Why not just coordinate existing federal innovation-related activities rather than create NIF as a new entity?
A loose coordinating structure for existing programs would not achieve a federal innovation policy. As it is, existing activities are fragmented and diffuse, underfunded, pay little attention to innovation in services, and do not take advantage of state-level expertise in promoting innovation. Even if additional funding, expanded missions, and better coordination could fix these problems, there would still be no person, program, or agency with the mandate and ability to improve the nation’s capacity to innovate. As a separate entity, NIF would have the responsibility for formulating innovation policy and carrying it out through assistance to businesses.
Related Questions
- If a federal agency contracts with a private or other entity to conduct certain activities of the agency, does the Executive Order apply to the activities of the contractor?
- How will this initiative coordinate with existing hospital quality improvement programs at the state and federal level?
- Why not just coordinate existing federal innovation-related activities rather than create NIF as a new entity?
