included in the first
section of the survey (Appendix D).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 53
Six emails in total were sent during the survey period, including the initial introduction
email and five reminders. The additional 21 potential participants identified during the survey
period were sent a web-link (URL) through social media that took them to the online survey.
Survey questions focused on the perception by each respondent on how local and
regional conditions had influenced both formation and ongoing operation of the iHub, the extent
to which collaboration across sectors was perceived to be important, perspective on which
identified sectors provided leadership (both past and present), and the how these factors may
have impacted the ability for the iHub to operate effectively.
The following subsections describe the specific information requested by topic area in the
online survey (Appendix D).
Survey Section 1 – background on survey.
This section of the survey provided the respondent background for why this survey was
being conducted and what objectives were sought.
As part of the preamble, the survey specifically states that “with your assistance and
input, this survey will help identify some key leadership factors of why the first six California
Innovation Hubs (iHubs) were developed and how they are doing today. The intent is not to
single out any iHub, but instead assess information in aggregate that can assist the iHub program
in the future.”
This section also identified that the survey was part of a doctoral program research
project and that the survey sought to identify some key factors in leadership, including:

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 54
• The context (social setting) of why they were developed;
• How does collaboration across sectors factor into the leadership; and
• Which sectors have played an important role in the development of the iHubs.
There was also a specific note that the survey could be taken anonymously, if the
respondent preferred that option.
Survey Section 2 - participant information.
The majority of the participant information section was to provide survey respondents the
opportunity to provide voluntary contact information, assuming that to some respondents the
option to identify themselves would lend legitimacy to the survey.
The information in Question 1 was not central to the survey, as the option was provided
to answer the survey anonymously and the information was not used in the conclusions of this
study. Question 2 required a zip code, which was used to assess distribution of respondents
across the entire iHub cohort. Question 3 allowed for voluntary identification of gender, which
sought only to identify if there was equal gender representation across the survey respondents (as
applicable).
Question 4 sought to determine if the respondent to the survey was providing information
as an iHub participant or a state representative, as well as in what phase of the iHub history
timeline they were involved: 1) involved in the creation of the state RFP in 2009; 2) involved in
preparation of the iHub proposals responding to the RFP in 2009; 3) involved in iHub

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 55
management from 2010 to the present; and 4) involved as an iHub partner from 2010 to the
present.
Question 5 sought to better understand the role of the respondent in the iHub program, as
well as what years they were engaged. Question 6 asked for the industry sector that they
represented on a year-by-year basis as they could have changed sectors yet still been involved
with the iHubs, and also provided opportunity for explanation as needed.
Survey Section 3 - iHub program development – 2009.
This section of the survey sought to gain feedback on what influences may have been
present during the iHub Program development period in 2009. There was also a note provided
that if the respondent was not involved during the 2009 period, to select N/A in Question 7 and
skip ahead to Section 5 of the survey.
Question 7 focused on ascertaining the specific roles in the initial iHub Program
development in 2009, including concept champion, policymaker, proposal lead, or
partner/supporting agency. This question allowed respondents to self-identify by checking as
many options as they thought applicable. Question 8 asked for a brief description of the
motivation behind their role in the initial iHub Program Development in 2009, either as a RFP
respondent (creating a proposal) or a state representative.
Question 9 asked for input on what factors were part of the environmental setting in 2009
at the local (city) level, and Question 10 asked respondents to briefly reflect on what one aspect
of the factors discussed in Question 9 stood out at the time.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 56
Questions 11 and 12 were similar to those asked in the previous questions, but instead
focused on the regional conditions.
The question set from 9 through 12 were meant to get a sense of what conditions existed
at the local versus regional level that could have been involved in decision-making when
preparing the RFP proposals.
Question 13 asked the respondent to reflect back to the economic and social conditions of
2009, and with their current knowledge and historical perspective, what brief advice would they
give themselves about the iHub program in development at that time?
To wrap up this section of the survey, Question 14 asked the respondents to identify what
“assets” of the iHub program in 2009 were viewed as most beneficial. Opportunity to explain the
responses given was also included.
Survey Section 4 - proposals for iHub designation - 2009.
This section of the survey sought to gain feedback on preparation of the iHub proposals
in 2009. Again, there was a note provided that if the respondent was not involved during the
iHub proposal development, to select N/A in Question 15 and skip ahead to Section 5 of the
survey.
Question 15 asked survey respondents to assess whether agencies and organizations were
supportive or reserved in developing partnerships for the iHub proposals. This was important,
because several of the iHub RFP proposals indicated in their write-ups that the short period of
the RFP process impacted their ability to gather demonstrated support letters from potential
partners for their proposal package.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 57
To further assess the development of partners, Question 16 requested that the respondent
briefly describe their overall experience in creating partnerships, both positive and negative.
In looking to determine the ultimate decision maker in each of the iHub regions for
preparation of the proposal, Question 17 asked the respondent to identify who they thought was
that decision maker, and also provided opportunity to explain the answer if needed.
Survey Section 5 - information about the iHub program - 2010 to present (2017).
This section of the survey sought to gain feedback on the iHub programs, specifically
from 2010 to the present. Questions were offered to gather information on how the iHubs have
been able to meet the opportunities and challenges in the evolving innovation setting (both social
and economic).
Question 18 established if the respondent was currently involved in the iHub program.
Question 19 asked the respondent about a variety of activities that could be viewed as
rewarding, allowing responses for each item to be scored from most to not rewarding. There was
also an opportunity to provide explanation if needed. Question 20 sought to ask the respondent
about activities that might be perceived as challenging, with a ranking from very to not
challenging. Again, an opportunity to provide explanation was provided.
The activities listed for each of these questions was gleaned from casual discussions with
other practitioners involved in innovation cluster development or personal experience.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 58
Question 21 focused on assessing the respondent’s view on which sectors provide the
most evident (or strongest) engagement for the iHubs. The list created for this question was
culled largely from the state’s RFP (BTH, 2009).
Survey Section 6 - iHub specific questions.
This section was intended to assess the respondent’s experience being engaged with the
iHub program. State representatives were asked to answer N/A on Question 22 and skip to
Section 7, as they were not engaged at the individual iHub level.
Question 22 asked the respondent if being associated with the state-level iHub Program
was a benefit. An explanation box was provided for the respondent to further explain their
response.
Question 23 queried that if the iHub program had come with annual funding, would the
answer to Question 22 change. Question 24 then asked what annual funding level would make
the iHub program designation more competitive. Respondents were provided with several ranges
from which to select.
Question 25 asked if the respondent thought that their iHub had successfully met the
goals and objectives outlined in the original proposal from 2009. Respondents were also
requested to explain their answer.
Question 26 focused on determining if the respondent thought that their iHub would have
been incentivized to create/negotiate annual goals and objectives with the state if those goals and
objectives were tied to funding. There was also an opportunity to explain their answer, if needed.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 59
Question 27 asked the respondent to select from a list of non-funding resources that could
be developed by the state (like additional marketing or access to high ranking policy makers) that
might also be viewed by the iHubs as an incentive for being part of the Program. Respondents
could select as many options as they chose to. The list was generated from statements of desired
non-funding outcomes within the iHub proposals as well as personal experience in managing an
iHub. Again, an opportunity to explain, or even add to the list, was provided.
Lastly, Question 28 asked if the iHub program was to be re-competed today, would the
respondent’s agency or organization consider applying. Respondents were requested to explain
their answer.
Survey Section 7 - wrap-up.
Section 7 was provided as a wrap-up for the survey.
Question 29 asked the respondent if there was anything else they would like to highlight
about the experience they had (either past or present) with developing or managing the iHub
program.
Question 30 asked that if there were follow up questions that resulted from the responses,
if it was okay to contact the respondent by phone. A space was provided for a phone number if
they chose to be available.
At the end of the survey, respondent was notified that I was happy to share the results of
the survey if they provided an email address.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 60
Survey results comparison.
After compiling the survey results, they were compared across the iHub cohort to identify
trends, with a specific focus on patterns as they related to contextual factors and perspectives on
leadership. Assessment of the survey results for the iHubs and the state-level program elements
are discussed at length in the following section, with conclusions and implications discussed in
the last section.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 61
Chapter 4
Comparative Study
Understanding how context (social, political, and geographical infrastructure) can
influence leaders’ abilities to collaborate across sectors can help to identify the influences that
can shape the outcomes in a region’s innovation ecosystem.
When it can be more clearly understood what contextual factors make a regional
innovation hub operate more efficiently in executing goals and achieving outcomes, then perhaps
leadership in other regions can look to supplement or apply some of the exhibited factors (like
the relative percentage make up of sectorial leadership, or inclusion of social networks in new
industries) to lead to their own relative success.
Comparison of iHub Cohort in 2009
Twenty-five prospective iHubs produced a submittal for the state in response to the 2009
RFP (see Appendix A for a table produced by the state in 2009 for the submittals received).
These responses were submitted in a two-step process: first, a general letter of interest was
submitted by October 2
nd
, whereby the state reviewed these letters and selected applicants to
submit a full proposal; and second, a proposal of no more than 20 pages (not including
attachments) was to be submitted that more fully described each iHub’s proposed approach.
Though the respondents could provide whatever information deemed appropriate to the
make the case for a designation, the responses were required to address the following (as stated
in the RFP):

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 62
• List of iHub assets and resources;
• Geographic boundaries (including virtual ‘knowledge nodes’);
• Description of roles of each partner, including signed statement of cooperation;
• Focus area of proposed iHub, including industry sectors;
• List of external grants and/or stimulus money currently available;
• List of specific resources available to support and guide young companies;
• Goals to be achieved;
• Benchmarks or milestones with approximate dates;
• Defined performance standards; and
• Evaluation procedures used to measure the level of achievement for each stated goal
(BTH, 2009, pp. 9-10).
It can be noted from this list of required information that the primary focus of the RFP
was on creating partnerships that led to economic outcomes. But only bullet three, ‘description of
roles’, even cursorily discusses the management (or leadership) that would be envisioned for the
iHubs.
Within the six response packages, each of the iHubs addressed these factors in various
ways. Some addressed each bullet specifically, with a header and specific response to the item.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 63
Some addressed the list more broadly, wrapping the information into other sections, or even
duplicating the information.
To assess the degree to which each iHub was focused on context (economic recovery)
over the structure of leadership, RFP responses from each of the six iHubs were reviewed and
compared.
All six successful iHub proposals provided a list of partners and collaborators. But only
three (San Francisco iHub, i-GATE iHub, and OCTANe iHub) proposals discussed some detail
of management structure. And of those three, only the i-GATE proposal (SF East Bay/Tri-Valley
region) outlined in detail how the organization would be managed, including discussion of Board
of Directors structure and proposed directors, listing key management positions and who would
fill them, and describing in detail the process for management and leadership decision-making.
Conversely, each of the six proposals makes several statements about the regional and
state-wide economy being a factor in their reason for response to the RFP.
The fact that the state only required cursory information on leadership or management
structures in the RFP, and that only 50% of the successful iHub respondents provided some level
of description of management structure, with only one providing specific details about
management process, demonstrates that both the state and the majority of the iHubs were more
focused on the economic (social) context, and much less on management or leadership roles.
The tables below provide a historical summary of the individual iHubs as compared to
the rest of the cohort at the time of submitting the proposal in response to the State of
California’s RFP.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 64
Table 2 compares information about which organizations led the RFP responses, date that
organization was founded, the geography covered by the proposed iHub, and the technology
sectors of focus for the proposals. It should be noted that the current name of the iHub as
identified on the GO-Biz website is not necessarily the originally proposed name. Any
differences are also noted in the table.

-
Table 3 compares the proposed iHub management and leadership structures across the
cohort in 2009, as well as the anchoring knowledge-generating nodes (educational and research
institutions).
Table 2: Comparison of iHub Cohort in 2009

North Bay
iHub
Sacramento
iHub
San Francisco
iHub
i-GATE
iHub
Palm Springs
iHub
OCTANe
iHub

iHub Name in
RFP Response
North Bay
iHub.
Sacramento
iHub.
San Francisco
Biotech iHub.
i-GATE iHub Coachella
Valley iHub
Orange County
iHub
Organization
Submitting
RFP Response
Sonoma
Mountain
Business
Cluster
(SMBC).
Sacramento
Area Regional
Technology
Alliance
(SARTA).
San Francisco
Center for
Economic
Development
(SFCED)
City of
Livermore,
LLNL and
Sandia National
Labs.
City of Palm
Springs
OCTANe
Date Host
Organization
Founded
2007. 2001. 2002. 2009. 1938. 2002.
Geographic
Coverage
(as listed in
the respective
proposals)
Sonoma, Napa,
and Marin
Counties.
Sacramento, El
Dorado, Placer,
Sutter, Yuba,
and Yolo
Counties.
San Francisco
and Mission
Bay District.
Alameda
County, Cities
of Livermore,
Pleasanton,
Dublin, San
Ramon,
Danville,
Fremont, Tracy,
and Lathrop.
Cities of Palm
Springs, Desert
Hot Springs, and
Cathedral City.
Orange County
Sectors of
Focus
Clean
technology,
sustainable
resources
(p. 2)
Clean
technology,
medical
technology
(p. 2).
Life sciences
(p. 1).
Green
transportation
and clean
energy (p. 1).
Clean
technology and
renewable
energy (p. 1).
Biomedical devices,
information
technology, clean
technology (p. 2).
Source: SMBC, 2009 SARTA, 2009 SFCED, 2009 COL, 2009 COPS, 2009 OCTANe. 2009

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 65
-
Table 4 compares the justifications given for responding to the RFP and the stated value
of the iHub designation.
Table 3: Comparison of iHub Management and Leadership in 2009

North Bay
iHub
Sacramento
iHub
San Francisco
iHub i-GATE iHub
Palm Springs
iHub
OCTANe
iHub

Designated
iHub
Coordinator
SMBC –
Existing 501
(c)(3) non-profit
organization.
SARTA -
Existing 501
(c)(3) non-profit
organization.
SFCED -
Existing 501
(c)(3) non-profit
organization.
i-GATE –
Proposed 501
(c)(3) non-profit
organization.
City of Palm
Springs.
OCTANe
Management
Structure
(if stated)
Denotes that
SMBC will be
iHub
coordinator. No
further details.
Denotes that
SARTA will be
iHub
coordinator. No
further details.
Section 2 (p. 4)
title specifically
denotes
management
structure, but
only detail is
daily work to be
done by
consortium.
Denotes that
SFCED will be
iHub
coordinator.
Identifies
executive
director, deputy
director, and
operations
manager
positions (to be
filled) (p. 12).
Denotes that
City of Palm
Springs staff
will be interim
management,
and interim
iHub
coordinator
(p. 3).
Denotes that
OCTANe
management will
manage the iHub
(p. 11).
Leadership
Structure
(if stated)
SMBC board of
directors
assumed to play
a role, since it is
a non-profit, but
no mention
made in RFP
response.
SARTA board
of directors
assumed to play
a role, since it is
a non-profit, but
no mention
made in RFP
response.
SFCED board of
directors
assumed to play
a role, since it is
a non-profit, but
no mention
made in RFP
response.
RFP response
outlines
proposed board
of directors
(pp. 12-13) and
industry
advisory
committee
(p. 13)
Denotes that
City of Palm
Springs City
Manager and
Assistant City
Manager will be
interim leaders
(p. 3).
Denotes that
OCTANe volunteer
board of directors
will lead, as well as
a Leadership
Council of about
100 “industry
experts”
(pp. 11-13).
Educational
Institutions
Sonoma State
University,
Santa Rosa
College
UC Davis, CSU
Sacramento, Los
Rio Community
College District
Listed as
“planned
outreach”
(p. 20).
UC Davis, CSU
East Bay, Las
Positas
Community
College.
UC Riverside,
College of the
Desert.
UC Irvine, Chapman
University, Rancho
Santiago
Community College
UC Institutes
for Science
and Innovation
None listed. Center for
Information
Technology
Research in the
Interest of
Society
(CITRIS).
California
Institute for
Quantitative
Biosciences
(QB3).
CITRIS. CITRIS. California Institute
for
Telecommunications
and Information
Technology (Calit2).
Other
Research
Institutions
None listed. LLNL. None listed,
though “planned
outreach” is
noted (p. 20).
Sandia National
Labs, LLNL,
Joint BioEnergy
Institute, Scion
Group.
None listed. Several institutes
and centers listed for
UC Irvine and
Chapman University
(pp. 7-9).
Source: SMBC, 2009 SARTA, 2009 SFCED, 2009 COL, 2009 COPS, 2009 OCTANe, 2009

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 66

To further compare the iHubs as a cohort, the following subsections outline each iHub in
more detail using information provided from their proposal responses to the state’s RFP.
Specifically, the subsections describe a full list of the 1) partners, 2) management structure, and
3) performance measures for each iHub.
For partners, each list was extracted from the corresponding iHub proposal and is meant
to demonstrate the degree to which some proposals had very wide sector networks already in
place or created quickly. As requested in the state’s RFP, “successful applicants will demonstrate
that a broad partnership is formed,” with representatives from local government, agencies
providing community services, professional organizations, universities and their specific centers
of excellence, and small business development centers (BTH, 2009).
For management structure, the amount of information provided by the iHubs in their
proposals was widely variable. Each iHub did identify an iHub coordinator, as requested by the
state’s RFP. And though each iHub’s proposal had a significant list of partnering organizations,
Table 4: Justification Listed in iHub Proposals

North Bay
iHub
Sacramento
iHub
San
Francisco
iHub
i-GATE
iHub
Palm Springs
iHub
OCTANe
iHub

Reason for
Responding to
RFP
(if stated)
Facilitate
regional
collaboration
(p. 20).
Employment and
need for
economic
diversification
(p. 7).
Reinforce San
Francisco’s
leadership in
biotechnology
(p. 1).
To facilitate
increased
collaboration
between
partners (p. 2).
Desperate need
of jobs and
industry
diversification
(p. 1).
Stimulate job
creation, enhanced
partnerships (p. 1).
Value of iHub
Designation
(if noted)
Help to
overcome local
political barriers
and pressures
(p. 20).
Attract increased
private sector
support and
contribute to
more robust
grant
applications
(p. 12).
Help to focus
and support the
growth and
success of the
biotech industry
in Mission Bay
and SF (p. 1).
Foster
innovation,
collaboration,
and job creation
(p. 10).
Branding and
marketing,
create
foundation for
thought
leadership
(p. 1).
National and
international
exposure, increased
marketing
opportunities
(p. 1).
Source: SMBC, 2009 SARTA, 2009 SFCED, 2009 COL, 2009 COPS, 2009 OCTANe, 2009

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 67
the majority of the responses did not detail much beyond what these organizations did on a
regular basis.
Lastly, for performance measures the individual responses for each iHub proposal were
not described in a consistent manner, which made extracting comparable information difficult.
Each of the iHubs had been requested by the state RFP to “identify the goals to be achieved,
steps to reach goals, deadlines for goals, and measures or benchmarks whereby those goals can
be determined” (BTH, 2009). For purposes of creating comparability in this study, and due to the
differences in how each iHub proposal responded to this criterion in the RFP, listed goals,
benchmarks, and metrics are being treated together as ‘performance measures’.
North Bay iHub.
The Sonoma Mountain Business Cluster (SMBC) is referenced in the North Bay iHub
proposal as the iHub coordinator (manager). At the time of the RFP process, SMBC was an
existing 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2007, with a stated purview as “the North
Bay’s first business incubator” located in Rohnert Park, California (SMBC, 2009).
As indicated on Figure 1 and summarized in Table 1, the geographic region covered by
the proposed North Bay iHub included the Counties of Sonoma, Napa, and Marin, and the
incorporated cities.
North Bay iHub – partners.
The list of partners from Section 2 (pp. 2-3) of the proposal (and more fully detailed in
Section 4 – pp. 4-8) (SMBC, 2009) includes:

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 68
• Sonoma Mountain Business Cluster – iHub coordinator
• Sonoma State University (including School of Science and Technology, Center for
Research and Education in Science and Technology [CREST], and School of
Business),
• Cities of Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park
• Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce
• Rohnert Chamber of Commerce
• North Bay Angels (angel investor group)
• Sonoma County Economic Development Board
• Marin Economic Forum
• Redwood Empire Small Business Development Center (at Santa Rosa Junior College)
The proposal did indicate that the iHub would “look to add participants from Napa
County if the iHub is certified” (SMBC, 2009).
North Bay iHub – management structure.
Though specific information regarding the management or leadership structure for the
North Bay iHub is not provided, in Section 6 (p. 9) of the RFP response there is some discussion
of roles. The information primarily focused on the then current organizational mission for each

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 69
partner or collaborator, identifying the services, programs, and activities of each organization
and how it would complement the North Bay iHub program.
Specific details on how the iHub would be managed on a regular basis - including
meetings, decision-making, and communication - were not detailed. However, considerable
detail was provided concerning the individual organizational programs already in place, and that
partners were chosen because they provided complementary programs and services that would
result in additional business growth and subsequent funding.
North Bay iHub – performance measures.
The North Bay iHub proposal (2009) focused heavily on demonstrating existing metrics
for business services and growth, with particular emphasis on how the new iHub collaboration
would provide additional outcomes and how these would be measured.
In Section 8 “Goals, Metrics, & Value to the Region” of the proposal, the North Bay
iHub (2009) identified several criteria by which the iHub would be measured over a five-year
period (pp. 16 -17). These can be summarized as:
Technology Commercialization
• Work directly with 10 companies per year;
• Generate a total of 50 patents; and
• Attract a minimum of $25 million in investment capital.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 70
Job Creation
• Create more than 1,000 jobs – 500 direct, and 500 support jobs in the community.
Value to the Region
• Increase of more than $125 million in cumulative regional payrolls; and
• Increase in excess of $20 million in federal, state, and local taxes.
The North Bay iHub proposal also indicated that the iHub designation would bolster an
“excellent team of partners collaborating within the iHub framework – with SSU [Sonoma State
University] as the major University anchoring the iHub, SMBC (a non-profit business incubator)
as the coordinator, and a strong collaborative partnership comprised of municipal governments,
economic development organizations at the local and county level, the regional SBDC [Small
Business Development Center] organization and a local angel investment group” (SMBC, 2009).
Sacramento iHub.
The Sacramento Area Regional Technology Alliance (SARTA) was referenced in the
RFP response document as the iHub coordinator (manager) for the Sacramento iHub. At the time
of the RFP response, SARTA was an existing 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2001
and located in Sacramento, California, with a stated mission to “foster the growth and success of
innovative technology-based companies in the Sacramento Region” (SARTA, 2009).
As indicated on Figure 1 and summarized in Table 1, the geographic region covered by
the proposed Sacramento iHub included the Counties of Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Sutter,
Yuba, and Yolo, as well as all 21 of the incorporated cities.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 71
At a later date, after the iHubs were designated in 2009 but prior to the creation of Figure
1 by GoED (2010e), the geographic region for the Sacramento iHub grew to include Solano,
Butte, and Nevada Counties.
Sacramento iHub – partners.
The list of specified partners from the section titled “Partnerships” (pp. 2-5) (SARTA,
2009) included:
• SARTA – iHub coordinator
• University of California (UC), Davis (including CITRIS, NSF Center for
Biophotonics and Technology [CBST], Energy Institute, Graduate School of
Management, and InnovationAccess)
• California State University (CSU), Sacramento (including College of Business and
College of Engineering and Computer Science)
• Golden Capital Network (GCN)
• Los Rios Community College District (including American River College, Cosumnes
River College, Folsom Lake College, and Sacramento City College)
• Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization (SACTO)
• Sacramento Employment Training Agency (SETA)

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 72
• Cities of Davis, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento, and West
Sacramento (though the proposal also indicated that all of the cities within the six
county region of SARTA were included)
• County of Sacramento (though the proposal also indicated that the six counties
covered in the SARTA region were part of the iHub)
• Sacramento Metro Chamber
• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
• Valley Vision (including Green Capital Alliance (GCA) and Regional Broadband
Study)
• Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)
• Sacramento Angels
• VC Funds
Sacramento iHub – management structure.
Though specific information regarding the management or leadership structure for the
Sacramento iHub was not provided, the proposal used Figure 3 to depict the proposed
partnership arrangement between the iHub and its collaborators. In the sections titled
“Partnerships” and “iHub Coordinator” (pp. 2-5 and p. 8, respectively) (SARTA, 2009) of the
RFP response there was also a brief discussion of roles. The information primarily focused on

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 73
the then current organizational mission for each partner or collaborator, outlining their services,
programs, and activities, and how they would complement the Sacramento iHub program.

Figure 3: SARTA management structure - 2009 proposal (SARTA, 2009)

Specific details on how the iHub would be managed on a regular basis - including
meetings, decision-making, and communication - was not detailed. The proposal did indicate that
as the iHub coordinator, SARTA “will assume day-to-day responsibilities for coordinating
services and resources, as well as maintaining the partnership” and that “staff will participate in

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 74
all iHub-related training sessions offered by BTH, HCD, and/or the UC Institutes for Science and
Innovation, and will moreover work with the governing board structure established by BTH”
(SARTA, 2009).
Additionally, considerable detail was provided concerning the individual organizational
programs already in place, and that partners were chosen because they provided complementary
programs and services that would result in additional business growth and subsequent funding.
Sacramento iHub – performance measures.
The proposal focused heavily on demonstrating existing metrics for business services and
growth, with particular emphasis on how the new iHub collaboration would provide additional
outcomes and how these would be measured.
The SARTA (2009) proposal identified an extensive list over a page long of proposed
metrics in the section titled “Goals and Benchmarks” (pp. 12 -14). Depicting a very specific table
of goals and metrics, the proposal stated these activities to be part of a “core of the iHub’s
offerings” … due to “receipt of an ARRA grant” (SARTA, 2009). Other than SARTA, no other
iHub reported being awarded ARRA funding, which was a separate process and not related to the
iHub RFP. A shortened general overview of goals and benchmarks was also provided, and is
depicted in Figure 4.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 75
Figure 4: SARTA goals and benchmarks - 2009 proposal (SARTA, 2009)

The proposal indicates that the iHub designation would help in leveraging “the strengths
and collaborative work efforts of existing regional partners… anchored by UC Davis’ extensive
research capabilities, and by CITRIS, a UC Institute for Science and Innovation” (SARTA,
2009).
San Francisco iHub.
The San Francisco Center for Economic Development (SFCED) is referenced in the
proposal document as the iHub coordinator (manager) for the San Francisco (SF) iHub. At the
time of the RFP process, SFCED was a “department of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
Foundation, a 501(c)(3)” non-profit organization located in San Francisco, California.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 76
Founded in 2002, the SFCED “works with the City and County of San Francisco and
other like-minded organizations to optimize the region’s economic climate by attracting and
retaining business… and providing “crucial relocation knowledge and links to professional and
industry networks, helping companies take advantage of government incentives, and aiding them
as they navigate state and local regulations. The SFCED is all about jobs” (SFCED, 2009).
The proposal also identified the iHub as the “San Francisco Biotech iHub” (SFCED,
2009) and it is unclear from any of the successive documents when or what circumstances
caused the name change to the “SF iHub” used now.
As indicated on Figure 1 and in Table 1, the geographic region covered by the proposed
SF iHub included the City and County of San Francisco, with particular focus on the Mission
Bay District.
San Francisco iHub – partners.
The list of partners from Section 2 (pp. 4-5) of the proposal (and additional planned
community engagement detailed in Section 13 – p. 20) (SFCED, 2009) includes:
• SFCED
• San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
• City of San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD)
• California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3)
• San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRDA)

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 77
• Mayor’s Biotech Advisory Council (MayBAC)
The San Francisco iHub proposal also indicated additional “planned community
engagement” from these organizations:
• Bay Bio
• City College of San Francisco
• UCSF - Gladstone Institutes
• San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
• San Francisco State University
• San Francisco Workforce Investment Board
• UC San Francisco (UCSF)
• Alexandria Real Estate Equities
• Burrill and Company
• Fibrogen
• Five Prime
• GVA Kidder Matthews
• McCarthy and Cook

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 78
• Mission Bay Development Corporation
• Zoomedia
San Francisco iHub – management structure.
Though specific information regarding management or leadership structure for the iHub
is not provided, in Section 2 (pp. 4-5) of the proposal there is some discussion of the roles for
each partner organization. The information primarily focused on the then current organizational
mission for each partner or collaborator, identifying the services, programs, and activities of each
organization and how it would complement the SF iHub program.
Specific details on how the iHub would be managed on a regular basis - including
meetings, decision-making, and communication - were not detailed. However, considerable
detail was provided concerning the individual organizational programs already in place, and that
partners were chosen because they provided complementary programs and services that would
result in additional business growth and subsequent funding.
San Francisco iHub – performance measures.
The proposal focused heavily on demonstrating how job development and business
creation were central to the proposed iHub, with detailed emphasis on the existing biotech
industry and metrics (SCFED, 2009).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 79
As depicted in Figure 5 below, SFCED (2009) identified goals (p. 13) in their proposal.
Figure 5: SFCED Goals - 2009 proposal (SFCED, 2009).

The proposal indicates that the iHub designation would help San Francisco to create “a
platform for coordinating innovative business creation, recruitment, and strategic initiatives and
activities. The goal of the San Francisco Biotech iHub is to focus and support the growth and
success of the biotech industry in Mission Bay and San Francisco” (SMBC, 2009).
i-GATE iHub.
The Innovation for Green Advanced Transportation Excellence (i-GATE) National
Energy Systems Technology Incubator (NEST) is referenced in the proposal as the iHub
coordinator (manager) for the i-GATE iHub. At the time of the RFP process, NEST was a
proposed 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that was being created by the City of Livermore for

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 80
the express purpose of managing the proposed iHub to be based in Livermore, California (COL,
2009).
The stated mission of the i-GATE iHub was “to maximize the economic impact of green
transportation and clean energy technologies through expedited technology transfer,
entrepreneurial assistance, collaboration opportunities, academic alliances, and a technology
incubator for the development of high-growth green businesses” (COL, 2009).
As indicated in Figure 1 and Table 1, the geographic region covered by the proposed i-
GATE iHub included the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, and Fremont in
Alameda County, City of Danville in Contra Costa County, and the Cities of Tracy and Lathrop
in San Joaquin County. Policymakers in Alameda County were also proposed to play an active
role in the organization.
i-GATE iHub – partners.
The list of partners from the Section titled “i-GATE Partners” (p. 2) in the proposal
(COL, 2009) includes:
• City of Livermore, CA - iHub Coordinator/ NEST
• Sandia National Laboratories/CA Site – Program Lead Lab
• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• Joint BioEnergy Institute
• Scion Group (a New Zealand Crown Research Institute)

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 81
• California Fuel Cell Partnership
• East Bay Economic Development Alliance
• CITRIS - UC Berkeley
• UC Davis
• CSU, East Bay
• Las Positas Community College
• Small Business Development Center
• NewLine Ventures, LLC
• Livermore Chamber of Commerce
• City of Pleasanton, CA
• City of Dublin, CA
• City of Tracy, CA
• City of San Ramon, CA
• City of West Sacramento, CA
• Tri-Valley Business Council
• Workforce Incubator

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 82
• Alameda County Board of Supervisors
• Alameda County One Stop
• Alameda County Workforce Investment Board
• Bridgelux, Inc.
To further emphasize the roles of the partner list above, the proposal states that
“innovative partnerships will be leveraged through close relationships with national research
laboratories’ local, state, and federal government; academia; economic development agencies;
domestic and international business; young technology companies; and investors” (COL, 2009).
i-GATE iHub - management structure.
In the subsection of the i-GATE proposal titled “Organizational Structure and Staffing
Plan” (pp. 12-13), there is a lengthy discussion of the proposed management roles and
responsibilities. There is also a description and listing of the non-profit board of directors’
leadership body. A diagram that outlined the management and reporting structure was also
included (COL, 2009) and is depicted as Figure 6.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 83
Figure 6: i-GATE management structure - 2009 proposal (COL, 2009).

Though some details were provided on the positions and reporting structure, the regular
responsibilities of management of the iHub - including meetings and communication - were not
outlined.
i-GATE iHub – performance measures.
Considerable detail was provided concerning the individual organizational programs
already in place, and that partners were chosen because they provided complementary programs
and services that would result in additional business growth and subsequent funding.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 84
The proposal also focused heavily on demonstrating existing facilities, business services,
and potential for growth, with particular emphasis on how the new iHub collaboration would
provide additional outcomes and how these would be measured.
As depicted in Figure 7, the COL (2009) i-GATE proposal identified “ongoing
performance metrics (benchmarks) in relation to its economic development and technology
transfer goals” (p. 20).

Figure 7: i-GATE performance metrics - 2009 proposal (COL, 2009).

The proposal indicates that the iHub designation would assist the i-GATE effort to “help
drive the Livermore Valley as the core of an energy research cluster that will rapidly expand to
benefit the regional economy and the State of California, create jobs, mitigate climate change,
increase energy security, educate the future technical workforce, and form an interlocking
innovation web” (COL, 2009).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 85
Palm Springs iHub
The City of Palm Springs is listed in the proposal as the interim iHub coordinator
(manager) for the Coachella Valley iHub (now the Palm Springs iHub). At the time of the RFP
process, the City planned to be the interim iHub coordinator until a non-profit organization and
manager could be designated (COPS, 2009).
As indicated in Figure 1 and Table 1, the geographic region covered by the proposed
Coachella Valley iHub included the Cities of Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, and Cathedral
City in Western Riverside County.
Palm Springs iHub – partners.
The list of collaborators from the section titled “Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities”
(pp. 14-16) of the proposal (COPS, 2009) includes:
• City of Palm Springs – iHub Coordinator
• City of Desert Hot Springs
• City of Cathedral City
• UC Riverside
• CITRIS
• College of the Desert
• County of Riverside

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 86
• Coachella Valley Angel Network
• Tech Coast Angels
• The Hatch Partnership
• Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
• The Public Record
• Coachella Valley Green
Palm Springs iHub – management structure.
Though information regarding management or leadership structure for the iHub is not
provided in detail in the proposal, in the sections title “iHub Coordinator and Central Office” (p.
3), “Management and Innovation Experience” (pp. 3 to 5), and “Stakeholder Roles and
Relationships” (pp. 14-16) there is some discussion of individual and organizational roles. The
majority of information about management structure is focused primarily on the then current
professional experience of key City of Palm Springs staff. For the organizations listed later in the
proposal, the majority of the information is focused on identifying the services, programs, and
activities of each organization and how they would complement the North Bay iHub program
(COPS, 2009).
Specific details on routine management - including meetings, decision-making, and
communication - were not detailed. The proposal also focused heavily on demonstrating existing
facilities for business services and growth, with particular emphasis on how these facilities
would result in more collaboration and provide growth.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 87
Palm Springs iHub – performance measures.
The proposal (COPS, 2009) focused on diversifying the economy and how the new iHub
collaboration would provide additional outcomes in the areas of job creation and industry
diversification.
As depicted in Figure 8, the COPS (2009) proposal identified specific goals for the iHub
as well as stating that the overarching goals would be to “nurture fifty companies in five years”
(p. 18).
Figure 8: Palm Springs goals - 2009 proposal (COPS, 2009).

The proposal indicated that the iHub designation would help meet the “urgent need to
diversify its industrial base and provide jobs to one of the state’s regions hit hardest by the
recession”… and “allow that transformation to begin and create a foundation to build upon as we
establish ourselves as a thought and industry leader in Clean Tech and Renewable Energy”
(COPS, 2009, p. 1).
OCTANe iHub.
OCTANe is referenced in the proposal as the iHub coordinator (manager) for the Orange
County iHub (now the OCTANe iHub). At the time of the RFP process, OCTANe was an

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 88
existing 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2002, with central offices located in Aliso
Viejo, California (OCTANe, 2009).
As indicated in Figure 1 and Table 1, the geographic region covered by the proposed
Orange County iHub would cover all of Orange County, including the incorporated cities.
OCTANe iHub – partners.
The list of collaborators from the section titled “iHub Partners” (pp. 4-10) in the proposal
(OCTANe, 2009) includes:
• OCTANe – iHub Coordinator
• OCTANe Foundation for Innovation
• The Southern California Biomedical Council (SoCalBio)
• TiE Southern California
• Tech Coast Venture Network (TCVN)
• TechBiz Connection (TBC)
• Miramar Venture Partners
• Fjord Ventures
• Tech Coast Angels (TCA)
• Abbott Medical Optics

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 89
• Allergan
• Broadcom Corporation
• Edwards Lifesciences
• University of California, Irvine
• UC Irvine - Office of Research
• UC Irvine - The Henry Samueli School of Engineering
• UC Irvine – The Bren School of Information and Computer Science
• Center for Computer Games and Virtual Worlds (at UC Irvine)
• The Advanced Power and Energy Program (at UC Irvine)
• Center for Solar Energy (at UC Irvine)
• Don Beall Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (at UC Irvine)
• Calit2
• Chapman University
• Chapman University – The Schmid School of Engineering and Life Sciences
• Rancho Santiago Community College District’s (RSCCD) Digital Media Center
(DMC)

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 90
• Rapid Manufacturing Center RapidTech
• TriTech – Small Business Development Center (SBDC)
• Silicon Valley Bank
• Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Orange County Section
To further emphasize the roles of the partner list above, the proposal states that
“OCTANe has developed an extensive network of key partners to foster the growth of innovation
in Orange County” (OCTANe, 2009, p. 4).
OCTANe iHub – management structure.
In the section of the OCTANe proposal titled “Management Structure and Plan” (pp. 11-
13, 15-16), there is a brief discussion of the proposed management roles. There is also a
description and listing of OCTANe’s board of directors as the intended leadership body. A
diagram that outlined the management and reporting structure was also included (OCTANe,
2009) and is depicted as Figure 9.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 91
Figure 9: OCTANe management structure - 2009 proposal (OCTANe, 2009).

Though some details were provided on the positions and reporting structure, the regular
responsibilities of management of the iHub - including meetings and communication - were not
outlined.
OCTANe iHub – performance measures.
Considerable detail was provided in the OCTANe (2009) proposal concerning the
individual organizational programs already in place in the Orange County area, and that partners
were chosen because they provided complementary programs and services that would result in
additional business growth and subsequent funding. The proposal also focused heavily on
demonstrating the existing facilities, business services, and potential for growth, with particular
emphasis on how the existing collaboration network would provide the new iHub with additional
outcomes.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 92
The OCTANe (2009) proposal states that the “Orange County iHub will set benchmarks
of success to establish a tracking system that will… measure, report, and publicize the results of
the program” (p. 16) It goes on to state that “we anticipate that success of the project will drive
increased financial support, resource allocation by established companies and academic
departments, and encourage entrepreneurs to take advantage of iHub resources.”
Like most of the other iHubs’ proposals, OCTANe (2009) identified an extensive list of
goals and benchmarks (pp. 16 -17) in their proposal, as depicted in Figure 10.
Figure 10: OCTANe measurement criteria - 2009 proposal (OCTANe, 2009).

