1. No category

international
J im Math e s o n
How to get real innovation
flowing in the water industry
Serious challenges plague
the water industry, in part
because of a lack of
collaboration and
openness to looking beyond
the status quo; innovative
water clusters across the
globe provide excellent
models for delivering such
collaborative solutions to
the global marketplace.
108
L
et’s face it—the easy problems in the water industry have already
been solved. To tackle the next wave of truly challenging problems
over the coming years, the water industry must embrace new models of innovation and collaboration with the goal of enacting several
step-change improvements across the global landscape. Accomplishing this will require new ways of thinking, increased investment in research and
development (R&D) leading to breakthrough technologies, cross-discipline
dialogue to break down barriers for more rapid development of new solutions,
more flexible business models to share risk and reward and reduce nontechnology barriers to deploying these new solutions, and courageous legislation to
enact pricing signals to drive much needed behavioral changes.
RECOGNIZING THE CHALLENGES
One significant challenge for accelerating progress in the water industry,
especially in the United States, is determining who owns the innovation mandate. The fragmentation of the industry and resultant solution sets, coupled
with the differing frameworks and the opaque pricing signals of regulatory
agencies, have left the innovation question at the starting gate. Unlike other
technology sectors, it is much less clear who in industry, government, or the
marketplace is charged with, resourced, and engaged enough to drive real
change in the water sector. The US Environmental Protection Agency does
excellent work in many important areas; however, unlike its peer agencies,
it has a relatively small focus on R&D and has traditionally been more
MAY 2013 | JOURNAL AWWA • 105:5 | MATHESON
2013 © American Water Works Association
comfortable wielding a stick than a
carrot. Although everyone alludes
to the water–energy nexus, myself
included, the US Department of
Energy and, in particular, its innovation-focused Advanced Research
Projects Agency–Energy have done
little about engaging in R&D
efforts in water technology. Perhaps
the most troubling symptom is the
uniform sense of resignation among
long-time water industry players in
this dialogue. Through my involvement in financing and now leading
Oasys Water (providing forward
osmosis desalination technology),
I have seen enough to appreciate
the frustration of my much longer
tenured colleagues—the pace of
evolution in the water industry can
leave you deeply wanting. It does
not need to be this way.
ENGAGING KEY PLAYERS
A much more open approach to
innovation and collaboration is
required to deliver truly novel solutions and grow the industry. This
innovation and collaboration must
fall to leaders from across the industry, including those in larger water
companies, small startup companies,
research settings, legislation, and
regulation. Together we can drive this
innovation dialogue and mandate by
using our collective knowledge to
make courageous and creative decisions. We have the power to drive
innovation and realize the economic
benefit of growing the market and
profitability of new solutions.
If we can embrace a fresh mindset on innovation, the water industry will be much more able to meet
the world’s rapidly rising demand
for freshwater, simultaneously
reduce the cost to produce and
reuse water, and deliver ever more
sustainable solutions. So, where to
begin? Taking a fresh approach to
innovation will not be easy or
quick, but there are already important and influential models of such
innovation and collaboration that
we can borrow from and adapt to
the water industry.
UNDERSTANDING INNOVATION
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
However we think about the various innovation frameworks, there is
one certainty—innovation will happen. The pressures of technology
advancements, customer demands,
entrepreneurship, and the confluence
of collaborations all create the reality that innovation is always taking
place, with or without any specific
participant’s involvement or awareness. Because there is no avoiding
the effects of innovation, we must
embrace it and increase the pace of
innovation so we can more readily
benefit from its rewards.
Real innovation is more critical
than ever to the water industry
because of its central role as the key
driver for sustainable growth and a
view of the aging and inefficient
water infrastructure across the
world, acknowledge the fact that
nearly 1 billion people do not have
access to freshwater, calculate the
significant amount of energy currently used to produce and transport
water (and how little of it is renewable), chronicle the dangerously low
and ever-decreasing levels of fresh
water reserves in most regions
around the globe, and think about
the increasing societal and geopolitical impact of this scarcity.
What innovation can do. A more
robust innovation dynamic in the
water industry would increase
the pace of new technologies and
business models to tackle the
challenges we face and
increase the overall
The pace of evolution in the water industry
can leave you deeply wanting.
It does not need to be this way.
healthy planet. However, given the
industry’s complexity and fragmentation, its often Byzantine regulatory
process, and relatively slow adoption
cycles, it has largely experienced what
Clayton Christensen (1997) has
dubbed “sustaining innovation.”
There have been some disruptive
technologies, but they have been rare.
