Why Dr. Don Allen would be the ideal Executive Director of the Metro State Applied Innovation Institute

Editorial opinion and three-year draft leadership plan

By Dr. Don Allen

Metro State University has an opportunity to define what applied innovation should mean at a public, urban university. It should mean research that solves real problems, partnerships that create opportunity, and technology that improves lives. It should also mean an institute with the financial discipline to sustain its work long after the excitement of a new initiative fades.

That is the future I would lead as Executive Director of the Metro State Applied Innovation Institute. I believe I am the only candidate Metro State should consider because the leadership I offer connects education, organizational research, entrepreneurship, and community understanding. My case is not that I alone possess every technical answer. It is that I would bring these strengths together around a clear purpose: making innovation useful, accessible, and financially sustainable.

The university should choose me not simply for the ideas I would introduce, but for the way I would turn ideas into accountable work.

Why my background fits the work ahead

My doctoral research at Hamline University examined leadership and operational strategies in Twin Cities Black-led charter schools. It addressed questions of organizational communication, governance, and the alignment of leadership with day-to-day practice. Those concerns are relevant wherever an institution must translate an ambitious mission into reliable performance. An innovation institute needs more than promising projects; it needs clear responsibilities, effective communication, and a structure that supports sustained results. [1]

I would bring that organizational perspective to MSAII. Before expanding a program, I would ask who is responsible for delivery, what resources it requires, how success will be measured, and whether its benefits justify its costs. Before announcing a partnership, I would ask what each party has actually committed to do.

My educational and communications experience provides another important strength. The University of Minnesota announced my appointment as a Hubbard School teaching specialist in 2022, describing my work in strategic writing, teacher mentoring, marketing, public relations, and media. It also identified me as a co-founder of the Independent Business News Network. That background connects teaching with the ability to explain complex ideas and engage audiences beyond a university campus. [2]

Those abilities matter in applied innovation. Faculty members need a leader who can understand and communicate their work without overselling it. Employers need someone who listens carefully enough to distinguish a genuine operational problem from a request for the latest technology. Community partners need to know that their concerns will influence a project's design, not merely appear in its promotional materials.

My earlier Hamline research asked what makes a college or university veteran-friendly. That work reflects a question I would carry into this position: how does an institution change its practices so that the people it seeks to serve can actually participate and succeed? [3]

At MSAII, accessibility would be a design requirement. I would pursue paid project opportunities, flexible training schedules, and employer-supported participation. A working adult should not have to abandon employment to enter an emerging field. A student should not have to choose between an unpaid innovation opportunity and paying the rent.

Innovation must advance Metro State's mission

Metro State's 2025–2029 Strategic Plan emphasizes student success, equity and inclusion, institutional effectiveness, and community engagement. It also calls for expanded experiential learning and financial sustainability. I would make these priorities part of the institute's operating decisions rather than treating them as separate university aspirations. [4]

Every proposed MSAII initiative would have to answer three questions. What problem does it solve? How does it advance learning or community opportunity? What will sustain it financially?

This approach respects the institute's actual role. MSAII describes a mission centered on applied research in national defense and cybersecurity through collaboration among academia, industry, and government. The executive director's published responsibilities include business development, revenue-generating programs, financial management, partnerships, and support for sponsored research. The position works with the institute's board and Chief Innovation and Research Officer. It is not a mandate to replace faculty expertise or independently direct every university technology initiative. [5] [6]

I would lead accordingly. Technical specialists would lead technical work. Faculty would retain their academic roles. My responsibility would be to help secure resources, establish workable agreements, coordinate delivery, and maintain accountability. I would insist on experienced financial and research-administration support because sound execution requires more than personal confidence.

What my innovation agenda would look like

I would begin by strengthening work already underway. Metro State's GetChkd x MSAII Cyber Innovation Accelerator launched in June 2026, combining cybersecurity learning with entrepreneurship and preparation to pursue federal opportunities. Its inaugural cohort included 16 participants. I would work with its leaders to evaluate participant learning, delivery costs, and subsequent opportunities before proposing expansion. Completing a proposal is valuable; winning an award is a different outcome, and our reporting must distinguish the two. [7]

One proposed extension would be an Applied Cyber Resilience Clinic. Under qualified technical supervision and written client authorization, students and professionals could help small organizations improve security practices through staff training, documented assessments, and incident-response exercises. A nonprofit might need a practical response plan for a phishing incident. A small manufacturer might need help understanding its cybersecurity readiness before pursuing a supply-chain opportunity. Each engagement would have a defined scope, appropriate insurance and safeguards, and a clear handoff to the client. Sensitive or regulated work would proceed only when the institute had the necessary expertise and approvals.

A second proposal would be a Responsible AI Practice Program for employers and public-service organizations. Instead of promising that artificial intelligence can solve everything, the program would help clients identify limited, useful applications and test them responsibly. For example, a nonprofit could pilot AI-assisted drafting of routine public communications using approved materials, with staff checking accuracy and accessibility. We would measure time saved and the quality of the output. We would not begin by automating high-stakes decisions about employment, education, or access to services.

Metro State also announced a November 2026 quantum-readiness partnership involving its Minnesota Cyber Institute, Shuriken Cyber, and ArcQubit. In coordination with those existing leaders and partners, I would explore where MSAII could support employer education, project administration, or workforce programming. I would build on that relationship without assuming it belongs to the institute or claiming that emerging research is already a market-ready product. [8]

These examples illustrate the future I want: technically credible work, practical benefits, meaningful student participation, and a business model that supports continued delivery.

A three-year draft plan

The following plan covers the first 36 months after appointment. Initiatives and numerical targets are proposals, not current MSAII commitments or guaranteed outcomes. They would be refined with the board, university partners, and technical leadership after reviewing existing obligations, staffing, demand, and available funding.

Year One: Establish discipline and demonstrate value

During my first 100 days, I would review the institute's finances, contracts, staffing, program costs, and project commitments with its board and leadership. I would meet with faculty, students, employers, public-sector organizations, and community partners to identify the strongest opportunities and the most urgent delivery risks.

The result would be a board-approved operating plan with clear responsibilities, a realistic budget, and a rolling cash-flow forecast. We would establish appropriate procedures for contracts, procurement, data use, intellectual property, conflicts of interest, and research compliance. Agreements with university units would clarify access to facilities, staff time, and services rather than assuming those resources are free.

I would develop two carefully scoped fee-for-service pilots, drawing from the cyber-resilience and responsible-AI proposals where demand and technical capacity support them. Prices would account for delivery costs, administration, insurance, and appropriate overhead. Any subsidized community participation would have an identified funding source.

Draft Year One targets: complete training for 40 learners, support 10 paid student project placements, and deliver two paid pilot engagements with documented client feedback. By year-end, the board would receive a financial and outcomes dashboard that distinguishes signed agreements from prospects, earned revenue from cash collected, and completed work from work still underway.

Year Two: Expand what works and build repeat business

Year Two would focus on programs that demonstrate learning value, client demand, and workable economics. I would expand successful pilots into repeatable service offerings, improve the accelerator with its existing partners, and develop additional employer-facing training only where there is a credible route to participation and payment.

With faculty and the Chief Innovation and Research Officer, I would build a disciplined sponsored-project pipeline. Opportunities would be screened for mission fit, eligibility, technical capacity, compliance requirements, and realistic delivery costs. Small-business research collaborations would be pursued only where the partners and funding opportunity genuinely fit. We would not confuse the number of proposals submitted with research success.

I would also create a regular way for employers and community organizations to propose problems that could become supervised student projects. Each accepted project would have a sponsor, a learning objective, a delivery lead, and agreed expectations. Where academic credit was appropriate, it would require the relevant university approvals.

Draft Year Two targets: complete training for 100 learners during the year, support 25 paid student placements, and deliver six client or sponsored applied projects. I would aim to establish four organizational clients with repeat engagements or multi-period agreements. Each expanding service line would have to demonstrate a credible path to covering its full costs, including any explicitly funded subsidy.

Year Three: Establish a durable regional contribution

By Year Three, I would work to make MSAII a dependable regional partner for applied cybersecurity, responsible AI, and emerging-technology workforce development. That reputation would be earned through reliable delivery and measurable results, not declared through branding.

Growth would focus on the institute's strongest programs. I would seek multi-year employer agreements and appropriate philanthropic support for student participation while continuing to pursue mission-aligned sponsored work. I would not commit the institute to new permanent facilities or expensive infrastructure without a business case demonstrating demand, full lifecycle costs, and sustainable support.

An annual applied-innovation forum could connect faculty, students, clients, and prospective partners. Its purpose would be to demonstrate completed work, share lessons, and generate qualified opportunities. Public reporting would respect confidentiality while showing what the institute had accomplished and what it had learned from projects that did not meet expectations.

Draft Year Three targets: complete training for 200 learners during the year, support 50 paid student placements, and deliver 10 applied projects. I would aim for renewal by at least 70 percent of clients whose agreements were eligible for renewal. The financial goal would be to cover annual operating costs through a balanced mix of earned revenue and committed funding, used consistently with any restrictions, while building an appropriate board-approved reserve.

Across all three years, learner totals would count people completing training within each year, not a cumulative total inflated by earlier cohorts. We would also track completion rates, available employment outcomes, client satisfaction, project quality, and access to paid opportunities. Where participation or completion gaps emerged, we would investigate the barriers and adjust the program.

Why Metro State should choose me

Metro State should select an executive director who understands that innovation has both an institutional purpose and a human consequence. An institute can attract attention while doing little to improve opportunity. It can launch impressive projects while failing to build the systems needed to sustain them. I would work to prevent both outcomes.

My contribution would be to connect the university's educational mission with the practical demands of an applied innovation enterprise. I would bring an educator's focus on learning, a researcher's attention to organizational evidence, and a communicator's ability to make the work understandable to the people whose support it requires.

I would not promise that every idea will succeed. I would promise that we will define success, test our assumptions, protect our partners, and stop or redesign work that does not justify continued investment.

That is why I believe I am the ideal Executive Director of the Metro State Applied Innovation Institute—and the candidate Metro State should choose. I would take the university into the future of innovation by making that future tangible: stronger applied research, credible partnerships, paid student opportunities, useful technology, and an institute capable of sustaining its contribution.

Metro State should choose Dr. Don Allen because innovation deserves more than a vision. It deserves leadership that turns vision into work people can trust.