Review of Resources Created by the State
As outlined previously, the state created several written and online resources over the
eight-year period of the iHub program, including iHub RFPs, regulations governing the iHubs,
overview reports (2013 and 2016), and a program office website. This section compares these

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 93
resources, with specific focus on materials that highlights management and leadership, the topic
of this study.
State RFPs.
With respect to leadership, the 2009 RFP (BTH, 2009) had some cursory discussions of
management requirements for the iHubs, specifically called out as an iHub coordinator. The
bullets below represent the headings from the 2009 RFP:
• Certification
• Partnerships
• Boundaries
• Coordinator
• Purpose
• Central Office
• Goals/Benchmarks
• Budget
• Incentives
• Timeline

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 94
Figure 11 depicts an excerpt from the 2009 RFP regarding the coordinator position:
Figure 11: Coordinator criteria – iHub RFP (BTH, 2009).

Though very summary, this description of the iHub coordinator position is the only
indication that the state was looking for details of how each iHub would be structured for
management and leadership. Moreover, the 2009 RFP was primarily focused on metrics and
reporting, not on management (BTH, 2009).
Review of the 2009 documents supports this concept. Case in point is the initial 2009
RFP outlines the economic need for the program (context), and doesn’t mention leadership or
management requirements other than a brief mention of ‘iHub coordinators’. The RFP instead
focuses on discussing the immediate context of the economic crisis as the primary concern and
driver for the solicitation.
As a participant, I can also validate that activities specified in Figure 11 under 4.b and 4.c
occurred irregularly and tapered off over time. Initially, coordinator meetings were held twice a
year, but ultimately, they became intermittent.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 95
When comparing the topic areas listed above for the 2009 RFP (BTH, 2009) with those
listed in 2010 Round II iHub RFP (GoED, 2010) below, they differed with ‘Certification’ and
‘Timeline’ dropping off the 2010 list and ‘Purpose’ being added:
• Purpose
• Partnerships
• Boundaries
• Coordinator
• Central Office
• Goals and Benchmarks
• Budget
• Incentives
In 2010, there is a slight increase in emphasis on the ‘coordinator’ position through the
reworking of the description, but still no significant discussion of formal leadership roles or
responsibilities. Figure 12 depicts the expanded description for the iHub coordinator position for
2010. Again, the majority of the RFP (GoED, 2010) is primarily focused on the context
(especially economic) in which the iHub Program would operate.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 96
Figure 12: Coordinator criteria – round II iHub RFP (GoED, 2010).

As discussed previously, the Round II RFP (GoED, 2010) resulted in the designation of
two additional rounds of iHub designations:
• The first round for iHubs seven through nine (East Bay Green Corridor iHub, iHub
San Diego, and San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub) in September 2010; and
• The second round for iHubs ten through twelve (Central California iHub, Cleantech
Los Angeles, and Innovate North State iHub) in October 2010.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 97
iHub regulations.
Another source to help ascertain the focus of the state on leadership and the context in
which it occurs, is the establishing legislation and then the revised regulations.
Assembly Bill 250, Holden, California Innovation Initiatives (2013), added Article 6
(commencing with Section 12099) to Chapter 1.6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
Government Code which codified the iHubs. It was approved by the Governor on October 4,
2013.
The bill did not provide an outline for leadership requirements for the iHubs, other than
brief mention of the iHub coordinator position (Figure 13). The legislation does discuss at length
the context of the environment in which the iHubs will operate, including the need to conduct
business and economic activities that “foster entrepreneurial business activity” that “leads to job
creation and innovation in the economy” (AB 250, 2013).
Figure 13: Assembly Bill 250, Holden – iHub coordinator structure (AB 250, 2013).

In mid-2016, GO-Biz set about strengthening the regulations for the iHub Program,
including more clearly identified management structure. GO-Biz’s (2016c) Initial Statement of
Reasons outlines on p. 7 the need for more specificity in the “Evaluated Criteria” for a review

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 98
committee, using the example that “management structures and team’s experience is an
important factor in evaluating how sophisticated the entity may be.”
In the revised iHub regulations, adopted on March 22, 2017 as Article 4 of Chapter 13 of
Title 10, Sections 8300 to 8380 of the California Code of Regulations (2017), GO-Biz included
paragraph (13) (Figure 14) that makes the expectation for management structure and planning
apparent.
Figure 14: Restated management structure requirement (CCR, 2017).

Key to this new provision is the statement that the outlined elements of the management
structure and plan “are critical in achieving the proposed objectives” (CCR, 2017). It seems clear
that from this action GO-Biz desired more definition about the management structure and
planning for the iHubs, possibly to address some already recognized issues within the 2009 iHub
cohort.
Specifically, the most significant issues that GO-Biz would want to mitigate in the future
would be exemplified by the closure of the North Bay iHub and the closure and subsequent
restart of the Sacramento iHub. It is not entirely clear that better management plans and
documented structures would have stopped these two iHubs from closing, but perhaps GO-Biz
wants to have a mechanism to delist iHubs before they run into management trouble that might
lead to closure and show that they are in control of the process.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 99
iHub overview reports.
The requirement in both the 2009 and 2010 RFPs to annually report metrics with respect
to goals and outcomes did not result in a comprehensive report of these indicators until 2013.
In December 2013, USC CED (on behalf of U.S. EDA) prepared the California iHub
Profiles and Indicators report.
Though the summary report was informative about the status of the iHubs as it related to
overall metrics, it did not highlight management (or leadership) structures or discuss the ‘who’
(as Sydow et al., 2011 would put it) in how these individual iHubs were able to achieve the
outcomes. There is some outlining of the relevant partners, but these are not linked specifically
to which outcomes were achieved by which organization, nor how the collective network
achieved the metrics as a partnership.
This is likely a continuation of the same contextual focus (economic, social, and
geographic) that was pervasive in the 2009 and 2010 RFPs and the 2013 legislation (AB 250,
2013).
The July 2016 Innovation Hub (iHub) Annual Report prepared by GO-Biz is a more
significant attempt to meet their originally stated goal from the 2009 RFP to produce an annual
report that outlines each iHubs goals and metrics and highlights their successes. But the report
falls short as the iHubs are still not linked to their goals, metrics, and contributions to the overall
program goals. The iHub coordinator is clearly noted in the report, though it is unclear which
organization they belong to (whether it is the iHub or a partner organization).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 100
This annual report is the only one to date, even though there should have been annual
reports for 2010 through 2016 (seven in total) according to the initial RFPs and the reaffirmed by
the 2013 legislation (CCR, 2013) codifying the iHubs. It is unclear why the state did not publish
these reports annually, though it is easy to speculate that because the state-level program being
understaffed, as highlighted in the survey results.
Additionally, USC CED was engaged to complete the 2013 overview report (USC CED,
2013) as a substitute for the annual report for that year, and using U.S. EDA funding. This
demonstrates that the iHubs were not preparing the information on time and the state tried to
supplement the process with external assistance.
GO-Biz online resources.
Wording and layout changes to the GO-BIZ web pages are presented in more detail
below.
GO-Biz 2016 website.
In 2016, the GO-Biz website sub-page for ‘Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ stated:
The Innovation and Entrepreneurship unit is the state’s primary point of contact for
promoting California’s innovation infrastructure. It functions to develop an environment
that encourages entrepreneurship, promotes long term economic growth and facilitates
job creation through innovation. It also served to convene key stakeholders needed to
support GO-Biz activities throughout the state as well as stimulate entrepreneurship and
the development of California’s innovation workforce. This unit was primarily

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 101
responsible for the administration of California’s Innovation Hub (iHub) Program (GO-
Biz, 2016b).
Additionally, on the sub-page specifically for the iHub Program, the GO-Biz (2016b)
website further stated the following regarding the iHubs’ purpose:
California is home to the largest in-state innovation network in the country.
Acknowledging the inherent opportunities available within the state to connect the
emerging labor force with existing businesses and entrepreneurial start-up companies, GO-
Biz is leading an initiative to prioritize the commercialization of innovation and technology
as an economic development strategy through the California Innovation Hub (iHub)
Program. Sixteen existing iHubs span the state from Redding to San Diego and cover some
of California's most vibrant economic sectors from agriculture to life science and from
medical technology to bio-mass.
The program was formed for the purposes of:
• Leveraging California’s national and international market-share in human and
investment capital as a global destination for leadership in innovation opportunities;
• Providing a platform for the transfer of ideas discovered in nationally recognized
laboratories and universities to private industry for the enhancement of an existing
product or the creation of a new start up enterprise;
• Providing an advantage to Californian firms through the introduction of new
technologies, processes, research and development (R&D) solutions into its existing
business practice;

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 102
• Providing conduit assistance for the interaction of existing government owned assets
(federal and state), facilities and operations with venture-supported startup companies
for the testing and evaluation of products in development; and
• Facilitating a linkage for the inducement of investment funding to an inventor
towards the commercialization of concepts into products so that the eventual
production occurs within the California economy.
The GO-Biz Innovation and Entrepreneurship unit has established a wide range of
collaborating partners with regional economic development authorities, local
governments, private organizations, incubators, venture capital sources, and the higher
education system to develop infrastructure and support for entrepreneurs to succeed in
California. Many organizations are already involved in assisting entrepreneurs within the
state (GO-Biz, 2016).
GO-Biz 2017 website.
The 2017 sub-page for ‘Innovation and Entrepreneurship’ of the GO-Biz website is
depicted in Figure 15. While this study was in progress, updating to the sub-page from 2016
resulted in minor wording modifications, though significant changes were made to the layout.
The most obvious difference from the 2016 sub-page is that the layout highlighted a
bullet list of linked documents under the heading of ‘Regulations’, specifically focused on a
process for modifying and updating the iHub regulations from 2013. There was also a set large
icon buttons for hyperlinks across the bottom, with the labels of ‘iHub Program’,
‘Cybersecurity’, and ‘Workforce Development’.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 103
The links under Regulations had not been on the sub-page when reviewed in 2016 and
likely signals a growing focus by the state on specific requirements for the iHubs as part of the
ongoing program.
Figure 15: Current GO-Biz innovation and entrepreneurship web page (GO-Biz, 2017a).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 104
Though there were links for cybersecurity and workforce development, those aspects of
the GO-Biz program are not the focus of this study and are not detailed here. When selecting the
‘iHub Program’ icon, it linked to the sub-page for the ‘iHub Program’ (Figure 16).
Similar to the changes previously noted for the sub-page for ‘Innovation and
Entrepreneurship’, the ‘iHub Program’ sub-page also had mostly minor wording changes in 2017
as compared to 2016. One significant change was that the number of iHubs listed was 15, instead
of the 16 listed on the 2016 subpage. This indicated that one iHub had been delisted from the
designations between the time of review in 2016 versus 2017.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 105

Figure 16: Current GO-Biz iHub website subpage (GO-Biz, 2017a).

As noted in Figure 16, a new link on the 2017 ‘iHub Program’ sub-page was provided for
the ‘iHub Regions’, which linked to a table on another sub-page listing the iHubs, their

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 106
respective coordinators, and contact information. Some of the iHubs names were also hyper-
linked to their respective webpages, including the OCTANe, Palm Springs, and San Francisco
iHubs. No link was provided for the i-GATE or Sacramento iHubs.
Additionally, the table only listed 14 iHubs. Missing from the table were the North Bay
and East Bay Green Corridor iHub. This appeared to indicate that these iHubs were no longer
part of the state program.
Regional iHub online resources.
In addition to the state’s documents, reports, collateral and online resources, websites for
each of the six iHubs were reviewed on May 7, 2017. In the case of the those linked on the GO-
Biz (2017) website, these websites were visited directly. Where not listed on the GO-Biz (2017)
website, iHub websites that were found through search engine results were reviewed.
The two exceptions were: The North Bay iHub, whose website
(http://www.northbayihub.org) had gone inactive by the end of this study (though some
partnering organizations still listed the iHub on their websites); and the Sacramento iHub, who
was previously managed by SARTA, but after a brief closure was being reconstituted under the
I/O Labs organization. The website for I/O Labs (http://www.iolabs.co) did not provide any
information when reviewed as part of this study.
Specific information about leadership structure could be identified for only the Palm
Springs and OCTANe iHubs, and both listed the management staff as well. Generally, though
there was some cross-sector representation, the business sectors had the greatest apparent

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 107
representation in each case based on review of the listed leadership. The San Francisco and i-
GATE iHubs listed the current management staff, but provided no information about leadership.
For the Palm Springs iHub, the link went to a CVEP sub-page for the iHub program
(http://cvep.com/iHub.html), but the iHub program was readily identifiable on the CVEP home
page. The Palm Springs iHub page provided current information about events, partners, and
programs. The staff link redirected to the CVEP organization, listing 18 individuals, including a
managing director, several vice presidents, and directors of programs and administrative
functions. The CVEP board of directors was identified and primarily made up of private sector
members. Conversely, the sponsors (partners) list was predominantly made up of local
government (six out of nine). The primary point of contact for the Palm Springs iHub as listed on
the GO-Biz website is identified as the managing director of CVEP.
The link to the OCTANe iHub from the GO-Biz website led to the home page of the
OCTANe organization (http://www.octaneoc.org/), though no mention of the iHub was
observed. OCTANe’s sub-pages provided current information about staff and leadership, events,
partners, and programs. The staff was large, with 17 individuals, including an executive director,
several vice presidents, and directors of programs and administrative functions. The primary
point of contact for the OCTANe iHub as listed on the GO-Biz website is identified as the
director of LaunchPad, SBDC and Investor Relations. A newsletter link was also easily
identifiable, and resulted in receipt of current newsletters. Use of the websites search function for
the term ‘iHub’ provided no results.
The link to the San Francisco iHub went to a landing page hosted by SFCED which was
clearly labelled as the iHub (http://sfced.org/sf-ihub/), with a short synopsis of the iHub. But the

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 108
majority of links were specific to the SFCED, not the iHub program, and appeared to primarily
be a link listing some co-working spaces in San Francisco. The link to ‘events’ led to a page that
no longer existed and a link to GO-Biz linked back to the page from which this link was
generated, providing a circular web-link reference. The ‘about’ link led to the main SFCED
page, describing that they were a department within the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
The SFCED staff was identified and is assumed to also be the staff for the iHub. No board or
other leadership was listed, though it was assumed to be the same as the San Francisco Chamber
of Commerce.
For the i-GATE iHub, there was no link provided on the GO-Biz website, but an online
search resulted in a dedicated website for the iHub (http://www.igateihub.org/), which provided
current information about programs and partners. The staff was clearly identified, listing two
individuals, including a director and community manager. The i-GATE leadership (board of
directors) was not listed. A partners list was distributed across the business, local government,
and non-profit sectors. The primary point of contact for the i-GATE iHub listed on the GO-Biz
website is identified as the director of i-GATE.
Relative health of the iHubs - based on readily observable programming and size of
management and leadership structures - was reviewed and the OCTANe and Palm Springs iHub
were much more robust organizations than the other iHubs, with many examples of activities,
sponsors, and partnerships. The i-GATE iHub also had considerable activities apparent, though
not comparable to the degree of OCTANe and Palm Springs. The San Francisco iHub had some
information on regular programming, but the majority of the web pages related to the iHub
appeared to be out of date. The Sacramento iHub did not have a website to review, though it was

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 109
listed as operational on the GO-Biz (2017) website, and the North Bay iHub’s website had been
completely removed.
2009 iHub Cohort – 2010 to 2017
After eight years of operation, significant changes occurred in the initial cohort of iHubs
designated in 2009. These changes included modification of some iHubs names, closure and/or
restart of several iHubs, and a noticeable decrease in state-level program participation.
The most substantial change was that the North Bay iHub ceased operations in early 2017
(Press Democrat, 2017). Additionally, the Sacramento iHub went through a shutdown in late
2015, but was restarted under a new coordinator organization in mid-2016.
The remaining four iHubs are still operational, though two have gone through significant
changes from what was originally proposed in 2009. None of five remaining iHubs prominently
brand their programs as part of the state iHub designation on materials or their websites, as
required by the original designation agreement.
To provide a clearer picture of the timeline of the iHub program, Figure 17 depicts the
iHubs initial designation, period of operation (up to mid-2017), approximate dates of names
changes (if applicable), and approximate date of iHub closure and/or removal from the iHub
program.
More detailed description of the current status of each iHub is provided in the subsections
that follow.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 110
Figure 17: iHub operational timelines.

North Bay iHub.
After designation in 2010, the North Bay iHub underwent several management changes
in subsequent years. The following information was readily found using an online search engine.
As reported in the North Bay Business Journal (NBBJ), the executive director from the
2009 RFP period departed in late 2012 and the board chair for the non-profit assumed an interim
role as executive director (Stevens, 2012). SMBC then officially changed its name to SoCo
Nexus in mid-2013 (Bussewitz, 2013), though that name change was not reflected in the USC
CED 2013 report.
New management and board leadership was put in place in early 2014, with the
appointment of a new executive director (Egneckow, 2014).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 111
Though only an obscure reference in a tangentially related article could be found, it is
reported that SoCo Nexus (and therefore SMBC) ceased operations in early 2017 (Gonzalez,
2017). The iHub was also removed from the GO-Biz website in 2017.
At the time of this study, the SoCo Nexus (2017) website was found to be active and
functional, though it had not been updated since late 2016. Additionally, the SoCo Nexus
website did not display the iHub logo nor reference the program.
A Google search for the term ‘North Bay iHub’ did not result in a website specific to the
iHub, though several previous partner organizations did reference the iHub on their sites.
As indicated in Figure 17, the North Bay iHub was delisted by GO-Biz as a result of the
program being closed by the host organization.
Sacramento iHub.
The Sacramento iHub has gone through a closure and then a rebirth since being
designated in 2009.
During the period of 2010 to 2014, SARTA was the host organization of the Sacramento
iHub and was an active participant in the iHub program, with external identification as an iHub
participant and use of the program logo on materials and the website.
In mid-2014, SARTA’s executive director (who was part of the 2009 proposal team for
SARTA) stepped down. A major cause of the departure was fundraising became increasingly
more difficult (Anderson, 2014).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 112
Several different executive directors were appointed between late 2014 and late 2015,
with the organization officially closing operations in September 2015 (Anderson, 2015). Though
no details are available, the closure was reported by the SBJ (2015) as a decision of the board of
directors and that they planned to dissolve the existing organization completely. SARTA is no
longer operational.
In mid-2016, I/O Labs announced the take over as the regional partner (coordinator) of
the Sacramento iHub (Anderson, 2016).
And in mid-2017, Louis Stewart, formerly the Deputy Director for Innovation and the
previous iHub program director for GO-Biz until that time, resigned his post at the state and
became the Chief Innovation Officer for the City of Sacramento, and a lead partner for the
Sacramento iHub (Patton, 2017).
At the time of this study, the Sacramento iHub did not have an active website.
San Francisco iHub.
When designated, the San Francisco iHub was initially identified by the state as the
Greater Mission Bay Area iHub (see Appendix A). The iHubs name was changed in about 2012,
as the 2013 map produced by GO-Biz (Figure 1) and the 2013 USC CED report indicate it was
named the San Francisco iHub.
Only minor amounts of information were available online for the San Francisco iHub.
There was an active sub-page on the SFCED main website, under the ‘About’ tab (SFCED,
2017). The page included branding for the iHub program and the iHub logo. The website also
confirmed that the SF iHub executive director from the 2009 RFP period is still in the same iHub

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 113
coordinator role, and that he participated in the survey with voluntary disclosure indicating that
he still managed the program.
It is unclear what staffing or active work is happening in the San Francisco iHub
program. The website did not outline current program offerings associated with the iHub
program.
i-GATE iHub.
i-GATE NEST became a functioning non-profit shortly after the state’s designation. The
City of Livermore was the initial coordinator, with the position transitioning over to the non-
profit after formation (COL, 2010).
City of Livermore staff continued to be involved in supporting roles up to the present,
taking on various positions, including interim CEO several times (COL, 2012).
Through online search results, significant web-based information can be found on i-
GATE’s early operations (from the period 2010 to 2013), including several national and
international partnership and collaboration awards.
The interim CEO, who was also the coordinator from the 2009 RFP period, departed in
early 2013 (Sakash, 2013). The CEO position was then changed to an executive director position
and filled with a full-time City of Livermore staff, loaned to the i-GATE program on a long-term
basis (COL, 2013).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 114
Upon review, the current i-GATE website (2017) did not identify i-GATE as part of the
iHub program. The website briefly outlined some of the program offerings and specifically
identified the iHub partners.
Palm Springs iHub.
Initially operated by the City of Palm Springs (COPS, 2009), the Palm Springs iHub was
previously named the Coachella Valley iHub even though the City of Palm Springs was the
primary funding partner for daily operations.
In 2011, the iHub opened a business incubator (McKenna, 2013) and in early 2012, a
managing director for the Coachella Valley iHub was appointed, who also served as the iHub
coordinator.
An Accelerator Campus was then established in 2013 (McKenna, 2013). Daily operations
of the iHub were subsequently moved to the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership (CVEP)
sometime after 2013, though the date of management change was not readily identifiable. The
manager of the iHub subsequently became the managing director of CVEP (LinkedIn, 2017),
while retaining the role as iHub coordinator.
Sometime after 2013, but prior to 2016, Coachella Valley iHub changed to Palm Springs
iHub, because the name Coachella Valley iHub was used in the USC CED (2013) report and the
name Palm Springs iHub was used in the GO-BIZ (2016a) annual report. No information on the
exact date of the name change was readily available.
The current website for the CVEP (2017) has a set of website sub-pages that are devoted
to the iHub, including providing a list of current companies being assisted, goals, and economic

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 115
impact metrics. Information about the board of CVEP (and therefore the iHub) is readily
available, and sponsors (partners) of the iHub are prominently displayed.
OCTANe iHub.
When reviewed, the OCTANe (2017) website had no identifying information that it was
part of the iHub program. It did list its board of directors, which is assumed to also be the
leadership for the iHub program as well. The OCTANe (2017) website provided a sizable list of
sponsors (partners), engaged companies, and extensive program offerings.
OCTANe’s CEO, who was also the iHub coordinator from the 2009 RFP period, was part
of the organization through early 2015 (Yu, 2015). The newly appointed CEO appeared not to be
engaged with the iHub program as the updated GO-Biz (2017) website listed a different contact
for the iHub, which listed a staff member. This coordinator and the previous CEO both
completed the online survey, as determined through their voluntary disclosure.
The lack of attribution to the iHub program on the website would seem to indicate that
engagement with the state is occurring only marginally, if at all.
Update on iHubs Designated in 2010 and 2013
Of the 16 iHubs designated, one of the iHubs (CNMI) is a state-wide program (though it
is shown to be located in Livermore, CA), with the remainder focused on specific regions and
technologies. See Figure 1 for a geographic depiction of the location of each iHub.
Information for the iHubs discussed below was identified from review of materials
created by GoED (Appendix B) and GO-Biz (Appendix C).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 116
iHubs name changes.
The Innovate North State iHub was previously referred to as the North State iHub on the
GoED (2010) regional locations map (Appendix B) but was subsequently changed sometime
prior to the creation of the GO-Biz (2013) regional locations map and the USC CED (2013)
profiles and indicators report.
The San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub abbreviated their name from San Jose/Silicon Valley
Emerging Technologies iHub to San Jose/Silicon Valley ET iHub sometime in 2011 to 2012 as
the words ‘emerging technology’ were included in the GoED (2010) map, but were changed to
the letters ‘ET’ on the GO-Biz (2013) regional location map (Figure 1) in the USC CED (2013)
profiles and indicators report. The letters ‘ET’ were subsequently dropped from the name in GO-
Biz (2016a) annual report.
The Central California iHub name has changed twice. The iHub was originally
designated as the Central San Joaquin Valley iHub, as depicted in the late 2010 GoED regional
locations map (Appendix B). By the time the USC CED (2013) profiles and indicators report was
published in December 2013, the iHub name had been changed to CalValleyTech iHub. And
most recently, in the GO-Biz (2016a) annual report from July 2016, the name of the iHub has
again changed, depicted as the Central California iHub.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 117
iHubs removed from designation.
Currently, the GO-Biz (2017) website states that there are 15 iHubs, but only 14 are listed
under the subpage ‘iHub Regions’. Missing from the current list on the website are the North
Bay and East Bay Green Corridor iHubs.
The East Bay Green Corridor iHub ceased operating as an iHub sometime after the 2013
USC CED profile and indicator report was finalized.
Online Survey About the iHubs
An online survey was used to query leadership (management, key contacts, and
stakeholders) from each iHub and the state-level managers of the iHub program. Generally, the
survey questions focused on assessing the conditions in which the iHub program first started and
ongoing operations as well as the positions and sectors perceived to have provided leadership.
As depicted in Figure 18, of the 143 total requests for survey participation, the greatest
number of requests were to the Sacramento and i-GATE iHubs, 45 and 47, respectively. This is
primarily due to the ease of acquiring contact information for the previous and current
leadership, management, and key contacts involved in the proposal preparation due to personal
familiarity with the iHub operations. For the other four iHubs, the request totals ranged from a
high of 22 for the North Bay iHub to a low of five for the OCTANe iHub. As previously noted, a
request to participate in the survey was also made to five state-level representatives.
Of the 143 unique contacts requested to take the survey, 39 responded by taking the
survey in whole or part, providing a response rate of 27.3%. Four contacts responded that they

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 118
had received the request by opting out. The remaining 100 prospective participants did not
respond in any way.
It is unclear to what degree the state-level external influences and transitional leadership
had an impact on the respective iHubs’ ability to achieve their goals. By using the survey results
described in the following sections, assessment can be made of how the local, regional, and state
conditions (context) may have influenced the iHubs development and what effect (if any)
resulted from the transitional state-level leadership, starting in 2010 with the switch of
administrations to 2013 when the iHub program was codified with AB 250.

Figure 18: Response outcomes for iHub survey.
22
45
7
47
12
5 5 5
10
2
14
2 2
4
0
1
0 0
3
0 0
5
10
2
14
2 2
4
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
North Bay iHub Sacramento
iHub
San Francisco
iHub
i-GATE iHub Palm Springs
iHub
OCTANe iHub State Rep.
Response Outcomes for iHub Survey
Survey Requests Survey Responses Opt Out Complete Response
143 32 4 39

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 119
There were at least two respondents from each iHub, irrespective of the number of
requests. Because they voluntarily provided their contact information in the survey responses, it
was determined that at least one of the respondents from each iHub was the initial point of
contact during the proposals that were submitted in 2009. Also, again through voluntary
disclosure, each of the current iHub coordinators for the five iHubs in operation responded to the
survey.
Three of the iHubs had at least one respondent answer only part of the survey, with the i-
GATE iHub having the most at three partial surveys and North Bay iHub and OCTANe iHub
having one partial survey response each. Four of the five state representatives contacted
completed some part of the survey, with two answering completely and two answering a
majority of the survey.
As indicated in the results from the survey (Appendix E), there are seven respondents
indicated as ‘partial responses’. However, the reason indicated in the survey response was that
they were either not involved in the early portion of the iHub formation or were not involved
during subsequent operations. Therefore, the results for these seven respondents was included in
each of the specific questions they were asked to answer. As noted in previous sections, several
question sets were driven by involvement during specific time periods and respondents were
asked to indicate they were not involved by marking a ‘N/A’ on the first question and skipping to
the next section.
Though there was a small number of respondents as compared to requests for the North
Bay and Palm Springs iHubs, the information provided is considered pertinent since the initial
points of contact from the 2009 proposal period were survey respondents. Also, for the North

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 120
Bay iHub, at least one recently active board member (prior to cessation of operations in 2017)
responded, while the current iHub coordinator for the Palm Springs iHub was a respondent.
Therefore, perspective from some level of management for the entire period each of the two
iHubs has operated is represented.
For the San Francisco and OCTANe iHubs, there were only seven and five requests,
respectively, made for participation. In the case of the San Francisco iHub, this was due to the
difficulty in assessing who was actively involved. Outreach to the current iHub coordinator
during March and April 2017 did not result in successfully identifying additional potential
participants. The seven contacts for which email information was readily identified came from
the original 2009 proposal document. As mentioned before, the iHub coordinator did complete
the survey, as did one of the board members, so the information is considered representative for
the iHub.
In the case of OCTANe, the previous point of contact during the 2009 proposal period
and then subsequent iHub coordinator provided a complete set of responses. The survey results
indicate that this respondent left the role of iHub coordinator for the OCTANe iHub in 2015, and
subsequently became a board member. Additionally, the current iHub coordinator completed the
survey with perspective from 2015 onward. Though the board of director’s members were listed
in the 2009 proposal and currently on the OCTANe website (2017), neither source provided
email addresses or phone numbers.
Outreach to the current OCTANe iHub coordinator during the period from March and
April 2017 to ascertain contact information for the board members resulted in no information
being provided. Additionally, online searches for contact information for the current executive

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 121
committee did not readily result in email addresses, likely due to the high-level position many of
the board members hold within their respective organizations. Outreach was also conducted via
LinkedIn to executive committee members readily identified, but this resulted in only one
response and that individual was sent a survey invitation link but did not complete the survey.
The following subsections describe specific findings and trends by survey topic area. A
copy of the survey as formatted and viewed online is available in Appendix D and the collected
data is provided in Appendix E.
Results - Survey Section 2 – participant information.
The answers to Question 1 provide voluntary (optional) contact information. The intent
of this survey was to provide anonymous feedback - except where a respondent chose to self-
identify - yet, 27 of the 39 respondents voluntarily provided both name and email addresses.
Question 1 did provide data validating that respondents to the survey included each of the points
of contact from the six 2009 iHub proposals, as well as the current iHub coordinators (with the
exception of the North Bay iHub, which is defunct).
Question 2 was marginally useful in determining the geographic distribution of the
respondents, but was primarily intended to be used to ensure feedback was coming from the
targeted regions of each iHub and not from other regions, states, or countries, especially if the
link to the survey had become widely distributed. As it turns out, this concern was not an issue.
Of the 39 people that responded to the survey, 35 respondents (90%) chose to answer the
optional Question 3 on gender. Four respondents did not provide an answer to this question.
One-third of the respondents answering the question - 11 respondents (31.5%) - self-selected as

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 122
female and two-thirds - 23 respondents (65.7%) - self-selected as male, while one respondent
(less than 1%) answered the question by declining to state a gender. This outcome is reflective of
the initial participant outreach, as males were a majority of stakeholders involved in 2009
proposals and on the previous and current boards of directors (as discussed previously), as well
as a majority of males in the research population for the 143 survey requests.
Question 4 sought to determine the time periods each respondent had been engaged with
the respective iHub(s). They were able to select from two primary time periods, and then two
functions within each time period. Figure 19 depicts that irrespective of the time period involved,
the respondents were likely to have been engaged in either the Sacramento or i-GATE iHubs, as
discussed previously. And as a footnote, one respondent noted that they “created the iHub
program” in the comments section.
For 2009, respondents were asked to identify if they were involved with the iHub
development process during the state RFP period and if they were subsequently involved with
the iHub proposal development. They were also asked to identify which iHub they were engaged
with at the time. With the total number of responses for each being roughly equal (25 versus 24),
it is clear that most of the respondents were involved in the Sacramento or i-GATE iHubs, which
is reflective of the sample population as discussed earlier. Note that Question 4 did allow for
respondents to select multiple iHubs if involved in more than one iHub proposal, so the number
of responses does not equal the number of respondents.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 123
Figure 19: Survey question 4 – time periods respondents engaged in respective iHubs.

During the time period between 2010 - present, more respondents indicated that they
were engaged in the iHubs than during startup of the program, which indicates more involvement
by the respondents in the later operational period of the iHubs. And again, the Sacramento and i-
GATE iHubs had the largest individual number of respondents. Also, during this time period,
respondents indicating they were involved in iHub management were more likely to be involved
in i-GATE than Sacramento, and more respondents indicating they were iHub partners were
engaged with Sacramento than i-GATE.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 124
Question 5 sought to better understand the roles of the respondents, as well as what years
they were engaged (Figure 20). Though there were only 39 respondents, participants were
encouraged to select all the roles that applied during a given year. As such, year 2010 to 2016
have total numbers greater than the number of respondents.
In the years from 2010 to 2014, greater than 50% of the respondents self-identified to
have been in the typical roles of internal leadership (executive management, board executive
committee, or board of directors). This is a good indication that responses in the survey have
been provided by those that identify themselves as leaders/managers, thereby substantiating that
comments and trends are likely to be those of respondents that have personally experienced
opportunities and challenges within the iHub program.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 125
Figure 20: Survey question 5 – roles and years engaged in iHubs.

Question 6 asked the respondents to identify their specific industry sector by year of
engagement. Government (especially local) and non-profit organizations largely dominated
across all years, making up almost half of all responses in 2010, 2011, 2012. This indicates that
based on the total of 38 respondents to this question, government and non-profit influences were
substantial in the early years of the iHub program, but tapered off to a more even distribution of
sectors as the program matured. The comments section primarily focused on explaining the
answer and didn’t provide substantial new insight.
6
9
10
11
10
7
5
5
5
3
5
6
6
6
6
4
4
2
5
9
12
13
13
11
7
8
6
5
5
5
6
7
7
8
8
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
5
5
5
5
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
5
5
6
6
8
10
11
13
9
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Executive director/Management Board executive committee
Board of directors Community leader
Policymaker/Elected official Key staff
iHub coordinator iHub partner org/agency
CA State representative

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 126
Results - Survey Section 3 - iHub program development – 2009.
This section of the survey sought to gain feedback on what influences may have been
present during the iHub Program development period in 2009. Survey data for the questions in
this section is provided in Appendix E.
Question 7 focused on ascertaining the specific roles in the initial iHub Program
development in 2009 (Figure 21). Of the 37 respondents, 20 selected N/A to indicate that they
were not involved in the iHub program at this time. Of the 17 respondents who answered the
question, 34 selections of specific roles were made (respondents were allowed to select multiple
roles), with the roles of concept champion, proposal development team member, primary
proposal author, or proposal lead making up almost 65% of the selected roles.

Figure 21: Survey question 7 – specific role in iHub development – 2009.

Question 8 asked about the motivation behind the participant’s role in the initial iHub
program development in 2009 (see Table 5). Twenty-three respondents answered, with six of
7
2
4
5
3
6
4
3
Concept champion
Policymaker/elected official
Proposal lead
Primary proposal author
Support staff/co-writer
Part of proposal development team
Partner agency/letter of support generated
State representative/RFP author

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 127
them stating they were not involved. Of the remaining 17 respondents, eight (47%) indicated that
that their motivation behind their role for being engaged with program development was made
through their own choice (self-determination) or similar factors (combining the responses listed
as other that were similar in nature).
Table 5: Survey Question 8 – Motivation Behind Role in iHub Program (2009)

Answer Choices
Responses
Self-determination/-motivation 5 29.41%
Felt compelled by social conditions (economy, community pride, etc.) 2 11.76%
Other (please specify) 3 17.65%
Acting from Intrinsic Motivations - Sub-Total: 10 58.82%

Seen as typical job duty 2 11.76%
Directed by manager 2 11.76%
Directed by existing board/leadership 1 5.88%
Requested by policymaker/elected official 2 11.76%
Suggested by community member/organization 0 0.00%
Total Responses: 17 100.0%

Responses such as ‘seen as typical job duty’, ‘directed by manager’, ‘requested by policy
maker’, ‘felt compelled by social conditions’, and ‘directed by leadership’ all fell below 12% or
less of the total.
Combining the responses for ‘self-determination’ (total of eight) and ‘felt compelled by
social conditions’ (total of two) means that 10 of the total of 17 respondents (almost 60% of the
responses) were not induced by management direction to take on a specific role, but instead were
by compelled by intrinsic motivation.
Question 9 asked for input on what factors were part of the environmental setting
(context) at the local level in 2009 (see Appendix E for survey data). Respondents were asked to

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 128
select all answers they perceived to apply to the conditions at that time. From the 30 respondents
that answered, the top five responses selected are specific economic development related
activities, including: 1) discussions about innovation; 2) need for jobs; 3) increased discussion of
entrepreneurism/startups/small business; 4) connecting knowledge nodes (universities, etc.) with
business; and 5) implementing regional economic development work plans.
The number one answer selected, ‘discussions about innovation’, was selected by 50% of
the respondents. As noted in previous sections, the factors selected by respondents for Question 9
align with the global, national, state, and regional discussions around innovation and economic
development as a response to the global recession (Kellerman, 2015; Cassidy et al., 2005).
Coupled with the views expressed in Question 8, these answers indicate that the social conditions
(economic) of 2009 were perceived as the strongest motivator for action at the local level.
Question 10 asked respondents to briefly reflect on what one aspect of the local factors
from 2009 that were discussed in Question 9 stood out most to the respondent. The 18 written
answers from the respondents are provided in Appendix E. Of the 18 responses, a text analysis
found that the majority of the responses used the words ‘local’, ‘jobs’, ‘national labs’, ‘regional’,
‘economic development’, ‘recession’, and ‘negative economic indicators’. These responses
further support the finding that the social (economic) conditions of 2009 were perceived to be a
significant factor in why the iHub program was developed.
Questions 11 and 12 were similar to those asked previously in Question 9 and 10, but
instead focused on the regional conditions. From the 29 respondents that answered Question 11,
the top five responses were again all economic development related, including: 1) implementing
regional economic development work plans; 2) need for jobs; 3) discussions about innovation; 4)

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 129
increased discussion of entrepreneurism/startups/small business; and 5) connecting knowledge
nodes (universities, etc.) with business.
On Question 11, ‘implementing regional economic development work plans’ and ‘need
for jobs’ were tied as the leading factors, with almost 52% of respondents selecting each of these
answer choices.
A text analysis of Question 12 found that the majority of the responses used the words
‘regional’, ‘need for jobs’, and ‘desire to leverage’.
Question 13 asked the respondents to reflect back to the economic and social conditions
of 2009, and with their current knowledge and historical perspective, what brief advice would
they give themselves about the iHub program in development at that time? The majority of the
17 respondents focused on the lack of startup and ongoing funding for the iHub program as the
leading issue that should have been addressed prior to involvement with the program.
Other advice brought up included providing state level economic incentives, marketing
for the iHub program, more effectively connecting regional organizations and initiatives,
increased private industry involvement, focus on long term objectives (not just short-term
economic issues), and better tracking of coaching and mentoring activities. The 17 written
responses for Question 12 are provided in Appendix E.
Lastly, Question 14 focused on asking the respondents to rank what ‘assets’ (or sectors)
of the 2009 iHub program were viewed as most beneficial to the development of a successful
iHub program. The assets are listed in Figure 22. Each asset could be ranked as ‘most valuable’

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 130
(rank value = 5), ‘very valuable’ (rank value = 4), ‘valuable’ (rank value = 3), ‘somewhat
valuable’ (rank value = 2), or ‘not valuable’ (rank value = 1).
Those assets that scored a weighted average of 3.5 or higher included (in rank order): 1)
Technology business networking organization (non-EDC [Economic Development
Corporation]); 2) Venture capitalist (VC) networks; 3) Angel investor networks; 4)
Incubator/Accelerator; and 5) University. Based on the weighted average (as presented in Figure
22), all of the sectors on the list were seen as ‘somewhat valuable’ to iHub development, with the
majority scoring as ‘valuable’ or higher.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 131
Figure 22: Survey question 14 – sectors most beneficial to iHub program development.