Where innovation is needed. Perhaps the simplest definition of real
innovation for this discussion is
where new ideas, technologies and/
or models are brought together to
solve real problems. Given this definition, many participants in the
water industry will rightfully claim
that they are already being innovative and will correctly point to internal R&D labs, new products, and
influential and profitable projects
being developed around the world.
However, we can hardly be satisfied
with the status quo of innovation in
this sector when we take an objective
peace and
prosperity of
the planet. More
innovation would
result in increased
amounts of funding for
R&D at leading universities
and government-funded research
centers. An increased focus on innovation would attract more entrepreneurs to commercialize these
technologies and venture capital
funding to support the companies
that are created. Increased innovation would reduce the barriers to
industry incumbents and facility
owners/managers collaborating
with these new companies to help
validate their new technologies and
accelerate driving successful new
solutions to scale. Innovation would
also create a more aggressive benchmark for what is technologically and
economically possible, which would
inform and drive new regulations
MATHESON | 105:5 • JOURNAL AWWA | MAY 2013
2013 © American Water Works Association
109
that are more harmonized with the
industry’s increased capabilities.
But how does an industry as large,
complex, and fragmented as water
more consciously and deliberately
embrace innovation?
How to move forward. One im­­
portant mechanism that deserves
significant examination is the idea of
water innovation clusters. Yes, water
clusters already exist, and they are
definitely not a silver-bullet solution
for the industry’s issues. However,
clusters can be highly influential if
we expand our efforts beyond creating new centers of excellence to
focus on expanding and improving
existing clusters. We must also strive
to deliberately and productively collaborate across all water clusters.
REALIZING THE POWER
OF INNOVATION CLUSTERS
aND COLLABORATION
A cluster, as made globally
known by Michael E. Porter (2000),
is “a geographic concentration of
competing and cooperating companies, suppliers, service providers,
and associated institutions.” Water,
perhaps more than any other
resource or industry, affects all
types of communities, from the
global human community to every
localized collection of citizens.
Because water is a global resource
and a global problem, it is natural
that water clusters should and will
continue to form everywhere.
The value of regional models. Contrary to the discussion in some circles
that there are already too many
water clusters, this proliferation is
healthy, and indeed necessary. Each
individual cluster need not be aimed
at becoming the next global center of
R&D excellence. For many, the more
modest goal should be to serve as a
mechanism for regional participants
to identify and solve pressing local
problems. Because many of these
problems will have manifested elsewhere, the ability to share best practices, replicate solutions, and build on
successes across these various locales
is key to accelerating progress.
110
Water is a global challenge and a
global industry that requires a global
dialogue and innovation framework,
with the goal to find models of collaboration and communication. This
can enable the acceleration of innovation, which can allow local clusters to learn from one another and
still embrace their own unique context, attributes, and needs.
Massachusetts: Innovation cluster
in action. One of the most robust
and diverse innovation clusters in
the world is in operation in Massachusetts. Although this state has its
fair share of idiosyncrasies and challenges, it is worth examining as an
exemplar of what a deliberate and
broad-based focus on innovation
can yield. Massachusetts has been
home to many waves of innovation
and industry clusters throughout the
past 400 years. It has seen the ups
and down s o f th e r elen tles s
onslaught of these innovation waves.
Over this tenure, the region has
developed an adaptability to change,
a focus on the future, and a penchant for integrated public/private
dialogue. As Massachusetts strives
to add water to its long list of industries it embraces to serve the global
markets, I hope others can learn
from our efforts as they move forward with their own innovation
cluster initiatives.
Looking back to the founding of
the Massachusetts cluster. Massachusetts was an original enclave for
European settlers. It was home to one
of the world’s most active and successful whaling communities beginning in the mid-1700s and lasting
until the first half of the 1900s, when
whale oil was largely replaced by
petroleum. This “disruptive innovation” left a once vibrant whaling
community working desperately to
find new industries to embrace and
skill sets to develop. Massachusetts’s
availability of natural resources such
as hydroelectric power and its preeminence as a shipping port also
enabled it to become a globally
important center for manufacturing
and textiles. The remains of this
MAY 2013 | JOURNAL AWWA • 105:5 | MATHESON
2013 © American Water Works Association
industrial success can be seen across
many New England towns where the
iconic brick mills have been converted into modern offices and flexible incubator spaces to house today’s
generation of startup companies.
