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

1. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
M.O.C. Faculty Workshop
Jan W. Rivkin (with Michael E. Porter)
11 December 2012

2. AGENDA
• Project design and progress
• What business leaders can do to restore U.S. competitiveness
• What Washington can do to restore U.S. competitiveness
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

3. INITIAL PROJECT DESIGN
May
June Faculty members
July writing on 12 key
topics
2011
August
• Research
September
question
October • Definition Alumni Leaders from manufacturing,
survey services, high-tech, life sciences,
November • Workshops healthcare, finance, investment,
December Summit unions, media, nonprofits, policy,
January sciences, academia
February
March Special Outreach
2012
April issue of program
Harvard • Alumni
May
Business clubs
June Review • MBA
July Program
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

4. CORE FACULTY TEAM
• Mihir Desai • Gary Pisano
• Joe Fuller • Michael Porter (co-chair)
• Bill George • Jan Rivkin (co-chair)
• Robin Greenwood • Bill Sahlman
• Allen Grossman • David Scharfstein
• Rosabeth Moss Kanter • Willy Shih
• Tom Kochan (MIT) • Dick Vietor
• David Moss • Matt Weinzierl
• Nitin Nohria
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

5. ASSESSMENT OF ELEMENTS OF THE U.S. BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT (2011)
40%
Weakness but Improving Strength and Improving
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
FIRM MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITIES
20%
PROPERTY RIGHTS
INNOVATION
CLUSTERS CAPITAL MARKETS
0%
COMMUNICATIONS HIRING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE FIRING
-20%
U.S. trajectory
LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
-40% SKILLED LABOR
MACRO REGULATION
TAX CODE
-60% POLICY
K-12 EDUCATION LOGISTICS
SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE
-80% POLITICAL
SYSTEM
Weakness and Deteriorating Strength but Deteriorating
-100%
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Current U.S. position
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

6. THE PROJECT IN 2012
Conducting Getting the Catalyzing
research word out action
January
February
March
April
• Inventory of
May business
June actions (BCG)
2012
July • Role of business
August • Federal policy
September priorities
October • Survey II
November • Individual
faculty efforts
December
January
2013
February
March
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

7. HBS SURVEYS ON U.S. COMPETITIVENESS
2011 SURVEY 2012 SURVEY
• 9,750 HBS alumni • 6,836 HBS alumni
• 1,025 members of general public
• Elements of the business • Elements of the business
environment environment
• Overall competitiveness • Overall competitiveness
• Location decisions • Federal policy proposals
• National suggestion box • Business actions to improve
competitiveness
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

8. THE PROJECT IN 2012
Conducting Getting the Catalyzing
research word out action
January
February
March Special Outreach
April issue of program
• Inventory of Harvard • New York
May business Business • MBA
June actions (BCG)
2012
Review • Charlotte
July • Role of business • DC
August • Federal policy
September priorities
• Fortune • Bay Area
October • Survey II
• Economist • Chicago
November • Individual • Detroit
• Wall Street
faculty efforts
December Journal
January
• Atlanta
2013
February • Boston
March • Cincinnati
• Houston
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

9. THE PROJECT IN 2012
Conducting Getting the Catalyzing
research word out action
January
February
March Special Outreach
April issue of program
• Inventory of Harvard • New York
May business • NYC alumni
Business • MBA
June actions (BCG) effort on skill
2012
Review • Charlotte
July • Role of business • DC gaps
August • Federal policy • DC visits
September priorities • K-12 education
• Fortune • Bay Area
• Survey II effort
October • Economist • Chicago
November • Individual • Detroit
• Wall Street
faculty efforts
December Journal
January
• Atlanta
2013
February • Boston
March • Cincinnati
• Houston
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

10. AGENDA
• Project design and progress
• What business leaders can do to restore U.S. competitiveness
• What Washington can do to restore U.S. competitiveness
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

11. WHAT BUSINESS LEADERS CAN DO
TO RESTORE U.S. COMPETITIVENESS
1. Vigorously pursue productivity and profitability within the business
a. Position the company to draw on U.S. strengths
b. Perform in the U.S. those activities that can thrive here
2. Tap the many opportunities to build the commons and benefit the business
a. Improve skills
b. Upgrade supporting industries
c. Support innovation and entrepreneurship
d. Bolster regional strength
3. Stop narrowly self-interested actions that undermine the commons,
especially in government relations
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

12. WHAT BUSINESS LEADERS CAN DO
TO RESTORE U.S. COMPETITIVENESS (11 SURVEYED ACTIONS)
1. Vigorously pursue productivity and profitability within the business
a. Position the company to draw on U.S. strengths
b. Perform in the U.S. those activities that can thrive here: RESHORING
2. Tap the many opportunities to build the commons and benefit the business
a. Improve skills: INTERNAL TRAINING PROGRAMS, APPRENTICESHIPS,
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PARTNERSHIPS
b. Upgrade supporting industries: SUPPLIER MENTORING, LOCAL SOURCING
c. Support innovation and entrepreneurship: RESEARCH COLLABORATIVES,
STARTUP INCUBATION
d. Bolster regional strength: REGIONAL INITIATIVES, CLUSTER INITIATIVES
3. Stop narrowly self-interested actions that undermine the commons,
especially in government relations: BUSINESS-WIDE ADVOCACY
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

13. DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF ACTIONS
AMONG WORKING RESPONDENTS IN FIRMS WITH U.S. OPERATIONS
700
600
500
Number of respondents
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Number of actions taken by respondent's firm
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

14. NUMBER OF ALUMNI WHOSE FIRMS
TAKE SPECIFIC ACTIONS IN THEIR U.S. OPERATIONS
Internal training programs
Regional initiatives
Research collaboratives
Business-wide lobbying
Startup incubation
Apprenticeships
Local sourcing
Cluster initiatives
Community college+ partnerships
Supplier mentoring
Reshoring
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Number of respondents
Yes No Not applicable Don't know Did not reply No U.S. business activity Not working
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

15. CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Sideline sitters (n = 1,056) Business advocates (n = 449)
Cluster initiatives Cluster initiatives
Business-wide Business-wide
3.00 Regional initiatives 3.00 Regional initiatives
advocacy advocacy
2.00 2.00
Internal training Internal training
Reshoring Reshoring
programs programs
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
Startup incubation Apprenticeships Startup incubation Apprenticeships
Community Community
Research Research
college+ college+
collaboratives collaboratives
partnerships partnerships
Supplier mentoring Local sourcing Supplier mentoring Local sourcing
Overrepresented: finance & insurance, professional services Overrepresented: professional services, construction & real estate,
Underrepresented: manufacturing finance & insurance
Underrepresented: manufacturing
Based on respondents with no missing data on business actions.
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

16. CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Regional innovators (n = 414) Supply chainers (n = 350)
Cluster initiatives Cluster initiatives
Business-wide Business-wide
3.00 Regional initiatives 3.00 Regional initiatives
advocacy advocacy
2.00 2.00
Internal training Internal training
Reshoring Reshoring
programs programs
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
Startup incubation Apprenticeships Startup incubation Apprenticeships
Community Community
Research Research
college+ college+
collaboratives collaboratives
partnerships partnerships
Supplier mentoring Local sourcing Supplier mentoring Local sourcing
Overrepresented: healthcare, educational services Overrepresented: manufacturing*, wholesale / retail trade,
Underrepresented: wholesale / retail trade construction & real estate
Underrepresented: finance & insurance*, professional services
Based on respondents with no missing data on business actions.
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

17. CLUSTER ANALYSIS
Human capitalists (n = 498) Do-it-alls (n = 390)
Cluster initiatives Cluster initiatives
Business-wide 3.00 Business-wide 3.00
Regional initiatives Regional initiatives
advocacy advocacy
2.00 2.00
Internal training Internal training
Reshoring Reshoring
programs programs
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
Startup incubation Apprenticeships Startup incubation Apprenticeships
Community Community
Research Research
college+ college+
collaboratives collaboratives
partnerships partnerships
Supplier mentoring Local sourcing Supplier mentoring Local sourcing
Overrepresented: professional services Overrepresented: manufacturing*
Underrepresented: none Underrepresented: finance & insurance*
Based on respondents with no missing data on business actions.
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

18. AGENDA
• Project design and progress
• What business leaders can do to restore U.S. competitiveness
• What Washington can do to restore U.S. competitiveness
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

19. WHAT WASHINGTON CAN DO TO RESTORE U.S. COMPETITIVENESS
1. Create a sustainable federal budget (revenue ↑ and spending ↓)
2. Ease the immigration of highly skilled individuals
3. Reform the corporate tax code (loopholes ↓ + statutory rates ↓)
4. Move to a territorial tax system for U.S. multinationals (taxes on repatriated
profits ↓↓)
5. Aggressively address distortions of the international trading system
6. Carefully streamline regulations affecting business
7. Enact a program to improve logistics and communications infrastructure
8. Responsibly develop newly accessible American gas and oil reserves
Note: This list was prepared by Professors Michael E. Porter and Jan W. Rivkin in order to spark discussion. It does not represent the position of Harvard Business School or of
other HBS faculty.
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT
.

20. ASSESSMENT OF POLICY PROPOSALS
BY STRONGLY LIBERAL AND STRONGLY CONSERVATIVE ALUMNI
Corporate
Streamlined tax reform
100% Ryan tax plan regulations High-skill
/ budget Right immigration
90% to work
Portion of Strongly Conservative alumni
80%
somewhat or strongly agreeing
Responsible Sustainable
Territorial energy federal budget
70% tax code extraction
Int'l trading Infrastructure
60%
system investment
50%
40%
Clean-energy
30% incentives
20%
10%
Buffett
rule
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Portion of Strongly Liberal alumni
somewhat or strongly agreeing
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT

21. ASSESSMENT OF POLICY PROPOSALS
BY U.S. ALUMNI AND GENERAL PUBLIC
100%
90% Infrastructure
somewhat or strongly agreeing investments
Responsible
80% Corporate
energy extraction
Portion of general public
tax reform
70% Clean-energy
incentives Sustainable
60% Buffett Int'l trading federal budget
rule system
Streamlined
50% regulations
Right
Ryan tax plan
to work
/ budget
40%
High-skill
immigration
30%
Territorial
tax code
20%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Portion of U.S. alumni somewhat or strongly agreeing
U.S. COMPETITIVENESS PROJECT