Results - Survey Section 4 - proposals for iHub designation – 2009.
This section of the survey sought to gain feedback on the process of preparation of the
iHub proposals in 2009. Survey data for the questions in this section is provided in Appendix E.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Community college
Workforce development/training organization
Chamber(s) of commerce
Funding agencies (like SBA loan centers)
Business assistance organizations (like SBDC)
Federal or industry supported Centers of Excellence
Educational consortia
Business college/school
Makerspace
UC Institutes for Science and Innovation
College/school of engineering
Regional economic development organization (EDC)
University or industry R&D facilities
Industry-university research institutes or foundations
City/county economic development departments
Federal/national labs
University
Incubator/Accelerator
Angel investor networks
Venture capitalist (VC) networks
Technology business networking organization (non-EDC)

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 132
Question 15 asked survey respondents to assess whether agencies and organizations were
supportive or reserved in developing partnerships for the iHub proposals in 2009. Of the 31
responses to the question, 16 selected ‘N/A’ as instructed to indicate that they were not involved
in the 2009 proposal preparation process. Of the 15 remaining responses, almost two-thirds
(nine) of the respondents thought that in developing partnerships with agencies and organizations
‘all were highly supportive and worked together readily’ or ‘most were supportive and worked
together well’. This means that the environment for creating cross-sectorial partnerships with
respect to the iHub proposal activities was largely perceived to be supportive. The majority of
the remaining respondents (four) selected “some were supportive and worked together’, with one
respondent selecting ‘few were supportive and partner development was difficult’.
To further assess the development of partnerships, Question 16 requested that the
respondent briefly describe their overall experience in creating partnerships in 100 words or less,
including any specific positive or negative experiences. 11 respondents answered, as survey
participants were instructed to skip this section if they had not been engaged in the iHub proposal
activities in 2009.
In doing a text analysis, the word that occurred most frequently was ‘positive’. Some
specific responses that reflect the overall tenor of the comments included that the process was
helpful in pulling together disparate resources, most iHubs coordinators (leadership) were good
partners, partnering with business was effective use of time, and partners were relatively easy to
attract even with the short timeframe for iHub proposal preparation.
In looking to determine the ‘ultimate’ decision maker(s) in each of the iHub regions for
preparation of the proposal, Question 17 asked the respondent to identify who they thought was

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 133
that decision maker. Of the 20 respondents that answered the question, five selected the answer
that they ‘did not know/was not there’ and one selected ‘I was a state representative’. Of the
remaining 14 respondents, 10 selected the choice of an existing executive director/CEO (six) or
the city economic development department (four). The remaining four respondents selected one
of the choices of ‘executive committee of an existing organization’ (two), ‘city council’ (one),
‘board of directors of an existing organization’ (one).
For the process of creating the iHub proposals, it appears that decision-making came
primarily from leadership by management from existing organizations or city economic
development departments.
Results - Survey Section 5 - information about the iHub program (2010 to present).
This section of the survey sought to gain feedback on the iHub programs after they were
established, covering the time period from 2010 to the present (2017). Specifically, the questions
focused on what aspects of the partnership network were perceived to be the most rewarding and
the most challenging. Respondents were asked to rank the engagement of specific partners within
the sectors of business, academia, non-profit, and government. Survey data for the questions in
this section is provided in Appendix E.
As described in the survey responses, and additionally reflected in the description of the
programmatic changes that happened at the state-level in late 2010 to 2012, the critical early
years for the iHub Program were stymied while administrative changes occurred.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 134
Question 18 established if the respondent was currently involved in the iHub program.
About 53% (18) of the 34 respondents indicated ‘yes’. Fifteen responded no and one respondent
indicated ‘not sure’.
For Questions 19 and 20, the list of partnership aspects (activities) was purposefully
mixed across the rewarding (Question 19) and challenging (Question 20) activities in an attempt
to avoid creating either a positive or negative connotation in each of the questions.
Question 19 asked the respondent about a variety of aspects that could be viewed as
rewarding. With 34 responses for the question, participants were asked to rank 11 aspects of
working with partners using one of four responses: ‘very rewarding’ (value = 4); ‘rewarding’
(value = 3); ‘somewhat rewarding’ (value = 2); and ‘not rewarding’ (value = 1). Specific values
to each response selection were not presented to the respondents, so they only used words to
answer for each aspect. Values were added as part of the survey administration to create
comparability and derive an average score for use in determining the highest valued aspects of
partnership.
Four aspects of partnership scored above an average of 3 (on the scale of 4) (see Figure
23), including: 1) Helping develop innovation community; 2) Knowledge sharing; 3) Local
engagement; and 4) Meeting new people. Each of these aspects received an average score of
being at least ‘somewhat rewarding’ (3 on the scale).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 135
Figure 23: Survey question 19 – aspects most beneficial to iHub program partnerships.

Question 20 asked the respondent about what aspects of iHub program partnerships might
be perceived as challenging. With 34 responses for the question (see Figure 24), participants
were asked to rank 10 aspects of working with partners using one of four responses: ‘very
challenging’ (value = 1); ‘challenging’ (value = 2); ‘somewhat challenging’ (value = 3); and ‘not
challenging’ (value = 4). The weighting scale was inverted for this question so that rewarding
and challenging aspects can be compared. For example, ‘communication with GO-Biz’ was seen
as a non-rewarding activity in Question 19, and ‘funding for local iHubs’ is seen as a challenging
aspect to partnership development. If they had been listed in the same question, they are both
likely to have scored low as aspects that contribute positively to partnership development.
As the number one choice of partnership challenges, ‘funding for local iHubs’ received
23 of 34 responses as ‘very challenging’ and six as ‘challenging’, making a combined 29
respondents (85%) that rank that aspect as an issue. With an average of just above two, the
‘ability to aggregate resources’ and ‘understanding the value of the iHub program’ were seen as
0 1 2 3 4
Communication with/from the State (GO-Biz)
Coordination with other iHub programs
Increasing economic opportunity
Creating unified innovation programs in region
Developing collaborative spaces
Generating innovative ideas
Strengthening existing relationships
Meeting new people
Local engagement
Knowledge sharing
Helping develop innovation community

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 136
challenging aspects to partnership development by the respondents, coming in at second and
third, respectively.
Figure 24: Survey question 20 – aspects most challenging to iHub program partnership.

Question 21 focused on assessing the respondents view on which sectors (broken down
into specific subsectors covering business, academia, non-profit, and government) provided the
most evident (or strongest) engagement for the iHubs. With 30 responses given for the question
(see Figure 25), participants were asked to rank the engagement of the sectors using one of five
responses: ‘continually engaged’ (value = 5); ‘often engaged’ (value = 4); ‘occasionally
engaged’ (value = 3); ‘rarely engaged’ (value = 2); and ‘not engaged’ (value = 1).
Only one sector scored greater than an average of 4 (often engaged) – that of
‘incubator/accelerator’. Five other sectors scored greater than an average of 3 (often engaged)
including: ‘city/county economic development departments’, ‘local economic development
organization (EDC)’, ‘makerspace’, ‘federal/national labs’, and ‘university’.
0 1 2 3 4
Similar venues/programs
Local iHub management
Awareness of innovation ecosystem
External conditions (social, economic)
Regional engagement
Coordination with other iHubs
Support from policymakers/elected officials
Understanding the value of the iHub program
Ability to aggregate appropriate resources
Funding for local iHubs

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 137
Though not captured in Figure 25, the response of ‘N/A’ was given to every sector by no
fewer than two respondents, and as many as seven for one sector – federal or industry supported
centers of excellence. Other sectors that received greater than five ‘N/A’ responses include
makerspace (five), federal/national labs (six), and educational consortia (six).
Figure 25: Survey question 21 – current sectors providing strongest engagement.

Figure 26 provides a relative comparison of how respondents viewed the sectors in 2009
and 2017. Though not a direct comparison because the question for the 2009 period of iHub
startup (Question 14) referred to the subsectors as ‘assets’ and asked survey respondents to
compare their relative value, and the question for the current program (2017) (Question 21)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Federal or industry supported Centers of Excellence
Educational consortia
College of engineering
UC Institutes for Science and Innovation
Industry-university research institute or foundations
University or industry R&D facilities
Funding agencies (like SBA loan centers)
Chamber(s) of commerce
Workforce development/training organizations
Business school
Community College
Technology business networking organization …
Venture capitalist (VC) networks
Angel investor networks
Business assistance organizations (like SBDC)
University
Federal/national labs
Makerspace
Local economic development organization (EDC)
City/county economic development departments
Incubator/Accelerator

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 138
asked respondents to rank the subsectors for their engagement, it is interesting to compare how
survey respondents looked at the two different time periods. Additionally, the respondent pool
for each question is not the same as some participants were not involved in the 2009 activities
and left Question 14 blank and some did not answer Question 21 for similar reasons.
In the survey, the term ‘regional economic development organization (EDC)’ was used in
the question regarding the 2009 period of time (Question 14) and then switched for the question
regarding the current time period (2017) to ‘local economic development organization (EDC)’
(Question 21). This was done because the emphasis changed in the period from 2009 to 2017
from regional EDCs as partners to a focus on local EDCs as partners. This was primarily due to
many of the regional EDCs having taken on the role of iHubs, making it less likely for the
sectorial partner to be at the regional level and more likely at the local level. In California, my
experience is that the EDCs at both the local and regional levels are typically operated as not for
profits, though some have become private enterprises.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 139
Figure 26: Sectors providing strongest engagement – 2009 vs. 2017.

Anecdotally (for the reasons stated earlier), many of the subsectors ranked similarly when
comparing them across the two time periods. Noticeable differences include the shift away from
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Federal or industry supported Centers of Excellence
Educational consortia
College of engineering
UC Institutes for Science and Innovation
Industry-university research institute or foundations
University or industry R&D facilities
Funding agencies (like SBA loan centers)
Chamber(s) of commerce
Workforce development/training organizations
Business school
Community College
Technology business networking org (non-EDC)
Venture capitalist (VC) networks
Angel investor networks
Business assistance organizations (like SBDC)
University
Federal/national labs
Makerspace
Regional/Local economic development …
City/county economic development departments
Incubator/Accelerator
2009 2017

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 140
a private sector capital apparent from the 2009 answers (like angel investors and venture
capitalist networks), and instead an increased reliance on incubators/accelerators, makerspaces,
and city/county economic development departments in 2017. Universities and research related
organizations also seem to have dropped relative to their ranking in 2009.
Results - Survey Section 6 - iHub specific questions.
The questions in this section of the survey were focused on participants in the six iHub
regions and not on the state-level representatives, who were directed to indicate an ‘N/A’ in
Question 22 and skip to Section 7 (Question 29). Respondents were specifically asked about
their experience engaging with the state iHub program office at GO-Biz, their opinion on
funding for the iHub program, success in meeting goals and objectives as set out in each iHub’s
original proposal, and opinions on non-funding resources that may be helpful in managing the
iHubs. Respondents were also asked whether they would reapply if the iHub program was re-
competed today. Survey data for the questions in this section is provided in Appendix E.
Question 22 asked participants if they found being associated with the state-level iHub
Program was beneficial, and to explain their answers (Figure 27). Of the 32 responses, two were
state representatives (GO-Biz), which means the respondents associated with one of the six iHub
totals 30. Of the 30 respondents, 18 (60%) were either ‘neutral’ or ‘not sure’ if the state-level
iHub program was a benefit. Seven (about 23%) indicated ‘yes’ it was a benefit, three (10%)
responded with ‘no’, and two (about 6%) were not aware of a state-level program.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 141
Figure 27: Survey question 22 – state-level iHub program benefits local program.

Respondent comments on Question 22 generally focused on stating that the state’s
programmatic support helped with early credibility, but was of little use in the daily
management. Respondents also criticized the state for not doing more to elevate the iHub
program and provide resources.
When asked in Question 23 if the iHub program also included annual funding, would the
answer to Question 22 change, of the 30 respondents associated with the six iHub, an almost
67% majority of respondents indicated ‘yes’. Six (20%) still did not think the state-level iHub
program was beneficial, while about four (13%) were not sure. Because this question focused on
the iHubs, the one state-level respondent was removed from the data set, which is why the survey
pool for this question dropped from 31 to 30.
Comments on Question 23 indicated that many of the iHubs were looking for minor
funding amounts of $100,000 or less as part of the program. A respondent from the Palm Springs
7
10
3
8
2
2
Yes
Neutral/neither
No
Not sure
I am not aware of the State-level
program
N/A - I am/was a State
representative

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 142
iHub stated they were proud that the iHub had been funded locally, and that any funding from
the state would likely have just reduced the local funding support by that amount.
Question 24 specifically asked what annual funding level would make the iHub program
designation more competitive (Figure 28). Of the 29 respondents (again, one state representative
was removed from the survey pool), over 41% thought that funding between $100,000 and
$249,000 would be the most desirable. Twenty-four percent thought that the funding amount
should be set at between $250,000 and $499,999. The remaining respondents either thought the
funding should be in excess of $500,000 (five) or between $50,000 and $99,999. Only one
respondent thought that funding was not necessary and was not the state’s job. An additional
funding range of $0 - $49,999 was included in the survey, but no respondent selected the
amount.
Figure 28: Survey question 24 – desired funding levels for iHub program.
4
12
7
2
3
1
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $249,000
$250,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1 million +
It's not the State's job to fund
the iHubs

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 143
Question 25 asked if the respondents thought that their iHub had successfully met the
goals and objectives as outlined in its original 2009 proposal. With 29 responses (removing the
one state-level response because it is not pertinent to the question), 13 (almost 45%) were ‘not
sure’ and six (almost 21%) were ‘not aware of the expectations from the proposal’. Seven (just
over 24%) of respondents said ‘yes’ that they thought their respective iHub had successfully met
the goals and objectives they had set forth in 2009, and four (about 14%) said ‘no’ they had not
met the goals or objectives.
The comments submitted as additional input on this question ranged broadly from stating
that the iHub had met its goals and objectives to stating that the original concepts had to be
reassessed and modified to provide a new plan that could be implemented.
Of particular note is that one respondent highlighted that the North Bay iHub had
successfully brought together multiple sectors to support job and business growth. Of the six
iHubs being focused on by this study, the North Bay iHub has been delisted by GO-Biz and has
gone defunct.
Though some of the respondents indicated that their respective iHubs have met their
goals and objectives, according to the original state RFP (BTH, 2009), each iHub was to provide
annual reporting to the state to assess this progress. Only two annual reports exist, one prepared
by USC CED in 2013 and one prepared by GO-Biz in 2016. Neither of these reports specifically
outlines the goals and objectives each iHub committed to and then demonstrates how the iHubs
met, exceeded, or missed those goals.
Because my time spent as a practitioner within the iHub program had led me to a similar
conclusion about the need for funding and non-monetary support from the state, Question 26

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 144
focused on determining if the respondent thought that funding and resources would be an
incentive to create/negotiate annual goals and objectives with the state. Of the 29 responses (after
removing the one state respondent from the pool of 30), 22 (almost 76%) said ‘yes’, while five
(just over 17%) said they were ‘unsure’. Both the ‘no’ and “it’s not the state’s job’ answers
garnered a single respondent each, or just over 3% per answer.
Respondents that chose to leave feedback on this question made comments that indicated
that funding would require accountability, that the state is unlikely able to set goals for building
innovation ecosystems, and that negotiating by the state would require specific knowledge about
entrepreneurship and the region, which they do not have.
Question 27 outlined a suggested list of non-funding resources that would also be an
incentive for being part of the iHub Program, and respondents were asked to indicate support for
each idea by selecting all that apply. With 27 respondents providing input (after removing the
one state representative from the response pool), all of the ideas on the list scored at least 37%
approval by having a minimum of 10 respondents select the idea. The top three answers selected
(all scoring greater than 66%) included: 1) ‘engagement with industry provided by state and
other agencies’; 2) ‘identified as innovation experts/resource to others’, meaning that the state
use the iHubs as thought leadership for the state and elevate awareness of the program; and 3)
‘sponsored conferences’.
Comments in this section also added the ideas of tax incentives for local businesses to
work with the iHubs, connection with a large technology business like Apple or Google,
software and training, a resource portal, and programs and resources delivered closer to the iHub.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 145
Question 28 asked if the iHub program was to be re-competed today, would the
respondent’s agency or organization consider applying. Of the 29 responses from the iHubs (one
state representative was removed from the respondent pool), over 48% (14) were ‘not sure’,
while only about 41% (12) said ‘yes’, and the remaining 11% (three) said ‘no’.
Survey participants were asked to explain their answer in 50 words or less, and responses
included several statements of not being sure, that they had left the iHub program, or that they
would need to assess the ongoing value proposition. Most comments reflected earlier input, with
the exception that one respondent made the comment that elected officials no longer seemed to
carry the same vision or interest as previous elected officials had.
Results - Survey Section 7 - wrap-up questions.
Section 7 provided a wrap-up for the survey asking broadly if there was any additional
feedback that wasn’t covered in previous sections.
Question 29 specifically asked the respondents if they had more input or any highlights
about the experience they had (either past or present) with developing or managing the iHub
program. The majority of answers were focused on reinforcing points made earlier in the survey,
including the need for funding and more resources at the state-level.
One comment from the Palm Springs iHub pointed out that in the respondent’s opinion,
their success had to do with the complete absence of the government sector involved with the
iHub. The respondent goes on to state that the iHubs that had struggled had directors that were
focused on lifetime job security or about to retire. The last observation by this respondent is that

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 146
entrepreneurs need to be in charge of programs that train and mentor entrepreneurs, and that the
iHubs that didn’t take this route had poor results.
Lastly, a comment was made that the “viability of an iHub depends largely on leadership,
funding, and actively managed relational connections with the partners and community.”
Questions 30 was a wrap up question about procedural actions pertaining to the
respondents being accessible for follow up questions should the need arise, and the respondents
were also able to provide a contact email if they wanted to receive a copy of the survey once
completed.
Assessment of Survey Results
As discussed previously in the introduction and subsequent sections of this study, three
questions from Sydow, et al. (2011) suggest a framework for discussing how context affects
leadership in the work of innovation cluster development. The questions of 1) “who leads in
clusters?”, 2) “how and under which circumstances” [do they lead]?, and 3) “what are the
particular challenges of this context?” (Sydow et al., 2011, p. 329) are used as an organizing tool
in this section for assessment of the survey results for the iHubs and the state-level program. And
where possible, comparison of survey responses is discussed to identify factors respondents
considered important for some iHubs’ ongoing operational success while others have ceased
operations or struggle to find stability.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 147
Survey results – who are the iHub leaders?
For the question of who are the leaders in innovation cluster development (Sydow et al.,
2011) for the iHubs, several survey questions focused on providing insight.
To identify roles within the iHub program, and at what period of time these roles were
held, Question 5 of the survey asked respondents to select from a list of leadership and key
support roles between the years of 2009 and 2017. Respondents were able select multiple roles
per year to fully identify their involvement. Leadership roles included executive management,
board of directors, and policymakers, and support roles included key staff and iHub partner
organizations.
Though other roles at the staff and administrative level were likely important to the
iHubs’ activities, this survey focused on the roles of iHub leadership and the requested survey
participants were purposefully targeted at the leadership level, so no option was given to add to
the list of roles.
As previously noted, respondents to the survey were involved significantly in the
executive management, board executive committee, and board of directors’ roles, with over 50%
of responses being in these three areas during the years from 2010 to 2013. Though this result is
more reflective of the survey participants than of the actual makeup of the leadership at the time,
it is my experience that this period in the iHub program was a formative time and all of the iHub
organizations had more formalized management and leadership structures.
Currently, the only iHubs in the cohort of six with functioning boards and regular
leadership meetings are the i-GATE, Palm Springs, and OCTANe iHubs. Based on personal

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 148
knowledge as an ongoing iHub program participant, the other three iHub programs do not have a
functioning leadership structure: North Bay iHub has ceased operations and been un-designated
by the state; the Sacramento iHub is working to reconstitute under new management by I/O
Foundation after SARTA shut down in 2015; and the San Francisco iHub is run by the executive
director and staff of the SFCED with no formal role from a board.
To further understand the makeup of the leadership roles held by the respondents to the
survey, Question 6 asked for input on which sectors a respondent represented and during which
years. Sectors were broken down into subsectors - like local, state and federal government - and
respondents were asked to select the closest match for each year they were involved. This
variability was provided because of the shifting roles and sectors that some of the leadership had
over the period from 2009 to 2017.
The majority of respondents were engaged with the iHubs after the startup period in 2009
and 2010, with the highest level of participation by the respondents being in 2014 (37) (see
Figure 20). About 50% of the respondents had roles in government and non-profit sectors during
the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. In subsequent years (2013 to 2107), the number of respondents
doesn’t fluctuate by more than six respondents year-over-year, with the typical delta being
between two to four participants in any one year (6 to 13%). After removing those that
responded ‘N/A’ from the totals, the period from 2013 to 2017 remains at 30 or above in any
given year, with a high of 37 in 2014, but subsequently declined by six participants (16.2%) in
2015 to 31.
Comparing these changes in participation (Figure 20) with the fluctuations of sector
representation over the period (Figure 21 ), the respondents for this survey changed roles away

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 149
from government and non-profit sectors to business and investment sectors. This reflects a
change in the sector leadership of at least the respondents to this survey. Since this survey is
inclusive of the executive management and iHub coordinators from initial startup (2009) and the
current iHub coordinators (2017), this shift indicates that at least in the core leadership for the
iHubs, government and non-profits were beneficial to helping to start the program but leadership
roles have shifted to become more private sector oriented.
Survey participants were asked to rank subsectors that were most beneficial to the
development of a successful iHub program in 2009 in Question 14. Though referred to as ‘assets’
for the purpose of the survey, the list was an extensive breakdown of the sectors of business
(private), academia, and government into terms specific to innovation ecosystems, like
incubators, national labs, and angel investors.
The survey results indicated that respondents identified technology business networking
organizations (non-EDCs), venture capitalist networks, angel investor networks, and
incubators/accelerators (Figure 22) as the most beneficial assets to have in the iHub programs.
The first three are distinctly business sector oriented, while the fourth could be seen as both a
business-related activity for startups and entrepreneurs or as a typically non-profit managed
activity.
A similar list (with two minor distinctions, as discussed in section 4.5) was assessed in
Question 21, asking respondents to identify the subsectors that provided the strongest
engagement. The respondents identified incubators/accelerators, local economic development
departments, local EDCs, and makerspaces as those providing the strongest engagement (Figure
25).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 150
In either case, for both Question 14 and 21, universities and federal labs were seen as
either the fifth or sixth most important subsector.
Comparing the list of identified most beneficial assets for that early period (2009-2010)
(Question 14) against the makeup of sectors represented by the early leadership for the iHubs
(2009) (Question 6), the sectors that were most lacking in representation in the leadership are the
ones that are viewed as most beneficial.
In making the same comparison for the list of sectors viewed to have the strongest
engagement in 2017 (Question 21) (Figure 25) against the makeup of sectors represented by the
later leadership (2017) for the iHubs (Question 6), the reverse trend can be observed. Subsectors
typically managed by non-profits (makerspaces, incubators, and local EDCs), in addition to local
government economic development, top the list while the majority makeup of the leadership
sectors for the survey participants is more diversified and has a greater amount of private sector
involvement.
Contrary to these results, a respondent from the Palm Springs iHub observed in the
comments to Question 29 that “entrepreneurs need to be in charge of programs that train and
mentor entrepreneurs, and that the iHubs that didn’t take this route had poor results.” Though
clearly stated as a professional observation, there isn’t any indication from the survey results or
in the comments section to the questions that this view is broadly shared.
To the contrary, though not a strong trend with absolute comparability due to the
difference in how Questions 14 and 21 were asked, it is apparent that the majority of respondents
viewed the need for increased private sector involvement early in the iHub program (2009 to
2010) when government and non-profits were leading, while the current view (2017) is that

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 151
government and non-profit sectors play a strong role even though the sectors of the respondents
have shifted towards increased private sectors roles. Based on a generalization of the
respondents’ input, leadership in the iHub innovation ecosystem appears to prefer balance across
the sectors and identifies the value of other sectorial involvement when too heavily weighted in
one sector. Irrespective of the reversal in highest priority, respondents viewed the involvement of
academia (universities and federal labs) as important and ranking near the top.
With respect to who leads in the iHub ecosystem, Question 17 asked respondents for their
perspective on who made the ‘ultimate’ decision to prepare and submit an iHub proposal in
response to the 2009 BTH RFP (as discussed previously). Removing the responses indicating
that the respondent ‘didn’t know’ or was a state-level representative, almost 65% of the
responses indicated that decision-making came primarily from leadership of an existing
organizations CEO or board of directors, whereas about 35% indicated that leadership was from
the city (either economic development department or the city council).
As discussed in a previous section, the aspects of the iHub program partnerships that the
respondents ranked as most beneficial in Question 19 included helping to develop the innovation
community, knowledge sharing, local engagement, and meeting new people. These aspects are
reflective of the discussion by Wolshok (2011), where boundary-spanning individuals create a
bridge between the business and technology communities, and build upon that community to
share knowledge and collaborate. Accordino (2011) noted that these types of leaders look to
move beyond geographic and sectorial boundaries.
One comment made in response to Question 29 by a respondent who identified in they
were part of leadership for the i-GATE iHub, stated that “viability of an iHub depends largely on

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 152
leadership, funding, and actively managed relational connections with the partners and
community.” This comments directly connects the ideas of how leaders lead with the challenges
of leading in an innovation cluster.
To note, though the number of respondents to this survey did not provide a large enough
sample population to assess which sectors were most significant in establishing the initial iHubs,
Table 3 makes a comparison of the individuals who identified as iHub managers, board
members, and coordinators by their respective iHub to provide some context to that initial
sectorial leadership.
Survey results – how iHubs are led and under what context.
For the question of how leaders affected cluster development and under what context
(Sydow et al., 2011) the iHubs developed, several survey questions focused on providing insight
into the social, political, and geographical context in 2009.
The results of Question 8 (Table 5) on motivations behind the respondents’ role in the
iHub program development in 2009, indicate that over 41% of the respondents were either self-
motivated or felt compelled by social conditions at the time. Review of the comments section for
those that marked ‘other’ indicates that another three respondents were also motivated by
contextual reasons, bringing the total to about 60%. Conversely, about 40% of the respondents
viewed their involvement as being directed by a manager or leadership in their organization or as
part of their job duties.
The intrinsic motivation of the 60% of respondents indicates that the iHub program
development was largely driven by contextual conditions versus direction from leadership.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 153
Though not all reasons for involvement can be attributed to the social (economic) conditions at
the time, several answers indicate that was a specific driver for some iHubs. Table 5 depicts
stated motivations for each iHub based on each respondents’ answer to Question 8.
To ascertain the discussions, or factors, that were present in the local environment during
the iHub development activities (2009), Question 9 provided a list of answers that was reflective
of the local context at the time (Kellerman, 2015; Cassidy et al., 2005; BTH, 2009) and
respondents were encouraged to select all that applied. Top results included discussion about
innovation, need for jobs, increased discussion about entrepreneurism and startups, connecting
knowledge nodes (universities) with business, and implementing the regional economic
development work plans. These factors aligned with the global, national, state, and regional
discussions around innovation and economic development as a response to the global recession.
Question 10 asked respondents which one factor from the provided list stood out at the
time concerning local conditions. The response comments largely reflected that the need for jobs
(number two most selected factor in Question 9), economic development (fifth most selected
factor), and negative economic indicators (sixth most selected factor) were perceived as
significant factors in the local environment.
Similar to Question 9, the purpose of Question 11 was to ascertain the factors present in
the regional environment by providing a list of answers reflective of the regional context in 2009.
Respondents were again encouraged to select all that apply. The top responses were
implementing the regional work plans, need for jobs, discussion about innovation, increased
discussion of entrepreneurism and startups, and connecting universities.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 154
Question 12, like Question 10, asked respondents which one factor from the list stood out
at the time concerning regional conditions, and primary responses included the need for jobs
(number one most selected factor in Question 11) and the desire to leverage regional assets (sixth
highest factor).
From these responses, it is clear that the respondents viewed job creation and the
economy as the primary factors in the local and regional context. Coupled with the responses in
Question 8 on motivations, mitigating the impact from the Great Recession can be identified as a
primary reason leaders made the choice to become involved with the iHub program.
Perhaps due to the significant focus on the economic issues, or perhaps because
leadership within the iHubs was not well-developed, a majority of the 30 respondents (60%)
indicated in Question 25 that they were either ‘not sure’ (13) of or ‘had not met’ (4) the goals
and objectives outlined in the original proposal from 2009. This points directly to ‘how’ leaders
affect cluster development noted by Sydow, et al. (2011) by indicting that context can override
the considerations of effective implementation of management tools and practices.
The comments for this question also provided insight that many of the respondents were
not focused on the goals as a matter of practice, with the two notable exceptions being the Palm
Springs and OCTANe iHubs. Besides validation from the survey, both of these iHubs have
externally facing information that indicates they are meeting their goals and objectives.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 155
Survey results – challenges encountered by iHubs.
For the question of challenges that are encountered by leaders in cluster development
(Sydow et al., 2011), several survey questions focused on providing insight into the challenges in
2009 during the iHub program startup and in subsequent operations (2010 to 2017).
The most significant challenge noted in survey responses to the questions and comments
throughout the survey was lack of funding for the iHubs at the local level. No other challenge
rose to this level of discussion and directness in statements in survey comments, and answers to
Questions 20, 22, and 23 provide additional clarity that this challenge is the primary factor in
how the majority of respondents assessed the success or failure of the iHub program.
When asked in Question 20 what aspects of the iHub program partnerships might be
perceived as challenging, respondents highlighted that funding for the local iHubs, the ability to
aggregate resources, and understanding the value of the iHub program as the three most
challenging aspects. Of the 31 respondents selecting funding for the local iHub program as a
challenge, 74% (23) selected it as ‘very challenging’, which was over double the amount of
responses for the next aspect of ability to aggregate resources, which had 11 out of 29 selected as
‘very challenging’.
When reviewing comments made on various questions throughout the survey, and in
particular Questions 20, 22, and 29, many of the comments that centered on the lack of funding
for the local iHub regions were specific in their statement that this was a major challenge. One
comment made by a respondent from the Sacramento iHub summarized this challenge by
opining that “without any financial support by the State to the iHubs it [the program] never made
it beyond a 5 out of 10.”

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 156
To further explore challenges with the iHub program, Question 22 asked respondents if
they found being associated with the state-level program a benefit, specifically meaning the
program offices under GoED and then GO-Biz. Of the 30 respondents, 60% (18) were either
‘neutral’ or ‘not sure’ if the state-level iHub program was a benefit. The comments were again
focused on support from the state, with statements like “limited due to no funding,” “no material
support,” and “the state program has actually proved to have negative utility in the iHubs’ efforts
to develop state-level funding.”
Other comments noted additional challenges with the state-level program support as: it
“made a recognizable program by the State Legislature in name only,” referring to the action by
the state to codify the iHub program in 2013; “the rare programmatic support that is offered is
not relevant to the work we are doing;” and “to-date, the state’s management of the iHub
network has produced no tangible value.”
Not all respondents were negative in their comments, adding some positive observations.
A Sacramento iHub participant noted that “GO-Biz has been extremely helpful in recharging
Sacramento,” and a North Bay iHub participant stated, “great connection to thought leaders.”
Demonstrating the level to which funding has been an issue in program delivery for the
iHub regions, and subsequently how they view the state, Question 23 asked respondents whether
including annual funding as part of the designation would change the answer to Question 22.
Twenty (a majority of respondents) indicated ‘yes’, and only six respondents of the 30 answering
the question ‘no’.
Having been involved with the iHub program throughout its entirety, I was aware of the
funding issue being a major challenge to the successful execution of the state objectives and the

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 157
ability of the regional iHubs to meet their goals. To identify the level at which funding might be
seen as beneficial, respondents were asked in Question 24 to select from several different
funding increments. Of the 29 respondents answering, they selected $100,000 to $249,000 as the
first choice at about 41% (12), and $250,000 to $499,999 as the second choice at about 24% (7).
Though the amounts selected for the survey were arbitrary, the fact that many respondents
selected one of the lowest amounts provided demonstrates that even a small amount of funding
from the state would be beneficial.
To summarize, several major themes are evident from the survey, including:
1. The majority of those involved in the 2009 proposal creation did so because the
economic conditions were seen as dire, demonstrating that the context of the
environment within which each iHub was operating was the primary driver for
requesting inclusion in the iHub program;
2. Not receiving funding from the state was seen as major point of failure in execution of
the iHub program within most of the regions (with the exception of Palm Springs) and
many of the iHubs see this as the major reason why the program hasn’t been more
successful;
3. The large majority of those involved in managing the iHub were either not sure or not
aware of the previously stated goals from their 2009 proposals, which creates difficulty
in achieving outcomes desired by the state. This mismatch of expectations in outcomes
has resulted in very few publically demonstrated successes in the iHub program by the
state, including the failure to produce the required annual reports.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 158
Perspective from a Practitioner
The views in this section are my own, although they are shaped by over 15 years of
professional economic development experience and a decade of professional experience in
innovation ecosystems. Because much of the information described below is shaped by
experience and lacks research data for validation, it has been provided in this section as
supporting information for the study.