Modern innovation clusters in
Massachusetts. Over the past few
decades, Massachusetts has leveraged its good fortune of having an
exceptional academic base, highly
educated work force and entrepreneurial culture, and proactive community and governmental leadership to develop global centers of
excellence in financial services,
defense technology, information
and communications technology,
and more recently “clean technology.” However, none of Massachusetts’s clusters are more globally
dominant and influential than its
life science and biotechnology cluster, which continues to evolve. The
roots of today’s cluster go back to
the late 1970s with the founding of
companies such as Biogen Idec,
Genzyme Corporation, and Boston
Scientific, which were the result of
the close collaboration between the
academic community and heath
care industry. Now, more than 30
years later, hundreds of companies
in this cluster have formed and
flourished, thousands of new potential drugs and medical devices have
been developed, and tens of thousands of jobs have been created.
This cluster has become a model
worthy of emulation.
Building blocks for a successful
cluster in Massachusetts. To build
on this history and to ensure its
continued success, the newest era of
the Massachusetts life sciences cluster was initiated during the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s
2007 conference. There Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick an­­
nounced a new Massachusetts Life
Sciences Initiative, a $1 billion
investment package to be implemented over 10 years to enhance
and strengthen Massachusetts’s
leadership in the life sciences industry. This initiative focused on five
key dimensions of the development
cycle to ensure a comprehensive
cluster strategy:
• funding,
• planning,
• research,
• development,
• commercialization.
These five areas were embodied in
a set of cohesive programs designed
to bring together the health care
industry, teaching hospitals, and academic laboratories. The end goal was
to spur new research, strengthen
investments, create new jobs, and
produce new solutions for an
increased quality of life.
As an important part of this initiative, the Massachusetts Life Sciences
Center was created. The center is a
quasipublic agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is
tasked with investing in life sciences
research and economic development
programs. The center’s mission
includes making financial investments
in public and private institutions that
will grow life sciences research, development, and commercialization and
build ties between the sectors of the
Massachusetts life sciences community. As a central part of driving this
cluster forward, the center focuses on
scientific and economic development
and strategic investments at critical
stages of the development cycle. The
center also helps drive collaboration
with the private sector to create innovation infrastructure critical to both
re­­searchers and companies.
These core building blocks are an
excellent template for any cluster,
regardless of industry focus or geography. The core focus on R&D to
commercialization is appropriate
given the technology centricity of the
health care industry and the proclivity of Massachusetts toward startup
companies. These important elements transcend industry specifics
and provide the foundation for fruitful cluster formation within the
water industry.
• Engage public and private stakeholders. The importance of the public/private interface is particularly
important and yet is often the most
challenging. The magnitude of
today’s most vexing problems
requires a deliberate and nuanced
dialogue between legislators, regulators, companies, and researchers.
Although money from the government is often helpful and instigating,
it is more important for government
to focus on reducing the friction in
deploying solutions by designing
permitting processes that are harmonized with commercial development
timelines. The Massachusetts Life
Science Center broadly engaged
stakeholders and acknowledged the
life cycle of solutions. Programs
were designed to be broad, ambitious, and integrated so that the
implementation of these solutions
did not get unnecessarily stalled at
key points in development.
not explicitly a mission agenda
item. However, when in Israel the
topic of water is never far from any
discussion. As the legend now goes,
in the middle of one of Governor
Patrick’s presentations, water industry icon Booky Oren entered the
room and shuffled to the front of
the crowd. Oren soon found an
opportunity to ask the governor
why Massachusetts did not have a
water cluster that could join the
other important industry clusters
already in place in Massachusetts.
Oren has more reason than most to
understand this topic. As a former
executive chairman of Mekorot
Israel National Water Company in
Tel Aviv, Israel, and past chairman
of WATEC Israel, he has been part
of helping shape Israel as a global
water cluster. Oren suggested to
If we can embrace a fresh mind-set on innovation,
the water industry will be much more able to meet
the world’s rapidly rising demand for freshwater.
• Shape marketplace-based solutions. The other dynamic that often
arises when government is engaged
in driving solutions is adverse selection—the view that all solutions
should be given equal opportunity to
succeed. It is vital when designing
programs in a public/private framework that the marketplace is used to
determine the best solutions based
on the efficacy and sustainability of
the approach, and ultimately on the
value delivered to the community
and customers.
THE SEEDS FOR A
MASSACHUSETTS WATER
CLUSTER
In March of 2011, a contingent
of Massachusetts business and government leaders, including participants from Massachusetts’s leading
industries, accompanied Governor
Patrick to Israel on a broad-based
trade mission. Ironically, water was
Governor Patrick that Massachusetts had the opportunity and the
obligation to take a leadership role
in the important water sector and
that it could serve as an important
bridge to other water clusters and
other areas in need of innovative
water solutions.
Upon returning home, Governor
Patrick launched a full-fledged effort
to explore Massachusetts’s viability
as a water cluster. The first step was
to understand what resources and
assets Massachusetts already had
and what other water cluster initiatives were under way and worthy of
emulation and collaboration. Also
critical was how best to move forward with shaping Massachusetts’s
efforts to build on its deep innovation roots and add water to its long
list of industry foci.
An important admonition from
Brookings Institution thought leaders Mark Muro and Bruce Katz
MATHESON | 105:5 • JOURNAL AWWA | MAY 2013
2013 © American Water Works Association
111
(2010) notes: “Don’t try to create
clusters. Clusters can’t be created out
of nothing, and cluster initiatives
should only be attempted where
resources and capabilities already
exist. The pre-existence of a cluster
means that an industry hotspot has
passed the market test. By contrast,
efforts at wholesale invention will
likely be fraught with selection
issues, inefficiency, and probable
failure and waste.”
Fortunately, upon closer examination, it soon became clear that Massachusetts was rich with water
industry expertise and that a cluster
of sorts was already in place.
complex coastal regions, water was
never too far out of sight or mind.
Although these resources and
activities already existed, there was
no connectivity between them or
existing mechanisms for collaboration among the players. There had
never been an attempt to drive a
common set of aspirations for water
in the region. It was not even clear if
there was a common desire to take
steps toward formalizing a water
cluster in the region.
Shaping the Massachusetts water
cluster. To balance these tensions and
to define and cultivate common
ground, a small, diverse leadership
Because water is a global resource and a global
problem, it is natural that water clusters should
and will continue to form everywhere.
Although New England does not
suffer from the same water scarcity
challenges as other regions, its
world-class research base and educated workforce have created a fertile environment for water technology companies to form and thrive,
including: General Electric Company (building on its acquisition of
the Ionics business, which was notably formed in Watertown, Mass.),
Siemens AG, and Koch Membrane
Systems. Global engineering firm
CDM Smith originated in Massachusetts, and a slew of new startups
targeting dimensions of current
problems in the water industry operate in Boston. Most of the local universities, including Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Harvard
University, University of Massachusetts System, and Northeastern University have had important waterrelated research efforts in place.
Government leadership has been
engaged and interested in water, as
seen in strong local water management programs run by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.
Given Massachusetts’s large and
112
group spent several months interacting among various Massachusetts
water industry players. During this
effort, there quickly emerged obvious
support and enthusiasm to produce
an event to bring together leaders of
the various Massachusetts-based
organizations, companies, researchers, and governmental leaders. Thus,
the Symposium on Water Innovation
in Massachusetts (SWIM) was born.
This symposium, held in May of
2012, convened senior water industry
executives from across Massachusetts
to explore the question: “Can Massachusetts become a premier global
water innovation cluster?”
The primary goal and key success
factor of SWIM was to successfully
gather and engage senior leadership
from many of the key stakeholder
groups. This was accomplished
by a strong outreach effort to the
desired participants from a credible, en­­gaged planning committee.
Perhaps obvious but critical was
ensuring that all the participants
were very senior in their own right,
thereby keeping the dialogue and
ability to influence at a very high
MAY 2013 | JOURNAL AWWA • 105:5 | MATHESON
2013 © American Water Works Association
level. Finally, the event leveraged the
in­­herent convening authority of the
government by having invitations
come from the governor’s cabinet
members, who provided a seamless
articulation of the public/private
dimensions of the undertaking.
The SWIM agenda included briefings on water innovation and activities at other water clusters around
the United States and the world and
helped identify and inventory the
assets that were already resident in
Massachusetts. It also included
roundtable discussions where small,
cross-discipline groups engaged
around specific topics and questions
and reported out to the larger
group. The mechanism facilitated
(and, in some cases, forced) a dialogue across the various perspectives, and highlighted the inherent
differences and natural tensions. It
also identified important common
ground and aligned incentives for
pursuing the initiative.
After two days of discussion, it
was evident the many disparate parties who had gathered for the event
had rallied together around the
aspiration to formalize a Massachusetts water cluster. This was driven
not only by the necessary enlightened self-interest that was provoked
by the aligned incentives, but also
by an unexpected uprising of passion to be part of solving an important global problem.
The final element was ensuring
that the group identified and took
ownership of a set of key action
items that would drive the initiative
forward. Often these meetings take
place without the necessary prep
work, and more often without
building in a mechanism to have
the participants take ownership of
the action items needed to continue
the momentum required to create
real change.
One of the main action items of
the event was for the Massachusetts’s water industry leaders to
interact and learn from other leading water clusters around the world
to better understand how best to
define Massachusetts’s unique attributes and also to make collaboration across clusters a key mandate.
In this spirit, and as a nod to Israel’s
leadership in the water industry and
its role in precipitating Massachusetts’s own nascent water cluster, a
water industry trade mission to
Israel was organized and undertaken
in December 2012.
A water industry trade mission to
Israel. The trade mission included 40
Massachusetts-based water researchers, executives, investors, and government leaders. The agenda took the
group across Israel where mission participants visited Israel’s key water
treatment and desalination facilities,
had discussions with leading water
researchers, and were exposed to the
holistic approach the country has
taken to becoming water-independent.
The agenda was appropriately
aggressive, with the goal to maximize
the impact of the four days in Israel.
For some, it was the first time to see
a huge array of reverse osmosis membrane elements or an energy-recovery device. For others, the history of
water innovation from Roman times
to the present provided an important
perspective on today’s challenges.
For all, the singularity of focus and
the design of the Israeli water framework provided a clean template from
which to imagine making changes
back in Massachusetts.
As with SWIM, the central success
of this trade mission was in engaging
40 high-level participants from a
diverse landscape of stakeholders
and providing a fresh and provocative context for them to experience
together. The group included academic researchers working on water
issues around the globe, senior executives leading global water companies, startup companies striving to
bring new ideas and technologies
into the marketplace, and venture
capital investors supporting these
endeavors with capital. There were
also members of the Massachusetts
Legislature and cabinet as well as
water regulators from the US Environmental Protection Agency and
the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection.
It would be a challenge to get these
types of folks in a room in Boston for
a couple of hours, but to create a context with them side by side at some of
the Old World’s most precious sites
and today’s most modern facilities
was a unique opportunity. Although
much time was spent on buses traveling to and from the different locations, this was where the synthesis
happened and how the relationships
were forged to allow real action back
in Massachusetts.
The final activity of the mission
was a session where participants
debriefed the trip and shared their
experiences and key findings. This
also was where the group collectively prioritized a long list of
potential initiatives that are already
being tackled.
OTHER CONTEXTS, OTHER
CLUSTERS
Israel was a natural first stop for
the fledgling Massachusetts water
cluster to visit; however, planning
and outreach efforts are under way
to visit other leading water clusters.
Across the globe there are smart,
dedicated water professionals who
have gathered to discuss and enable
new solutions. From the Netherlands
to New Zealand and from China to
Cincinnati, there are models of innovation and collaboration worth
studying and emulating. Although
there is a natural and healthy dose of
“co-opetition” among these various
clusters, there is far more to be
The Innovator’s Dilemma
In his seminal work on
innovation (1997), Clayton
Christensen describes “disruptive
innovation” as innovation that
helps create a new market and
value network, which eventually go
on to disrupt an existing market
and value network. This disruption
can often take place over several
years and invariably displaces an
earlier technology.
The term “disruptive” is
normally used in business and
technology literature to describe
innovations that improve a
product or service in ways that
the market does not expect,
typically first by designing for a
different set of consumers in the
new market and later by lowering
prices in the existing market.
In some industries, this disruption
happens primarily as a function of
new technologies or product
capabilities. These “disruptive
technologies,” seemingly by
themselves, create fresh
capabilities and drive new markets,
behaviors, and social change. Take
for example the mobile phone, and
more specifically, the smart phone.
The penetration rates of these
technologies have surpassed any
previous technology and are still in
the process of changing how
individuals and societies interact,
communicate, conduct commerce,
and consume resources.
In contrast to disruptive
innovation, a sustaining innovation
does not necessarily create new
markets or value networks but
evolves existing ones, allowing
the firms within to compete
against one another’s sustaining
improvements.
MATHESON | 105:5 • JOURNAL AWWA | MAY 2013
2013 © American Water Works Association
113
gained by interacting than by
remaining disconnected.
Singapore. Over the past decade—
driven by an integrated approach to
water management, sound water
policies, and investments in water
technologies—Singapore has transitioned from a water-challenged
nation to an internationally recognized name in the global water community. This leadership is embodied
in Singapore International Water
Week where the world’s water industry players gather to engage in important dialogue and form partnerships.
Two of the most notable aspects of
Singapore’s success are an explicit
focus on R&D and technology and a
consistent and farsighted top-down
set of policies to drive the adoption of
new technologies. The latter is
embodied in the Environment and
Water Industry Program Office, an
interagency body led by PUB (Singapore’s national water agency) and
involving the Economic Development
Board, International Enterprise Singapore, and SPRING Singapore (a
governmental agency focused on economic growth and productivity). This
structure provides the breadth of
input to define a roadmap and also
the ability to enact decisions and
adopt new technologies. The Environment and Water Industry Program
Office has identified technology
development, cluster development,
and internationalization of Singapore-based companies as key strategic
thrusts to grow the water industry.
Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi, through its
annual World Future Energy Summit, is increasingly using its resources
and expanding global leadership role
to convene discussions on redefining
the path for global resource usage.
This year the World Future Energy
Summit was coupled with the International Water Summit to bring together
global leaders in water technology
with those focused on transforming
the energy landscape to a more renewable one. It is through these opportunities to collaborate that novel and
viable approaches to enabling renewable desalination can evolve.
The History of Water Innovation
Harnessing water has been a central
focus for humankind over many
millennia. The arc and pace of
innovation across these thousands of
years has been slow, with many of the
original innovations still persisting in
their more modern manifestations (e.g.,
aqueducts, pipes, wells).
In his introduction to Ancient Water
Technologies (2010), an excellent and
interesting history of water technology,
editor Larry Mays notes with appropriate
reverence that “Hydraulic technology
began during antiquity long before the
great works of such investigators such as
Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei,
Evangelista Torricelli, Blaise Pascal, Isaac
Newton, Daniel Bernoulli, and Leonhard
Euler. The history of hydraulic technology
114
even began long before Archimedes
(287–212 BC). It is amazing to see what
was accomplished in the application of
water technology during antiquity,
millenniums before the development of
the concepts of conservation of mass,
energy, and momentum used in presentday hydraulic design.”
This pace of innovation was likely
more than sufficient in Roman times. In
retrospect, it is awe-inspiring to gaze
upon the remains of Roman aqueducts
and water treatment facilities across
Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Even 200 years ago the pace of
innovation was perhaps still sufficient,
owing to the still early days of
understanding materials production
and engineering techniques.
MAY 2013 | JOURNAL AWWA • 105:5 | MATHESON
2013 © American Water Works Association
Milwaukee, Wis. Here in the United
States, the city of Milwaukee has
positioned itself among the world’s
most significant hubs for water
research and industry. Led by the Milwaukee Water Council—a group of
business, academic, and government
leaders—an impressive collection of
capabilities and initiatives is having a
meaningful impact on the region and
the world. Hundreds of water technology companies have been
launched. The Great Lakes WATER
Institute and several cross-discipline
academic programs bridging engineering, law, and business have been
formed and are creating a next generation of water industry leaders
imbued with the multi-dimensional
mental models and language to drive
the industry forward.
Growing Blue (a virtual cluster).
Clusters have traditionally been geographically focused; however, there
are also emerging models for virtual
clusters with online tools that are
supporting global communities. One
excellent example of this trend is
Growing Blue (growingblue.com), an
online location for credible information on water that also serves to
increase global awareness and dialogue about thoughtful solutions to
water challenges. The Growing Blue
website is rich with data and collaborative tools. It represents an important new model of truly global, crossindustry, and sector collaboration.
DRIVING THE MASSACHUSETTS
WATER INITIATIVE FORWARD
Although Massachusetts water
cluster is still young, the momentum
has been strong. This is based, in large
part, on the ability to leverage knowledge gained from collaborating with
other centers of excellence.
Building on the success of SWIM in
May 2012 and with an explicit focus
to build on the previous work and
defined initiatives, leaders in Massachusetts are in the process of planning
SWIM II for June, 2013. These planning efforts are benefiting from the
collective efforts and network of relationships developed in the past year
during the many hours of small- and
large-group dialogue. As part of SWIM
II, the most important initiatives have
been crystallized, and a prioritized set
of followup activities to realize them
have been launched, including:
• Formalizing the structuring of the
Massachusetts water cluster. Although
a description of the rapid evolution
of Massachusetts’s water industry
initiative has been given, there
remains the question of what form
the initiative should take as it evolves.
The industry and its players are very
diverse, so defining an organizational
structure and mandate will be challenging. The aforementioned Massachusetts Life Science Center is one
viable model, but it had the support
of a $1 billion industry grant. The
New England Clean Energy Council
and the Massachusetts Clean Energy
Center both have initiatives to understand their potential role(s) in the
water industry. The Massachusetts
Clean Energy Center just recently
hired a new business development
executive to focus on a set of initiatives to help ensure that Massachusetts becomes a leading water cluster.
• Facilitating continued academic
and research collaboration. Although
the efforts to shape a Massachusetts
water cluster have enabled many
Massachusetts researchers and academics to meet and begin to collaborate, it is far too soon to claim success. The initiative has to implement
continued mechanisms to allow collaboration among researchers focused
on modeling, system development,
surface and ocean water quality,
membranes, public policy, and a variety of other areas. Spawning more
interactions across Massachusettsbased researchers can only be good
for the water industry. As is often the
case, researchers get “siloed,” focusing only on their narrow field. Given
the holistic nature of water challenges
and solutions, facilitating more crossdiscipline dialogues and projects is
mission critical.
• Increasing commercialization of
breakthrough technologies. True
innovation will require break-
through technologies, and startups
are often the best environment to
bring them to market. This initiative will be focused on engaging the
already robust entrepreneurial and
venture capital community in Massachusetts and implementing new
programs and mechanisms to translate exciting R&D into important
new companies.
• Creating pilot facilities to test
and validate new technologies. There
is a significant need and desire to
facilitate mechanisms so that
opportunities could be created for
new water technologies to be tested
at existing water treatment facilities. This initiative will require facility owners and operators, regulatory agencies, funding sources, and
innovators to align around the process and share the risks and rewards
of these activities. As described in
this article, there are successful
models from which to borrow ideas
and to learn.
On Clusters and Their Importance
Clusters arise because they
increase the productivity that allows
companies to compete. Sometimes
clusters are created in an organic
process that occurs naturally from
the geographic proximity of likeminded people, natural resources,
and institutions. Other times, it is a
deliberate initiative to invest in and
collect the necessary people and
resources to create an economic
potential and to deploy solutions.
However they arise, clusters have
life cycles and must be nurtured,
managed, and led.
The development, evolution, and
upgrading of clusters make up an
important agenda for governments,
industries, companies, and other
institutions. Clusters are sometimes
associated with specific industries,
technologies, or more broadly
around the practice and culture of
innovation and entrepreneurship.
Clusters should not exist for their
own sake, but rather with innovation
itself, and they need to take their
unique context into account.
Clusters should be an embodiment
of the localized resources,
companies, and capabilities that
make up the cluster, and clusters
should also be responsive to the
various goals of the participants.
They need to thoughtfully balance
the inherent tensions between the
demands and operating tempo of
industry with the often differing
goals and processes of government.
When appropriately implemented
and managed, clusters create
several concurrent and
interconnected virtuous cycles. A
kernel of excellence and success
attracts new participants, enables
longitudinal progress rather than
episodic victories, and ultimately
enables the collection of the various
players across the myriad
dimensions needed to solve any
complex global problem.
Muro and Katz (2010) contend, “as
a matter of paradigm, clusters reflect
the nature of the real economy. For
example, the cluster paradigm
emphasizes the regional
underpinnings of a national economy;
highlights the unique variations and
specializations that define productive
local economies, and focuses
attention on the myriad actors and
the dynamics of their exchanges and
interactions that give rise to new
innovations and jobs.”
MATHESON | 105:5 • JOURNAL AWWA | MAY 2013
2013 © American Water Works Association
115
• Enacting forward-thinking and
supportive regulations. Given the
importance of regulations and permitting, a set of initiatives that will
enable the cluster to work with
state and local regulators will be
important to support examination
of current legal frameworks and
implementation of changes,
improvements, and programs that
support and extend the other key
initiatives. To this end, candid and
constructive dialogues have already
taken place among the various players in the cluster.
but do so with a “win–win” mentality. Find ways to help new technologies reach the proof-of-concept and
commercial-viability stage; this will
move the industry forward, provide
fresh perspectives, and create the
potential to acquire new capabilities
to provide to your customers.
• Commit resources to engage
with the legislative process and public dialogue around clusters and
water innovation. Governmental
leaders have a broad range of issues
to deal with, and it is only through
engagement that we can ensure they
Given the holistic nature of water challenges
and solutions, facilitating more cross-discipline
dialogues and projects is mission critical.
These primary focus areas, additional visits, and connections to
other leading clusters will drive the
Massachusetts efforts forward.
A CALL TO COLLABORATIVE
ACTION
Sharing these best practices and
frameworks is intended to inspire
others to create, expand, or improve
other clusters. It takes the right balance of participants from across sectors to truly drive success, and there
is no sense in reinventing the wheel.
Depending on your role and motivations, there is a set of things you can
do immediately to start the dialogue
and make a difference.
If you are in a larger, incumbent
water technology company:
• Look internally to understand
how your company discusses and
describes its approach to innovation;
be clear about who owns this mandate, what resources are available,
and what defines success. Set ambitious goals for new product and solution development and deployment.
• Engage with smaller companies
to embrace these new technologies,
116
understand the complexity and
importance of the issues at stake in
the water industry.
If you are in a startup water technology company:
• Be bold in your goals and technology vision, but also realize that
you must find your place in a mature
industry with relatively slow adoption cycles and difficult regulatory
frameworks. Focus on where your
technology can have a step-change
impact, and seek out the right larger
partners to help validate and deploy
your technology.
• Look to markets that are not
always local. If you are in the United
States, for example, it is likely that
you will be deploying your technology
in an overseas market. Think from the
beginning of your strategic planning
process about how your local innovation can drive true global impact.
• Engage in the discussion around
innovation in your local cluster; you
will benefit from the discussion in
many ways, and it is vital that decision-makers are aware of what is possible as they make decisions around
regulations, pricing, and standards.
MAY 2013 | JOURNAL AWWA • 105:5 | MATHESON
2013 © American Water Works Association
If you are in an academic setting
or research laboratory:
• Be excellent in your area of
focus, but realize that water is the
ultimate systems challenge. Look for
other researchers who are working
in adjacent areas, or better yet, who
are taking very different approaches.
Explore common ground with them
to define bold new solutions.
• Think about commercialization,
or at least the real-world implications
of your work. Look to engage with
startups and larger companies to collaborate to incorporate actual deployment scenarios into your thinking.
• Commit time to engaging in
your local cluster—R&D is the beginning and end of all of these efforts.
Current R&D provides new capabilities and drives innovative commercial activity in the market; today’s
problems define tomorrow’s R&D.
The cycle is clear and continuous.
If you are in government as a legislator or regulator:
• Find the local cluster of water
industry leaders in your region; if it
doesn’t exist, use your convening
authority to gather a small but
influential group together to ex­­
plore whether a local/regional effort
is warranted. Look to join and im­­
prove existing efforts before starting a new one.
• Get smart on the industry and
technology; leverage other groups’
willingness to engage with you, and
listen carefully to their capabilities,
ideas, and problems. Allow them to
inform your agenda. These groups
will appreciate your engagement and
support you in defining new ideas
and expanding your networks.
• Have courage and creativity in
your legislative agenda; pricing signals, permitting processes, and raising
the bar to drive new capabilities are
key drivers to innovation in the water
sector. None of this will happen if we
keep the status quo. By rallying a
cluster around you and leveraging its
insights and support, you will gain
credibility in your community and
with your colleagues, which will help
drive positive change.
Conclusion
Perhaps none of these ideas or
thinking is new, but that does not
mean that taking a fresh look at
them in light of today’s capabilities
and tomorrow’s challenges will not
yield important results. The contemporary water industry has made tremendous strides over many decades,
yet we must accelerate the pace of
impact to more steadily and rapidly
deliver important new solutions to
the global marketplace. Let’s start by
rethinking how we operate and look
to other places, other industries, and
one another for models of success to
guide and inspire us.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jim Matheson is president and chief
executive officer of Oasys Water in
Boston and a general partner at
Flagship Ventures in Cambridge,
Mass. He is a respected clean technology visionary and leader who
has been involved with Oasys since
its inception. As a
general partner at
Flagship Ventures,
Matheson helps
spearhead Flagship’s sustainability investing and
has been involved
with founding, financing, and
building numerous startup companies across a variety of sectors,
including: biofuels, biotechnology,
wireless technology, and water. He
formerly served as the Department
of Energy’s entrepreneur-in-residence at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory and was a
combat-decorated Navy fighter
pilot and TOPGUN instructor.
Matheson has a bachelor’s degree
from the United States Naval Academy and a Master of Business
Administration from
Harvard Business School.
He can be reached at
[email protected].
REFERENCES
Christensen, C., 1997. The Innovator’s
Dilemma: When New Technologies
Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Mays, L., 2010. Ancient Water Technologies.
Springer, New York.
Muro, M. & Katz, B., 2010. The New “Cluster
Moment”: How Regional Innovation
Clusters Can Foster the Next Economy.
www.brookings.edu/research/
papers/2010/09/21-clusters-muro-katz
(accessed Mar. 9, 2013).
Porter, M. E., (2000) Location, Competition and
Economic Development: Local Clusters
in a Global Economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14:1:15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0069
Journal AWWA welcomes
comments and feedback
at [email protected].
MATHESON | 105:5 • JOURNAL AWWA | MAY 2013
2013 © American Water Works Association
117