Much of my interest in the iHub program has resulted from being the co-founder, the
iHub coordinator, and ultimately the CEO of the i-GATE iHub based in Livermore, California.
Moreover, since the initial start of the iHub program in 2009, I had been curious about why so
many organizations would collaborate around a single idea or activity, especially when there
seemed to have been no incentive as part of the program startup, such as new programmatic
funding for staff or a grant for facility and materials hard costs.
My personal experience extends to experiencing the contextual factors in the ecosystem
during the initial program start, then being party to the ongoing policy drivers that shaped the
maturation of the program, then helped to develop leadership practices across sectors (boundary-
spanning), and ultimately observing how context drove decision-making by leaders.
I have been careful to actively suspend my personal knowledge of the iHub program
during the assessment and survey work in previous sections of this study, and worked with my
advising committee to mitigate any personal bias or experience to the extent possible.
My involvement in the iHub program since its inception provided a unique set of
experiences that are not catalogued in any other forum. At the discretion of my committee, I used

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 159
this section to describe my personal and professional experiences from work during the program
startup process, the subsequent activities of actively managing an iHub, and my experiences as a
partner organization. It is intended that this material provide additional context to the subject
matter presented in this study.
The information and experiences described have been cross-checked with saved emails,
documents, and reports in my personal possession, but any conflicts with other information
presented I accept as my own error and my statements should not be considered as an error on
any other party’s account.
How the iHubs got started.
From the time that the state was forming the iHub program in summer 2009, I had
become part of a discussion group with business development staff from the SNL/Livermore
Site, primarily due to their involvement with assisting managers at BTH in the iHub program
development. As early as August 2009, program aspects were discussed with me to gain a
perspective from an economic development professional. I had become the economic
development director for the city of Livermore in June 2007, so I had already been actively
involved with management, public relations, and business development staff at each of the two
national labs by the time this discussion had started.
The state had also been driving economic development activities using the RERWP
process to identify job creation and revenue opportunities for the state. One of the outcomes from
the process in early 2009 had been engagement with the national labs in California through the
CCST to identify ways to encourage economic development, specifically job creation, through
innovation cluster development. The state and other organizations, such as the Silicon Valley

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 160
Leadership Group and the Bay Area Council, had spent considerable time assessing the
economic downturn and work to identify ways to jump start the economy of California. It was at
that time that the state had also been experiencing significant budget shortfalls and was looking
for ways to increase revenue.
Knowledge nodes - universities, national labs, and research institutions – had been
engaged in working with the state to find ways to increase the rapid deployment and
commercialization of research and technology. Even the national labs had begun to realize that
they needed to be more actively engaged in stimulating innovation and the resultant economic
development activities needed to spur the economy.
As mentioned previously, the national labs in California were viewed as particularly
important partners in the development of innovation clusters, especially the DOE labs in
Livermore – LLNL and SNL.
It was because of these national economic conditions and the belief by federal, state and
local governments that innovation would help grow the economy, that the DOE national labs in
Livermore had been encouraged to work collaboratively with the local community to create more
innovation and more entrepreneur and startup business activity.
Context for i-GATE formation.
As discussed previously, environmental conditions (social, political, and geographical)
can have significant influence on the actions and decisions made by leaders. For the formation of
the i-GATE iHub, context was extremely relevant during the period leading up to the successful
designation in November 2009.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 161
During the time that the discussions around innovation clusters had been happening at the
state-level, in May 2007 U.S. DOE had finalized the competitive re-bid for the contract to
manage LLNL, which switched the lab management from solely the University of California
over to a consortium approach that included industry as a major partner.
This had been a year-long process and had significant implications for the employees
inside the lab, the region around the LLNL, and ultimately across the DOE-complex.
A news release on the U.S. DOE website from May 8, 2007 states:
"Livermore National Laboratory is a critical part of our nuclear weapons complex and
has been for the last 55 years," Secretary Bodman said. "For the first time since the
beginning of the laboratory a new contractor is coming to Livermore. We look forward
to working with LLNS, LLC [Lawrence Livermore National Security] as Livermore
continues its vital national security work” (DOE, 2007).
At the time of the contract award, the new management organization (LLNS, LLC) was
heavily focused on bringing “lessons learned and best practices to the laboratory from their
experiences in managing a majority of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)'s
weapons complex sites and a majority of the department's national laboratories, as well as their
private sector experience, with the goal of saving 20 percent in support costs in three years”
(U.S. DOE, 2007).
LLNS, LLC proactively started significant outreach efforts over the subsequent months,
working to connect the new lab leadership with the local policymakers and community leaders.
Up until this change, the interactions from LLNL and SNL with the City of Livermore and other

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 162
surrounding cities had primarily been just quarterly meetings between the mayor, city manager,
and some key city staff and the laboratory directors. The change from UC-only management to
the LLNS, LLC consortium positively changed the receptivity of the lab management in
community engagement and outreach.
As the national economy continued to falter, and the discussion around knowledge node-
based innovation cluster development was increasing, I pushed for an economic development
strategy that created a branding message focused on the science and technology from LLNL and
SNL. The initial focus had been on the Livermore area specifically, but quickly broadened to the
Tri-Valley region of the East Bay in general. The branding message simply stated that Livermore
was the home to a science and technology center and was located adjacent to the laboratories,
and gave an example of technology businesses that were already located in Livermore.
This branding ultimately expanded into written and broadcast media, as well as took
advantage of social media platforms like Facebook that were quickly gaining popularity. The
City had collaborated with the Livermore Chamber of Commerce (LCoC), and was subsequently
heavily focused on using this ongoing branding campaign as a business attraction tool.
As the City, LCoC, and other Tri-Valley cities and organizations continued the efforts to
become known as a place for technology development and innovation, LLNL and SNL launched
an initiative of their own to develop an ‘open campus’ and take advantage of the proximity of the
labs to Silicon Valley. The term open campus was used to define a place where laboratory
researchers and personnel could meet and collaborate with external partners without the normal
security clearance requirements of the main laboratory facilities. The Livermore Valley Open

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 163
Campus initiative was approved by NNSA in August 2009, and the City and labs actively
partnered to bring quick recognition to the activity.
When the Labs approached the City regarding partnering on the iHub proposal, a
collaborative environment and tone had already been struck amongst the partners and made the
discussion relatively simple. Additionally, the labs were not eligible to apply as the lead
applicant under the iHub Guidelines (BTH, 2009) but were listed in the guidelines as one of the
preferred partners for iHubs to consider as part of their consortium. Since the labs were located
adjacent to the City, the geographical context made partnering ideal.
It should be noted that at the time, no innovation cluster had been proactively developed
around the labs. Though active economic development activity to encourage cluster development
had been in progress, the work to assess the cluster opportunities had only been started at a
conversational level. The i-GATE iHub concept had been created based completely on an initial
assessment of cluster opportunity, an increased motivation by the federal government (and by
extension the national labs) to use federal assets as job creation engines, and the recently
changed lab management at LLNL that included private sector partners and increased the
motivation for the lab to be involved in technology transfer and commercialization activities.
i-GATE iHub proposal development.
After BTH released the RFP on September 10, 2009, the national labs formally
approached the City to be the lead for the iHub proposal team in mid- September. After the
City’s management team had met and concurred that a proposal would serve the city’s economic
development goals, the proposal team was formed on September 21
st
.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 164
For the next two weeks, the proposal team met almost daily up until October 2
nd
, when
the letter of intent was due to BTH. In the letter of intent, I was named as the proposed iHub
coordinator and SNL’s business development manager, Bruce Balfour, was named as the lead for
the national lab consortium. Bruce’s role during this time period was as the primary author,
whereas I was the lead on developing the framework and partner outreach in the region.
Of particular note was that the i-GATE concept team was able to generate validated
partnership letters from 24 organizations, including the City of Livermore, LLNL, and SNL.
These were signed by executive management for each of these organizations.
The letter of intent submittal for the i-GATE iHub is included in Appendix A with BTH
submittals and depicts a typical iHub response to the RFP. The document, which includes a five-
page submittal and several attachments, provides a description of the proposed partnership and
its focus, suggested geography, the list of 24 confirmed partners, and expected economic
potential. The attachments include the letters of support from the partner organizations.
I specify the number of partners and the short time period that it took to create the i-
GATE iHub concept to illustrate how impactful the national, state, regional, and local focus on
economic development and job creation had become on a daily basis. When a partnership formed
by local governmental agency and two national labs can quickly convince the executive
management for a host of other cities, business organizations, academic and research institutions,
and investment firms to be included in an innovation cluster proposal within two weeks,
environmental factors are certainly at work on leadership. The social context of the economic
collapse had become so damaging to the psyche across the sectors, that letters of intent for an
unknown program focused on innovation cluster development, that would typically take months

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 165
of process to assess and build consensus amongst the partners, were completed in a matter of
weeks.
And the i-GATE team was not alone. The state had received over 25 letters of intent for
establishing iHubs in the first round. These included existing organizations like OCTANe and
SARTA., and newly formed organizations like i-GATE and Palm Springs. By inference, that
means that cross-sector collaboration throughout California had completed rapid partnership
development to result in letters of intent for each of these proposals. That level of simultaneous
stakeholder collaboration across all of California and at all sectors levels (local, regional, super-
regional, and state-wide) was probably unprecedented in the history of the state’s efforts to
create broad partnerships.
On October 15, 2009, the i-GATE team was notified by BTH that it was invited to
continue in the process. From then through late November, I worked as the primary lead for
monitoring the state’s ongoing iHub solicitation process and further developing the proposal
between the City of Livermore, SNL, and LLNL and the innovation hub partnership. Bruce
Balfour continued as the primary author, developing profiles of the economic opportunities that
might be realized from the i-GATE partnership.
The full proposal, which is included as part of the BTH documents in Appendix A for
reference, was submitted to BTH on November 23, 2009. The i-GATE consortium was notified
by BTH, in a letter dated February 4, 2010 (Appendix A), that it was awarded one of the
inaugural six designations for the iHub program.
On October 26
th
, I presented a public item at the Livermore City Council meeting
providing the background on the iHub program, describing the rapid partnership that had been

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 166
built with the national labs, and requesting authorization for the city manager to approve any
documentation related to the full proposal to be submitted in late November. The City Council
approved the request by a 5-0 vote.
The full proposal was submitted to BTH on November 23, 2009. The i-GATE consortium
was notified by BTH, in a letter dated February 4, 2010 (Appendix A), that it was awarded one
of the inaugural six designations for the iHub program.
After the award, the City became the fiscal sponsor of the i-GATE iHub and began
setting up a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The City saw the iHub as a significant opportunity
to become quickly involved in innovation cluster discussions at the national level, bringing
attention and economic development prospecting to the region. The City completed the non-
profit formation activities in mid-2010 and formed the Board of Directors shortly thereafter.
Board membership started at 15 members, but ultimately grew to 27 voting members and 9 ex-
officio members so that each partner city could have the city manager hold a voting seat on the
board while also including the mayors as non-voting. This construct was done because the cities
became financial contributors to i-GATE and the elected official could not hold a seat on a board
in which the city also provided funding.
From designation in February 2010 until March 2013 when I left the City of Livermore
for employment with another city, I was the i-GATE iHub coordinator. Additionally, I filled the
CEO role during the periods of August 2010 to February 2011 and February 2012 to March
2013. Both of these periods were still early in the development of the i-GATE iHub and budgets
were not able to support a full-time CEO. During my entire tenure as management for i-GATE, I

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 167
was employed by the City of Livermore and managed the iHub as one of my duties, in addition
to managing the City’s Economic Development Department.
Early iHub program efforts.
As described in the survey responses, and additionally reflected in the description of the
programmatic changes that happened at the state-level in late 2010 to 2012, the critical early
years for the iHub Program were stymied while administrative changes occurred.
As previously discussed, the GoED office was established in 2010 by executive order of
Governor Schwarzenegger and the iHub program was moved from BTH to GoED. On April 22,
2010, the new GoED office released the second round RFP for the iHub program. Many of the
original proposal teams lobbied the Governor’s office for selection based on previously
submitted proposals. I was part of the selection team for the second-round proposals, and an
additional three iHubs were designated in September. These included; East Bay Green Corridor
iHub, iHub San Diego, and San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub. And the initial six iHubs were re-
designated under the GoED program office in May 2010.
Concurrent to these activities, initial program funding for the inaugural cohort of six
iHubs was provided as a $100,000, 100%-matching fund federal grant from the statewide SBDC
program, which was required to be used for workforce development and training activities. Most
of the six iHubs were able to access some portion of the funds, but identifying and providing
matching funding at 100% was difficult for each of the iHubs. Additionally, some programmatic
difficulty by the SBDC caused four of the iHubs to become ineligible for full cost recovery, even
though the full grant funding had been expended by each of the iHubs.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 168
Shortly after the second round of designations happened in September, and due primarily
to the need to solidify the iHub program in the face of the upcoming election, three more iHubs
were designated in October. These included: Central California iHub, Cleantech Los Angeles
iHub, and Innovate North state iHub.
Even though the state-level policy support was uncertain during this time due to election
year politics, the GoED staff did their best to coordinate the iHub programs. The iHub
coordinators talked by conference call monthly, and met quarterly at one of the iHubs or at the
state’s offices. Program policies, procedures, and outcomes were being implemented to stabilize
the newly formed iHub program as the uncertainty of a new administration made for difficult
discussions about the programs longevity.
The i-GATE program activities were well received in the Tri-Valley area and partnership
discussions flourished due to the increased presence of lab management and staff at events
throughout the community. Shared objectives of job growth, technology transfer and
commercialization of the labs’ research, and increasing awareness of the laboratories’ programs,
including the Livermore Valley Open Campus initiative, made for exciting local and regional
discussions, even with uncertainty at the state level.
State program change – GoED to GO-Biz.
Under Governor Schwarzenegger’s administration, the iHub program enjoyed
considerable focus on legitimizing the designated iHubs as an important state and national
resource. Creating program documents like MOUs were a primary focus, but GoED also created
considerable enthusiasm within the iHub program by making simple gestures like signed

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 169
documents that were suitable for wall-hanging with the Governor’s recognizable signature part
of the process. These efforts created brand awareness for the iHub program at many levels.
When the administration changed from Governor Schwarzenegger to Governor Brown in
early 2011, the iHub program wasn’t even a year old and the support for the effort dropped off
considerably. State-level staff were unsure of their employment and the director was discharged.
The iHubs themselves had to carry the external promotion of the program, finding support at the
federal level, primarily from President Obama’s administration and the Department of
Commerce Economic Development Administration.
Though GoED wasn’t officially dissolved during the period from 2011 to September
2012, the programmatic activities were mostly administrative and very little assistance was
provided to the iHubs other than monthly calls and irregular quarterly meetings. GoED staff did
what they could to keep the iHub program moving forward, including acting as the primary point
of contact at the state offices, but realistically there was little the staff could do until Governor
Brown decided the direction he wanted to take with economic development activities in the state.
In September 2012, Governor Brown decided to continue statewide economic
development efforts started under GoED under the new brand of GO-Biz, which included the
iHub program. The iHubs were once again able to focus on the promise of what state-level
recognition and coordination could provide.
However, several administrative stumbling blocks were inadvertently put in place,
including the Governor’s new jobs czar, whose take on the iHub program was that the
participating regional clusters should justify why the state would spend any resources supporting
them.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 170
After about a year of tense discussions, in 2013 the iHubs saw their efforts to work with
the administration pay off through legislative action (AB 250, 2013) that codified the iHubs into
state law. This action helped many of the newly formed iHubs that needed the validation of the
state-level designation to access local or regional resources, as they were hampered in their
previous efforts due to program uncertainty.
The i-GATE iHub did not experience these issues during the period of uncertainty due in
large part to the fact that it was a brand-new innovation cluster and the two national labs had not
previously been as readily accessible as they were under the iHub program. This mutually
beneficial arrangement to work collaboratively between the region and the national labs gave i-
GATE a level of credibility beyond its achievements. In a very short period of time, i-GATE
leadership was speaking at national conferences, winning national and international awards for
partnership, and even being recognized by the White House for local innovation.
Though the program had struggled at the state-level during the transition between
administrations, i-GATE leadership found this period to be an opportunity and worked hard to
solidify the emerging innovation hub’s role as a leader at the state and national level.
As discussed previously, the ability to make such strident brand recognition for a new
consortium was due in large part to the social conditions of the period. Without the significant
efforts being made by the federal government to increase jobs and innovation, and if the labs had
not been aggressively moving their agendas forward to be a part of that economic development
effort, it is unlikely that i-GATE would have received the amount of recognition that it did. It
was the context that dictated the leadership opportunities, outcomes, and direction.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 171
By March 2013, I had moved to new employment with a city that was an i-GATE
partner, so my role transitioned from active management and leadership of the iHub to a passive
role of staff to a board member. Shortly after my move, the city decided to step down from the i-
GATE board due to budgetary issues. However, in my new role I became a board member of the
Innovate North State iHub, a leadership team member for the CNMI iHub, and my organization
was a funding partner for the Sacramento iHub.
I continued in these roles until the middle of 2015, when I left that city for employment in
the private sector at a technology startup company. At about that time, the Sacramento iHub had
stopped operating, and the Innovate North State iHub had shrunk its operations dramatically. I
remained actively involved with the CNMI iHub, and still participate on the leadership team. In
2016, the Sacramento iHub started back up under new management and I became part of the user
group that is actively advising the iHub leadership on program direction and opportunity. As was
true previously in my role as the i-GATE manager, none of these efforts are paid activities and
the organizations are constantly searching for funding opportunities.
Intrinsic motivation for iHub proposal development.
As described in the comments by many of the respondents of the survey, there was a
feeling of impending dread in 2009 due to an increasingly bad economic climate in the U.S., and
in California in particular.
In hindsight, economists have proclaimed that the Great Recession was already over by
June 2009 (Rich, 2013), but during mid- to late 2009, the iHub program seemed like a rare
opportunity to gain notice and bring attention to the Tri-Valley region which might result in

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 172
economic development opportunities, job creation, and ultimately revenue for the partner cities
and region.
The bad economic news that was rampant in the popular press provided an incentive to
work collaboratively to get out of the poor economic conditions. It is likely why so many of the
survey respondents in this study found that creating partnerships was not overly difficult. That
same experience was true with the i-GATE efforts to create partnerships and collaborations, and
we found most entities responsive and happy to help, even when they were also working with a
competitive group.
Successes and challenges of iHub program.
The majority of the iHub managers/leaders described the early years of iHub operations
as a mixed bag of success and challenges, as reflected in the survey results. Though the program
grew in a short period of time from six to 16 iHubs, two of those have been un-designated and
gone defunct, one shut down and is now re-emerging under different leadership, and many of the
rest of the iHubs either don’t regularly participate or are no longer actively recognizing the
program affiliation.
Programs that are financially healthy and program rich include Palm Springs, San Diego,
i-GATE, and OCTANe iHubs, though none of them actively promote the iHub program on their
website (as required under the state MOU) nor actively communicate the benefits of state-level
involvement.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 173
From my perspective, the ability for i-GATE to create a new innovation cluster focused
on technology transfer and commercialization from lab-based research, with the two DOE
national labs as a central core to that program, was both exciting and challenging.
It was exciting because never before had those two labs collaborated with the community
in the region to such a high degree, becoming what one lab staff member referred to as
‘competimates’, where partners are both competing and working together in a collaborative
environment. It was also exciting because we could take advantage of so many program elements
already in place with the labs, including infrastructure and emerging relationships.
It was challenging because starting a new effort from scratch with limited resources made
strategic planning and assessment difficult at best. It was challenging also because building an
ecosystem from a resource base of almost nothing and working to fulfill the opportunities both
wanted and expected within the region was a daunting task for a relatively small staff, who were
also tasked with daily operations of their normal duties. Many of the executive board meetings
were spent working to ascertain potential funding sources.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 174
Chapter 5
Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
There is considerable popular comparison of innovation clusters globally to the apparent
success in Silicon Valley (Startup Genome, 2017; Isenberg, 2011). And though there is
considerable measurement and analysis of the people, metrics, and outcomes, little comparison is
made of the context for that success. Environmental factors such as geography are important
when defining the aspects of an innovation ecosystem, as described by Hwang & Horowitt
(2012). But aspects such as social, economic, and political factors are also important in
understanding the ecosystem.
Sydow et al. (2011) noted that “despite prevalence of clusters, the obvious but very
diverse role of leadership in these social systems, and their multi-level nature from a leadership
perspective, leading in clusters has hardly been studied” (p.329) And Kellerman (2015) suggests
that because the situation determines the particular, we should instead focus on the “framework
for seeing the setting within which work gets done” (p. 1)
Assessment work completed in this study just begins to catalogue the iHubs varied
approach to innovation cluster development in California. After the recent departure of the
deputy director at GO-Biz that managed the iHub program, it is understood that the state is
planning to review the iHub program and reassess how best to manage the program. The
information collected here would serve as a starting point for GO-Biz and can be used to develop
best practices to be shared with iHub leadership across the regions.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 175
Identified similarities from one hub to the next should be viewed with an abundance of
caution as the assessment work of the iHubs’ initial and current condition has considerable data
gaps due to the lack of information available from the state and from each of the iHubs.
As discussed previously, three questions posed by Sydow et al. (2011) are used as a
framework to assess the state iHub program:
• Who leads in clusters?
• How are they leading and under which circumstances is that leadership happening?
• What are the challenges of leading in a cluster? (p. 329)
These questions are also relevant for use by GO-Biz in any ongoing assessment to
understand the background on the early momentum the program had in 2010, and could lead to a
better understanding of the motivations regions had for setting up regional innovation clusters in
the first place. More simply, it is hard to know where to go if you don’t know where you have
been.
Conclusions
The early actions by the state to create regional innovation hubs through a competitive
process focused almost exclusively on performance measures (goals, outcomes, and metrics) and
not on the leadership infrastructure that would be needed to ensure lasting programs.
As the state has modified the iHub requirements and desired outcomes over the last eight
years (2009 to 2017), the context under which these iHubs are operating has changed as well.
Using the state’s documents reviewed in this study, and comparing each of the six iHubs to each

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 176
other through available resources, it is clear that as Isenberg (2011) indicated, there is no
cookbook or secret recipe to make an innovation cluster work.
During initial designation, some iHubs were programmatically added to the activities of
existing innovation organizations, including the North Bay, Sacramento, San Francisco, and
OCTANe iHubs. But having existing programs clearly isn’t a predictor of success as the North
Bay iHub ceased operations in early 2017, Sacramento dissolved in 2016 while working to
reconstitute under new leadership in 2017, and San Francisco’s activities related to the iHub
program (if any) are not well-documented.
In contrast, Palm Springs and i-GATE iHubs were created specifically in response to the
state’s RFP and both were found to have robust programs at the time of this study in 2017.
However, as indicated in the survey results, each of these programs has modified its activities to
meet local stakeholders’ objectives, which created stability in the program delivery.
Who leads in iHubs?
During the period from inception to the current status of the iHub Program as
administered by the state, there has been a transition from focusing almost exclusively on the
context of the iHubs (primarily economic), to a recognition that leadership structures may be a
missing key to why some programs are working well and others have failed or are struggling to
remain salient.
In working to assess the iHub program’s stated objectives, assessing leadership as a
driver for the initial formation of the iHubs would be a reasonable place to start. But aside from a
brief mention of an iHub coordinator, the RFPs in 2009 and 2010 were focused primarily on

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 177
economic development activities, not leadership. This was evident even into 2013, where the
USC CED summary report is primarily focused on ‘indicators’ (performance measures) over
leadership.
The state made some attempt at rectifying the lack of leadership requirements from
subsequent program activities by revising the iHub regulations in early 2017, creating a more
specific statement that outlines the need for demonstrated management structure and plans.
With very little analysis or thought given to management structure, job creation and the
background ‘noise’ of needed economic revival drove the state and the iHub leadership to action.
And not just once, but successively over several different RFP processes and the designation of
iHubs in 2010 and 2013.
The iHubs all had very different structures, with two (i-GATE and Palm Springs) starting
out as led by local government, and four being led by non-profit organizations with management
and executive directors in place at the time of designation. The two government-led iHubs
transitioned over to non-profit organizations early in their tenure.
As discussed previously, well-formed organizational structures were not a predictor of
iHub success. Four out of the six 2009 cohort were built on existing, funded organizational
structures, one of which failed (North Bay iHub) and another that was making efforts to
reconstitute (Sacramento iHub), but funding and organizational issues had stymied the
revitalization efforts to date.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 178
How is leadership in iHubs happening, and under what circumstances?
Identifying and comparing the regional context that led to the development of an iHub in
each of these six regions would highlight some of the commonalities of iHub leadership and
assist in the continued operations or reconstitution of the remaining programs.
Review of the state 2009 and 2010 RFPs, the responses from the survey, and the
summary reports from USC CED (2013) and GO-Biz (2016a) strongly indicate that the primary
reason for creation and ongoing operations of the iHub program was economic development.
The comparison of current online resources was then used to identify potential relative
trends in leadership, both in existing management structures and the social and economic context
within each iHub’s geography.
By 2012, all of the iHubs were being led by non-profit business groups focused on
innovation cluster development and business activities to support that development. The
approach by each of these organizations was cross-sector collaboration, though government and
academia primarily played a supporting role and were not found to be in the key positions of
leadership (on the Board) or management. One exception to this was identified in the survey
results, where national labs were highlighted to play a significant leadership role for the i-GATE
iHub.
The four iHubs that were found to be operating without reservation in mid-2017 had
largely abandoned co-branding with the state program in any visible way. There was no GO-Biz
or iHub logo on two of the websites, and reference to the iHub program for the other two were
found only after conducting a website search. The 2009 RFP, as well as the original MOUs,

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 179
indicated that to be part of the iHub program required identification of inclusion in the program
through joint branding, but like the annual reporting requirement discussed previously,
requirements for association with the iHub program were seen as largely unenforced.
Similarly, the state has retreated from previous co-branding efforts, which were found to
be at the most robust during the GoED phase of program management. The state has previously
been unable to robustly display the activities and successes of individual iHubs and of the state-
level program. As an example, the 2016 annual report (GO-Biz, 2016a) provides a glossary
assessment of the iHub activities to date, but does not provide any clear assessment of how
iHubs have helped the local or regional economies of the state.
Challenges for iHub leaders.
Based on a generalization of the respondents’ input to the survey, leadership in the iHub
innovation ecosystem appears to prefer balance across the sectors and identifies the value of
other sectorial involvement when too heavily weighted in one sector. Irrespective of the reversal
found in highest priority sectorial engagement from 2009 to 2017, respondents viewed the
involvement of academia (broadly defined as universities and federal labs) as highly important.
From the survey results, the iHubs all registered dissatisfaction with the amount of
funding support provided by the state, and indicated strongly that even a small amount of
funding (between $250,000 and $500,000 annually) would be seen as a commitment by the state
to the regional iHubs’ success.
Additional challenges expressed in the survey by the iHubs (and noted in previous
sections) can be summarized as: the need for political support, both early on in the iHub

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 180
development and later during maturation when the local and regional economic conditions had
changed; the lack of administrative support and marketing resources from the state after the
legislation was completed in 2013; and lack of congruent process for assessing goals and
metrics, which may have stilted the opportunities for funding.
One significant setback for the state-level program office is that the Deputy Director for
Innovation and Entrepreneurship started employment with the City of Sacramento in mid-2017.
He had been involved with the program since almost the inception (2010), and his position had
not been actively filled by an interim deputy director at the conclusion of this study (mid-2017).
Review of the GO-Biz website (2017) also indicated that the positions of Deputy Director for
Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the Innovation and Strategic Partnerships Analyst were
vacant.
Implications
Distinct organizational, programmatic, and management factors that have contributed to
an iHub’s success in meeting its outlined goals can help inform leadership in other regions of
ways to supplement or apply some of the exhibited factors (like difference in the sectors that
make up leadership or the focus on specific programs) to lead to their own relative success.
And the state seems to have realized that the overemphasis on just context (economic,
social, and geographic) left a leadership void, and the lack of effective management and
leadership structures most certainly led to some of the iHubs closing due to dysfunction and lack
of resiliency in process.
Because some iHub programs have closed, and others are struggling to find
sustainability, there is indication that the state will be going through a reassessment of the iHub

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 181
program. Individual programs have been notified that the Director of GO-Biz will be conducting
onsite visits to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of their regional programs first hand.
Due to the lack of certainty at the state-level, and the potential for funding resources that
never materialized, several iHubs have left the program or closed completely. Others have
stopped actively associating with the state program. However, state-level support seems to have
little impact on whether an iHub program remains operational, as the reasons for closure for the
North Bay iHub appear to be funding related (Press Democrat, 2017) and the closure and
revitalization of the Sacramento iHub appears to be caused by organizational differences
between the leadership (board) and the management (SBJ, 2016). Additionally, the de-listing of
the East Bay Green Corridor in 2013 was caused by the organization changing directions in its
program activities (Hanin, 2013).
It can be surmised that the iHub program is in a precarious position, and to keep the
program as a meaningful part of the GO-Biz activities the state needs to recognize that action
(and inaction) are going to have ramifications on whether the robust and solidly situated iHubs
continue to associate with the state program office. By not having these iHubs provide annual
information on their goals and economic development activities, the state will miss the
opportunity to attract and encourage additional innovation cluster development. Though these
activities can largely occur without the state’s interaction, the absence of the state in a supporting
role for innovation ecosystem development creates a negative impression globally of the state’s
focus on innovation activities that lead to economic development outcomes.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 182
Additionally, though this study is limited in its scope, a variety of positive and negative
reactions were uncovered from the survey, and it is suggested that the state utilize the collected
data as a baseline for its re-assessment efforts.
Recommendations
The following section provides recommendations for both the state program office, as
well as the individual iHubs.
Recommendations for GO-Biz.
There is a need for the state to step into the innovation space and understand the nuances
and sophistication of these ecosystems. By being present, and providing policy guidance and
leadership, the efforts of the individual innovation clusters garner credibility. This can help
attract additional funding while supporting the long-term economic and workforce development
planning efforts.

The results of this study, in particular the survey results, are also useful to the state as
GO-Biz prepares to reassess the program in 2017 and 2018, as discussed in previous sections.
During its assessment of the program, the state iHub Program office (GO-Biz) would be well-
served in assessing the following:
• The iHub program’s current purpose;
• The structures needed to implement robust regional leadership and linkages with the
state;

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 183
• Similar to when the state started the iHub program in 2009, GO-Biz should convene a
multi-sectorial advisory committee to assess the current health of the program,
looking at other successful regional programs to identify gaps;
• In reviewing the survey responses from this study (and in particular Question 27),
several no- and low-cost activities were identified that the state could implement to
demonstrate support of the local iHub programs even without funding.
• Ongoing funding (even at minimal amounts) seemed to be the way that the majority
of respondents to the survey thought that the state could/should demonstrate to the
iHubs that their involvement was important.
• A further survey of the remaining iHubs should be conducted to assess if similar
trends identified in this study are also present.
Beyond direct applicability to the state’s iHub program, other regions or states can utilize
this assessment as a template to begin to understand how context plays a role in the development
of innovation clusters and its resultant impact on leaders in those ecosystems.
Recommendations for the iHubs.
The remaining regional programs of the 14 iHubs should also consider the following
recommendations:
• iHubs that have reduced or ended association with the iHub program should evaluate
the value of the association. The survey seemed to indicate that there are collaborative

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 184
benefits beyond just the designation, and the iHubs should collectively identify how
to bring about maximum collaboration.
• A more thorough assessment should be conducted of what leadership structures for
each of the iHubs have created positive outcomes and how the context of each iHub
may have led to that relative success. It is apparent from this study that even existing
management structures are not necessarily robust enough to withstand contextual
forces. Finding the best management practices across the iHub program might serve
all of the remaining entities well and renew their organization’s resiliency and
sustainability.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 185
References
Accordino, J. (2011). From lone rangers to collaborative communities. Economic Development
Journal, 10(1), 5-13.
Aggarwal, V.K. (2003). Governments Can Advance Innovation. International Trade Forum,
13-14.
Amabile, T. (1999). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review- on breakthrough thinking,
1– 28. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Anderson, M. (2014, July 22). SARTA CEO ready to step down in September. Sacramento
Business Journal. Retrieved on July 4, 2017 from
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/07/22/sarta-ceo-ready-to-step-down-
in-september.html.
Anderson, M. (2015, September 1). SARTA abruptly shuts down. Sacramento Business Journal.
Retrieved on July 4, 2017 from
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/09/01/sarta-abruptly-shuts-
down.html.
Anderson, M. (2016, April 21). New nonprofit takes over what’s left of SARTA. Sacramento
Business Journal. Retrieved on July 4, 2017 from
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2016/04/21/new-nonprofit-takes-over-
whats-left-of-sarta.html.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Bennis, W. G., & Townsend, R. (2005). Reinventing leadership: Strategies to empower the
organization. New York, NY: Collins Business Essentials.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 186
Broder, K. (2012, November 02). Director of the Governor’s Office of Economic and Business
Development: Who Is Kish Rajan? Retrieved August 10, 2017, from
http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/appointments-and-resignations/director-of-the-
governors-office-of-economic-and-business-development-who-is-kish-rajan-211102
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (BTH) – State of California. (2009a). Innovation
hub (iHub) guidelines (request for proposals) [RFP], 1-13. Included in Appendix A.
BTH (2009b). Those recommended to proceed with the iHub application [Table], 1-2. Included
in Appendix A.
BTH (2009c). Notice to proceed: Full application [Letter], 1. Included in Appendix A.
BTH (2009d). Notice of iHub Designation [Letter], 1-2. Included in Appendix A.
BTH (2010). California announces inaugural designations of the newly established innovation
hub initiative [Press release]. Included in Appendix A.
Bussewitz, C. (2013, July 25). New name, new direction for Sonoma Mountain Business Cluster.
Press Democrat. Retrieved on July 3, 2017 from
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2211016-181/new-name-new-direction-for.
California Code of Regulations (CCR). (2017). Final adopted regulations: Article 4 of Chapter
13 of Title 10, Sections 8300 to 8380. March 22. Included in Appendix C.
California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) (2010). 2010 Annual Report. Retrieved
on May 3, 2017 from http://ccst.us/annualreport/2009-10/2009-10AR.pdf.
California State Assembly Bill (AB) 250. (2013, October). Adds Article 6 (commencing with
Section 12099) to Chapter 1.6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Included in Appendix C.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 187
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., and Afsarmanesh, H. (2004). Collaborative Networks: A New
Scientific Discipline. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 16, 439-452.
Carlsson, B. (2003, June). Innovation systems: a survey of the literature from a Schumpeterian
perspective. Paper for the Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics.
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.). (1960). Group dynamics. Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson.
Cassidy, E., Davis, C., Arthurs, D., and Wolfe, D. (2005). Measuring the National Research
Council’s Technology Cluster Initiatives. CRIC Cluster Conference, June 30-July 1,
refereed paper.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California
Management Review, 45(3), 33-58.
Christopherson, S., Kitson, M., and Michie, J. (2008). Innovation, Networks, and Knowledge
Exchange. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 165-173.
City of Livermore (COL) (2009). i-GATE, innovation for green advanced transportation
excellence; Proposal for the State of California Innovation Hub (iHub). Response to BTH
RFP [Proposal], 1-56.
City of Palm Springs (COPS) (2009). The Coachella Valley innovation hub: Developing
California’s clean technologies. Response to BTH RFP [Proposal]. p. 1-65.
Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., and Aristigueta, M. P. (2016). Managing human behavior in
public and nonprofit organizations. Sage Publications. 4
th
edition. Kindle edition.
Doloreux, D., & Parto, S. (2005). Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and
unresolved issues. Technology in society, 27(2), 133-153.
Egneckow. (2014, March 10). iHub names founder of Silicon Valley Technopole as executive
director. North Bay Business Journal (NBBT). Retrieved on July 3, 207 from

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 188
http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/csp/mediapool/sites/NBBJ/IndustryNews/story.
csp.
Ernst, C., & Yip, J. (2009). Boundary spanning leadership: Tactics to bridge social identity
groups in organizations, 1-18. Retrieved April 2, 2017 from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Yip/publication/228197815_Boundary_Spa
nning_Leadership_Tactics_to_Bridge_Social_Identity_Groups_in_Organizations/links/0
0b49528fa0e971a1f000000.pdf.
Etzkowitz, H., Dzisah, J., Ranga, M., and Zhou, C. (2007). The Triple Helix Model of
Innovation: University-Industry-Government Interaction. Tech Monitor, January-
February 14-23.
Fagerberg, J. (2004). Innovation: A guide to the literature. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Fagerberg, J., and Srholec, M. (2008). National Innovation Systems, Capabilities and Economic
Development. Research Policy, 37, 14-17.
Fallah, M. H. (2005). Technology Clusters and Innovation. Current Issues in Technology
Management. 4(9).
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fitzpatrick, E. (2007, July). Innovation America: A Final Report, The National Governors’
Association.
Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the Creative Class. City & Community, 3-19.
Getuiza, C. (2013, October 15). When talking California innovation, it’s all about the network.
Retrieved on April 17, 2017 from http://caeconomy.org/reporting/entry/when-talking-
california-innovation-its-all-about-the-network

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 189
Gilbert Jr, D. R. (1998). The death of competition. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 6(4), 370-381.
Gonzalez, E. R. (2017, March 9). Credo High School moves to new site in Rohnert Park. Press
Democrat. Retrieved on July 3, 2017 from
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6758892-181/credo-high-school-moves-to.
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) – State of California.
(2013). – iHub promotional brochure [Pamphlet], 1-16. Included in Appendix C.
GO-Biz. (2016a). – iHub Annual Report, 1-18. July. Included in Appendix C.
GO-Biz. (2016b). – Innovation and entrepreneurship web pages [Website]. Accessed on June 14,
2016 at http://business.ca.gov/Programs/Innovation-and-Entrepreneurship.
GO-Biz. (2017). – Innovation and entrepreneurship web pages [Website]. Accessed on May 7,
2017 at http://business.ca.gov/Programs/Innovation-and-Entrepreneurship.
Godin, B. (2009). National Innovation System: The System Approach in Historical Perspective.
Science Technology Human Values, 34, 476.
Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GoED) – State of California. (2010a). iHub
official designation notice [Letter], 1. Included in Appendix B.
GoED. (2010b). iHub memorandum of understanding [MOU], 1-2. Included in Appendix B.
GoED. (2010c). Round II-iHub guidelines and application [RFP], 1-13. Included in Appendix B.
GoED. (2010d). Founding charter of the California innovation hub initiative, 1. Included in
Appendix B.
GoED. (2010e). Regional locations of the innovation hub initiative [Map], 1. Included in
Appendix B.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 190
Greenstone, M., and Looney, A. (2011). “A Dozen Economic Facts About Innovation,”
Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., August.
Hanin, S. (2013, October 25). City of El Cerrito – City Manager’s Updates. Retrieved May 6,
2017, from http://www.el-cerrito.org/Blog.aspx?IID=85.
Hospers, G-J. (2005). Joseph Schumpeter and his legacy in innovation studies. Knowledge,
Technology & Policy, 18(3), 20-37.
Hunt, J. G. J., & Ropo, A. (1995). Multi-level leadership: Grounded theory and mainstream
theory applied to the case of General Motors. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 379-412.
Hwang, V. W., & Horowitt, G. (2012). The rainforest: The secret to building the next Silicon
Valley. Los Altos Hills: Regenwald.
Isenberg, D. (2011, August 31). Everything You Know About Silicon Valley Might Be
Wrong. Harvard Business Review - Entrepreneurship, 1-6. Retrieved July 13, 2017, from
https://hbr.org/2011/08/everything-you-know-about-sili
Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem? National Science Foundation, 1., 1-13.
Retrieved on April 7, 2017 from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Deborah_Jackson2/publication/266414637_What_is
_an_Innovation_Ecosystem/links/551438490cf2eda0df30714f.pdf
Keller, M.R., & Block, F. (2013). Explaining the transformation in the US innovation system:
the impact of a small government program. Socio-Economic Review, 11(4), 629-656.
Retrieved April 18, 2017, from https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mws021.
Kellerman, B. (2014). Hard Times: Leadership in America. Stanford University Press. Kindle
Edition.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York, NY: Macmillan.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 191
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. Journal of Political
Economy, 99(3), 483-499.
Lawrence, D. G., and Cummins, J. (2016). California: The politics of diversity. Cengage
Learning.
Leslie, S. (2000). The Biggest Angel of Them All: The Military and the Making of Silicon
Valley. Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region.
Edited by Martin Kenney. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2000). Connective leadership: managing in a changing world. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
McKenna, J. (2013, September 27). Nurturing entrepreneurs from startup to profit: iHub focuses
on businesses that can attract capital, create jobs, and thrive. Retrieved on July 3, 2017
from http://www.palmspringslife.com/nurturing-entrepreneurs-from-startup-to-profit/
Moore, J. (1996). The death of competition. New York: Harper Collins.
Mowery, D.C., and Sampat, B.H. (2005). Universities in National Innovation Systems. The
Oxford Handbook on Innovation. http://innovate.ucsb.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2010/04/Mowery-Sampat-Univ-National-Innovation-Systems.pdf
Muro, M., and Fikri, K. (2011). Job Creation on a Budget: How Regional Industry Clusters
Can Add Jobs, Bolster Entrepreneurship, and Spark Innovation. Project on State and
Metropolitan Innovation. Brookings-Rockefeller.
National Economic Council, Council for Economic Advisers, and Office of Science and
Technology Policy (2011, February). A strategy for American innovation. Washington,
DC: The White House.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 192
Obama, B. (2011, January 25). The State of the Union Speech. Retrieved from
www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2011.
Obama, B. (2011). Presidential Memorandum -- Accelerating Technology Transfer and
Commercialization of Federal Research in Support of High-Growth Businesses. October
28. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/10/28/presidential-
memorandum-accelerating-technology-transfer-and-commercialization.
OCTANe (2009). OCTANe Application for Orange County iHub Designation. Response to BTH
RFP [Proposal]. p. 1-28
Patton, V. A. (2017, May 16). Sacramento hires new chief innovation officer. Sacramento
Business Journal. Retrieved on July 4, 2017 from
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2017/05/16/sacramento-hires-new-chief-
innovation-officer.html.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Porter, M.E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review,
76(6), 77-90.
Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in
a Global Economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15-32. February.
Porter, M.E. (2001). Innovation: Location Matters. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4),
28-36.
Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2001). Innovation: location matters. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 42(4), 29-38.
Pounder, R., and St John, C.H. (1996). Hot Spots and Blind Spots: Geographical Clusters of
Firms and Innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1192-1225.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 193
Prajogo, D.I., and Ahmed, P.K. (2006). Relationships Between Innovation Stimulus,
Innovation Capacity, and Innovation Performance. R&D Management, 36(5), 499-
515.
Sakash, T. (2013, March 10). Former Livermore director of economic development joins city
staff. Davis Enterprise. Retrieved July 4, 2107 from
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/former-livermore-director-of-economic-
development-joins-city-staff/
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2011). Leadership vision, organizational culture,
and support for innovation in not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 32(3), 291-309.
SARTA (2009). Sacramento’s clean tech/med tech iHub. Response to BTH RFP [Proposal]. p. 1-
17.
Saxenian, A. (2008). The international mobility of entrepreneurs and regional upgrading in India
and China. The International Mobility of Talent, Types, Causes and Development Impact.
Ed. Andres Solimano. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship, 117-144.
Scott, W. E. (1965). The creative individual. Journal of the Academy of Management, 8(3), 211–
219.
SFCED (2009). Sn Francisco biotech iHub. Response to BTH RFP [Proposal]. p. 1-43.
SMBC (2009). Proposal to create North Bay Innovation Hub. Response to BTH RFP [Proposal].
p. 1-35.
Startup Genome. (2012). Startup ecosystem Report 2012. Telefonica Digital. Retrieved May 1,
2017 from https://blog.compass.co/pagesentrepreneurship-ecosystem-report/.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 194
Startup Genome. (2015). The global startup ecosystem ranking 2015. Compass co. Retrieved
May 1, 2017 from https://startupgenome.com/the-2015-global-startup-ecosystem-
ranking-is-live/.
Startup Genome. (2017). The global startup ecosystem ranking 2015. Startup Genome, LLC.
Retrieved May 1, 2017 from https://startupgenome.com/report2017/.
Stevens, L. (2012, September 24). Incubator executive leaves for tech job. North Bay Business
Journal. Retrieved on July 3, 2017 from
http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/csp/mediapool/sites/NBBJ/IndustryNews/story.
csp?cid=4182001&sid=778&fid=181.
Sturgeon, T.J. (2000). How Silicon Valley Came to Be. Understanding Silicon Valley: The
Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region, edited by Martin Kenney. XVI, 285.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sweezy, P. M. (1943). Professor Schumpeter's theory of innovation. The Review of Economic
Statistics, 93-96.
Sydow et al (2011). p.
Trajtenberg, M.R., Henderson, R., and Jaffe, A.B. (1997). University Versus Corporate Patents:
A Window on the Basicness of Inventions. Economics of Innovations and New
Technology, 5, 19-50.
Tushman, M. (1977). Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22(4), 587-605.
University of Southern California, Center for Economic Development (USC CED). (2013).
California Innovation Hub (iHub) Profiles and Indicators 2013. December.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS 195
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) (2010). Fiscal
Year 2010 Annual Report. Retrieved October 14, 2015 from www.eda.gov.
U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the National Economic Council. (2012).
“The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States,” Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Dr. Steven Chu, former secretary of energy [Biography].
Retrieved on June 27, 2107 from https://energy.gov/contributors/dr-steven-chu.
U.S. DOE. (2007, May 8). DOE Selects Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC to Manage
its Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [Press Release]. Retrieved on June 27, 2017
from https://energy.gov/articles/doe-selects-lawrence-livermore-national-security-llc-
manage-its-lawrence-livermore-national.
U.S. DOE. (2017) – Website. https://energy.gov/.
Walshok, M. L. (2011). The Early Roots of San Diego’s Innovation Economy. Economic
Development Journal. 10(4), 44-50.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 135-141.
Yu, J. (2015, February 17). Octane CEO headed to UCSD. Orange County Business Journal.
Retrieved on July 4, 2017 from http://www.ocbj.com/photos/2015/feb/19/17017/.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS A
Appendix A
California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (BTH) Resources –
2009 to 2010
• 2009 - BTH Request for Proposal (RFP). September.
• 2009 - i-GATE Letter of Intent. October 2.
• 2009 - Recommended iHub Proposal List. October.
• 2009 - Notice to Proceed (example from i-GATE iHub). October 15.
• 2009 - i-GATE iHub Proposal. November 22.
• 2010 - Notice of iHub Designation (example from i-GATE iHub). February 4.
• 2010 - Press Release Announcing iHubs. March 18.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Governor
Department
of Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Department
of
Corporations
Department
of Financial Institutions
Califomia
Highway
Patrol
Califomia
Housing
Finance
Agency
Department
of
Housing & Community Development
Department
of
Managed
Health Care
Department
of Motor Vehicles
Board of Pilot Commissioners
DALE E. BONNER
Secretary
Department
of Real Estate
Department
of
Transportation
Office of the Patient Advocate
Office of Real Estate
Appraisers
Office of Traffic
Safety
Califomia Film Commission
Califomia Office of Tourism
Infrastructure and Economic
Development
Bank
Public Infrastructure
Advisory
Commission
BUSINESS,
TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
October
15,
2009
Mr. Rob White
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore,
CA 94550
Dear Mr. White:
Thank
you
for
your
recent letter of intent
regarding your
interest in an iHub
designation.
We are
pleased
to ask
you
to continue with the
application process
as stated in the iHub
guidelines
which
can be found at our website
www. business. ca. gov.
As a
reminder,
the full
application
is due on
Monday,
November
23,
2009 at 5: 00
p. m. by
email
to
iHub(a~ hcd. ca. gov
or
postmarked by
the due date in U. S. Mail to:
California
Business, Transportation
and
Housing Agency
c/ o
Department
of
Housing
and
Community Development
1800 3rd
Street,
Suite 390
Sacramento,
California 95811
No late
applications, incomplete applications,
or
application
revisions will be
accepted.
Applications
must meet all
eligibility requirements upon
submission.
For
any questions regarding
the iHub
program
and/ or
application process, please
do not hesitate
to contact me at (
916)
322- 0351 or
eloisa. klementich( c~ bth. ca. gov.
Thank
you
for
your
interest in
supporting
the State's innovation efforts.
Sincerely,
ELOISA KLEMENTICH
Assistant
Deputy Secretary
for Economic
Development
980 9th
Street, Suite 2450 • Sacramento, CA 95814- 2719 • (
916)
323- 5400 Fax: (
916)
323- 5440
www. bth. ca. gov
FLEX YOUR POWER! • BE '
ATTACHMENT
3
303

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS B
Appendix B
Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GoED) Resources
2010 to 2012
• 2010 - iHub Official Designation Letter (example from i-GATE). May 19. (GoED, 2010a)
• 2010 - iHub Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (example from i-GATE iHub). April.
(GoED, 2010b)
• 2010 – Round II-iHub Request for Proposals-Guidelines and Application. April 22. (GoED,
2010c).
• 2010 - Founding Charter. June 1. (GoED, 2010d).
• 2010 - Map of Regional Locations of iHub Initiative. (GoED, 2010e).

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS C
Appendix C
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) Resources
2012 to 2017
• 2013 – AB 250, Holden. October. (AB 250, 2013).
• 2013 – iHub Promotional Brochure (including iHub Map). (GO-Biz, 2013a)
• 2013 - University of Southern California Center for Economic Development (USC CED)
Profiles and Indicators Report. December. (USC CED, 2013)
• 2016 – iHub Annual Report. July. (GO-Biz, 2016a)
• 2017 - Modifications to the 2013 iHub regulations by GO-Biz. March. (CCR, 2017).

Assembly Bill No. 250
CHAPTER 530
An act to add Article 6 (commencing with Section 12099) to Chapter 1.6
of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, relating to state
government, and making an appropriation therefor.
[Approved by Governor October 4, 2013. Filed with
Secretary of State October 4, 2013.]
legislative counsel
’
s digest
AB 250, Holden. California Innovation Initiatives.
The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development serves
as the Governor’s lead entity for economic strategy and the marketing of
California on issues relating to business development, private sector
investment, and economic growth. The office, among others, makes
recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature regarding policies,
programs, and actions to advance statewide economic goals.
This bill would create the California Innovation Hub Program within the
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. The bill would
require the office to designate Innovation Hubs, as specified. The bill would
require the office to issue a request for proposals for the California
Innovation Hub Program, and would require the proposals to include
specified information except as provided. The bill would require each
designated iHub partnership to include, among other things, at least one
major university or research center or institute. The bill would establish the
Innovation Accelerator Account within the California Economic
Development Fund and would make a continuous appropriation from that
account to the office to be used for California Innovation Initiatives, as
specified. The bill would require an iHub to annually post the information
from these reports on its Internet Web site and notify the Governor and
specified legislative committees that such information is available on its
Internet Web site.
Appropriation: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Article 6 (commencing with Section 12099) is added to
Chapter 1.6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to
read:

92

Article 6. California Innovation Initiatives
12099. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Job creation through rapid technology commercialization is a vital
part of the state’s economic well-being, as identified in a January 2012
symposium held by the Brookings Institute.
(b) Innovation and tech-driven entrepreneurial activity coupled with
venture investment creates small business startups and expansions at an
accelerated rate, which leads to significant employment opportunities that
contribute to the state’s financial health and economic competitiveness.
(c) In order to maintain a healthy state economy and to aid communities,
entrepreneurship and technology-based small businesses must be stimulated
and supported.
(d) The Innovation Hubs (iHubs) are operated in California through a
cooperative agreement between the Governor’s Office of Business and
Economic Development (GO-Biz) and geographically distinct regions, all
of which are partnered with public universities, community college districts,
local governments, research institutions, industry, angel and venture capital
networks, and traditional financial institutions. The iHubs are California’s
premier resource for facilitating the success of entrepreneurial and small
technology startups that can grow California’s economy by assisting business
owners in creating and retaining jobs, increasing sales and profits, securing
business financing, and creating a successful new business climate in the
state.
(e) The iHubs’ economic impact in fostering entrepreneurial business
activity leads to job creation and an innovation in the economy by
establishing a formal partnership between the office and the iHub program.
(f) It is necessary to establish a fund that would enable the office to obtain
funding from private sources, for appropriation to state designated iHubs,
iHub partner organizations, and within state iHub-designated regions for
the purpose of establishing, promoting, and enhancing California’s
innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem.
12099.1. (a) The California Innovation Hub Program is hereby created
within the office.
(b) The office shall designate Innovation Hubs within the state to
stimulate partnerships, economic development, and job creation by
leveraging assets to provide an innovation platform for startup businesses,
economic development organizations, business groups, and venture
capitalists. The assets may include, but are not limited to, research parks,
technology incubators, universities, and federal laboratories.
(c) The office shall oversee, coordinate, and provide assistance to each
iHub.
12099.2. For purposes of this article, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
(a) “Applicant” means one or more entities that submit an application to
GO-Biz. Eligible applicants shall be one or more of the following:
(1) A fully accredited institution of higher education.
92
— 2 — Ch. 530

(2) A private nonprofit corporation engaged in economic development
activities.
(3) A county or municipality in this state that has a preexisting economic
development department or program or both.
(4) A public economic development institution such as a workforce
investment board or an economic development corporation.
(b) “Innovation Hub” or “iHub” means a partnership between interrelated
firms, local governments, economic development organizations, educational
entities, and industries that collectively drive economic growth within a
defined geographic area.
(c) “iHub coordinator” means the individual or entity agreed to by the
iHub partnership that is responsible for all of the following:
(1) Implementing the objectives of the iHub.
(2) Serving as the primary agent responsible for coordinating services
and resources and maintaining the iHub partnership.
(3) Serving as the primary liaison to the state and the office.
12099.3. (a) The office shall issue a request for proposals for the
California Innovation Hub Program.
(b) An applicant’s proposal shall include, but shall not be limited to, all
of the following information:
(1) A statement of purpose.
(2) A signed statement of cooperation and a description of the roles and
relationships of each entity involved in the iHub partnership.
(3) A designated iHub coordinator.
(4) A clear explanation and map conveying the iHub’s physical boundary.
(5) A clearly stated designee to coordinate iHub activities.
(6) A clearly identified central location.
(7) Clearly identified benchmarks or milestones with approximate dates
as to when they will be achieved.
(8) A complete budget including a description of secured funds with
proof, pending funds, and potential future funding sources.
(9) A list and brief description of local and regional incentives and support
programs.
(10) A clearly articulated commercial market focus and plan.
(11) A clearly articulated iHub management structure and plan that may
include a description of the capabilities, qualifications, and experience of
the proposed management team, team leaders, or key personnel who are
critical to achieving the proposed objectives.
(12) A list of iHub assets and resources.
(13) A clearly articulated focus area of the iHub including industry sectors
or other targeted areas for development and growth.
(14) A list of specific resources available to support and guide startup
companies.
(15) A clearly articulated list of goals to be achieved with the certification
of the iHub.
(16) Expectations for job development and business creation.
92
Ch. 530 — 3 —

(17) Defined performance standards agreed upon by the partners involved
in the development of the iHub.
(18) Evaluation procedures that will be used to measure the level of
achievement for each stated goal.
(19) A plan for sustainability.
(20) Organizational experience including capabilities, related experience,
facilities, techniques, unusual resources, or unique combinations of these
that are integral factors for achieving the proposed objectives.
(21) Demonstrated experience with innovation programs such as
involvement with technology commercialization.
(22) Demonstrated experience with technology transfer or licensing.
(23) Demonstrated experience with intellectual property management.
(24) Evidence of community engagement and support.
(c) The office may waive any of the requirements listed in subdivision
(b).
(d) The office may designate an iHub for a term of not more than five
years. An iHub may reapply for a designation without limitation on the
number of times.
(e) (1) The iHub designation shall not be official until a memorandum
of understanding is entered into by the applicant and the office. The
memorandum of understanding shall include the goals and performance
standards identified in the application and other related requirements as
determined by the office.
(2) For an iHub designated by the office before January 1, 2014, the iHub
partnership shall have until September 1, 2014, to enter into a memorandum
of understanding with the office that meets the requirements of this article.
(f) More than one iHub may be designated in an area to the extent that
there is a clear distinction between the focus area of each iHub.
(g) The office shall set guidelines for approval, designation, operation,
reporting, redesignation, and dedesignation of iHubs.
(h) An iHub shall annually report to the office on its progress in meeting
the goals and performance standards as described in the iHUB application
and implementing memorandum of understanding with the office. The office
shall annually post the information from these reports on the office Internet
Web site and provide notice to the Governor and relevant policy committees
of the Legislature that the information is available on the Internet Web site.
12099.4. A designated iHub shall include at least one major university
or research center or institute, one economic development organization, and
consist of at least four of the following:
(a) A business support organization including a workforce development
or training organization, incubator or business accelerator, business technical
assistance providers, chamber of commerce, and networking organization
that supports innovation.
(b) An educational consortium including technology transfer
representatives.
(c) A venture capital network including angel investors.
92
— 4 — Ch. 530

(d) A business foundation, innovation foundation, science foundation,
laboratory research institution, federal laboratory, or research and
development facility.
(e) A municipal economic development division or department.
(f) A federal government partner such as a national laboratory.
12099.5. Before an official designation as an iHub, the applicant shall
self-certify both of the following:
(a) That the iHub will comply with the state’s nondiscrimination policy.
(b) That the iHub and its principals are current in payment of all state
and local taxes owed unless they have entered into an agreement that was
deemed satisfactory by the respective taxing authority and are in full
compliance with the agreement.
12099.6. (a) An iHub may do all of, but shall not be limited to, the
following:
(1) Provide counseling and technical assistance, either by direct or indirect
services, in the areas of entrepreneurial business planning and management,
financing, and marketing for small businesses.
(2) Provide expert advice to entrepreneurs on starting a business,
including legal requirements for starting a business and access to financing
opportunities.
(3) Conduct business workshops, seminars, and conferences with local
partners including, but not limited to, state universities, state community
colleges, local governments, state and federal service providers, private
industry, workforce investment boards and agencies, small business
development centers, microenterprise development organizations, small
business service agencies, economic development organizations, and
chambers of commerce.
(4) Facilitate partnerships between innovative startup businesses, research
institutions, and venture capitalists or financial institutions.
(b) The iHubs shall, to the extent feasible, do all of the following:
(1) Work in close collaboration with the activities of the office as its
primary statewide partner.
(2) Coordinate activities with the Employment Training Panel, the
California Workforce Investment Board, the Office of the Chancellor of the
California Community Colleges, the University of California, the California
State University, and other state economic and workforce development
programs.
12099.7. The Innovation Accelerator Account is hereby created within
the California Economic Development Fund in the State Treasury. Subject
to the approval of the Department of Finance, all moneys collected and
received by the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development
for California Innovation Initiatives from gifts, bequests, or donations shall
be deposited in the Innovation Accelerator Account. Notwithstanding Section
13340, the moneys in the account are continuously appropriated to the office
92
Ch. 530 — 5 —

to be used for California Innovation Initiatives pursuant to the terms of the
gift, bequest, or donation.
O
92
— 6 — Ch. 530

California Innovation Hub (iHub)
Profiles and Indicators 2013
Prepared by the USC Center for Economic Development on behalf of
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration

Project Team
Leonard Mitchell, Executive Director
Deepak Bahl, Program Director
Nicholas Busalacchi, Research Assistant
December 2013
Acknowledgements

A special thanks to Louis Stewart, Deputy Director, Innovation & Entrepreneurship,
Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), and California
iHubs who provided valuable input to this report
Profiles and
Indicators 2013
Regional iHub Cluster Focus
Innovate North
State iHub
Cleantech, medical technology,
information technology, & agritechnology
Sacramento iHub Clean & medical technologies
North Bay iHub
Sustainable resources & socially relevant
technologies
SF iHub Biotechnology
San Jose/Silicon
Valley ET iHub
Clean & emerging technologies
iGATE iHub Clean technology & green energy
East Bay Green
Corridor iHub
Clean technology and renewable energy
CalValleyTech iHub Water, energy, & agriculture technologies
CleanTech Los
Angeles iHub
Clean technology
OCTANe iHub
Biomedical, information, & clean
technology
Coachella Valley
iHub
Entrepreneurship & clean technology
iHub San Diego
Convergence of mobile health, biofules,
solar energy & energy storage
iDEA iHub Defense, energy, & aerospace technology
InLand SoCal Link
iHub
Advanced manufacturing, logistics,
exports, and international investments
iHub San Joaquin
Healthcare, sustainable construction, &
agribusiness
CNMI iHub Advanced manufacturing
Introduction
California is a leader in innovation and knowledge
-based economies—home to successful global
companies with a legacy of creativity and
entrepreneurship. In the spring of 2010, the State
of California launched its new, forward-thinking
Innovation Hub (iHub) program in an effort to
harness and enhance California’s innovative spirit.
The iHub program was conceived to leverage
convergence wherever possible between
stakeholders, incubators, and financiers to propel
new businesses towards success and multiply
innovative energy in specialized fields. The
iHubs were created to form a robust statewide,
innovation-based economic development support
network to stimulate local, regional, and statewide
job creation. The goal of the iHubs is to improve
state, national, and global competitiveness by
stimulating partnerships, economic development,
and job creation around specific research clusters
(see table below).
iHub Update 2013
In August 2013, the California State Assembly
passed AB250, creating the California iHub
Program within the Governor’s Office of Business
and Economic Development (GO-Biz). This
enabling legislation directs California’s iHubs to
“stimulate partnerships, economic development,
and job creation by leveraging assets to provide
an innovation platform for startup businesses,
economic development organizations, business
groups, and venture capitalists.” Four additional
iHubs have been added in 2013 bringing the total
to 16 iHubs across the state. Each iHub is typically
anchored by at least one major university or
research center which provides access to new
innovations and cutting-edge thinking, as well
as a pool of business entrepreneurs. The business
incubators and accelerators shepherd small
and micro-businesses from their initial innovative
idea through seed capital funding, research and
development, market acceptance, validation
and commercialization. Mentorship and access to
capital and investors is also a part of the program.
Additionally, the role of the iHubs is to promote
regional coordination and partnerships, provide
resources, and narrow the gap between research
and commercial success.
iHub Profiles and Indicators
We observe considerable variation among the 16
iHubs. Four new iHubs, namely iDEA iHub, Inland
SoCal Link iHub, CNMI iHub, and iHub San Joaquin
have been formed earlier this year. Nearly all of
the original 12 iHubs have been in existence since
2010, except for iHub San Diego affiliated with
CONNECT, which has more than 25 years of track
record assisting 3,000 companies in their formation
and development. Most of the iHubs operate as
501(c) 3 organizations; however, their cluster focus
varies. For instance, the newly formed California
Network for Manufacturing Innovation (CNMI) iHub
focuses on advanced manufacturing, the East Bay
Green Corridor iHub centers on renewable energy
and clean technologies, and the CalValleyTech
iHub concentrates on water and agricultural
technologies. Seven of the 12 initial iHubs include
an incubator/accelerator in their entrepreneurship
and business development strategy.
Profiles and
Indicators 2013
iHubs are integral to GO-Biz’s economic
development infrastructure serving as an outreach
arm—identifying new trends and emerging
opportunities and bringing to the forefront barriers
that impede entrepreneurship and business
formation—as evidenced through town halls and
business meetings held statewide. iHubs provide
the vital link between GO-Biz and the business
community, university partners, national labs, and
other stakeholders involved in local and regional
economic development. It is our understanding
from the meetings with staff from GO-Biz and
iHubs that the mutual relationship can be further
strengthened by the state providing the iHubs:
• sustained operational support;
• connectivity and clout to access national
thought and organizational leaders;
• a feeder system for referrals; and
• continued advocacy and marketing support
Consistent with the concerns expressed above,
we recommend GO-Biz provide operational and
advocacy support to the iHubs, in addition to the
clout the Governor’s office provides marketing
these organizations nationally and globally.
iHubs are a work in progress and hold strong
promise for creating direct and indirect jobs;
forming, expanding, and mentoring companies;
attracting investments; and increasing revenues in
targeted sectors. We recommend GO-Biz and its
network of iHubs pursue the following:
• Foster synergies and partnerships between
the iHubs to leverage each other’s assets,
human capital, and organizational capacity to
pursue new ideas, opportunities, funding, and
investments.
• Create a venture capital fund that provides the
seed money for early stage start-up companies
in technology innovation and products/services
commercialization.
• Organize an annual statewide forum
showcasing iHub successes, cross-pollinating
best practices, and socializing resources across
regions to maximize efficiencies and accelerate
learning.
The following pages profile the progress of
several regional iHubs in creating jobs, raising
investments, obtaining patents, and developing
their client portfolios. Showcase projects and top
companies are featured, highlighting these iHubs’
achievements in enhancing California’s regional
and national competitiveness.
Profiles and Indicators 2013
CalValleyTech
iHub
Profile
The CalValleyTech iHub, operating within
the Central Valley of California, is a joint
partnership between the Central Valley
Business Incubator and Merced County
Department of Commerce, Aviation, &
Economic Development.
The focus of the iHub is to foster innovation,
commercialize new technologies, strengthen
the Valley’s role in local and state economic
development, and create new high-paying,
tech-based jobs.
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Investment
Raised
Central Valley Solar Specialists 6 $0
Aqua Cents 0 $0
Rainbird 0 Acquired in 2012
OnFarm Systems 2 $300,000
C3 0 $0
Mendota Bioenergy 1 $5.0M
MoAsis 3 $0
EnerNoc 1 Acquired in 2011
Global Eco Soil Solutions 0 $0
Pure Sense 5 $0
Showcase Projects
Mendota Bioenergy Biorefinery
Development
On February 28, 2013, the California Energy
Commission awarded nearly $5 million to
Mendota Bioenergy to design, construct,
and operate an advanced biorefinery
demonstration plant. Located in Mendota
(Fresno County), this plant will be the first in the
nation to use sugar beets to create advanced
biofuel ethanol. The project is expected to
create 100 long-term jobs and 160 agricultural
jobs, along with 300 construction-related jobs.
OnFarm Systems
OnFarm launched in January 2013 after
raising $300,000 in less than a year. Its system
integrates field and cloud information for
agricultural activities into a single dashboard,
helping farmers increase their productivity and
select the technologies that are best for their
operations.
http://bit.ly/CalVTiHub
CalValleyTech iHub’s efforts will primarily
support initiatives in agriculture, water, solar,
and other renewable energy technologies. The
iHub provides technical assistance for business
acceleration and expansion, access to capital
resources, and connections to key partners
within the region.
Innovators will benefit from academic and
research partnerships through the University of
California-Merced and California State Univer-
sity-Fresno, as well as connections to markets
and industry partners.
Key Figures Companies funded: 2
Resident companies: 6
Virtual companies: 19
Graduates still in business: 22
Investment raised: $5.3M
Patent applications: 1
Profiles and Indicators 2013
Cleantech
Los Angeles iHub
Profile
Cleantech LA brings together business, capital,
government, and academia to commercialize
clean technologies and grow the Cleantech
sector in Los Angeles. By supporting early stage
companies, targeted R&D, and collaboration
among the region’s key stakeholders,
Cleantech LA delivers on the region’s goal of
sustainability, livability, and job creation.
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Investment
Raised
350 Green 5 $6.0M
California Lithium Battery 5 $2.0M
Hive Lighting 3 $0.5M
360 Power Group 3 $20.0M
Skyline 15 $2.5M
E-Waste Systems 4 $1.0M
Gridtest Systems 8 $1.2M
Bio-Tecture 2 $0.5M
Chai 3 $0.25M
Showcase Companies
350 Green
350 Green designs, builds, and operates a
scalable, nationwide network of electric
vehicle charging stations. Current projects are
underway in 20 major markets nationwide. In
December 2011, the company became the
largest owner-operator of public charging
infrastructure nationwide. 350 Green was the
first LACI portfolio company and will be the first
to exit: the company was recently acquired by
Car Charging Group.
California Lithium Battery
CalBattery is commercializing a breakthrough
lithium ion battery in joint development with
Argonne National Laboratory. In independent
lab tests, these batteries triple LIB capacity and
effectively cut in half the cost of consumer
electronics, electric vehicle, and energy
storage lithium ion batteries.
http://bit.ly/CTLAiHub
The LA Cleantech Incubator (LACI) serves as a
high-impact, public-private commercialization
engine for early state Cleantech companies,
offering unique programs, expertise, coaching,
eductation, plug & play space, and access
to a broad network of business, capital,
government, and academic partners.
Partners include the LA Mayor’s Office, LA
Department of Water & Power, UCLA, USC,
Caltech, JPL, CSUN, LAEDC, LA Chamber,
LABC, LA County, Port of LA, Metropolitan
Water District, SoCal Gas, SCE, and more.
Key Figures Companies funded: 3
Resident companies: 14
Graduates still in business: 2 (out of 2)
Investment raised: $30M+
Patent applications: 25+
Patents issued: 20+
http://bit.ly/EBGCiHub
East Bay Green
Corridor iHub
Profiles and Indicators 2013
Profile
The East Bay Green Corridor’s mission is to
create a thriving region of green
technology innovation, commercialization,
and local economic development in a manner
that creates high-quality jobs and meets
environmental and social goals.
The Green Corridor has created a business
climate where Cleantech startups like Suntulit
have the best chance for success. Whether
it’s meeting potential customers, working with
the Berkeley National Lab, or understanding
the policies that drive our business, the Green
Corridor has been key to Suntulit’s growth in local
markets. Our future success will be attributable to
the Green Corridor and any Cleantech startup
would be fortunate to work with them.
— Vinesh Mehta, Suntulit
Sun Synchrony
In May 2013, the California Energy Commission
awarded Sun Synchrony $475,000 to install high
concentration photovoltaic systems on the
Peralta Community College District’s Laney
campus and begin a pilot demonstration of
a “first generation, high-efficiency system.”
The East Bay Green Corridor facilitated this
team effort between Sun Syncrony, the Peralta
Community College District, Sandia National-
Laboratory, Berkeley-based PV Evolution Labs,
and Hayward-based Plastikon Industries.
PT-EGen
PT-EGen has developed technology that
harnesses the energy generated by moving
vehicles. This energy is converted to electricity
that can be sotred in batteries or uploaded to
the electric grid. The Green Corridor mentored
the PT-EGen team in the annual UC-Berkeley
Big Ideas@Berkeley competition, where the
team won first prize in the Clean & Sustainable
Energy Alternatives category. The $5,000
award will be used to build the team’s first
prototype.
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Investment
Raised
Lucid Technologies 25 $1.5M (series A)
Sungevity 250 $160.0M
Solar City 235 (regional) $1.7B
Halus Power 10 n/a
OSI Soft 117 n/a
Bright Source Energy 300 (global) $610.0M
Makani Power 24 $26.0M
Siemens
5,050
(California)
n/a
PVEL 15 $1.3M
Alphabet Energy 30 $30.0M
Sun, Light, & Power 80 $2.2M
The Green Corridor supports CleanTech
startups and businesses in the East Bay’s
innovation ecosystem by offering a beta test
program, site location assistance, business
incentives and promotion, public/private
partnerships, and regional policy initiatives.
The Green Corridor is boosting the market
for renewable energy by developing a
standardized solar energy permitting process
that will expedite the deployment of solar
energy in the region.
Showcase Companies
ergSol
ergSol is a developer and manufacturer
of high-efficiency, high-temperature solar
water heating systems. In March 2013, ergSol
received the highest performance rating of
any solar collector in the U.S. market by the
Solar Ratings and Certification Corporation.
The Green Corridor facilitated introductions
between ergSol and potential early customers
and demonstration sites.
Profile
The Coachella Valley iHub located in Palm
Springs focuses on renewable energy and
clean technology development. Its programs
and services include:
• Training, workshops, and networking
opportunities for entrepreneurs and start-up
companies
• Connections to national laboratories,
universities and community colleges, and
other business development agencies
• Access to low-to-no cost incubator space
and connection to resources, including
industry experts, angel and venture capital
partners, workforce training, accountants,
attorneys, and the Small Business
Administration
• Access to the City of Palm Springs
Accelerator Campus’ 41,000 square feet
of industrial and medical innovation space
for graduating companies from the iHub
that choose to pursue research, operations,
or manufacturing as part of their business
models
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Investment
Raised
Indy Power Systems 4 $1.6M
Mobile Farming 4 $850,000
EV Enterprises 4 $50,000
PSTalent 3 $35,000
Key Achievements
• Helped three companies crowd-fund
prototype development using royalty
streams on future product sales, raising
between $10,000 to $35,000 in investment
• Three iHub companies presented at The
World’s Best Technology Showcase
• Forged relationship for regional businesses
with the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory
• Secured access to land and buildings to
develop an Accelerator Campus for
graduating companies
Profiles and Indicators 2013
Key Figures Companies funded: 4
Resident companies: 8
Number of virtual companies: 6
Investment raised: $850,000
Patent applications: 3
Patents issued: 3
Coachella
Valley iHub
http://www.cvihub.com/
Profiles and Indicators 2013
iHub San Diego
Profile
The San Diego iHub is made up of 33
signatories and includes the leading
academic, research, government agencies
and professional associations in the region. It’s
focused on the expansion of five innovation
sectors:
• Wireless health
• Biofuels
• Solar energy
• Energy storage
• Advanced manufacturing
The mission of the San Diego iHub is to develop
new technology clusters, create high-quality
employment opportunities, attract funding
for new innovative technologies, and support
start-up formation.
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Investment
Raised
Biomatrica 24 $13.0M
Bump Network 11 $4.5M
Dermtech 9 $19.5M
EcoATM 120 $31.0M
PT Motion Works (ElliptiGO) 14 $4.4M
Independa 10 $5.2M
Inhibrix 12 $16.5M
Micropower Technologies 20 $8.7M
PureForge 12 $7.0M
Get Coached to Get Capital
CONNECT’s Get Coached to Get Capital
Competition provides innovators in Southern
California with:
• Industry feedback
• Coaching through CONNECT’s world-
renowned Springboard Program
• Connections with potential strategic
partners and investors
• Discounts to training clinics
• Access to collaborative workspace
• Community exposure
Winners of the competition—the CONNECT
Portfolio Companies—have the opportunity to
present to VCs, angel investors, high net worth
individuals and corporate partners who are
interested in sourcing, funding, and fostering
deals.
Among iHub companies mentored between
2005 and 2012:
• 70% are still in business
• 55% have raised money ($530M in capital)
• Over 900 jobs have been created
http://bit.ly/SDiHub
CONNECT, San Diego iHub coordinator, is a
25-year old non-profit organization dedicated
to propelling creative ideas and emerging
technologies to the marketplace and focuses
on research institution support, business
creation and development, entrepreneurial
learning, access to capital, and public policy.
Key Figures Companies funded: 120
Resident companies: 6,100
Graduates still in business: 226 (70%
survival)
Investment raised: $1.2B
Patent applications: 6,800
Patents issued: 5,400
Profiles and Indicators 2013
North Bay iHub
Profile
North Bay iHub’s function is to assist technology
entrepreneurs and start-up companies in
achieving success by providing an affordable
physical infrastructure, an intellectual and en-
trepreneurial environment, a supportive service
network, and one-on-one-mentoring.
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Investment
Raised
Dominican Renewables 3 n/a
Aspen Air 3 $3.1M
General Vision 4 $0
EcoLunchbox 5 n/a
Bluebird Interactive 7 $45,000
Non Profit Easy 7 $550,000
Food&Beverage World 9 $100,000
PI Mobility 12 n/a
NextPhase Solar 13 n/a
West Coast Solar Energy 18 $0
Showcase Projects
North Bay Investor Summit (NBIS)
(Cars, Cabernet & Cash)
NBIS is an opportunity for entrepreneurs to gain
experience pitching to investors and a venue
for investors to discover the next big idea.
Companies have raised more than $25M after
presenting at past summits.
Business Plan Competition and
Innovation Expo
SoCal Nexus’s (formerly SMBC) Business
Plan Competition offers a chance for local
entrepreneurs to create a business plan and
investor pitch based on training and feedback
from mentors and judges.
Green Tech Investment Showcase
Venture Greenhouse featured seven
early-stage green technology companies, who
presented to more than 80 members of the
North Bay angel investment and economic
development community.
http://bit.ly/NBiHub
North Bay iHub brings together the resources
of several regional organizations to stimulate
enterprise development and entrepreneurship.
These organizations include:
• SoCal Nexus (innovative emerging growth
companies)
• Venture Greenhouse (accelerator for
early-stage green technology companies)
• Share Exchange/Local Economy Institute
(economic localization)
• Sebastopol Entrepreneurs Project (new &
existing business support in West Sonoma
County)
• Web & Interactive Media Professionals
(trade organization of designers,
developers, and marketers)
• Napa Valley College Small Business
Development Center
• North Bay Angels (angel investing of
innovative, emerging growth companies)
• Building Economic Success Together (BEST)
Key Figures Companies funded: 49
Resident companies: 412
Graduates still in business: 12
Investment raised: $37.9M
Patent applications: 42
Patents issued: 13
Profiles and Indicators 2013
San Jose/Silicon Valley
Emerging Technology
iHub
Profile
The San Jose/Silicon Valley Emerging
Technology iHub is located in the center of
Silicon Valley. The San Jose/Silicon Valley
iHub focuses on commercializing emerging
technologies across a ranges of industries
including cleantech, biomedical, and semi-
conductors. The iHub partners include a
national laboratory, universities, professional
associations, and incubators and accelerators.
The iHub provides a range of services
including, but not limited to:
• Facilities to demonstrate product
• Access to training
• Access to capital for start up formation
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Investment
Raised
Enki Technology 11 $7.1M
Varantec 30 $22.9M
Wrightspeed 35 $11.8M
Intermolecular 204 $122.8M
Showcase Project
Launch of ProspectSV in Spring 2014
PROSPECT Silicon Valley will occupy 22,500
square feet at the LEED-certified San Jose
Environmental Innovation Center, and will
provide opportunities to test, exhibit and
view emerging technology in a commercial
environment in Silicon Valley that will include:
• 17,000SF of high bay, configurable space
suitable for technology demonstrations,
prototype development, and testing
• Hydraulic lift and other measurement and
analytics technology equipment
• Dedicated workbench lab space
• Custom battery and chemistry labs
• 3,000 SF of shared open office space
www.sanjoseca.gov/iHub
Key Figures Companies funded: 550
Resident companies: 2,250
Investment raised: $6.3B
Patents issued: 27,638
Profiles and Indicators 2013
BioSF iHub
Profile
BioSF iHub focuses on and supports the
continuing growth and succes of the biotech
industry in San Francisco and Mission Bay.
The San Franciso Center for Economic
Development serves as the iHub coordinator,
in partnership with the Mayor’s Office of
Economic Development, the University of Cali-
fornia-San Francisco, the California Institute for
Quantitative Biosciences (QB3), and the Small
Business Development Center.
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Investment
Raised
Refactored Materials 13 $5.5M
Omniox 11 $1.0M
uBiome 5 $350,000
Fluxion Bioscience 22 $2.0M
Gemmus Pharma 5 $1.5M
3Scan 8 $540,000
Allakos n/a $32.0M
ZoneOne Pharma 2 n/a
Redwood Bioscience n/a $400,000
Siluria Technologies 30 $62.9M
Showcase Projects
QB3@953
In February 2013, QB3 began reconstructing a
24,000SF warehouse near UCSF’s Mission Bay
Campus to house QB3@953—a state-of-the-art
laboratory for biotech startups. QB3@953 will
provide resources and space to 24 companies,
and reduce the time and money these
entrepreneurs need to prove their technology,
build a team, find experts, and attract capital.
When QB3@953 reaches full capacity, it will
bring an estimated $50 million per year into the
community.
QB3 Startup in a Box
The Startup in a Box is a one-stop solution to
address hurdles unique to biotech startups.
The program consists of three parts: 1) free
legal servces for incorporation; 2) three small
business innovation research (SBIR) workshops
to help startups pursue NIH and NSF grants;
and 3) executive summary and pitch deck
preparation for fundraising from angel or
venture investors.
http://tiny.cc/SFiHub

There are an estimated 30 new biotechnology
companies formed each year in the Bay
Area, attracted by the region’s nexus of
business, academia, financing, and public
policy. Employee training programs at nearby
colleges and universities, a plethora of venture
capital and angel investment firms, and vibrant
cultural, recreational, and entertainment
options, make San Francisco highly attractive
to the next generation of biotech leaders.
Additionally, the QB3 incubator network—a
vital BioSF iHub partner—provides a strong
platform for early-stage biotech companies,
helping more startups move from idea to
prototype.
Key Figures Companies funded: 43
Resident companies: 62
Virtual companies: 73
Graduates still in business: 24
Investment raised: $134.8M
Profiles and Indicators 2013
OCTANe iHub
Profile
Based in Orange County, OCTANe is creating
a cohesive network of companies, universities,
entrepreneurs, associations, venture capital
firms and strategic services partners all working
together to create a more robust innovation
environment and stimulate job growth.
OCTANe’s goal is to combine people and
ideas with capital and resources to build the
high technology ecosystem. The iHub works
with existing companies in and outside of
Orange County helping senior executives
access intelligence, new technologies,
and talent. OCTANe is creating a forum for
technology company leaders to have a lasting
impact on the future of Orange County and
the State of California.
VC in the OC Investment Conference, May
2012
The VC in the OC is OCTANe’s largest
investment conference with more than 800
people in attendance. The conference
highlights industry trends relevant to the
entrepreneurial economy in Southern
California, presents keynote speakers, and
showcases innovative new companies.
OCTANe’s Medical Device and Investor
Forum, November 2012
The Medical Device and Investor Forum is
Orange County’s largest Life Science-
focused industry trade show and investment
conference. The conference highlights industry
trends relevant to the life science economy in
Southern California, presents keynote speakers,
and showcases innovative new medical
device and pharma companies.
2013 Portfolio
Company
Jobs
Created
Enevate Corporation 27
Mavenlink Inc 22
Nanospectra 20
DxTerity Diagnostics 20
Claremont BioSolutions 17
Branded Online 12
OncoSec Medial Incorporated 11.5
Epinex Diagnostics Inc. 11.5
2C Tech Corporation 10.5
Corvida Medical 9
http://tiny.cc/OCiHub
Showcase Projects
LaunchPad SBDC Accelerator Program
The LaunchPad small business development
center is a jointly funded program between
OCTANe and the CA SBDC that uses a system
of predictive analytics to understand the
strengths and weaknesses of companies
and subsequently builds a mentoring and
fundraising plan specific to the analytics. In
2012, 125 companies entered the process, and
27 companies ultimately raised a total of $77
million. These companies, in turn, created 1,000
new jobs in California and more than $5 million
in incremental tax revenues.
Key Figures Companies funded: 27
Virtual companies: 125
Graduates still in business: 350
Investment raised: $134.8M
Profiles and Indicators 2013
Sacramento
iHub (SARTA)
Profile
For ten years, SARTA has supported the growth
and success of technology companies in
the Sacramento region across the full range
of technology sectors. As the lead for the
Sacramento iHub, SARTA works with its partner
organizations to support the clean technology
and medical technology sectors specifically.
The iHub has 300 active members, up 30
percent since year-end 2012.
SARTA’s programs and services share three
common goals:
• link entrepreneurs and technology
executives to the resources they need to
be successful
• raise the profile of the technology sector in
the Sacramento region
• provide learning and training opportunities
to technology industry executives.
SARTA’s programs include peer-led CEO
Forums, the MedTech and CleanTech
Showcases, the Venture Lab Incubator Facility
and VentureStart that provide guidance
and mentoring, and the annual Tech Index
Celebration of the top fifty technology
companies in the region, among others.
Showcase Project
AgStart partnership with UC Davis
In 2013, SARTA launched a partnership with
UC Davis focued on ag innovation and ag
technology companies. Operating as AgStart,
the program completed an initial assessment
of the reion’s ag innovation sector; organized
a launch event and Pitch Fest competition;
sent a delegation to the Ag Innovation
Showcase in St. Louis; organized the first
AgStart Showcase in Sacramento; and worked
with UC Davis to provide seed grant funds to
university researchers to advance the commer-
cialization of their technologies.
2013 Accomplishments
Technology Flagships: convened gatherings of
flagship company CEOs
Leadership Series: hosted 10 seminars with 300+
attendees
CleanStart: hosted 7th annual CleanStart
Showcase and identified 96 clean technology
companies
MedStart: hosted fourth annual MedTech
Showcase and identified 126 med tech
companies
AgStart: won $1M US EDA grant, with UC Davis,
to launch AgStart; launched Pitch Fest; and
sponsored the Ag Innovation Showcase in St.
Louis)—the first AgStart Showcase
VentureStart: hosted first-ever Meet the Mentors
during Sacramento Techweek
Community-building: continued Beer & Geeks
(12, 780 attendees); hosted four TechLink
Members’ Mixers; two Women in Tech dinners;
and two Women+Tech+Coffee Trifecta events
Startup Weekend and Sacramento Techweek:
partnered to organize both events and hosted
six events during Techweek
Next Economy: developed final action plan
identifying the need for a strong innovation
environment as the top priority for the region’s
economic development strategy
Cap-to-Cap: led the inaugural innovation
team for Cap-to-Cap to build consensus in
Washington for important regional priorities
http://www.sarta.org/
1
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA  OFFICE OF GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Innovation Hub (iHub) Annual Report
Pursuant to Section 12099.3(h) of the Government Code
Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
GOVERNOR
Panorea Avdis
DIRECTOR
Will Koch
CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Louis Stewart
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
July 2016

2

Table of Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
California Network of Manufacturing iHub ............................................................................................................. 4
Central California iHub ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
Cleantech Los Angeles iHub ........................................................................................................................................... 6
iDEA iHub ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
IGate iHub .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
InLand SoCal Link iHub .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Innovate North State iHub ............................................................................................................................................ 10
North Bay iHub .................................................................................................................................................................. 11
OCTANe iHub ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Palm Springs iHub ............................................................................................................................................................ 13
Sacramento iHub ............................................................................................................................................................... 14
San Diego iHub ................................................................................................................................................................... 15
San Francisco iHub ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
San Joaquin iHub ............................................................................................................................................................... 17
San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub ........................................................................................................................................ 18

3

Introduction

In 2013, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. codified the California Innovation Hub (iHub) program by signing
Assembly Bill 250 (Holden, Chapter 530, Statutes of 2013) into law. The iHub program improves the state’s
national and global competitiveness by stimulating partnerships, economic development, and job creation
around specific research and industry clusters throughout the state. iHubs are operated through a
cooperative agreement between the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) and
geographically distinct regions within California. Each iHub represents an independent partnership between
local government entities, public universities, research institutions, venture capitalist networks, and
economic development organizations. Businesses and potential investors can utilize these regionally-based
iHubs to gain greater access to funding opportunities, technology transfers, research relationships,
incubators, and the local workforce programs.

The Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Unit within GO-Biz is the state’s primary
point of contact for promoting
California’s innovation infrastructure. It
functions to develop an environment
that encourages entrepreneurship,
promotes long term economic growth,
and facilitates job creation through
innovation. This unit is primarily
responsible for the administration of
California’s iHub program.

Each iHub is required to report annually
to GO-Biz on its progress in meeting the
goals and performance standards as
described in its individual iHub
application and memorandum of
understanding. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 12099.3(h),
GO-Biz shall annually post the
information from these reports on its
website and provide notice to the
Governor and relevant policy
committees of the Legislature that the
information is available online.

The following report provides an
update on each of the 15 iHubs located
throughout California. Each update includes: a description of the iHubs’ supported sectors, recent
accomplishments, and future goals.

4

California Network of Manufacturing iHub
About California Network of Manufacturing Innovation iHub
The California Network for Manufacturing Innovation (CNMI) is focused on the knowledge transfer of
advanced manufacturing technologies to small and medium-sized manufacturers across California. Without
assistance, small and medium-sized manufacturers are unable to take full advantage of technologies — such
as additive and smart manufacturing — that will improve supply chain efficiencies and increase global
competitiveness. CNMI connects technology developers at laboratories and universities across the state with
small and medium-sized manufacturers through additive manufacturing workshops, advance manufacturing
summits and trade shows, and its annual smart manufacturing summit.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
CNMI is currently working to secure funding to support California’s advanced manufacturing
Industry. Recently, CNMI received a $20,000 grant from the California Community Colleges to pay for college
faculty to attend various workshops and summits. This grant is helping college faculty understand and adopt
cutting edge technologies that can be embedded into existing manufacturing curriculum. Feedback from
college faculty indicates that many of them were successful in modifying existing curriculum to imbed
additive manufacturing or 3-D printing technologies into education programs throughout California. In fact, a
recent survey indicates that 72 community colleges in the State have 3-D printers and are using them in
certificate and degree programs. Surprisingly, we also had high school teachers attend many of the
workshops and we are starting to see an upswing in manufacturing related programs at the High Schools. The
growth is driven by students and their interest in technologies like 3-D printing and the maker
movement. Additionally, CNMI has access to Employment Training Panel funds via its partners who maintain
multi-employer contacts. These funds will be used for supply chain and small and medium-sized
manufacturer workforce training related to the transfer and adoption of technology.

2016 Goals
CNMI plans to continue its outreach efforts into 2016 by conducting a cybersecurity statewide summit and
tradeshow, smart manufacturing workshops, and technology open houses. In addition, CNMI will conduct a
survey with other manufacturing-oriented iHubs to ensure all emerging technologies are accounted for and
shared across regions.

Key Partners:
 California Community Colleges
 University of Southern California
 Northern and Southern California
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Centers (MEP)
 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
 University of California, Irvine
 CONNECT

iHub Coordinator: Designated: October 2013
Jim Watson
President/Board Chairman
California Network for Manufacturing Innovation (CNMI)
690 Knox Street, Suite 200
Torrance, CA 90502
(925) 273-3370
jwatson@cnmi.bz

Website: http://www.cnmi.bz/

5

Central California iHub

About Central California iHub
Since 2013, the emphasis of the Central California iHub has been to foster innovation, commercialize new
technologies, strengthen the Central Valley’s roles in local and state economic development, and to promote
higher-paying employment for the region. Specifically, the iHub is focused on driving water, energy, and
agribusiness innovation and commercialization in the Central Valley.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The Central California iHub provides technical assistance in business acceleration and expansion, access to
capital, and connections with key academic and research partners (University of California, Merced and
California State University, Fresno). In January 2014, the iHub rebranded its name from CalValleyTech iHub
to Central California iHub to have a broader appeal both nationally and internationally.

2016 Goals
The Central California iHub plans to improve its technology transfer assistance and conduct workshops,
seminars, and conferences focused on small business innovation, grant availability, and financing options. In
addition, the Central California iHub will develop a marketing strategy and website to attract innovators and
technology-oriented businesses to the region. As the Central California iHub’s outreach efforts expand, an
annual report will be produced that contains the following: capital formation, jobs created/retained,
businesses started and expanded, number of clients receiving technical assistance, and innovation summit
reports and results.

Key Partners:
 University of California, Merced
 California State University, Fresno
 Merced County Department of Commerce
 UC Merced SBDC Regional Network

iHub Coordinator:
Karmjot Grewal
Industrial Development Manger
Office of Community & Economic Development
California State University, Fresno
(559) 278-0503
kgrewal@csufresno.edu

Website: http://business.ca.gov/Programs/Innovation/CalValleyTechiHub.aspx

Designated: September 2010

6

40
Companies
Incubated
Cleantech Los Angeles iHub

About Cleantech Los Angeles iHub
The Cleantech Los Angeles iHub’s mission is to grow the innovation and
commercialization of clean technologies in the Los Angeles region. Specifically, the iHub
focuses on the following technologies and industry sectors: energy efficiency and
storage, online solar marketplace, advanced transportation, goods movement, electronic
waste recycling, sustainable consumer goods, and controlled environment agriculture.
To support its mission, the Cleantech Los Angeles iHub developed the LA Cleantech
Incubator (LACI) in October of 2011. Since its inception, LACI has incubated 40
companies, helped raise over $60 million in funding and created over 600 jobs in the Los
Angeles region. These efforts have been recognized by UBI (University Business
Incubator) Global, naming LACI as the #6 “University Affiliated Incubator in the World.”

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The Cleantech Los Angeles iHub convenes key stakeholders to improve
collaboration, education, and advocacy on behalf of the region. As part of
this effort, the iHub hosts its annual LACI Cleantech Global Showcase that
draws international companies and experts to Los Angeles for thought
leadership programming, company exhibits, networking events, and
presentations. In 2015, the Global Showcase attracted 550 attendees from
15 different countries and featured exhibits from over 75 organizations. In
addition, LACI has launched innovative Market Wishlist and Early Adopter
technology integration programs with regional corporate and government
strategic partners, and is building a network of sector-focused incubators
throughout the region in coordination with state universities and local
colleges.

2016 Goals
Moving forward, Cleantech Los Angeles iHub plans to increase the number of companies and sectors
represented, increase number of international partners, expand core business assistance services, launch
prototyping lab, and attract more investment capital for LACI portfolio companies.

Key Partners:
 University of California, Los Angeles
 University of Southern California
 Cal State Northridge
 Otis College of Design

 Los Angeles Business Council
 Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
 Central City Association
 Los Angeles County Economic Development
Corporation

iHub Coordinator: Designated: September 2010
Michael Swords
VP Partnerships, LACI
Los Angeles, CA 90013
525 S. Hewitt Street

Websites: http://ihub.la/
600
Jobs Created
$60M
Funds Raised

7

iDEA iHub

About iDEA iHub
The iDEA iHub focuses on the growth of defense, energy, and aerospace technologies and businesses. Based
in Ridgecrest, the iDEA iHub’s region encompasses Kern, Ventura, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego
counties. The iHub actively performs national and worldwide promotion of the region’s innovation
ecosystem in defense, energy, and aerospace; provides business incubation services and facilities for
entrepreneurs and start-up companies; connects private sector capital with technology commercialization
opportunities; and, pursues funded research opportunities to strengthen the regional technology base.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The iDEA iHub has effectively promoted, hosted, and continues to encourage STEM
outreach events, programs, and activities across the region. In addition, the iHub
developed business advantage guides for the aerospace and advanced transportation
industries, hosted monthly Jobs Defense Council meetings, and sponsored the 2015
CleanTech Index study. To further promote the expansion of defense, energy, and
aerospace in the region, the iDEA iHub also sponsored events such as the Global
Clean Port Summit, Aerospace Week, and National Drive Electric Week.

2016 Goals
The iDEA iHub’s principal goals for 2016 are to gain financial support for the
organization, to complete a partnership intermediary agreement with the United
States Navy, and to support over 20 economic development events and 25 STEM
events.

Key Partners:
 Indian Wells Valley Economic Development Corporation
 Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation
 San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
 Orange County Workforce Investment Board
 Inland Empire Economic Partnership
 County of Ventura
 Greater Antelope Valley Economic Alliance
 California State University, Los Angeles
 University of California, Los Angeles
 Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Corporation
 CalPoly Pomona

iHub Coordinator:
Dr. Bill Hogan
Executive Director, iDEA iHub
Bill.Hogan@clhtc.com

Website: www.ideaihub.org

Designated: October 2013

124
STEM Events
97
Economic
Development Events

37
College & University
Partners

8

IGate iHub

About iGate iHub
The iGate iHub drives technology development and entrepreneurship in the Bay Area’s Tri-Valley region
through a combination of physical and social infrastructure development. iGate iHub emphasizes the
creation of networks between entrepreneurs, mentors, investors, corporate partners, governments, and its
local national labs, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories. iGate iHub currently operates a
5,500 square foot facility in downtown Livermore that provides early stage entrepreneurs with low-cost
shared and dedicated space to help launch their ventures. It houses three startups working on deep science
technologies in manufacturing, food security, and commercial space propulsion systems.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
iGate iHub has recently launched an online platform called “Startup Tri-Valley,” which houses a community
map of the region’s core economic assets: startups, anchor corporations, educations institutions, service
providers, and research institutions. In 2016, the iHub plans to build out this platform with additional
features, such as forums, guest blogs, and podcasts, to enable virtual collaboration. In addition, iGate iHub
hosts regular meetups with experienced entrepreneurs and subject matter experts in startup law, tax
accounting, fundraising, and marketing.

2016 Goals
iGate has directly supported over 30 startups and entrepreneurs through its incubation and mentorship
programs. Moving into 2016, the iHub plans to expand its entrepreneur member base, acquire additional
laboratory space to support science and engineering focused startups, and scale up the Startup Tri-Valley
online platform to serve as a collaboration hub for entrepreneurs.

Key Partners:
 City of Livermore
 City of Pleasanton
 City of Dublin
 City of Danville
 County of Alameda
 Sandia National Laboratory
 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

iHub Coordinator:
Brandon Caldwell
CEO
1152 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 583-3911

Website: www.igateihub.org

Designated: May 2010

9

Inland SoCal Link iHub

About InLand SoCal Link iHub
The overarching goal of the InLand SoCal Link iHub is to maximize economic development opportunities
within the transportation corridor which links the Port of Los Angeles and the Inland Southern California
region. Specifically, the iHub is focused on supporting and growing the advanced manufacturing and
logistics sectors. Since its creation, the InLand SoCal Link iHub has been a catalyst for strengthening and
enhancing regional partnerships and increased collaboration.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The iHub partnership has been a catalyst for strengthening and enhancing regional partnerships and
increased collaboration as well as building capacity and resources for referrals; building new networks of
communications to open dialog for collaborative opportunities; improving public relations within the
business community; and creating an entrepreneurial environment to foster new ideas and technology.

To date, the project has resulted in a co-branded marketing brochure summarizing regional and port
assets; plans for social media promotional campaigns; introductions to several export trade
organizations; collaboration to host workshops or other events (e.g. conferences, seminars, etc.) for
entrepreneurs; direct assistance to start-up and emerging technology companies to receive business
assistance; and, joint participation in tradeshows as exhibitors (Select USA).

2016 Goals
The InLand SoCal iHub plans to promote collaboration and industry development in the advanced
manufacturing and logistics sectors, expand the volume of exports through the Port of Los Angeles that
are manufactured or produced from Inland Southern California, and encourage foreign direct
investment as a mechanism for regional job creation. To support these goals, the InLand SoCal Link iHub
plans to host an annual innovation event, as well as two business plan competitions that will include
experts in finance, marketing, and business planning.

Key Partners:
 City of Los Angeles
 Port of Los Angeles
 University of California, Riverside
 County of Riverside
 Riverside County Economic Development Agency
 San Bernardino County Economic Development
Agency

iHub Coordinator:
Rob Moran
Riverside County Economic Development Agency
3403 10
th
Street, Suite 400
Riverside, CA 92501
(800) 984-1000
rmoran@rivcoeda.org Designated: October 2013

Website: http://business.ca.gov/Programs/Innovation/InlandSoCalLinkiHub.aspx

10

Innovate North State iHub

About Innovate North State iHub
Since 2010, the Innovate North State iHub has helped start-up and early stage technology companies in
the rural regions of the state by providing a connection to local and non-local industry experts, capital
sources, and customers. In addition, the iHub operates a business incubator, entitled The Innovation
Lab, which is focused on the following sectors: manufacturing, clean technology, medical technology,
information technology, and agritechnology/food products.

iHub Report Status
At the time this report was published, the Innovate North State iHub had not yet submitted its annual
report to GO-Biz outlining its progress in meeting the goals and performance standards from its
individual iHub application and memorandum of understanding. When the Innovate North State iHub
submits its report to GO-Biz, this document will be updated.

iHub Coordinator:
Louis Stewart
Deputy Director, Innovation & Entrepreneurship
Governor's Office of Business & Economic Development

Website: http://innovate-northstate.com/projects/ihub-innovation-hub/

Designated: September 2010

11

North Bay iHub

About North Bay iHub
The North Bay iHub is dedicated to building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in Sonoma, Marin, and Napa
counties. Specifically, the iHub stimulates partnerships between incubators, co-working spaces, non-
profit economic development organizations, government entities, universities, businesses, and
investment networks.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The North Bay iHub has supported over 30 startup companies and entrepreneurs through its incubation
and mentorship programs, added a new medical instrument testing facility and had over 700
participants in local entrepreneurship events. The iHub sponsored workshops & seminars on business
essentials for Startups, a bi-monthly Founders Fight Club support group for founders, monthly
Entrepreneur Happy Hours, and Startup Jam - an event where founders can pitch and get real time
feedback from a panel of angels and guest judges. The North Bay iHub produced the first North Bay
Make-A-Thon with Sonoma State University in which 25 teams competed in a 27-hour event for the top
innovator prize. North Bay Innovation Week had its second year of success where 7 partner
organizations highlighted entrepreneurship in the North Bay. The culminating event of Innovation Week
is the North Bay Innovation Summit where early stage companies compete for recognition and cash
prizes.

2016 Goals
The North Bay iHub is in a dynamic period of growth, scaling our offerings and looking to build business
acumen among the innovators and entrepreneurs we serve with a bi-annual accelerator
program. We look forward to scaling the North Bay Make-A-Thon to 50 teams and connecting the pipe
line from the Make-A-Thon into the accelerator and incubator when appropriate. The goal is to
seed innovation in younger people in our community and support the ideas that rise to the top.

Partners:
 Sonoma State University
 The City of Rohnert Park
 The City of Santa Rosa
 Dominican University
 SBDC
 Score
 The Sonoma County Economic
Development Board
 North Bay Angels
 Keiretsu
 Marin Economic Forum
 Startup Grind

iHub Coordinator:
Amee Sas
Executive Director, SoCo Nexus
1300 Valley House Drive, Suite 100
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
(707) 695-7000
amee@soconexus.org

Website: http://business.ca.gov/Programs/Innovation/NorthBayiHub.aspx

Designated: May 2010

12

Website: http://northbayihub.com/
OCTANe iHub

About OCTANe iHub
The OCTANe iHub is focused on supporting and growing the technology economy in Orange County and
has enabled hundreds of life science technology, information technology, sports technology, and clean
technology companies to develop and expand. The OCTANe iHub utilizes its LaunchPad program,
predictive analytics software, to help stimulate regional business. LaunchPad is a “virtual accelerator”
that provides critical, individualized, and value-added support to early stage companies.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
From October 2013 to December 2015, LaunchPad has provided assistance to
286 client companies, 85 of which were evaluated by LaunchPad panels,
resulting in 48 companies attracting over $429 million in investment during the
period. These start-up companies created more than 1,650 jobs in Orange
County. In addition, the OCTANe iHub provides education and networking
resources to the entrepreneurial and established business community. Since
October 2013 through the end of 2015, OCTANe produced and executed a total
of 103 programs, including signature programs such as its annual Medical Device
& Investor Forum and the Technology & Investor Forum, Salon Signature
programs such as the Ophthalmology Summit and Orange County Mobile
conference.

2016 Goals
For 2016, OCTANe has set goals to assist 100 companies
using the LaunchPad platform, evaluate 45 companies
via LaunchPad panels, and attract at least $100 million
in capital infusion from LaunchPad companies and
alumni. In addition, OCTANe plans to produce and
execute at least 50 educational programs including the
Signature events, Salon Signature events, Partner
seminars, targeted educational seminars, and
networking events.

Key Partners:
 City of Mission Viejo
 City of Aliso Viejo
 University of California, Irvine
 Chapman University
 Brandman University
 Orange County/Inland Empire SBDC
 Irvine Chamber of Commerce

Designated: May 2010

iHub Coordinator:
Paul Symczak
Vice President, Entrepreneurship and Executive
Director, LaunchPad SBDC
65 Enterprise
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
(949) 330-6568
paul@octaneoc.org

Website: http://www.octaneoc.org/

286
Companies
Assisted
1,650
Jobs Created
$429M
Investments

13

Palm Springs iHub

About Palm Springs iHub
The Palm Spring iHub’s primary focus is on early stage businesses in the renewable energy and
associated technology sectors. The Palm Springs iHub operates a small business incubator that has the
capacity to mentor up to six clients in-house and twelve virtually. The Palm Springs iHub offers office
space to clients, access to shared conference rooms, a board room, and a dedicated staff that monitors
and assists the clients. The iHub’s clients have access to professional services at free or reduced costs,
targeted training classes, and workshops.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The Palm Springs iHub has hosted renewable energy roundtables and “Shark Tank”
events, and established partnerships with the National Renewal Energy Lab and the
Federal Lab Consortium. To date, the Palm Springs iHub clients have been granted
over 16 patents, have risen over $10 million in equity investments, and have
employed over 100 people. In 2014, the Palm Spring iHub received the Inland
Empire Spirit of the Entrepreneur Award for Supporter of Entrepreneurship.

2016 Goals
The Palm Springs iHub plans to nurture, attract, and grow 50 companies based on
renewable energy in the next five years, create local high-paying technology and
manufacturing jobs in the Coachella Valley, and attract angel and venture capital investments in client
companies.

Key Partners:
 City of Palm Springs
 Riverside County
 City of Palm Desert
 City of La Quinta
 City of Indio
 Cathedral City
 University of California, Riverside
 College of the Desert
 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
 Desert Regional Medical Center

iHub Coordinator:
Joe Wallace
Managing Director
3211 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 323-8175
Joe.Wallace@cvep.com

Website: http://cvep.com/iHub.html

Designated: May 2010

116
Jobs Created
$10M
Investments
16
Patents

14

Sacramento iHub

About Sacramento iHub
The Sacramento iHub is focused on advancing the agriculture and food, life sciences, medical services,
clean energy, and government technology industries in the Greater Sacramento region. The iHub
sponsors and hosts events, such as TechEdge, the Entrepreneurs Showcase Accelerator, Bag Lunch & Big
Ideas, and Demo Day, which allow start-ups the opportunity to pitch new ideas to investors across
Northern California.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The Sacramento iHub hosted numerous events across the region and guided the vertically focused
programs such as AgStart, CleanStart, MedStart, and VentureStart. Altogether, 4,500 people were
informed and engaged via regular emails, 1,900 via LinkedIn, and over 100 companies were brought into
the active mentoring program. Other notable events included: TechEdge 2015 with over 700 attendees
recognizing and celebrating regional innovation leaders, the AG Solution Summit with the UC Davis
World Food Center, multiple speaker events with Start Up Grind, the Beer & Geeks program for the
entrepreneur ecosystem, the Leadership Series of monthly seminars with speakers from Velocity
Ventures, University of California, Davis, California State University, Sacramento, and other local
professional services companies addressing the needs of entrepreneurs.

Key Partners:
 Area 52
 Davis Roots
 Capital Region SBDC
 Hacker Lab
 Sacramento Metro Chamber
 Sacramento State University
 Start Up Grind
 TEDx Sacramento
 UC Davis Venture Catalyst
 University of California, Davis
 Urban Hive
 Valley Vision
 Venture Catalyst at UC Davis
 Velocity Entrepreneur’s Campus
 World Food Center

iHub Coordinator:
Howard Bubb
CEO SARTA
1 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-231-0770
howard@sarta.org Designated: May 2010

Website: http://business.ca.gov/Programs/Innovation/SacramentoiHub.aspx

15

San Diego iHub

About San Diego iHub
The San Diego iHub is focused on building the mobile health, biofuels, solar energy, energy storage, and
biomimicry industries throughout the San Diego, Imperial County, and Inland Southern California
regions. The iHub provides access to world-class research and teaching universities, such as the
University of California, San Diego and the Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute, to stimulate
new innovation in the medical and transportation fields.

iHub Report Status
At the time this report was published, the San Diego iHub had not yet submitted its annual report to GO-
Biz outlining its progress in meeting the goals and performance standards from its individual iHub
application and memorandum of understanding. When the San Diego iHub submits its report to GO-Biz,
this document will be updated.

iHub Coordinator:
CONNECT San Diego
8950 Villa La Jolla Drive, Suite A-124
La Jolla, CA 92037
(858) 964-1300

Website: www.connect.org

Designated: September 2010

16

San Francisco iHub

About San Francisco iHub
The San Francisco iHub provides a space for research clusters, startups, government entities, non-
governmental organizations, and the network of founders to collaborate and connect. The San
Francisco iHub’s efforts will support initiatives in the information technology, life sciences, clean
technology, hospitality, professional services, and nonprofit sectors. To advance these sectors, the San
Francisco iHub provides access to incubators, accelerators, and co-working spaces; tax advice in the
immigration, legal, and real estate fields; connections to the business and education community; and,
detailed information on city, state, and federal incentives.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The San Francisco iHub has attracted over 25 businesses and acquired around 100,000 square feet of
leased office space to offer tangible services to its clients. Furthermore, the San Francisco iHub has
hosted a number of events (topics include intellectual property protection and international business) to
help promote innovation and collaboration in the San Francisco business community.

2016 Goals
In 2016, the iHub will strengthen its San Francisco-based co-working spaces, incubator, and accelerator
network. The iHub plans to offer more organized networking events, partnerships, and additional
benefits to network members. The iHub also plans to strengthen its online presence by creating a map
that will visualize all the different incubator, accelerator, and co-working network partner locations
within the city so that potential businesses can make informed location decisions.

Key Partners:
 San Francisco Center for Economic Development
 San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
 San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development
 Bay Area Council Economic Institute
 California Association for Local Economic Development
 California Life Science Association (formerly BayBio)
 International Council of Economic Development
 Team California
 San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association

iHub Coordinator:
Dennis Conaghan
Executive Director
San Francisco Center for Economic Development
235 Montgomery Street, Ste. 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 352-8819
dconaghan@sfced.org

Website: http://sfced.org/about/sfced-initiatives/ihub/ Designated: May 2010

17

San Joaquin iHub

About San Joaquin iHub
The San Joaquin iHub is focused on the development of the health care, construction and housing,
agriculture, and manufacturing industries in Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and
Tracy. The iHub’s goals are to accelerate the “research to care cycle” for the medical profession,
develop sustainable construction methods and technologies to reduce the region’s carbon footprint, and
recruit a workforce with research expertise in agriculture.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
The San Joaquin iHub sponsored workshops and seminars on start-ups, emerging entrepreneurs, and
available tax incentives, such as the California Competes Tax Credit program. In addition, the iHub
hosted the H20 Hackathon: A Water Challenge, tasking coders, engineers, and students to find solutions
to water management issues.

2016 Goals
In 2016, the San Joaquin iHub plans to attract new businesses through the development of a business
portal that would serve as an aggregated resource center. In addition, the iHub plans to educate local
businesses through a series of workshops and lectures focused on leadership and innovation.

Key Partners:
 San Joaquin Partnership
 San Joaquin County Department of
Employment and Economic Development
 City of Stockton
 City of Ripon
 City of Escalon
 City of Manteca
 City of Tracy
 City of Lathrop
 City of Lodi
 University of the Pacific
 San Joaquin Delta College

iHub Coordinator:
Elena Rivas-Reyes
San Joaquin County
Senior Deputy County Administrator
44 North San Joaquin Street, Suite 640
Stockton, CA 95202
(209) 468-3399
ereyes@sjgov.org

Website: http://www.ihubsj.org/ Designated: October 2013

18

San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub

About San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub
In order to continue to foster innovation and growth, the San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub works
collaboratively with businesses, academia, and government in the following sectors: new product
manufacturing, clean energy, advanced transportation technologies, energy generation and storage,
bio-medical and health information technology, and flexible hybrid electronics.

Recent Activities and Accomplishments
Since the San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub’s formation, significant work has been undertaken to support the
entrepreneurial ecosystem in the region. The San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub has offered seminars, speaker
series, and workshops on topics such as corporate and social responsibility, customer driven innovation,
venture capital, and building successful startups.

2016 Goals
Moving into 2016, the San Jose/Silicon Valley iHub plans to coordinate and participate in five keynote
seminars focused on startups and emerging technology, fund one innovation speaker series, implement
a web based platform that will identify supply chain providers for emerging technology firms needing to
source materials and resources, and coordinate business plan competitions within Santa Clara County.

Key Partners:
 FlexTech Alliance
 Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network
 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
 Martin Luther King Library
 San Jose Evergreen Community College
 San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of
Commerce
 San Jose State University
 Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Roundtable
 Silicon Valley Space Center
 San Jose State University
 Stanford University
 University of California, Santa Cruz

iHub Coordinator:
Chris Burton
Senior Business Development Manager,
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 535-8178
chris.burton@sanjoseca.gov

Website: http://sjeconomy.com/initiative/ihub/

Designated: September 2010

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS D
Appendix D
2017 Survey Questionnaire

First, let me say thank you for participating in this important survey... It should only take about 15
minutes.
Your response by no later than Tuesday, May 30th is much appreciated!
With your assistance and input, this survey will help identify some key leadership factors of why the
first six California Innovation Hubs (iHubs) were developed and how they are doing today. The intent
is not to single out any iHub, but instead assess information in aggregate that can assist the iHub
program in the future.
This survey is part of my doctoral program for the Doctor of Policy, Planning, and Development at
the University of Southern California (USC) Price School of Public Policy. And as a previous co-
founder of the iHub in the Livermore area, I wanted to research a topic that helped to understand
motivation for participation in the iHub program, both then and now.
This survey will help to identify some key factors in leadership of the iHubs - including the context
(social setting) of why they were developed, how does collaboration across networks factor into the
leadership, and which sectors have played an important role in the development of the iHubs.
1. Background
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs
1
As a reminder, the initial six iHubs included:
· North Bay iHub (North San Francisco Bay, CA)
· Sacramento iHub (Sacramento, CA region) - previously managed by SARTA
· San Francisco iHub (San Francisco, CA) - previously the Mission Bay iHub
· i-GATE iHub (Livermore, CA region)
· Palm Springs iHub (Palm Springs, CA) - previously the Coachella Valley iHub
· OCTANe iHub (Orange County, CA)
Your views on the development of the iHub program are valuable, and will provide a crucial role in
shaping recommendations on best practices for the iHub program going forward. If you plan to take
the survey anonymously, your answers are equally important and help provide the data needed for a
robust comparison.
You can also forward this survey to others that have been involved in the development and
management of the iHub program.
If you prefer, I am happy to discuss your thoughts by phone. Feel free to call me at (925) 337-5929 or
email me at mandalew@usc.edu or mrobtwhite@gmail.com to set up a time to discuss. Thank you in
advance!
2
The following questions are to collect baseline information and the years of
your involvement in the iHub Program.
2. Baseline Information
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs
Name
Company or Agency
City/Town
Email Address
Phone Number
1. Contact Information (optional)
ZIP/Postal Code
2. Zip Code (required) *
3
3. Gender (optional)
Female
Male
Decline to state

Involved in State RFP (2009)
Involved in iHub proposal
development (2009)
Involved in iHub management
(2010-present)
Involved as iHub partner
(2010-present)
North Bay iHub (North San
Francisco Bay, also known as
Sonoma Mountain Village)
Sacramento iHub (previously
identified with SARTA)
San Francisco iHub
(previously identified as
Mission Bay iHub)
i-GATE iHub (Livermore, CA
region)
Palm Springs iHub
(previously known as
Coachella Valley iHub)
OCTANe iHub (Orange
County, CA)
CA State representative
Other (please specify)
4. Please select the Innovation Hub(s) you are/were involved with from the following list.
- You may select options for multiple iHubs.
4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Executive director/Management
Board executive committee
Board of directors
Community leader
Policymaker/Elected official
Key staff
iHub coordinator
iHub partner org/agency
CA State representative
Please indicate the iHub for which you are answering this question:
5. Please select dates for your ongoing role in the iHub (2009 - present)?
- You may select multiple roles per year (column). Estimate of dates is acceptable.
PLEASE NOTE: Answer for the iHub where you were most involved.
5

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Government – Local
Government – State
Government – Federal
Government – Other
Non-Profit
Foundation
University – Private
University – Public
Private – Entrepreneur
Private – Small Business
Private – Large Business
Private – Bank/Financial
Services
Private – Angel/Venture
investment
Research Institution
National Lab
N/A
Explanation (if needed):
6. Sector(s) you have represented during the iHub program period (2009 - present)? - Select closest match for each year.
6
3. iHub Program Development (2009)
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs
The purpose of the questions in this section are to gain your feedback on the
influences during the initial development of the iHub Program (2009).
PLEASE NOTE - If you were not involved in 2009, please select N/A in Question 7 and
skip to the Section 5.
7
7. What was your specific role(s) in the initial iHub Program development in 2009? - Select all that apply.
Concept champion
Policymaker/elected official
Proposal lead
Primary proposal author
Support staff/co-writer
Part of proposal development team
Partner agency/letter of support generated
State representative/RFP author
N/A - I was not involved in development of iHub program (2009)
Other (please specify)
8. Please identify the motivation behind your role in the initial iHub Program development (2009), either as a RFP
respondent or State representative.
8
9. At the time of iHub Program development (2009), what discussions or factors do you recall being present in the local
environment (city/county)? – Select all that apply.
Discussions about innovation
Need for jobs
Negative economic indicators
Community pride/self-reliance
Implementing regional economic development work plans
Response to ARRA funding
Workforce Development
Connecting knowledge nodes (university, etc) with business
Increase discussion of entrepreneurism/startups/small businesses
Desire to leverage local assets
Wanting to provide local economic incentives
N/A - I was not involved in 2009
Other (please specify)
10. Was there one aspect of those factors above that stood out to you at the time concerning local conditions? - Please
explain.
9
11. At the time of iHub program development (2009), what discussions or factors do you recall being present in the regional
environment (metro area/multiple counties)? – Select all that apply.
Discussions about innovation
Need for jobs
Negative economic indicators
Community pride/self-reliance
Implementing regional economic development work plans
Response to ARRA funding
Workforce Development
Connecting knowledge nodes (university, etc) with business
Increase discussion of entrepreneurism/startups/small businesses
Desire to leverage regional assets
Wanting to provide regional economic incentives
N/A - I was not involved in 2009
Other (please specify)
12. Was there one aspect of those factors above that stood out to you at the time concerning the regional
conditions? - Please explain.
10
13. Thinking about the conditions of 2009 (both economic and social), and what you know now (present), what advice
would you give yourself about the iHub program development back then? - In 50 words or less.

Most valuable Very valuable Valuable Somewhat valuable Not valuable N/A
University
UC Institutes for Science and
Innovation
College/school of engineering
Business college/school
Community college
Regional economic
development organization
(EDC)
Workforce
development/training
organization
Incubator/Accelerator
Makerspace
Chamber(s) of commerce
Technology business
networking organization (non-
EDC)
Educational consortia
14. Please rank the value of the 'assets' that you think were most beneficial to the development of a successful iHub
program in 2009.
11
Venture capitalist (VC)
networks
Angel investor networks
Industry-university research
institutes or foundations
University or industry R&D
facilities
Federal/national labs
Federal or industry supported
Centers of Excellence
Business assistance
organizations (like SBDC)
City/county economic
development departments
Funding agencies (like SBA
loan centers)

Most valuable Very valuable Valuable Somewhat valuable Not valuable N/A
Please explain (if needed).
12
4. Proposals for iHub Designation (2009)
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs
These questions are specific to preparing the iHub proposals (2009).
PLEASE NOTE - If you were not involved in iHub proposal development, select N/A in
Question 15 and move on to Section 5.
15. In developing partnerships for an iHub proposal (2009), did you find agencies and organizations were supportive or
reserved? - Pick closest answer.
16. Thinking about the question above regarding partners, please describe your overall experience in creating
partnerships, including any specific positive or negative experiences - In 100 words or less
13
Please explain (if needed).
17. To the best of your recollection, who made the 'ultimate' decision to prepare/submit an iHub proposal (2009)? - Select
best fit answer.
14
5. Info about the iHub Program (2010 to present)
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs
The purpose of this section is to gain your thoughts on how the iHub program, and
your specific iHub (if applicable), have been able to meet the opportunities and
challenges in an evolving innovation setting (both social and economic).
18. Are you currently involved in the iHub program?
15

Very rewarding Rewarding Somewhat rewarding Not rewarding N/A
Knowledge sharing
Local engagement
Generating innovative ideas
Increasing economic
opportunity
Communication with/from the
State Program Office (GO-Biz)
Coordination with other iHub
programs
Developing collaborative
spaces
Creating unified innovation
programs in region
Meeting new people
Helping develop innovation
community
Strengthening existing
relationships
Please explain (if needed).
19. What aspects in the partnership network for the iHub program do/did you find to be the most rewarding?
16

Very challenging Challenging Somewhat challenging Not challenging N/A
Regional engagement
Coordination with other iHubs
Local iHub management
Support from
policymakers/elected officials
External conditions (social,
economic)
Similar venues/programs
Funding for local iHubs
Ability to aggregate
appropriate resources
Awareness of
innovation ecosystem
Understanding the value of the
iHub program
Please explain (if needed).
20. What aspects in the partnership network for the iHub program do/did you find to be the most challenging?

Continually
engaged Often engaged
Occasionally
engaged Rarely engaged Not engaged N/A
University
21. As it relates to the iHubs now, which sectors do you think provide the most evident (strongest) engagement
for the iHubs? - Answer specific to your iHub, or at the program level if you are/were a State representative.
17
UC Institutes for Science and
Innovation
College of engineering
Business school
Community College
Local economic development
organization (EDC)
Workforce
development/training
organizations
Incubator/Accelerator
Makerspace
Chamber(s) of commerce
Technology business
networking organization (non-
EDC)
Educational consortia
Venture capitalist (VC)
networks
Angel investor networks
Industry-university research
institute or foundations
University or industry R&D
facilities
Federal/national labs

Continually
engaged Often engaged
Occasionally
engaged Rarely engaged Not engaged N/A
18
Federal or industry supported
Centers of Excellence
Business assistance
organizations (like SBDC)
City/county economic
development departments
Funding agencies (like SBA
loan centers)

Continually
engaged Often engaged
Occasionally
engaged Rarely engaged Not engaged N/A
Please explain (if needed).
19
6. iHub-specific Questions
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs
This section includes questions specific to the iHubs themselves.
PLEASE NOTE: If you are/were a State representative, please select N/A in Question
22 and skip to Section 7.
20
Please explain
22. Has your iHub found being associated with the state-level iHub Program a benefit? - Please explain in 100 words or
less.
Yes
Neutral/neither
No
Not sure
I am not aware of the State-level program
N/A - I am/was a State representative
Please explain.
23. If the iHub Program designation also came with annual funding, would this change your response to the question
above?
Yes
No
Not sure
My iHub no longer identifies itself with the program
N/A - I am/was a State representative
21
24. What level of annual funding from the State would make the iHub Program designation more competitive
(desirable)?
Please explain.
25. Do you think your iHub has successfully met the goals and objectives outlined in your original proposal (2009)? -
Please explain, in 50 words or less.
Yes
No
Not sure
I am not aware of the expectations from our proposal
N/A - I am/was a State representative
Please explain (if needed).
26. If the State provided funding/resources, would your iHub be incentivized to create/negotiate annual goals and
objectives (with the State) tied to that funding?
22
Other (please explain)
27. Are there other resources (besides funding) that would be an incentive to being part of the iHub Program? - Select
all that apply.
Increased promotion/marketing by the GO-Biz
Promotion/recognition of iHubs by other State offices/agencies
Interaction with policymakers/elected officials
Identified as innovation experts/resource to others
More detail/visibility on State (GO-Biz) website
No-cost training/seminars
Sponsored conferences
Engagement with industry provided by State and other agencies
I am happy with the iHub Program as it is
I don't know/can't think of any
N/A - I am/was a State representative
23
Please explain.
28. If the iHub program was to be re-competed today, would your agency/organization consider applying? - Please
explain, in 50 words or less.
Yes
No
Not sure
N/A - I am/was a State representative
24
7. Wrap-Up
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs
29. Is there anything else you would like to highlight about your experience (past or present) with developing or
managing the iHub program? - in 100 words or less.
If yes, please provide the best phone number.
30. If I have follow-up questions from your responses, would it be okay to contact you by phone?
Yes
No
Thank you again for your time! I look forward to sharing the survey results with you
soon. If you would like to receive an electronic copy of this study when it is completed,
please include your email below.
25
Preferred email address:
31. I would like to receive an electronic copy of study when completed:
26

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CA iHUBS E
Appendix E
2017 Survey Results

100.00% 27
88.89% 24
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
92.59% 25
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
100.00% 27
92.59% 25
Q1 Contact Information (optional)
Answered: 27 Skipped: 12
# NAME DATE
1 Matthew Jenusaitis 6/16/2017 4:15 PM
2 Dennis conaghan 6/16/2017 1:12 PM
3 Joe Wallace 6/8/2017 3:32 PM
4 Brian McGowan 6/5/2017 8:16 AM
5 Camille Bibeau 6/2/2017 8:18 AM
6 Pamela Ott 6/1/2017 3:02 PM
7 Brandon Cardwell 6/1/2017 2:37 PM
8 Thomas Hall 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
9 David Dillwood 5/31/2017 1:57 PM
10 Kelly Kline 5/31/2017 9:46 AM
11 Monique Brown 5/30/2017 9:56 AM
12 Ryan Sharp 5/30/2017 9:04 AM
13 Hal LaFlash 5/28/2017 7:32 PM
14 Donna Chabrier 5/28/2017 7:16 PM
15 Bob Linscheid 5/27/2017 10:05 PM
16 Laura Good 5/26/2017 7:18 AM
17 Meg Arnold 5/25/2017 2:00 PM
18 Dale Kaye 5/24/2017 3:47 PM
19 Cathy Van Horn 5/24/2017 9:31 AM
20 Katy (McKenzie) Richey 5/23/2017 2:25 PM
21 JC Ruffalo 5/23/2017 10:01 AM
22 Steve Pinkerton 5/23/2017 9:04 AM
23 Rochelle swanson 5/22/2017 9:43 PM
24 Aaron Anderson 5/22/2017 5:26 PM
25 Bruce Balfour 5/22/2017 1:19 PM
26 Dave Sanders 5/22/2017 10:08 AM
27 Buck Koonce 5/22/2017 8:16 AM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company or Agency
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number
1 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
# COMPANY OR AGENCY DATE
1 UCSD Health Systems 6/16/2017 4:15 PM
2 San Francisco Center for Economic Devel 6/16/2017 1:12 PM
3 Palm Springs iHub (CVEP) 6/8/2017 3:32 PM
4 Dentons 6/5/2017 8:16 AM
5 LLNL 6/2/2017 8:18 AM
6 City of Pleasanton 6/1/2017 3:02 PM
7 i-GATE/City of Livermore 6/1/2017 2:37 PM
8 CleanStart 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
9 Dillwood Burkel & Millar LLP 5/31/2017 1:57 PM
10 City of Fremont 5/31/2017 9:46 AM
11 I/O 5/30/2017 9:56 AM
12 UC Davis 5/30/2017 9:04 AM
13 PG&E-retired/energy consulting 5/28/2017 7:32 PM
14 SARTA 5/28/2017 7:16 PM
15 StartupSac 5/26/2017 7:18 AM
16 Valley Vision 5/25/2017 2:00 PM
17 Innovation Tri-Valley 5/24/2017 3:47 PM
18 City of Palm Springs 5/24/2017 9:31 AM
19 Schwarzenegger Administration 5/23/2017 2:25 PM
20 OCTANe LaunchPad SBDC 5/23/2017 10:01 AM
21 City of Davis 5/22/2017 9:43 PM
22 Impact Venture Capital 5/22/2017 5:26 PM
23 WorldBridge Partners 5/22/2017 10:08 AM
24 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 5/22/2017 8:16 AM
# ADDRESS DATE
There are no responses.
# ADDRESS 2 DATE
There are no responses.
# CITY/TOWN DATE
1 San Diego 6/16/2017 4:15 PM
2 San Francisco 6/16/2017 1:12 PM
3 Palm Springs 6/8/2017 3:32 PM
4 Atlanta 6/5/2017 8:16 AM
5 Livermore 6/2/2017 8:18 AM
6 Pleasanton 6/1/2017 3:02 PM
7 Livermore 6/1/2017 2:37 PM
8 Sacramento 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
9 Santa Rosa 5/31/2017 1:57 PM
10 Fremont 5/31/2017 9:46 AM
11 Sacramento 5/30/2017 9:56 AM
12 Davis 5/30/2017 9:04 AM
13 Pleasanton 5/28/2017 7:32 PM
14 Sacramento 5/28/2017 7:16 PM
15 Danville 5/27/2017 10:05 PM
16 Sacramento 5/26/2017 7:18 AM
2 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
17 Sacramento 5/25/2017 2:00 PM
18 Pleasanton 5/24/2017 3:47 PM
19 Palm Springs 5/24/2017 9:31 AM
20 Oakland 5/23/2017 2:25 PM
21 Aliso Viejo 5/23/2017 10:01 AM
22 Davis 5/22/2017 9:43 PM
23 Sacramento 5/22/2017 5:26 PM
24 Roseville 5/22/2017 10:08 AM
25 Livermore 5/22/2017 8:16 AM
# STATE/PROVINCE DATE
There are no responses.
# ZIP/POSTAL CODE DATE
There are no responses.
# COUNTRY DATE
There are no responses.
# EMAIL ADDRESS DATE
1 mjenusaitis@ucsd.edu 6/16/2017 4:15 PM
2 dconaghan@sfced.org 6/16/2017 1:12 PM
3 joe.wallace@cvep.com 6/8/2017 3:32 PM
4 brianpmcgowan@msn.com 6/5/2017 8:16 AM
5 bibeau1@llnl.gov 6/2/2017 8:18 AM
6 pott@cityofpleasantonca.gov 6/1/2017 3:02 PM
7 brandon.cardwell@igateihub.org 6/1/2017 2:37 PM
8 thomas@cleanstart.org 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
9 ddillwood@dbmcpa.com 5/31/2017 1:57 PM
10 kkline@fremont.gov 5/31/2017 9:46 AM
11 monique@sacramento.io 5/30/2017 9:56 AM
12 rsharp@ucdavis.edu 5/30/2017 9:04 AM
13 hal@laflash.com 5/28/2017 7:32 PM
14 donna@outsideintoday.com 5/28/2017 7:16 PM
15 bob@wemanage.org 5/27/2017 10:05 PM
16 thegoodlaura@gmail.com 5/26/2017 7:18 AM
17 meg.arnold@valleyvision.org 5/25/2017 2:00 PM
18 dkaye@innovationtrivalley.org 5/24/2017 3:47 PM
19 Cathy.vanhorn@palmspringsca.gov 5/24/2017 9:31 AM
20 katy.m.richey@gmail.com 5/23/2017 2:25 PM
21 jc@octaneoc.org 5/23/2017 10:01 AM
22 spinkerton@comcast.net 5/23/2017 9:04 AM
23 rswanson@cityofdavis.org 5/22/2017 9:43 PM
24 aaron@impactvc.com 5/22/2017 5:26 PM
25 bruce@brucebalfour.com 5/22/2017 1:19 PM
26 dave@worldbridgepartners.com 5/22/2017 10:08 AM
27 koonce1@llnl.gov 5/22/2017 8:16 AM
# PHONE NUMBER DATE
1 760-712-2539 6/16/2017 4:15 PM
2 415-352-8819 6/16/2017 1:12 PM
3 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
3 760 340-1575 6/8/2017 3:32 PM
4 4046657399 6/5/2017 8:16 AM
5 925-422-7798 6/2/2017 8:18 AM
6 925-931-5040 6/1/2017 3:02 PM
7 9166262402 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
8 707.477.4546 5/31/2017 1:57 PM
9 510-284-4024 5/31/2017 9:46 AM
10 925-323-9351 5/30/2017 9:56 AM
11 530-752-8639 5/30/2017 9:04 AM
12 925-222-0124 5/28/2017 7:32 PM
13 9167700210 5/28/2017 7:16 PM
14 415-624-4022 5/27/2017 10:05 PM
15 916-261-1873 5/26/2017 7:18 AM
16 530-867-1921 5/25/2017 2:00 PM
17 818 395 0742 5/24/2017 3:47 PM
18 760-323-8175 5/24/2017 9:31 AM
19 8588693241 5/23/2017 2:25 PM
20 949.330.6572 5/23/2017 10:01 AM
21 209-639-3313 5/23/2017 9:04 AM
22 9168013178 5/22/2017 9:43 PM
23 888-292-4748 5/22/2017 5:26 PM
24 916-803-4000 5/22/2017 10:08 AM
25 9254222698 5/22/2017 8:16 AM
4 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
100.00% 39
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q2 Zip Code (required)
Answered: 39 Skipped: 0
# NAME DATE
There are no responses.
# COMPANY DATE
There are no responses.
# ADDRESS DATE
There are no responses.
# ADDRESS 2 DATE
There are no responses.
# CITY/TOWN DATE
There are no responses.
# STATE/PROVINCE DATE
There are no responses.
# ZIP/POSTAL CODE DATE
1 92103-8970 6/16/2017 4:15 PM
2 94104 6/16/2017 1:12 PM
3 03049 6/13/2017 5:42 PM
4 92262 6/8/2017 3:32 PM
5 94928 6/6/2017 11:55 AM
6 30968 6/5/2017 8:16 AM
7 94526 6/2/2017 8:18 AM
8 94566 6/1/2017 3:02 PM
9 94550 6/1/2017 2:37 PM
10 95814 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
11 95403 5/31/2017 1:57 PM
12 95401 5/31/2017 11:46 AM
13 94538 5/31/2017 9:46 AM
14 95811 5/30/2017 9:56 AM
15 95618 5/30/2017 9:04 AM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Email Address
Phone Number
5 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
16 93568 5/29/2017 8:43 AM
17 95948 5/28/2017 9:58 PM
18 94566 5/28/2017 7:32 PM
19 95747 5/28/2017 7:16 PM
20 94568 5/28/2017 5:18 PM
21 94526 5/27/2017 10:05 PM
22 95833 5/26/2017 7:18 AM
23 95814 5/25/2017 2:33 PM
24 95816 5/25/2017 2:00 PM
25 94566 5/24/2017 3:47 PM
26 95811 5/24/2017 3:45 PM
27 92262 5/24/2017 9:31 AM
28 95616 5/23/2017 3:39 PM
29 94608 5/23/2017 2:25 PM
30 92656 5/23/2017 10:01 AM
31 95630 5/23/2017 9:04 AM
32 94588 5/22/2017 10:02 PM
33 95616 5/22/2017 9:43 PM
34 95814 5/22/2017 5:26 PM
35 94949 5/22/2017 1:19 PM
36 95405 5/22/2017 12:37 PM
37 95661 5/22/2017 10:08 AM
38 94551 5/22/2017 8:16 AM
39 90803 5/21/2017 5:18 PM
# COUNTRY DATE
There are no responses.
# EMAIL ADDRESS DATE
There are no responses.
# PHONE NUMBER DATE
There are no responses.
6 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
31.43% 11
65.71% 23
2.86% 1
Q3 Gender (optional)
Answered: 35 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 35
Female
Male
Decline to
state
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Female
Male
Decline to state
7 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q4 Please select the Innovation Hub(s) you are/were involved with from the following list. - You
may select options for multiple iHubs.
Answered: 38 Skipped: 1
16.00%
4
20.00%
5
12.00%
3
20.00%
5
12.00%
3
12.00%
3
8.00%
2

25
12.50%
3
25.00%
6
12.50%
3
20.83%
5
12.50%
3
8.33%
2
8.33%
2

24
14.29%
5
22.86%
8
5.71%
2
31.43%
11
8.57%
3
8.57%
3
8.57%
3

35
North Bay iHub (North San Francisco Bay, also known as Sonoma Mountain Village)
Sacramento iHub (previously identified with SARTA)
San Francisco iHub (previously identified as Mission Bay iHub)
i-GATE iHub (Livermore, CA region)
Palm Springs iHub (previously known as Coachella Valley iHub)
OCTANe iHub (Orange County, CA) CA State representative
Involved in
State RFP...
Involved in
iHub
proposa...
Involved in
iHub
managem...
Involved as
iHub partner...
0 10 20 30 40
NORTH BAY
IHUB
(NORTH
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY, ALSO
KNOWN AS
SONOMA
MOUNTAIN
VILLAGE)
SACRAMENTO IHUB (PREVIOUSLY
IDENTIFIED WITH SARTA)
SAN
FRANCISCO
IHUB
(PREVIOUSLY
IDENTIFIED
AS MISSION
BAY IHUB)
I-GATE IHUB
(LIVERMORE,
CA REGION)
PALM
SPRINGS
IHUB
(PREVIOUSLY
KNOWN AS
COACHELLA
VALLEY IHUB)
OCTANE
IHUB
(ORANGE
COUNTY,
CA)
CA STATE
REPRESENTATIVE
TOTAL
RESPONDENTS
Involved in
State
RFP (2009)
(1)
Involved in
iHub
proposal
development
(2009) (2)
Involved in
iHub
management
(2010-
present) (3)
8 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
12.50%
4
31.25%
10
6.25%
2
21.88%
7
9.38%
3
9.38%
3
9.38%
3

32
BASIC STATISTICS

1.00

4.00

3.00

2.56

1.12

1.00

4.00

3.00

2.79

1.09

1.00

4.00

2.00

2.30

1.10

1.00

4.00

3.00

2.71

1.03

1.00

4.00

2.50

2.50

1.12

1.00

4.00

3.00

2.55

1.16

1.00

4.00

3.00

2.70

1.10
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Previous CEO of OCTANe - no longer employed there, but actively involved in iHub. 6/16/2017 4:15 PM
2 I created the iHUB program. 6/5/2017 8:16 AM
3 CleanStart was part of Sarta prior to 2016 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
4 Was a founding board member and past chair of SARTA which managed the iHub 5/22/2017 10:08 AM
Involved as
iHub partner
(2010-
present) (4)
MINIMUM MAXIMUM MEDIAN MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION
North Bay iHub (North San Francisco Bay, also known as Sonoma Mountain Village)
Sacramento iHub (previously identified with SARTA)
San Francisco iHub (previously identified as Mission Bay iHub)
i-GATE iHub (Livermore, CA region)
Palm Springs iHub (previously known as Coachella Valley iHub)
OCTANe iHub (Orange County, CA)
CA State representative
9 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q5 Please select dates for your ongoing role in the iHub (2009 - present)? - You may select
multiple roles per year (column). Estimate of dates is acceptable.PLEASE NOTE: Answer for
the iHub where you were most involved.
Answered: 38 Skipped: 1
18.75%
6
9.38%
3
15.63%
5
15.63%
5
3.13%
1
9.38%
3
6.25%
2
15.63%
5
6.25%
2

32
22.50%
9
12.50%
5
22.50%
9
12.50%
5
2.50%
1
5.00%
2
5.00%
2
12.50%
5
5.00%
2

40
20.83%
10
12.50%
6
25.00%
12
10.42%
5
2.08%
1
10.42%
5
4.17%
2
12.50%
6
2.08%
1

48
21.15%
11
11.54%
6
25.00%
13
11.54%
6
1.92%
1
9.62%
5
5.77%
3
11.54%
6
1.92%
1

52
18.52%
10
11.11%
6
24.07%
13
12.96%
7
1.85%
1
9.26%
5
5.56%
3
14.81%
8
1.85%
1

54
13.73%
7
11.76%
6
21.57%
11
13.73%
7
1.96%
1
9.80%
5
5.88%
3
19.61%
10
1.96%
1

51
12.20%
5
9.76%
4
17.07%
7
19.51%
8
2.44%
1
4.88%
2
4.88%
2
26.83%
11
2.44%
1

41
11.63%
5
9.30%
4
18.60%
8
18.60%
8
2.33%
1
2.33%
1
4.65%
2
30.23%
13
2.33%
1

43
Executive director/Management Board executive committee
Board of directors Community leader Policymaker/Elected official
Key staff iHub coordinator iHub partner org/agency
CA State representative
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR/MANAGEMENT
BOARD
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
COMMUNITY
LEADER
POLICYMAKER/ELECTED
OFFICIAL
KEY
STAFF
IHUB
COORDINATOR
IHUB
PARTNER
ORG/AGENCY
CA STATE
REPRESENTATIVE
TOTAL
RESPONDENTS
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
10 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
13.89%
5
5.56%
2
16.67%
6
19.44%
7
2.78%
1
5.56%
2
8.33%
3
25.00%
9
2.78%
1

36
# PLEASE INDICATE THE IHUB FOR WHICH YOU ARE ANSWERING THIS QUESTION: DATE
1 OCTANe 6/16/2017 4:15 PM
2 Palm Springs 6/8/2017 3:32 PM
3 All of them. 6/5/2017 8:16 AM
4 CleanStart was part of Sarta prior to 2016 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
5 i-Gate 5/31/2017 9:46 AM
6 Livermore 5/29/2017 8:43 AM
7 SARTA 5/28/2017 7:16 PM
8 SF 5/27/2017 10:05 PM
9 Sacramento 5/26/2017 7:18 AM
10 all 5/25/2017 2:33 PM
11 Livermore 5/24/2017 3:47 PM
12 Palm Springs iHub 5/24/2017 9:31 AM
13 Sacramento 5/23/2017 3:39 PM
14 All ihubs 5/23/2017 2:25 PM
15 Livermore 5/22/2017 10:02 PM
16 I-Gate Director, SARTA & iGATE for all others 5/22/2017 9:43 PM
17 i-GATE 5/22/2017 1:19 PM
18 Sacramento 5/22/2017 10:08 AM
2017
11 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q6 Sector(s) you have represented during the iHub program period (2009 - present)? - Select
closest match for each year.
Answered: 38 Skipped: 1
19.05%
4
9.52%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
23.81%
5
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
9.52%
2
0.00%
0
9.52%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4.76%
1
4.76%
1
14.29%
3
4.76%
17.24%
5
10.34%
3
3.45%
1
0.00%
0
24.14%
7
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
6.90%
2
6.90%
2
6.90%
2
3.45%
1
0.00%
0
3.45%
1
3.45%
1
10.34%
3
3.45%
19.44%
7
5.56%
2
2.78%
1
0.00%
0
25.00%
9
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
5.56%
2
8.33%
3
8.33%
3
8.33%
3
0.00%
0
2.78%
1
2.78%
1
8.33%
3
2.78%
18.92%
7
2.70%
1
2.70%
1
0.00%
0
27.03%
10
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
5.41%
2
5.41%
2
8.11%
3
5.41%
2
0.00%
0
8.11%
3
2.70%
1
8.11%
3
5.41%
18.92%
7
2.70%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
24.32%
9
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
8.11%
3
8.11%
3
8.11%
3
5.41%
2
0.00%
0
8.11%
3
2.70%
1
8.11%
3
5.41%
17.95%
7
2.56%
1
2.56%
1
0.00%
0
23.08%
9
2.56%
1
0.00%
0
7.69%
3
10.26%
4
10.26%
4
2.56%
1
0.00%
0
10.26%
4
2.56%
1
2.56%
1
5.13%
18.18%
6
3.03%
1
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
21.21%
7
3.03%
1
0.00%
0
3.03%
1
15.15%
5
6.06%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
12.12%
4
3.03%
1
6.06%
2
6.06%
Government – Local Government – State Government – Federal
Government – Other Non-Profit Foundation University – Private
University – Public Private – Entrepreneur Private – Small Business
Private – Large Business Private – Bank/Financial Services
Private – Angel/Venture investment Research Institution National Lab
N/A
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0 10 20 30 40 50
GOVERNMENT
– LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
– STATE
GOVERNMENT
– FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
– OTHER
NON-
PROFIT
FOUNDATION UNIVERSITY
– PRIVATE
UNIVERSITY
– PUBLIC
PRIVATE –
ENTREPRENEUR
PRIVATE –
SMALL
BUSINESS
PRIVATE –
LARGE
BUSINESS
PRIVATE –
BANK/FINANCIAL
SERVICES
PRIVATE –
ANGEL/VENTURE
INVESTMENT
RESEARCH
INSTITUTION
NATIONAL
LAB
N/A
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
12 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
16.67%
6
2.78%
1
2.78%
1
0.00%
0
19.44%
7
2.78%
1
0.00%
0
8.33%
3
13.89%
5
5.56%
2
2.78%
1
0.00%
0
11.11%
4
2.78%
1
5.56%
2
5.56%
18.75%
6
3.13%
1
3.13%
1
0.00%
0
18.75%
6
3.13%
1
0.00%
0
6.25%
2
9.38%
3
6.25%
2
3.13%
1
0.00%
0
12.50%
4
3.13%
1
6.25%
2
6.25%
# EXPLANATION (IF NEEDED): DATE
1 CVEP is a public/private non profit that manages the iHub for the Ciity of Palm Springs. I am personally invested in several of the
iHub companies.
6/8/2017 3:32 PM
2 I work for local government, but in that capacity, I manage a non-profit startup incubator. 6/1/2017 2:37 PM
3 CleanStart was part of Sarta prior to 2016 5/31/2017 3:33 PM
4 did not understand the question 5/31/2017 11:46 AM
5 I selected non-profit for every year but the last couple of years I wasn't officially non-profit but was doing work in the community
similar to what a non-profit might do. I've been focused on startup community building and support since 2009.
5/26/2017 7:18 AM
6 Partner via regional business organization 5/24/2017 3:47 PM
7 Legal 5/24/2017 3:45 PM
2016
2017
13 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
54.05% 20
18.92% 7
16.22% 6
13.51% 5
10.81% 4
10.81% 4
8.11% 3
8.11% 3
8.11% 3
5.41% 2
Q7 What was your specific role(s) in the initial iHub Program development in 2009? - Select all
that apply.
Answered: 37 Skipped: 2
Total Respondents: 37
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Creator 6/5/2017 8:22 AM
N/A - I was
not involved...
Concept
champion
Part of
proposal...
Primary
proposal author
Proposal lead
Partner
agency/lette...
Support
staff/co-writer
State
representati...
Other (please
specify)
Policymaker/ele
cted official
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
N/A - I was not involved in development of iHub program (2009)
Concept champion
Part of proposal development team
Primary proposal author
Proposal lead
Partner agency/letter of support generated
Support staff/co-writer
State representative/RFP author
Other (please specify)
Policymaker/elected official
14 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
2 I chose these answers assuming that by "proposal" you meant the proposal we wrote to be designated an iHub. But if you mean
the proposal within the State to create the iHub program itself, then disregard theses because I didn't have anything to do with
that!
5/25/2017 2:06 PM
3 Was a founding board member and past chair of SARTA which won the iHub designation 5/22/2017 10:14 AM
15 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
26.09% 6
21.74% 5
13.04% 3
8.70% 2
8.70% 2
8.70% 2
8.70% 2
4.35% 1
0.00% 0
Q8 Please identify the motivation behind your role in the initial iHub Program development
(2009), either as a RFP respondent or State representative.
Answered: 23 Skipped: 16
TOTAL 23
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Increases awareness, and increase access for startups for needed professional services. 6/16/2017 1:28 PM
2 It seemed like the state needed a coordinated approach to fostering innovation and this seemed like a good approach. I also felt
this could be good for the North Bay, could potentially provide more resources in the future, would lead to broader access to
netowrking resources for entreprenuers and could perhaps open up funding in the future.
6/13/2017 5:58 PM
3 To develop a connection with other similar organizations fostering the development and expansion of new business enterprises 5/31/2017 2:05 PM
N/A - I was
not involved...
Self-determinat
ion/-motivation
Other (please
specify)
Seen as
typical job...
Directed by
manager
Requested by
policymaker/...
Felt compelled
by social...
Directed by
existing...
Suggested by
community...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
N/A - I was not involved in 2009
Self-determination/-motivation
Other (please specify)
Seen as typical job duty
Directed by manager
Requested by policymaker/elected official
Felt compelled by social conditions (economy, community pride, etc.)
Directed by existing board/leadership
Suggested by community member/organization
16 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
50.00% 15
46.67% 14
46.67% 14
43.33% 13
36.67% 11
33.33% 10
33.33% 10
33.33% 10
23.33% 7
Q9 At the time of iHub Program development (2009), what discussions or factors do you recall
being present in the local environment (city/county)? – Select all that apply.
Answered: 30 Skipped: 9
Discussions
about...
Need for jobs
Increase
discussion o...
Connecting
knowledge no...
Implementing
regional...
Negative
economic...
Desire to
leverage loc...
N/A - I was
not involved...
Community
pride/self-r...
Wanting to
provide loca...
Workforce
Development
Response to
ARRA funding
Other (please
specify)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Discussions about innovation
Need for jobs
Increase discussion of entrepreneurism/startups/small businesses
Connecting knowledge nodes (university, etc) with business
Implementing regional economic development work plans
Negative economic indicators
Desire to leverage local assets
N/A - I was not involved in 2009
Community pride/self-reliance
17 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
23.33% 7
20.00% 6
16.67% 5
6.67% 2
Total Respondents: 30
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 to leverage state resources 5/28/2017 10:02 PM
2 None 5/21/2017 5:27 PM
Wanting to provide local economic incentives
Workforce Development
Response to ARRA funding
Other (please specify)
18 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q10 Was there one aspect of those factors above that stood out to you at the time concerning
local conditions? - Please explain.
Answered: 18 Skipped: 21
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Interested in connecting our local organization with state wide initiatives and leveraging the collective knowledge of other
statewide organizations.
6/16/2017 6:39 PM
2 I thought it was a wonderful opportunity to showcase and highlight our community in broader market. Statewide. 6/16/2017 1:28 PM
3 Need for jobs - particularly knowledge economy jobs. 6/13/2017 5:58 PM
4 Recession 6/5/2017 8:22 AM
5 Livermore needed a better way to connect with the entrepreneurial side the the National labs. The Hub concept seemed like a
fresh idea to help move this along.
6/2/2017 8:41 AM
6 Connecting knowledge nodes - national labs - with business 6/1/2017 3:17 PM
7 It was the desire to leverage local assets with the prospect of possibly providing local economic incentives which drove us. 5/31/2017 2:05 PM
8 Negative economic indicators - impacting economic development strategic planning 5/30/2017 9:15 AM
9 No 5/28/2017 10:02 PM
10 Negative economic indicators -- i.e. the recession. 5/26/2017 7:21 AM
11 The need to increase the profile of the innovation sector, and its importance to economic health and vitality, in our overall local
economy, and amongst our regional leaders.
5/25/2017 2:06 PM
12 proximity to two national labs 5/24/2017 3:51 PM
13 Increasing or advocating a focus on identifying start-up innovative companies aliened with regional goals, i.e, renewable energy
and related technologies.
5/24/2017 9:43 AM
14 Jobs 5/23/2017 2:31 PM
15 Need for jobs. 5/23/2017 9:07 AM
16 Innovation discussions. National lab desire to increase technology commercialization. 5/22/2017 1:37 PM
17 Accelerating the growth of local technology companies. 5/22/2017 10:14 AM
18 Implementing regional economic development. 5/21/2017 5:27 PM
19 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
51.72% 15
51.72% 15
48.28% 14
48.28% 14
37.93% 11
37.93% 11
31.03% 9
31.03% 9
27.59% 8
Q11 At the time of iHub program development (2009), what discussions or factors do you recall
being present in the regional environment (metro area/multiple counties)? – Select all that apply.
Answered: 29 Skipped: 10
Need for jobs
Implementing
regional...
Discussions
about...
Increase
discussion o...
Connecting
knowledge no...
Desire to
leverage...
Negative
economic...
N/A - I was
not involved...
Community
pride/self-r...
Workforce
Development
Wanting to
provide...
Response to
ARRA funding
Other (please
specify)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Need for jobs
Implementing regional economic development work plans
Discussions about innovation
Increase discussion of entrepreneurism/startups/small businesses
Connecting knowledge nodes (university, etc) with business
Desire to leverage regional assets
Negative economic indicators
N/A - I was not involved in 2009
Community pride/self-reliance
20 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
24.14% 7
24.14% 7
13.79% 4
6.90% 2
Total Respondents: 29
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 desire to leverage State resources 5/28/2017 10:02 PM
2 I didn't see much distinction at that time between local and regional discussions, i.e. the factors involved in both were similar. 5/25/2017 2:06 PM
Workforce Development
Wanting to provide regional economic incentives
Response to ARRA funding
Other (please specify)
21 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q12 Was there one aspect of those factors above that stood out to you at the time concerning
the regional conditions? - Please explain.
Answered: 15 Skipped: 24
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Desire to provide a specific identity in the state for Orange County - separate from Lisa Angeles and San Diego. 6/16/2017 6:39 PM
2 Access to an expanded market and increased awareness of local activity working within the framework of the iHub. New
collaboration opportunities.
6/16/2017 1:28 PM
3 Need for jobs - particularly knowledge economy jobs 6/13/2017 5:58 PM
4 Tri-Valley needed innovation hub to help give the region more recognition. Something to bolster the area as an option to SV, SF
and MB.
6/2/2017 8:41 AM
5 Desire to leverage regional assets 6/1/2017 3:17 PM
6 Need for jobs. 5/31/2017 2:05 PM
7 Same as above 5/30/2017 9:15 AM
8 Desire to leverage state resources 5/28/2017 10:02 PM
9 Supporting entrepreneurs and startups in getting funding and access to resources to further grow their companies. 5/28/2017 7:24 PM
10 negative economic indicators. 5/26/2017 7:21 AM
11 Same as my prior answer. 5/25/2017 2:06 PM
12 Collaborating with neighboring communities initially helped fund the first stage of the developing the iHub program. 5/24/2017 9:43 AM
13 Need for jobs. 5/23/2017 9:07 AM
14 Innovation discussions, including lack of interaction between national labs and regional communities. 5/22/2017 1:37 PM
15 Regional economic development work plans 5/21/2017 5:27 PM
22 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q13 Thinking about the conditions of 2009 (both economic and social), and what you know now
(present), what advice would you give yourself about the iHub program development back
then? - In 50 words or less.
Answered: 17 Skipped: 22
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Provide state economic incentives to complement the work being done. A lot of work done up front with little economic incentive.
Have a few specific collaboration initiatives slated up from the drive some early successes.
6/16/2017 6:39 PM
2 Include the marketing aspects. At the time there was inaccurate information about federal money that would help start the
program.
6/16/2017 1:28 PM
3 It will be a hard road. There will be little funding. Success will revolve around finding a critical mass of innovation (ideation and
business generation), regional research, entrepreneurial talent, and funding/capital (willing to take risks). That is a difficult
alchemy to find/create. And getting funding for non-internet/software businesses will be very tough.
6/13/2017 5:58 PM
4 Empowering local organizations to collaborate and control their own destiny always works. 6/5/2017 8:22 AM
5 I don't have much criticism as to the development of the iHub for Livermore except for the States inability to seed the program
with some start up funds. For the i-Hubs that leveraged an existing program; they took advantage of this program's management
and advisory structure. For iHubs that were newly formed, they had to rely on the good will and marginal funds to lure people to
take on roles, thus making less than optimum choices. In the end it all worked out but some time and momentum were lost.
6/2/2017 8:41 AM
6 Forget about the state following up with funding support for the initiative. Don't spend any time working on that. Focus all efforts
on improving the connections between resources and entrepreneurial efforts.
5/31/2017 2:05 PM
7 Connect more directly and in tangible ways with all regional economic development organizations and initiatives 5/30/2017 9:15 AM
8 Needs to come with $. Otherwise doesn't create the level of priority to motivate/engage other public/private and
local/regional/state/federal partners.
5/28/2017 10:02 PM
9 The iHub designation should have been tied to state funding to help support innovation initiatives. The iHub designation held no
meaning. It was simply a designation.
5/28/2017 7:24 PM
10 Design it so it could be sustainable economically 5/24/2017 3:51 PM
11 Stronger support from the State (funding) would have helped keep the interest of elected officials focused on developing a
sustainable program.
5/24/2017 9:43 AM
12 Need more and larger private industry at the table 5/23/2017 2:31 PM
13 Focus more long term and not on the immediate issues brought on by the recession. 5/23/2017 9:07 AM
14 Assume that you will need change and change sooner than later. 5/22/2017 10:06 PM
15 While lack of iHub program funding by the state may have positively altered the types of organizations that applied for the
designation due to their motivations, the continued lack of funding became a big negative in advancing the program and holding
it together over the long term.
5/22/2017 1:37 PM
16 We were in the middle of a deep recession in the Sacramento region. I would have liked to have done a better job of identifying
companies with high potential and do a better job of tracking the coaching and mentoring they received from our efforts,
including our board members.
5/22/2017 10:14 AM
17 Provide additional support and funding for iHubs. 5/21/2017 5:27 PM
23 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q14 Please rank the value of the 'assets' that you think were most beneficial to the development
of a successful iHub program in 2009.
Answered: 23 Skipped: 16
24 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Technology
business...
Venture
capitalist (...
Angel investor
networks
Incubator/Accel
erator
University
Federal/nationa
l labs
City/county
economic...
Industry-univer
sity researc...
University or
industry R&D...
College/school
of engineering
Regional
economic...
UC Institutes
for Science ...
Makerspace
Business
college/school
Educational
consortia
Federal or
industry...
Business
assistance...
Funding
agencies (li...
Chamber(s) of
commerce
Workforce
development/...
Community
college
0 1 2 3 4 5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
MOST
VALUABLE
VERY
VALUABLE
VALUABLE SOMEWHAT
VALUABLE
NOT
VALUABLE
N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
25 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
39.13%
9
30.43%
7
13.04%
3
13.04%
3
0.00%
0
4.35%
1

23

4.00
33.33%
7
38.10%
8
14.29%
3
9.52%
2
0.00%
0
4.76%
1

21

4.00
45.45%
10
22.73%
5
13.64%
3
13.64%
3
4.55%
1
0.00%
0

22

3.91
27.27%
6
31.82%
7
22.73%
5
13.64%
3
0.00%
0
4.55%
1

22

3.76
28.57%
6
23.81%
5
19.05%
4
23.81%
5
0.00%
0
4.76%
1

21

3.60
22.73%
5
22.73%
5
18.18%
4
27.27%
6
0.00%
0
9.09%
2

22

3.45
13.64%
3
36.36%
8
27.27%
6
13.64%
3
4.55%
1
4.55%
1

22

3.43
15.00%
3
35.00%
7
25.00%
5
15.00%
3
5.00%
1
5.00%
1

20

3.42
10.00%
2
40.00%
8
20.00%
4
15.00%
3
5.00%
1
10.00%
2

20

3.39
19.05%
4
14.29%
3
38.10%
8
19.05%
4
4.76%
1
4.76%
1

21

3.25
9.52%
2
42.86%
9
14.29%
3
19.05%
4
9.52%
2
4.76%
1

21

3.25
20.00%
4
15.00%
3
30.00%
6
15.00%
3
10.00%
2
10.00%
2

20

3.22
15.00%
3
15.00%
3
15.00%
3
10.00%
2
15.00%
3
30.00%
6

20

3.07
5.00%
1
20.00%
4
40.00%
8
25.00%
5
0.00%
0
10.00%
2

20

3.06
4.55%
1
31.82%
7
22.73%
5
27.27%
6
9.09%
2
4.55%
1

22

2.95
10.53%
2
0.00%
0
36.84%
7
21.05%
4
5.26%
1
26.32%
5

19

2.86
9.09%
2
13.64%
3
36.36%
8
22.73%
5
13.64%
3
4.55%
1

22

2.81
9.09%
2
13.64%
3
27.27%
6
22.73%
5
18.18%
4
9.09%
2

22

2.70
5.26%
1
10.53%
2
36.84%
7
21.05%
4
21.05%
4
5.26%
1

19

2.56
9.09%
2
9.09%
2
31.82%
7
18.18%
4
27.27%
6
4.55%
1

22

2.52
5.26%
1
5.26%
1
36.84%
7
36.84%
7
15.79%
3
0.00%
0

19

2.47
# PLEASE EXPLAIN (IF NEEDED). DATE
1 All participants were very helpful. Sources of funding were most impactful. 6/16/2017 6:39 PM
2 The reason to do it was to leverate State resources. 5/28/2017 10:02 PM
3 My choice for "most valuable" is because without that organization the application would quite likely not have happened. The
"N/A" means our region did not have those things in 2009.
5/25/2017 2:06 PM
4 The initial partner mix at the proposal stage was useful in getting the iHub designation, but few were active partners. 5/22/2017 1:37 PM
Technology business networking organization
(non-EDC)
Venture capitalist (VC) networks
Angel investor networks
Incubator/Accelerator
University
Federal/national labs
City/county economic development departments
Industry-university research institutes or
foundations
University or industry R&D facilities
College/school of engineering
Regional economic development organization
(EDC)
UC Institutes for Science and Innovation
Makerspace
Business college/school
Educational consortia
Federal or industry supported Centers of
Excellence
Business assistance organizations (like SBDC)
Funding agencies (like SBA loan centers)
Chamber(s) of commerce
Workforce development/training organization
Community college
26 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
51.61% 16
16.13% 5
16.13% 5
12.90% 4
3.23% 1
0.00% 0
Q15 In developing partnerships for an iHub proposal (2009), did you find agencies and
organizations were supportive or reserved? - Pick closest answer.
Answered: 31 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 31
N/A - I was
not involved...
Most were
supportive a...
Some were
supportive a...
All were
highly...
Few were
supportive a...
Finding
partners was...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
N/A - I was not involved in proposal development
Most were supportive and worked together well
Some were supportive and worked together
All were highly supportive and worked together readily
Few were supportive and partner development was difficult
Finding partners was very difficult, but ultimately successful
27 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q16 Thinking about the question above regarding partners, please describe your overall
experience in creating partnerships, including any specific positive or negative experiences - In
100 words or less
Answered: 11 Skipped: 28
# RESPONSES DATE
1 The iHub proposal process, in itself, was very helpful in pulling the disparate resources together. The requirements of the
application forced us to interact and think about how we could work together.
6/16/2017 6:41 PM
2 Initial concept great, due to personnel changes the execution was difficult. Most iHubs were good partners. 6/16/2017 1:31 PM
3 Some groups were positive and supportive - Sonoma State University, North Bay Angels, Rohnert Park City Council and
Development Agency. Other groups thought this action was competitive, and could focus activity away from their activities in
other regional cities.
6/13/2017 6:01 PM
4 As long as there was a vision and a charming and smart spokesperson and we were showing results, forming and maintaining
partners was straightforward. The difficult partners to attract and maintain were ones who had a myopic vision and felt the need
to show too much immediate benefit. As time went on those partners left but some came back.
6/2/2017 8:45 AM
5 Partnering with for profit business groups proved to be the most effective use of time and resource. Non-profit and government
agencies tended to be too bureaucratic to be effective partners.
5/31/2017 2:07 PM
6 The iHub itself was not significantly positive or negative as it relates to create partnerships. 5/28/2017 10:04 PM
7 I wasn't directly involved in developing partnerships with agencies but in fundraising efforts for SARTA, the iHub designation held
no significance.
5/28/2017 7:27 PM
8 By and large we already had the partners in place whom we then activated for this proposal. This was quite different than the
experience some of the "greenfield" iHubs had, having to build from scratch.
5/25/2017 2:07 PM
9 Working with partners to support the iHub application was positive and brought together companies/agencies that may not have
engaged with each other.
5/24/2017 9:47 AM
10 VCs, C-level execs and professional advisors were the most important partners. 5/22/2017 10:08 PM
11 Partners were relatively easy to put together at the proposal stage despite a two-week window for doing so. 5/22/2017 1:40 PM
28 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
30.00% 6
25.00% 5
20.00% 4
10.00% 2
5.00% 1
5.00% 1
5.00% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q17 To the best of your recollection, who made the 'ultimate' decision to prepare/submit an
iHub proposal (2009)? - Select best fit answer.
Answered: 20 Skipped: 19
TOTAL 20
# PLEASE EXPLAIN (IF NEEDED). DATE
Executive
Director/CEO...
I do not
know/I wasn'...
City Economic
Development
Executive
Committee of...
Board of
Directors of...
City Council
I was a State
representati...
County Board
of Supervisors
County
Economic...
Community
members
Community-based
organization
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Executive Director/CEO of an existing organization
I do not know/I wasn't present
City Economic Development
Executive Committee of an existing organization
Board of Directors of an existing organization
City Council
I was a State representative/involved in the RFP
County Board of Supervisors
County Economic Development
Community members
Community-based organization
29 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
1 Joint effort between me and Goran Matijasevic from UCI. Both were equally involved. All though I ran with it post award. 6/16/2017 6:41 PM
2 Sonoma Mountain Business Cluster 6/13/2017 6:01 PM
3 Because it wasn't truly a financial partnership it didn't carry the same weight as other partnerships. 5/28/2017 10:04 PM
4 It was one of the first things I did upon taking that job. 5/25/2017 2:07 PM
5 At the Mayor's directive - Palm Springs wrote the white paper to the State to initiate the iHub Program 5/24/2017 9:47 AM
6 National lab and city economic development both decided 5/22/2017 1:40 PM
30 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
52.94% 18
44.12% 15
2.94% 1
0.00% 0
Q18 Are you currently involved in the iHub program?
Answered: 34 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 34
Yes
No
Not sure
N/A - I was
only involve...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not sure
N/A - I was only involved in the initial iHub program development
31 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q19 What aspects in the partnership network for the iHub program do/did you find to be the
most rewarding?
Answered: 34 Skipped: 5
53.33%
16
23.33%
7
16.67%
5
6.67%
2
0.00%
0

30

3.23
46.88%
15
31.25%
10
15.63%
5
6.25%
2
0.00%
0

32

3.19
45.16%
14
29.03%
9
16.13%
5
9.68%
3
0.00%
0

31

3.10
38.71%
12
35.48%
11
19.35%
6
6.45%
2
0.00%
0

31

3.06
36.67%
11
30.00%
9
23.33%
7
10.00%
3
0.00%
0

30

2.93
25.81%
8
38.71%
12
25.81%
8
9.68%
3
0.00%
0

31

2.81
37.93%
11
20.69%
6
24.14%
7
17.24%
5
0.00%
0

29

2.79
Very rewarding Rewarding Somewhat rewarding Not rewarding
N/A
Helping
develop...
Knowledge
sharing
Local
engagement
Meeting new
people
Strengthening
existing...
Generating
innovative...
Developing
collaborativ...
Creating
unified...
Increasing
economic...
Coordination
with other i...
Communication
with/from
th...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
VERY
REWARDING
REWARDING SOMEWHAT
REWARDING
NOT
REWARDING
N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Helping develop innovation community
Knowledge sharing
Local engagement
Meeting new people
Strengthening existing relationships
Generating innovative ideas
Developing collaborative spaces
32 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
33.33%
10
26.67%
8
23.33%
7
16.67%
5
0.00%
0

30

2.77
29.03%
9
25.81%
8
32.26%
10
12.90%
4
0.00%
0

31

2.71
6.90%
2
24.14%
7
27.59%
8
24.14%
7
17.24%
5

29

2.17
3.23%
1
25.81%
8
35.48%
11
29.03%
9
6.45%
2

31

2.03
# PLEASE EXPLAIN (IF NEEDED). DATE
1 current program under funded and supported at GoBiz level, making it difficult for one individual to coordinate and manage. 6/16/2017 1:39 PM
2 iHub hosted Innovation themed event and when you bring innovator together, you get innovation. 6/6/2017 12:00 PM
3 It's not clear what "rewarding" means, so I assumed it meant led to positive outcomes. In our case, I would also differentiate
between what outcomes resulted from having an innovation hub (very positive) vs the value derived from being part of the official
iHub network (negligible value).
6/2/2017 9:11 AM
4 totally ineffective program 5/31/2017 11:51 AM
5 All of these things would have been valuable, but our geographic distance from the "hub" made it difficult for us to participate,
and a non-starter for our business community.
5/31/2017 9:52 AM
6 I would say that all of these activities would / will be rewarding when we are doing them well! So, I answered based on what we
are actually doing right now - not on what I'd like to see happen.
5/30/2017 10:02 AM
7 Among the many other priorities, a non-funded program was not near the top of the list. 5/28/2017 10:07 PM
8 Refer to my answer to the previous question. 5/28/2017 7:31 PM
Creating unified innovation programs in region
Increasing economic opportunity
Coordination with other iHub programs
Communication with/from the State Program Office
(GO-Biz)
33 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q20 What aspects in the partnership network for the iHub program do/did you find to be the
most challenging?
Answered: 34 Skipped: 5
10.00%
3
13.33%
4
26.67%
8
36.67%
11
13.33%
4

30

3.04
6.25%
2
21.88%
7
34.38%
11
34.38%
11
3.13%
1

32

3.00
12.90%
4
35.48%
11
22.58%
7
25.81%
8
3.23%
1

31

2.63
13.33%
4
43.33%
13
23.33%
7
20.00%
6
0.00%
0

30

2.50
18.18%
6
30.30%
10
36.36%
12
12.12%
4
3.03%
1

33

2.44
22.58%
7
19.35%
6
9.68%
3
19.35%
6
29.03%
9

31

2.36
29.03%
9
25.81%
8
22.58%
7
19.35%
6
3.23%
1

31

2.33
33.33%
10
33.33%
10
10.00%
3
20.00%
6
3.33%
1

30

2.17
36.67%
11
26.67%
8
26.67%
8
6.67%
2
3.33%
1

30

2.03
Very challenging Challenging Somewhat challenging
Not challenging N/A
Similar
venues/programs
Local iHub
management
Awareness of
innovation...
External
conditions...
Regional
engagement
Coordination
with other...
Support from
policymakers...
Understanding
the value of...
Ability to
aggregate...
Funding for
local iHubs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
VERY
CHALLENGING
CHALLENGING SOMEWHAT
CHALLENGING
NOT
CHALLENGING
N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Similar venues/programs
Local iHub management
Awareness of innovation ecosystem
External conditions (social, economic)
Regional engagement
Coordination with other iHubs
Support from policymakers/elected
officials
Understanding the value of the iHub
program
Ability to aggregate appropriate
resources
34 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
71.88%
23
18.75%
6
3.13%
1
3.13%
1
3.13%
1

32

1.35
# PLEASE EXPLAIN (IF NEEDED). DATE
1 Program started with good idea, as support and participation slowed more difficult to be involved. Value. See note in 19.
apparent lack of support and interest at GoBiz.
6/16/2017 1:39 PM
2 There are nine cities in the Coachella Valley and they have not all adopted the concept of regionalism. Quite frankly some are
colloquial to the core. There is envy from some other cities because of the success that the Palm Springs iHub has had. Funding
is always a challenge when colloquial behavior is the mode of operation of any elected officials. Sometimes I want to shake the
daylights out of some of the elected officials and ask them if their statements are authentic or just showboating for the cameras.
6/8/2017 3:40 PM
3 needed state direction and funding - all we did was guess what might work 5/31/2017 11:51 AM
4 Same statement as with the others made previously. 5/28/2017 10:07 PM
5 These answers are for the Sacramento iHub during the years I was most closely involved, at which point it was operating on a
different model than it now does.
5/25/2017 2:25 PM
6 When the economy improves (overall) there is less interest and focus on "innovation or industrial development". City Councils
focus shifts to other priorities and funding support becomes a bigger challenge.
5/24/2017 9:52 AM
Funding for local iHubs
35 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q21 As it relates to the iHubs now, which sectors do you think provide the most evident
(strongest) engagement for the iHubs? - Answer specific to your iHub, or at the program level if
you are/were a State representative.
Answered: 30 Skipped: 9
Incubator/Accel
erator
City/county
economic...
Local
economic
development...
Makerspace
Federal/nationa
l labs
University
Business
assistance...
Angel investor
networks
Venture
capitalist (...
Technology
business...
Business
school
Community
College
Workforce
development/...
Chamber(s) of
commerce
Funding
agencies (li...
Industry-
univer
sity researc...
University or
industry
R&D...
UC Institutes
for Science ...
College of
engineering
Educational
consortia
36 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
50.00%
14
21.43%
6
14.29%
4
3.57%
1
0.00%
0
10.71%
3

28

4.32
44.83%
13
17.24%
5
17.24%
5
10.34%
3
3.45%
1
6.90%
2

29

3.96
37.04%
10
18.52%
5
22.22%
6
7.41%
2
7.41%
2
7.41%
2

27

3.76
24.00%
6
24.00%
6
12.00%
3
16.00%
4
4.00%
1
20.00%
5

25

3.60
24.00%
6
8.00%
2
20.00%
5
8.00%
2
16.00%
4
24.00%
6

25

3.21
11.54%
3
15.38%
4
38.46%
10
11.54%
3
11.54%
3
11.54%
3

26

3.04
14.81%
4
7.41%
2
37.04%
10
18.52%
5
11.11%
3
11.11%
3

27

2.96
18.52%
5
14.81%
4
18.52%
5
22.22%
6
18.52%
5
7.41%
2

27

2.92
11.54%
3
19.23%
5
26.92%
7
15.38%
4
19.23%
5
7.69%
2

26

2.88
14.81%
4
18.52%
5
11.11%
3
22.22%
6
18.52%
5
14.81%
4

27

2.87
4.17%
1
12.50%
3
33.33%
8
29.17%
7
8.33%
2
12.50%
3

24

2.71
7.69%
2
7.69%
2
42.31%
11
19.23%
5
15.38%
4
7.69%
2

26

2.71
7.69%
2
7.69%
2
34.62%
9
23.08%
6
15.38%
4
11.54%
3

26

2.65
7.69%
2
7.69%
2
34.62%
9
26.92%
7
15.38%
4
7.69%
2

26

2.63
3.70%
1
18.52%
5
18.52%
5
33.33%
9
14.81%
4
11.11%
3

27

2.58
0.00%
0
15.38%
4
30.77%
8
15.38%
4
26.92%
7
11.54%
3

26

2.39
0.00%
0
19.23%
5
19.23%
5
26.92%
7
23.08%
6
11.54%
3

26

2.39
3.85%
1
7.69%
2
19.23%
5
34.62%
9
19.23%
5
15.38%
4

26

2.32
3.85%
1
7.69%
2
23.08%
6
26.92%
7
26.92%
7
11.54%
3

26

2.26
0.00%
0
3.85%
1
23.08%
6
34.62%
9
15.38%
4
23.08%
6

26

2.20
0.00%
0
3.85%
1
11.54%
3
26.92%
7
30.77%
8
26.92%
7

26

1.84
# PLEASE EXPLAIN (IF NEEDED). DATE
Continually engaged Often engaged Occasionally engaged
Rarely engaged Not engaged N/A
Federal or
industry...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CONTINUALLY
ENGAGED
OFTEN
ENGAGED
OCCASIONALLY
ENGAGED
RARELY
ENGAGED
NOT
ENGAGED
N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Incubator/Accelerator
City/county economic development
departments
Local economic development organization
(EDC)
Makerspace
Federal/national labs
University
Business assistance organizations (like
SBDC)
Angel investor networks
Venture capitalist (VC) networks
Technology business networking
organization (non-EDC)
Business school
Community College
Workforce development/training
organizations
Chamber(s) of commerce
Funding agencies (like SBA loan centers)
Industry-university research institute or
foundations
University or industry R&D facilities
UC Institutes for Science and Innovation
College of engineering
Educational consortia
Federal or industry supported Centers of
Excellence
37 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
1 Rohnert Park City economic development was a big supporter. Sonoma County was not much of a supporter (it seemed like they
had their own agenda)
6/13/2017 6:10 PM
2 no one had any idea how the State wanted this to work 5/31/2017 11:51 AM
3 I don't feel qualified to answer. 5/31/2017 9:52 AM
4 Not actively engaged, so can not provide a good answer. 5/28/2017 10:07 PM
38 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
21.88% 7
31.25% 10
9.38% 3
25.00% 8
6.25% 2
6.25% 2
Q22 Has your iHub found being associated with the state-level iHub Program a benefit? -
Please explain in 100 words or less.
Answered: 32 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 32
# PLEASE EXPLAIN DATE
1 Concept great, execution poor. should have been a great source for locals. See previous comments, very little support of the
program at the GoBiz level. Made a recognizable program by state legislature in name only.
6/16/2017 1:47 PM
2 awareness. Credibility. The banner of a state program. But limited due to no funding. 6/13/2017 6:15 PM
3 The state association has been most beneficial to us as a name dropping opportunity. It removes some objections when you can
cite a state affiliation.
6/8/2017 3:48 PM
4 Great connections to thought leaders, but no material support. 6/6/2017 12:08 PM
5 To-date, the state's management of the iHub network has produce no tangible value for our iHub. The rare programmatic
support that is offered is not relevant to the work we are doing, and the state program has actually proved to have negative utility
in the iHubs' efforts to develop state-level funding.
6/2/2017 9:23 AM
6 It was somewhat helpful to be aligned with a greater group. However, since there was no funding to support the infrastructure
which would have been helpful to strengthen the alliance, and to promote its existence, the full potential has not been realized.
5/31/2017 2:19 PM
7 Without financial support, and among many other priorities, hard to fully engage. 5/28/2017 10:10 PM
8 The manager of the Palm Springs iHub (Joe Wallace) is associated with the state-level iHub Program and is in communication
with staff. My answer reflects my specific role, which is to manage Joe's contract.
5/24/2017 10:06 AM
9 GoBiz has been extremely helpful in recharging Sacramento's iHub. It has also helped bring folks together and suggested ways
in which we can engage the state. It's too early to tell, though, if those will be of benefit. It's unclear what the state can do to
make the city more competitive.
5/22/2017 5:34 PM
10 Early on, in particular, it was beneficial and the designation granted a certain amount of credibility. Credibility still applies, but not
much support from the state other than convening meetings between iHubs.
5/22/2017 1:49 PM
11 Truthfully, there was not a great deal of support coming from the State level program. 5/22/2017 10:20 AM
Yes Neutral/neither No Not sure
I am not aware of the State-level program N/A - I am/was a State representative
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
Neutral/neither
No
Not sure
I am not aware of the State-level program
N/A - I am/was a State representative
39 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
12 iGATE would not have the iHub designation without the program existing however no resources from the State have helped with
the maintenance or growth of the effort.
5/22/2017 8:25 AM
40 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
64.52% 20
19.35% 6
12.90% 4
0.00% 0
3.23% 1
Q23 If the iHub Program designation also came with annual funding, would this change your
response to the question above?
Answered: 31 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 31
# PLEASE EXPLAIN. DATE
1 It would have been significantly more valuable. Funding was a real issue. 6/13/2017 6:15 PM
2 In many ways I am most proud of the fact that the Palm Springs iHub was funded locally. From a practical perspective some
amount of state money would have helped and still would UNLESS local elected officials used the state money as an opportunity
to reduce their support by the same amount. I suspect strongly if the state put up $100k per year the local support would drop by
$100k per year. That being the case, it would not matter. Now if the state came in with a million dollars it would have been
different.
6/8/2017 3:48 PM
3 Even a small amount of competitive grant funding would provide a concrete reason for the state-level program to exist. 6/2/2017 9:23 AM
4 There's a huge difference between zero dollars and even $100,000 annually. The whole game would have changed in that
context.
5/28/2017 10:10 PM
5 But it would make it a heck of a lot stronger YES. 5/25/2017 2:29 PM
6 Funding provides tangible resources to make good things happen. HOWEVER, I'm skeptical about how these resources could
be divvied and what kind of impact we're looking to have. I don't think the iHub members agree on this point yet ...
5/22/2017 5:34 PM
7 We kept thinking that funding would be forthcoming, but it never happened. It could have done so much more had that
happened.
5/22/2017 10:20 AM
8 Funding from the State would make all the difference by both helping with funding needs but also signaling the State believes the
iHubs are important to them.
5/22/2017 8:25 AM
Yes No Not sure My iHub no longer identifies itself with the program
N/A - I am/was a State representative
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not sure
My iHub no longer identifies itself with the program
N/A - I am/was a State representative
41 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
0.00% 0
13.33% 4
40.00% 12
23.33% 7
6.67% 2
10.00% 3
3.33% 1
3.33% 1
Q24 What level of annual funding from the State would make the iHub Program designation
more competitive (desirable)?
Answered: 30 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 30
$0 - $49,999
$50,000 -
$99,999
$100,000 -
$249,000
$250,000 -
$499,999
$500,000 -
$999,999
$1 million +
It's not the
State's job ...
N/A - I am a
State...
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
$0 - $49,999
$50,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $249,000
$250,000 - $499,999
$500,000 - $999,999
$1 million +
It's not the State's job to fund the iHubs
N/A - I am a State Representative
42 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
22.58% 7
12.90% 4
41.94% 13
19.35% 6
3.23% 1
Q25 Do you think your iHub has successfully met the goals and objectives outlined in your
original proposal (2009)? - Please explain, in 50 words or less.
Answered: 31 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 31
# PLEASE EXPLAIN. DATE
1 We modified our program in later years. Caused by failure of original financial commitments. 6/16/2017 1:47 PM
2 it was a struggle to get critical mass of resources for entrepreneurs regionally without any funding. 6/13/2017 6:15 PM
3 We met or exceeded every original goal except the number of jobs created. If we counted the indirect job creation calculations
we meet the original goal.
6/8/2017 3:48 PM
4 Our original proposal was not executable without a significant source of capital. Absent that, the iHub's approach has to shift to
be attractive to local funding sources and market opportunities.
6/2/2017 9:23 AM
5 Focus has shifted since 2009 so iHub is successful but not as ORIGINALLY outlined 6/1/2017 3:25 PM
6 The North Bay IHub has successfully brought together the local educational institutions, business groups, angel investors, and
entrepreneurs, to support the incubation and development of new businesses and new jobs in our local area.
5/31/2017 2:19 PM
7 Were there goals? 5/28/2017 7:34 PM
8 I think the original lead entity did well with its scope over the years, though I'm not sure it reached the standard of having
"successfully met" (since that's a high bar). Following the re-set between 2014 and 2016, I think the reconfigured iHub also has
the potential to meet its objectives, which are different, and involves the iHub now working in a far different way than in the
original period.
5/25/2017 2:29 PM
9 Starting from zero, we've built the office incubator center, followed by an accelerator campus, and continue to attract and
graduate start up companies. Jobs have been created and companies have patents (some pending) and some have retained
angel investor support.
5/24/2017 10:06 AM
10 I'm not aware of these goals 5/22/2017 5:34 PM
11 Yes to the spirit of the goals of having the two national laboratories work with the tri-valley communities to create an innovation
ecosystem but the focus has evolved and is broader than the original concept.
5/22/2017 8:25 AM
Yes
No
Not sure
I am not aware
of the...
N/A - I am/was
a State...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
22.58%
22.58%
22.58%
22.58%
22.58%
22.58%
22.58%
12.90%
12.90%
12.90%
12.90%
12.90%
12.90%
12.90%
41.94%
41.94%
41.94%
41.94%
41.94%
41.94%
41.94%
19.35%
19.35%
19.35%
19.35%
19.35%
19.35%
19.35%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not sure
I am not aware of the expectations from our proposal
N/A - I am/was a State representative
43 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
73.33% 22
3.33% 1
3.33% 1
16.67% 5
3.33% 1
Q26 If the State provided funding/resources, would your iHub be incentivized to create/negotiate
annual goals and objectives (with the State) tied to that funding?
Answered: 30 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 30
# PLEASE EXPLAIN (IF NEEDED). DATE
1 To negotiate with the state it would require sufficient knowledge of what the capacity of the region to make entrepreneurship
happen is. Thus far I have not seen any state person engaged enough to negotiate from a position of knowledge.
6/8/2017 3:48 PM
2 Coordinated program like this need a fund to contract local administration. Once the burden of admin is taken off the local iHub,
requesting reporting is no longer a drain on limited resources.
6/6/2017 12:08 PM
3 The State should have given the i-Hubs based on need, startup funds for 5 years. Afterwhich there would be a 2-year taper off.
In addition, Each year the State could have set up a competition for a different pot of money to deliver on specific projects that
each i-Hub could submit proposals for.
6/2/2017 9:04 AM
4 It would be imperative that any funding be defined to specific purposes aligned to the goals established by the state in
coordination with the local IHubs.
5/31/2017 2:19 PM
5 That was certainly the case when I was directly involved; I assume it would still be the case today. 5/25/2017 2:29 PM
6 I'm skeptical about the state setting goals for building innovation ecosystems. Seems discordant 5/22/2017 5:34 PM
7 Funding requires accountability 5/22/2017 12:43 PM
Yes
No
It's not the
State's job ...
Unsure
N/A - I am/was
a State...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
73.33%
73.33%
73.33%
73.33%
73.33%
73.33%
73.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
16.67%
16.67%
16.67%
16.67%
16.67%
16.67%
16.67%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
It's not the State's job to fund the iHub program
Unsure
N/A - I am/was a State representative
44 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
67.86% 19
64.29% 18
64.29% 18
57.14% 16
57.14% 16
53.57% 15
42.86% 12
35.71% 10
7.14% 2
3.57% 1
3.57% 1
Q27 Are there other resources (besides funding) that would be an incentive to being part of the
iHub Program? - Select all that apply.
Answered: 28 Skipped: 11
Total Respondents: 28
# OTHER (PLEASE EXPLAIN) DATE
Engagement
with industr...
Identified as
innovation...
Sponsored
conferences
Increased
promotion/ma...
Interaction
with...
Promotion/recog
nition of iH...
No-cost
training/sem...
More
detail/visib...
I don't
know/can't...
I am happy
with the iHu...
N/A - I am/was
a State...
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Engagement with industry provided by State and other agencies
Identified as innovation experts/resource to others
Sponsored conferences
Increased promotion/marketing by the GO-Biz
Interaction with policymakers/elected officials
Promotion/recognition of iHubs by other State offices/agencies
No-cost training/seminars
More detail/visibility on State (GO-Biz) website
I don't know/can't think of any
I am happy with the iHub Program as it is
N/A - I am/was a State representative
45 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
1 Tax incentives for local businesses to work with the iHubs 6/17/2017 10:24 PM
2 The best thing the state could do is hook us up with businesses like Google or Apple that may sponsor us or be customers to our
companies.
6/8/2017 3:48 PM
3 Software infrastructure and training. Access to meeting spaces. 6/6/2017 12:08 PM
4 The creation of a resource portal to help the iHubs implement each other's best practices would be useful. 6/2/2017 9:23 AM
5 Ability to have programs/resources in closer proximity to our city. 5/31/2017 9:55 AM
46 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
40.00% 12
10.00% 3
46.67% 14
3.33% 1
Q28 If the iHub program was to be re-competed today, would your agency/organization consider
applying? - Please explain, in 50 words or less.
Answered: 30 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 30
# PLEASE EXPLAIN. DATE
1 No longer affiliated with OCTANe, but I would recommend yes. 6/17/2017 10:24 PM
2 Not sure. I am working in industry in another state and no longer connected. 6/13/2017 6:15 PM
3 It is a big success here. The Palm Springs iHub has positively impacted many lives including mine and my staff's. 6/8/2017 3:48 PM
4 Collaboration is the best way forward. 6/6/2017 12:08 PM
5 The value proposition of the program would have to be identified in concrete terms. If it was re-competed with the current value
prop, then no.
6/2/2017 9:23 AM
6 I think we know more about what we are doing now, and would know more about the questions to ask as well as how to optimize
the local implementation of the program given better understanding of what it is and what it isn't .
5/31/2017 2:19 PM
7 Not in its current configuration vis-à-vis location. 5/31/2017 9:55 AM
8 As part of a collaborative structure 5/30/2017 9:22 AM
9 But only if annual $ were associated with it. 5/28/2017 10:10 PM
10 "Not sure" just bc I'm no longer the decision-maker on that point. But I think, implicitly, the answer is yes, since the new lead
agency opted to take it on recently, instead of letting the designation lapse.
5/25/2017 2:29 PM
11 The current elected officials do not seem to carry the same vision or interest in the program as past elected officials. 5/24/2017 10:06 AM
12 SARTA no longer exists 5/23/2017 3:42 PM
13 Not mission critical to our objectives 5/22/2017 5:34 PM
14 We feel that the iGATE iHub is a value to the national laboratory and the region and continue to support it with time and funding. 5/22/2017 8:25 AM
Yes
No
Not sure
N/A - I am/was
a State...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
10.00%
46.67%
46.67%
46.67%
46.67%
46.67%
46.67%
46.67%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
3.33%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not sure
N/A - I am/was a State representative
47 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
Q29 Is there anything else you would like to highlight about your experience (past or present)
with developing or managing the iHub program? - in 100 words or less.
Answered: 16 Skipped: 23
# RESPONSES DATE
1 While the iHub program was not perfect, I found it very helpful in connecting like minded organizations from across the state. If it
were to be tied, materially, to specific objectives, it would become very powerful.
6/17/2017 10:25 PM
2 No, I believe I outlined the issues in previous comments above. The program has great potential but if GoBiz owns it the need to
act like that.
6/16/2017 1:52 PM
3 I thought the people running the iHubs were actually a very interesting and talented group of people. It was a good support
structure for these leaders.
6/13/2017 6:17 PM
4 My background as a technology entrepreneur with an engineering degree is responsible for much of the success in Palm
Springs. We have exactly zero people involved who come from the government sector. My observation with respect to struggling
iHubs is that the directors were either lifetime patronage job holders or on the verge of retirement. If you want to train and mentor
entrepreneurs you need entrepreneurs in charge of the program. Many iHubs did not take this route and the results show.
6/8/2017 3:51 PM
5 Funding a local coordinator would help synergize the regional efforts without placing a burden on local iHubs. 6/6/2017 12:10 PM
6 Most of the iHubs are focused on high-growth tech industries, but the way they approach this and the on-the-ground conditions
vary widely from iHub to iHub. GO-Biz should focus on providing resources that are useful to as many iHubs as possible, namely
funding, developing relevant metrics, amplifying success stories, and scaling best practices across the state.
6/2/2017 9:28 AM
7 It would have been beneficial to know at the outset that there would not be any funding available for the IHub project. We may
have tasked our resources differently so as to be more effective at performance rather than spending any time or energy trying
to understand how to attain funding to support the program from the state.
5/31/2017 2:21 PM
8 There is a need for the State to step into this space and understand the nuances and sophistication of these ecosystems. Then
truly work within them to use innovation for longterm economic and workforce development planning efforts.
5/31/2017 11:42 AM
9 It took some time to get going but we are finally seeing the impact. More $s from state and local govt would have helped move
things faster.
5/29/2017 8:52 AM
10 The State iHub staff did a great job...but without any financial support by the State to the iHubs it never made it beyond a 5 out of
10 as a priority due to many other day-to-day priorities.
5/28/2017 10:11 PM
11 Connecting with other iHubs one-on-one was a key value I derived personally. I hope that opportunity continues, but I'm not sure
how well the State will hold the program together now that Louis has left.
5/25/2017 2:33 PM
12 Great benefit was bringing regional municipal agencies together for a common core. Economic development should be regional
in nature.
5/24/2017 3:49 PM
13 Thank you Rob for being part of the initial team to create the iHub Program. 5/24/2017 10:07 AM
14 The iHub's greatest value seems to be a platform for connecting ecosystem players who, in turn, are building the innovation
economy. NOT funding a new entity trying to do the same thing.
5/22/2017 5:35 PM
15 The viability of an iHub depends largely on leadership, funding, and actively managed relational connections with the partners
and community.
5/22/2017 1:51 PM
16 No 5/22/2017 8:25 AM
48 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
85.71% 24
14.29% 4
Q30 If I have follow-up questions from your responses, would it be okay to contact you by
phone?
Answered: 28 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 28
# IF YES, PLEASE PROVIDE THE BEST PHONE NUMBER. DATE
1 760-712-2539 6/17/2017 10:25 PM
2 415.352.8819 out of office 6/16-6/26 6/16/2017 1:52 PM
3 7074801577 6/13/2017 6:17 PM
4 812 431-3877 6/8/2017 3:51 PM
5 707-636-4732 6/6/2017 12:10 PM
6 925-784-5731 6/2/2017 9:28 AM
7 7074774546 5/31/2017 2:21 PM
8 9167992221 5/31/2017 11:42 AM
9 510-284-4024 5/31/2017 9:55 AM
10 925-222-0124 5/28/2017 7:44 PM
11 9167700210 5/28/2017 7:34 PM
12 9162611873 5/26/2017 7:29 AM
13 You know my number, Rob! :-) 5/25/2017 2:33 PM
14 916-803-4000 5/22/2017 10:20 AM
Yes
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
49 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
100.00% 20
0.00% 0
Q31 I would like to receive an electronic copy of study when completed:
Answered: 20 Skipped: 19
# NAME DATE
There are no responses.
# COMPANY DATE
There are no responses.
# ADDRESS DATE
There are no responses.
# ADDRESS 2 DATE
There are no responses.
# CITY/TOWN DATE
There are no responses.
# STATE/PROVINCE DATE
There are no responses.
# ZIP/POSTAL CODE DATE
There are no responses.
# COUNTRY DATE
There are no responses.
# PREFERRED EMAIL ADDRESS: DATE
1 mjenusaitis@ucsd.edu 6/17/2017 10:25 PM
2 dconaghan@sfced.org 6/16/2017 1:52 PM
3 joe.wallace@cvep.com 6/8/2017 3:51 PM
4 oren@sustainablenorthbay.org 6/6/2017 12:10 PM
5 brandon.cardwell@igateihub.org 6/2/2017 9:28 AM
6 bibeau1@llnl.gov 6/2/2017 9:04 AM
7 thomas@cleanstart.org 5/31/2017 3:39 PM
8 ddillwood@dbmcpa.com 5/31/2017 2:21 PM
9 lstewart@cityofsacramento.org 5/31/2017 11:42 AM
10 monique@sacramento.io 5/30/2017 10:03 AM
11 rsharp@ucdavis.edu 5/30/2017 9:22 AM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Name
Company
Address
Address 2
City/Town
State/Province
ZIP/Postal Code
Country
Preferred email address:
Phone Number
50 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey
12 hal@laflash.com 5/28/2017 7:44 PM
13 donna@outsideintoday.com 5/28/2017 7:34 PM
14 thegoodlaura@gmail.com 5/26/2017 7:29 AM
15 meg@gsdconsulting.net 5/25/2017 2:33 PM
16 Cathy.vanhorn@palmspringsca.gov 5/24/2017 10:07 AM
17 spinkerton@comcast.net 5/23/2017 9:10 AM
18 aaron@impactvc.com 5/22/2017 5:35 PM
19 bruce@brucebalfour.com 5/22/2017 1:51 PM
20 dave@worldbridgepartners.com 5/22/2017 10:20 AM
# PHONE NUMBER DATE
There are no responses.
51 / 51
Survey on the CA Innovation Hubs SurveyMonkey

Abstract (if available)

Abstract To better understand how context can be a determinant factor on leaders in the development of innovation clusters, this study reviews the social, political, and physical factors present during the California Innovation Hub (iHub) program’s creation, early development, and maturation over the period of 2009 to 2017. ❧ Set against the backdrop of a global economic crisis in 2009, later denoted as the Great Recession, the State of California endeavored to find ways to rapidly create jobs and increase state revenues. Utilizing cluster strategies made popular by Porter (2000), the effort was focused on fostering several new innovation ecosystems across the state, while taking full advantage of the existing, robust entrepreneurial activities already taking place in Silicon Valley and San Diego. The iHub program was intended to be a framework for the state to partner across sectors, with specific leadership directed from academia and national labs, with the intent of realizing increased opportunities that took advantage of latent innovation throughout California. ❧ In the intervening time since inception, there have been several program changes at the state-level and in the regional iHubs. Some programs are financially stable and provide many resources to their respective regions, while some programs have been closed and subsequently delisted from designation. To that end, this study focuses on the social, political, and geographic settings of the first six iHubs, comparing the context of the successful iHubs to the those that have struggled. By understanding how leaders act (and are acted upon) by the conditions around them, the state can use this study to identify opportunities to improve the iHub program.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The future of work: defining a healthy ecosystem that closes skills-gaps

PDF

The institutionalization of nonprofit management: emergence, development, and legitimization

PDF

Does collaborative R&D policy work? The effect of collaborative R&D policy on innovative activities of firms in Korea

PDF

Governing regional collaboratives: institutional design, management and leadership

PDF

Emerging technology and its impact on security policy

PDF

Planning care with the patient in the room: a patient-focused approach to reducing heart failure readmissions

PDF

Outcomes-based contracting through impact bonds: ties to social innovation, systems change, and international development

PDF

Elements of a successful multi-sectoral collaborative from a local government perspective: a framework for collaborative governance – dimensions shared by award winning multi-sectoral partnerships

PDF

Legislative term limits in California and the faces of change

PDF

Technological innovation in public organizations

PDF

The role of leadership and collaboration as a catalyst for regional economic development: a grounded theory study

PDF

Life without nuclear power: a nuclear plant retirement formulation model and guide based on economics: San Onofre nuclear generating station case: economic impacts and reliability considerations ...

PDF

Mitigating the energy efficiency gap through Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): an assessment of the HERO Program in Riverside County, CA

PDF

Examining the federal credit union model in the 21st century

PDF

Lessons learned from the FHWA State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program, 1995 to 2016

PDF

A view from below: the development and role of organizational social capital in neighborhood regeneration in Los Angeles

PDF

The effects of interlocal collaboration on local economic performance: investigation of Korean cases

PDF

Fostering a newly defined entrepreneurship in impoverished communities: a key component of the solution for eradicating poverty in America

PDF

The functions of the middleman: how intermediary nonprofit organizations support the sector and society

PDF

Water security, national security and MCIWest: a grounded theory for operationalizing risk management

Asset Metadata

Creator White, Mandale Robert ""Rob"" (author)

Core Title The context of leadership in the development of California’s innovation hubs

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 09/26/2017

Defense Date 06/20/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag California iHub,California innovation hub,economic development,GO-Biz,GoED,iHub,innovation,innovation ecosystem,innovation hub,innovation leadership,innovation management,leadership context,OAI-PMH Harvest,regional innovation cluster

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Denhardt, Robert B. (committee chair), Koonce, James ""Buck"" (committee member), Robertson, Peter J. (committee member)

Creator Email mandalew@usc.edu,mrobtwhite@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-438436

Unique identifier UC11265632

Identifier etd-WhiteManda-5776.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-438436 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WhiteManda-5776.pdf

Dmrecord 438436

Document Type Dissertation

Rights White, Mandale Robert ""Rob""

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA