Transcript Leverage Point 1

Metro Business Planning:
Getting Started
Summer 2011
TODAY’S AGENDA
I. Introductions and Today’s Goals
II. Economic Framework – Understanding Metro Economies
III. Applying the Framework: Pilot MBPs
IV. Logistics – Work Plan and Timeline
TODAY’S AGENDA
I. Introductions and Today’s Goals
II. Economic Framework – Understanding Metro Economies
III. Applying the Framework: Pilot MBPs
IV. Logistics – Work Plan and Timeline
What Drives Inclusive and Sustainable
Economic Growth?
Local (Regional) Enabling Environment
(Government regulation, taxation and public goods, including
particularly infrastructure and education; civic institutions;
quality of place, including the natural environment)
Factors of
Production
(Human capital; real estate;
capital; natural and
knowledge resources)
Transformative
Systems
(Market processes – housing,
labor, business;
Economic Outputs
production dynamics –
clusters, value chains, etc.;
(Businesses – gross regional
product, profits;
innovation dynamics knowledge creation,
commercialization,
entrepreneurship)
households – wages, other
income)
Macro/Global Context & Trends
Micro-Foundations
How Metro Economies Grow
• Metro economy = total value of goods and services
produced in the region
• Growth is inherently business-sector growth (number, size
and profitability of firms)
• Business sector grows through creation of new firms
(entrepreneurship), firm growth and location decisions
(retention and attraction)
• Firm creation, growth and location depend upon increases
in efficiency and productivity (of firm and system, including
product innovation)
Core Question: What attributes of the region increase efficiency and
productivity, leading to business-sector growth?
What is it About Place that Affects Economic
Performance?
“Cities exist to eliminate transport costs for people, goods and ideas” (Glaeser)
• Urbanization and Localization Economies: general and industry-specific benefits of
concentration as workers and firms co-locate because of spillovers, synergies, shared labor and job
pools, backward and forward linkages among firms, etc. – generating increased efficiency and
productivity through flow of ideas and technologies, enhancements to human capital, economies of
scale, reduced transaction and transport costs, and so forth. (Marshall, Krugman)
• New Growth Theory:
location is becoming more important, and with different benefits, in the
knowledge economy, as metros become increasingly centers of idea creation and transmission
(through technology, human capital externalities, intellectual spillovers). Increasing returns to
knowledge and imperfect competition lead to metro specialization and divergence. (Romer, Lucas)
• Institutional Economics:
growth, and particularly innovation, take place in the context of an
institutional infrastructure – research, professional and learning networks; universities and
civic/business organizations; quasi- and governmental organizations and regulation – which can
hamper or accelerate all of the other benefits of concentration. (Coase, Atkinson)
Productivity and efficiency depend upon concentrations, interactions and
synergies between economic activities  Key Q: Where are the leverage points to
improve system performance?
Five Overlapping
Leverage Points
Create Effective
Public & Civic
Culture &
Institutions
Enhance
Regional
Concentrations
Deploy
Human Capital
Aligned with
Job Pools
Leverage
Points
for Sustainable
and Inclusive
Prosperity
Increase
Spatial
Efficiency
Develop
InnovationEnabling
Infrastructure
Enhance Regional Concentrations:
Industries, Occupations and Functions
Leverage Point 1
• What is it?
This leverage point has to do with “clustering,” recognizing that what is clustering may be
shifting – toward occupations and functions – and that the whole notion may need to be
broadened, brought to ground and complemented with other production-side strategies. It
focuses on the optimal interaction between production components of an economy – the
optimal mix and scale of industries, occupations, functions; multiple specializations; etc.
Cultivating benefits of concentration requires understanding nuances of how particular
concentrations – down to the individual firm and institutional level – interact with each
other to create efficiencies and spillover effects to enhance productivity in your region.
• Key references and resources:
− Overviews/summaries
→ RWV, CMAP chapter’s “definition and significance” section (2010)
→ Wolman and Hincapie, chapter for Surdna’s “Implementing Regionalism” project (2011)
→ Cortright, “Making Sense of Clusters” (2006) and “The Athletic and Outdoor Industry
Cluster” (Portland, OR; 2010)
→ Rosenfeld, “Beyond Clusters” (2005)
→ Porter (Competitive Advantage of Nations ++)
− Functional/occupational clusters
→ Duranton and Puga, “From Sectoral to Functional Urban Specialisation” (2004)
→ Markusen, “Regional Occupational and Industrial Structure: Does One Imply the Other?”
(2007)
→ Feser, “What Regions Do Rather than Make: A Proposed Set of Knowledge-Based
Occupation Clusters” (2003)
Leverage Point 1
Enhance Regional Concentrations:
Industries, Occupations and Functions (cont’d)
• Market analysis:
− Elements to examine
− Current concentrations and growth trends (industries, occupations, functions; LQ,
shift share, …)
− Regional assets (institutions, natural resources, etc.)
− Geographic distribution of concentrations (including accessibility, centrality, etc.)
− What factors (locational, institutional, shared inputs and activities, others) contribute
to efficiency/productivity of targeted clusters
− Extent to which clusters have already self-identified and organized
− Challenges
− Traditional quantitative analytics are insufficient to identify operational clusters
− “Anthropological” method of understanding clusters is time- and cost-intensive
− How to engage cluster leadership, and assess what clusters need to effectively
enhance their performance
• Illustrative strategies and products:*
− Strengthen institutional and network infrastructure (e.g., enhance links between cluster
& universities, other R&D institutions)
− Develop cluster-specific programs for training, R&D, infrastructure, finance, etc.
− Develop cluster-specific innovation/entrepreneurship initiatives
− Attract complementary firms
− Tax, regulatory and other incentives for firm co-location & operation (e.g., permitting,
zoning, tax)
− Provide co-location opportunities (e.g., business parks)
* Note that many strategies identified under other leverage points can be more effectively implemented in a cluster-specific context, so
essentially become “cluster strategies.”
Deploy High Human Capital Aligned
with Job Pools
Leverage Point 2
• What is it?
This leverage point addresses human capital in the context of economic performance: the
goal is not just high levels of human capital, but linked, mutually reinforcing, human
capital and job pools. Pools of workers and jobs/firms attract each other. Not just
quality, but deployment, are key to productivity and efficiency gains. Entails a two-fold,
iterative process:
− Growing supply of appropriately skilled workers to meet employer demands
− Growing demand for skilled workers by cultivating appropriate firms/jobs
• Key references and resources:
−
−
−
−
−
RWV, CMAP chapter’s “definition and significance” section (2010)
RWV, chapter for Surdna’s “Implementing Regionalism” project (2011)
RWV, “Grads and Fads: The Dynamics of Human Capital Location” (2005)
Storper and Scott, “Rethinking human capital, creativity and urban growth” (2009)
Gottlieb and Fogarty, “Educational Attainment and Metropolitan Growth” (2003)
Deploy High Human Capital Aligned
with Job Pools (cont’d)
Leverage Point 2
• Market analysis:
− Elements to examine
−
−
−
−
−
Existing concentrations & growth prospects (both skills & occupations)
Alignment of human capital & job market (immediate & long term)
Quality of education/training systems (K thru lifelong learning; test scores, rankings)
Attraction/retention record & factors, esp. for key demographics/skill sets
Labor market efficiency (participation, under-employment, transaction costs, etc.)
− Challenges
− Nuanced measurement & evaluation of workforce skills – e.g., occupation-specific, those not
obtained through formal education/degrees
− Identifying/forecasting skills demanded by employers
− Understanding the degree to which human capital is deployed/under-deployed
− Systematically linking human capital strategies to neighborhood-level initiatives (where the
human capital IS)
− Relationship to “talent dividend”, “creative” & “vital cities” strategies
• Illustrative strategies and products:
− Increase demand-side focus of workforce development (e.g., education-industry partnerships,
career academies)
− Increase access, reduce transaction costs in labor market (e.g., “dual-customer” employment
centers, credentialing, improved information products/tools, distance learning)
− Create links to occupational concentration strategies (see Leverage Point 1)
− Foster economic mobility: career pathways, internships, apprenticeships, retraining of displaced
workers, etc.
− Engage in strategic production, attraction, retention of workers and firms (e.g., STEM)
Leverage Point 3
Develop Innovation-Enabling Infrastructure
• What is it?*
Innovation inherently drives increasing productivity and efficiency, and is the source of all
overall, long-term economic growth – the only way to make and do more with a finite
set of human and other resources. It is multi-dimensional, encompassing new products,
services and business models; stages from basic research through entrepreneurship and
adoption/diffusion; and both firm- and system-level activities.
• Key references and resources:
−
−
−
−
RWV, CMAP chapter’s “definition and significance” section (2010)
RWV, chapter for Surdna’s “Implementing Regionalism” project (2011)
Fagerberg, Mowery and Nelson, eds., Oxford Handbook of Innovation (2005)
Atkinson and Audretsch, “Economic Doctrines and Policy Differences: Has the
Washington Policy Debate Been Asking the Wrong Questions?” (2008)
− Atkinson, “Innovation Economics: The Economic Doctrine for the 21st Century”
(http://www.innovationeconomics.org/)
− Atkinson, “Supply-Side Follies: Why Conservative Economics Fails, Liberal Economics
Falters, and Innovation Economics is the Answer (2006; especially appendix)
*“…new products, new services, new technologies, new ways of organizing work, and new business models….”
(Brookings Metro Policy)
Develop Innovation-Enabling
Infrastructure (cont’d)
Leverage Point 3
• Market analysis:
− Elements to examine
− Mapping the overall “ecosystem” – supporting institutions & networks
− Performance at particular stages (R&D, commercialization, entrepreneurship)
− Cluster-specific innovation dynamics/opportunities
− Public-sector enablers/constraints (e.g., tax/fiscal policy, permitting/licensing processes)
− Availability of stage-appropriate finance
− Rate/pattern of commercialization (e.g., in what industries, in institutions, in start-ups vs.
large firms)
− Firm starts, growth, trajectories (e.g., churn rate, 5-year survival rate)
− Challenges
− Metrics: patents are insufficient; how to measure performance at each stage
− Understanding technology transfer/commercialization opportunities & barriers
− Difficulty of assessing “environment/culture” for innovation/entrepreneurship
• Illustrative strategies and products:
− Strengthen regional R&D capacity (education, facilities, funding)
− Foster entrepreneurship through capital access, technical assistance, mentorship
− Catalyze commercialization of knowledge (strengthen research-industry linkages, revamp
university tech transfer practices, establish technology intermediaries/brokers, etc.)
− Facilitate institutional development – e.g., opportunities for interdisciplinary cross-fertilization,
multi-institutional research consortia
− Support cluster formation, especially high-human-capital occupational concentrations (see
Leverage Points 1 and 2)
− Encourage idea generation & risk-taking culture (e.g., competitions, awards, publicize success)
Increase Spatial Efficiency
Leverage Point 4
• What is it?
The geographic arrangement of households and firms – producers, suppliers and
consumers – within the region determines transportation costs for people and
businesses, and influences agglomeration benefits (such as access to shared inputs and
knowledge spillovers). Generally, to increase efficiency and productivity of the metro
economy, we want to:
−
−
−
−
Minimize transportation costs
Reduce congestion
Maximize agglomeration benefits
Avoid segregation and concentration of poverty
• Key references and resources:
− RWV, CMAP chapter’s “definition and significance” section (2010)
− Sarzynski and Levy, chapter for Surdna’s “Implementing Regionalism” project (2011)
− Brookings’ “Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America”
Increase Spatial Efficiency (cont’d)
Leverage Point 4
• Market analysis:
− Elements to examine
− Degree of housing-jobs mismatch
− Spatial concentrations of firms, functions, etc.
− Access to transit, commuting times, etc.
− Public policies re: land use/zoning, infrastructure, etc.
− Challenges
− Inadequate metrics: what is concentrating where; measurement of businessrelated (vs. household) travel times, congestion, costs
− IDing effective strategies for concentrating activities &/or changing travel
behaviors
• Illustrative strategies and products:
− Focusing development (both residential & commercial) in infrastructure-rich areas
(e.g., priority project areas, city-suburb partnerships to manage growth, brownfield
clean-up to encourage infill development)
− Expand/enhance transit service to key residential & job centers (e.g., new
capacity/routes, increased service)
− Transit-oriented and mixed-use/mixed-income development (including “new
urbanist,” “knowledge industrial parks,” etc.)
− Affordable housing programs (inclusionary zoning, employer-assisted housing,
affordable housing requirements, housing trust fund, etc.)
− Travel pricing strategies (e.g., congestion pricing, variable parking pricing)
Create Effective Public & Civic Culture &
Institutions
Leverage Point 5
• What is it?
Government (through taxation, regulation, provision of public goods, etc.) and civic-sector
activities enhance or hinder the productivity and efficiency of the economic systems
themselves – attracting entrepreneurs, enabling markets, lowering transaction costs,
increasing deployment of assets, etc. A culture of trust, collaboration and transparency,
as well as institutional flexibility and adaptability, are increasingly important (including
particularly to leverage points 1 and 3).
• Key references and resources:
− RWV, CMAP chapter’s “definition and significance” section (2010)
− Wolman, chapter for Surdna’s “Implementing Regionalism” project (2011)
− Tax-value proposition
→ Bartik (multiple; 1985, 1991, 1992, 1994)
→ Wasylenko, “Taxation and Economic Development: the State of the Economic
Literature” (1997)
→ Lynch, “Rethinking Growth Strategies: How State and Local Taxes and Services Affect
Economic Development” (2004)
− Government fragmentation
→ Berry, An Imperfect Union (2009)
→ Wilson, “Theories of Tax Competition” (1999)
− Institutional environment and culture
→ “The Public Sector” chapter in RWV’s “Digital Excellence” report
→ Taylor, “What Makes a Region Entrepreneurial? A Review of the Literature” (2006; esp.
section on Business Culture and Entrepreneurial Climate)
Create Effective Public & Civic Culture &
Institutions (cont’d)
Leverage Point 5
• Market analysis:
− Elements to examine
− Degree of horizontal and vertical fragmentation
− Areas and mechanisms for inter-jurisdictional coordination/cooperation
− Transparency, openness, responsiveness (e.g., length of time to permit, license;
data availability)
− Strategic engagement of citizens, private and civic sectors (engagement by
program area – e.g. community health, policing, etc.)
− Governance: cross-sectoral partnerships, programs; broader institutional
capacity
− Challenges
− How different forms of regional governance impact regional economic growth
− How to understand the evolving institutional environment
− “Intentionality” consistent with markets – enabling “winners” to self-select
• Illustrative Strategies and Products:
−
−
−
−
−
−
Consolidation/shared services (e.g., school districts, infrastructure)
Revenue sharing (general- or special-purpose)
Civic- and private-sector engagement (program-specific) & partnerships
E-government (e.g., citizen comments/input, social media)
Open data/data-sharing initiatives (cross-jurisdictional & with public)
Enhanced accountability through performance measurement & rigorous program
evaluation
− Permit/license fast-tracking
Governance for the MBP Initiative
• MBP content and stakeholder engagement are mutually
reinforcing and enhance each other iteratively
• Regional institutional development is a critical part of the
MBP process
− Fosters development of a higher-quality MBP
− Enables coordination, consolidation and strategic integration within
and across activities
− Facilitates implementation
− Improves governance in ways that support long-term economic
growth
• Achieve quality, capacity, inclusiveness and transparency by
engaging a broad range of economic actors through the work
(firms, non-profits, government, civic organizations,
educational institutions, etc.)
TODAY’S AGENDA
I. Introductions and Today’s Goals
II. Economic Framework – Understanding Metro Economies
III. Applying the Framework: Pilot MBPs
IV. Logistics – Work Plan and Timeline
The Steps to Creating an MBP
METROPOLITAN BUSINESS
PLANNING
Market Analysis –
status of economy: assets and
opportunities
EXAMPLE (Lead Initiative):
Puget Sound (Seattle) Region
• Firm, human capital, educational/institutional & policy strengths in
advanced building materials, software/IT, energy efficiency (EE)
technology
• Strong port, air, road & rail infrastructure
Vision & Goals –
tailored to the regional economy
Become leader in commercialization and export of advanced building EE
management technologies
Strategy Identification –
by leverage point
Facilitate commercialization & adoption/diffusion of new technologies by
overcoming two key barriers:
(1)Verify goods’/services’ energy savings potential
(2)Test “real world” results of integrating systems, application to range of
contexts/climates & role of user behavior
Identification of Lead Initiatives –
integrated policies, programs, products
& services to deliver on strategies
BETI (Building Energy-Efficiency Testing & Integration Center &
Demonstration Network): lab testing, field testing,
industry collaboration, resource referrals
Management &
Operational Planning
Financial Planning
Target-Setting &
Performance Tracking
• Partners & potential membership base
• Organizational/governance structure & staffing plan
• Facilities needs
5-year pro forma financials
•Start-up & ongoing revenues and expenses
•Sources of funds– public funds, fees for services, member/partner
investments
•Capital Budget, cash flow, etc.
Growth in:
•Jobs
•EE venture capital investments
•EE exports
•Regional status in EE marketplace
Metro Business Plan Components
Strategic Overview
Mission/Vision
Market Analysis
Goals
Strategies
Lead Initiative
Products/Services
Operations
Financials
Performance
Metropolitan Investment Prospectus
Investment Opportunities and “Asks”
Projected Returns
Getting Started: Strategic Overview (SO)
• Institutional development
− Identify & engage economic actors: business & civic leaders, key stakeholder
organizations & leverage-point & other experts
− Evaluate & address staffing needs for MBP team & long-term institutional capacity
− Develop strategy for broader public engagement
• Building from Existing Work
− Gather & synthesize existing analytics, strategies and programs into MBP
leverage-point framework
• Market Analysis
− Analyze quantitative performance measures relevant to each leverage point
(Brookings “top 100 metros” + local data)
− Incorporate qualitative data (e.g., interviews)
− Interpret market analysis results in light of local context/nuances
− Evaluate strengths, challenges and opportunities by leverage point
− Develop a compelling “story line” about the regional economy
• Preliminary Strategy Development
− Identify any gaps to be filled (e.g., light on governance strategies)
− Engage relevant stakeholders/leverage-point experts to begin developing new
strategies as needed
− Focus on integration across strategies
Performance Metrics Include Both National
and Local Data
Brookings’
“Top 100 Metros”
Overall
Economic
Performance
Performance by
Leverage
Point –
e.g., Human Capital
Local Data
• Output
• Productivity
• Wages
(Not needed, but
interpretation
incorporates local
nuances and priorities)
• HS/college
attainment rates
• Share of workers in
knowledge
occupations
• Labor force
participation rate
• Skills/job matching –
e.g., STEM and other
key degree holders
• Knowledge occupations
in targeted clusters
• Vocational and
specialized degree
programs
• Achievement gap
Example: Brookings “Top 100 Metros” Data
Next Economy: Export-oriented
Exports (2008)
Infrastructure
Experts contend that one of the defining characteristics of the post-recession economy will be its
export-oriented nature. There is no doubt that, in aggregate, the national level of exports will
continue its upward trajectory, which is driven by increased U.S. capacity and increased global
Commuting times (2008)
demand. The economic literature finds that exports are uniquely important for promoting economic
growth; certain U.S. metros are positioned better
than commuting
others to benefit
exporting’s
potential.A study in the UK found
Reducing
times from
in effect
boosts wages.
that the individual value of commuting time savings is estimated to be 50
percent of the pre-tax wage, as isLocal
the value
of increased reliability.
governments
(county, municipal and township)
Governance
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Metro area
Wichita, KS
Rank
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
1
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA
2
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA
3
Baton Rouge, LA
4
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
5
Greensboro-High Point, NC
6
Toledo, OH
6
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA
8
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI
9
Ogden-Clearfield, UT
9
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA
11
Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
12
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL
12
Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI
14
Dayton, OH
14
Albuquerque, NM
16
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI
17
Austin-Round Rock, TX
17
Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC
17
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
20
Boise City-Nampa, ID
21
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
22
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
23
Tulsa, OK
24
24
(2007)
Exports as a
Export
percentage
growth
Governance
affects
the
region’s
ability
to
adapt
in
the
face
of
economic
shocks,
Mean
travel
of GMP
(2002-2008)
Rank
vertical and horizontal
relationships
time
to work matter. Further, the number of local
28.8% and both109.3%
19
governments in a metropolitan area(minutes)
relates to greater levels of segregation, which
Metro area
24.6%
27.5%
98
adversely affects economic outcomes and
prosperity. A proliferation of local
Wichita, KS
18.7
Advanced degrees (2008)
24.6%
144.5%
7
governments is expected to make governing
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA
19.4 regionally more difficult. However it
19.0%
85.4%
44
degrees,
especiallythat
in science and engineering and related growing
should be emphasized that research shows
is the quality
of governance
Toledo, OH
19.7itAdvanced
18.2% matters most
206.0%
2
fields, are key inputs into innovation. Business Churn (2006)
for development
and prosperity,
Des Moines-West Des Moines,
IA
19.8 not its fragmentation and not
18.1% conventional
233.6%
1 business measures based on tax rates, for example.
cost of doing
Provo-Orem, UT
20.2
The metrics presented below
capture
some harder to define, more dynamic elements of the regional economy, such as
Percent
of people
17.6%
83.9%
49
Dayton, OH
20.8
the rate at which resources are redeployed
who have and how rigid or fluid the economy might be. The measure of firm births and
16.4%
56.2%
85
Syracuse, NY
20.8
Number of localdeaths is the most influential factor
affecting
completed
an employment growth and is also correlated with output growth, per capita
16.3%
104.2%
24
governments perincome growth, and productivity,
Advanced
Rochester, NY
20.9 Rank Metro name
anddegree
therefore highly correlated with economic growth in general. Note that firm
16.2%
42.4%
93
10,000 peopleDC-VA-MD-WV
contractions and expansions are weighted
1 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,
21.9 equally “positive” in the first metric below and should be considered together
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Rank Metro name
21.1
16.2%
168.9%
5
1 Honolulu, HI
0.02with the ratio of births and deaths to get
one dimension of overall business expansion or contraction.
2 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT
19.3
Scranton--Wilkes-Barre, PA
21.1
16.0%
82.5%
53
2 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
0.03CA
3 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara,
19.2
Boise City-Nampa, ID
21.3
15.9%
84.8%
47
0.06
4 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH
18.6
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 3 Tucson, AZ
21.4
Employment
15.8%
83.8%
50
4 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
0.06
5 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont,
CA
17.1
Tulsa, OK
21.4
Establishment
turnover from
15.5%
17.8%
99
5
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale,
AZ
0.08
6 Madison, WI
16.2
Knoxville, TN
21.6
births and
business
15.4%
39.7%
94
6 El Paso, TX
deaths as a
churning as a
7 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 0.09
15.4
Madison, WI
21.6
15.2%
77.7%
62
percentage
of
percentage
of
Ratio of
7
Los
Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa
Ana,
CA
0.10
8 Baltimore-Towson, MD
14.6
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
21.7
15.2%
79.1%
59
total
total
establishment
8 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL
0.10 Island, NY-NJ-PA
9 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
14.5
Fresno, CA
21.8
15.2%
85.5%
43
Rank
Metro
name
establishments
employment
births
to
deaths
9 Baltimore-Towson, MD
0.10 CT
10 Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford,
14.4
Greensboro-High Point, NC
21.8
14.8%
16.0%
100
1 Provo-Orem, UT
34.1%
13.2%
1.68
10 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
0.10
10 New Haven-Milford, CT
14.4
Oklahoma City, OK
21.8
14.7%
195.0%
3
2 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
32.8%
15.3%
0.41
11 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville,
CA 12 Raleigh-Cary, NC
0.11
14.1
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway,
AR
21.9
14.7%
43.4%
91
3 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
32.5%
13.0%
1.51
0.12
13 Colorado Springs, CO
13.9
Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC 12 Stockton, CA
22.0
14.2%
93.8%
35
4 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL
31.0%
13.0%
1.41
13OH-PA
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
0.12
14 Austin-Round Rock, TX
13.7
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman,
22.1
14.2%
64.9%
76
5 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL
30.8%
15.9%
1.54
0.14
15 Rochester, NY
13.5
Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL14 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA22.2
14.0%
142.3%
8
6 Boise City-Nampa, ID
29.6%
13.3%
1.79
15 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL22.3
0.14
16 Albuquerque, NM
13.1
Salt Lake City, UT
7 Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL
29.0%
13.2%
1.31
16 Bakersfield, CA
17 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO0.15
13.0
Springfield, MA
22.3
8
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale,
AZ
28.9%
13.3%
1.57
17 Bradenton-Sarasota-Venice, FL
0.16CA
18 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos,
12.9
9
Miami-Fort
Lauderdale-Pompano
Beach-Homestead,
FL
28.9%
12.9%
1.19
18 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA
19 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 0.16
12.8
28.6%
11.6%
1.40
19 Jacksonville, FL
0.17 10 Ogden-Clearfield, UT
20 Worcester, MA
12.7
11 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
28.3%
14.2%
1.44
20 Fresno, CA
0.18PA-NJ-DE-MD
21 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington,
12.6
28.0%
13.2%
1.26
21 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC22 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI
0.18 12 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
12.5
Jacksonville, FL
27.9%
13.1%
1.39
22 New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
0.19 13
23 Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown,
NY
12.4
14 Colorado Springs, CO
27.9%
13.0%
1.38
23 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL
0.19MN-WI
24 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington,
12.1
15 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL
27.5%
11.8%
1.35
24 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 25 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta,0.20
GA
11.9
16
Atlanta-Sandy
Springs-Marietta,
GA
27.4%
12.5%
1.32
25 Modesto, CA
0.20
25 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
11.9
17 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
27.2%
12.0%
1.16
25 Syracuse, NY
11.9
18 Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL
27.2%
11.1%
1.46
19 Salt Lake City, UT
27.0%
10.6%
1.37
20 Austin-Round Rock, TX
26.3%
13.0%
1.41
21 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX
26.2%
12.9%
1.19
22 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA
26.1%
10.7%
1.30
23 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA
26.1%
11.5%
1.29
24 Raleigh-Cary, NC
25.7%
12.5%
1.51
25 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA
25.6%
12.0%
1.27
Human Capital
Innovation
Bringing It All Together:
Developing the Metro’s “Storyline”
• Integrating market analysis results across leverage points –
seeing “forest” not just “trees”
• Incorporating local, particularly qualitative, knowledge of
history, catalytic events, current initiatives and players
• Examining and making sense of trends over time -developing sense of dynamics of economy
• Getting “feel” for what’s working and not in economy and
economic environment, opportunities and challenges …
• “Storyline” pulls together picture of assets, integrated
strategies to build on them, nature of investment
opportunity
TODAY’S AGENDA
I. Introductions and Today’s Goals
II. Economic Framework – Understanding Metro Economies
III. Applying the Framework: Pilot MBPs
IV. Logistics – Work Plan and Timeline
Anticipated project work plan & timeline
ACTIVITY/MILESTONE
Formal on-site project kick-off
Begin institutional development
• Address project staffing needs
• Engage relevant stakeholders & subject-matter experts
• Develop public engagement strategy
Gather & organize existing work by leverage point (“slotting”)
• Includes market analysis, goals, strategies, initiatives (both underway &
anticipated)
• Engage public as appropriate (see above)
Undertake market analysis:
• Review Brookings “Top 100” metrics
• Incorporate existing/new local metrics & qualitative data
• Interpret market analysis results, evaluate strengths, challenges &
opportunities by leverage point
• Synthesize findings across leverage points
TYPE*
TARGET DATE
M
[SeptemberOctober?]
WM
[Begin ASAP,
before formal
project kick-off]
WM
9/19/11
Review existing strategies, highlight gaps & ID potential new strategies
Draft rough narrative of market analysis, strategies & initiatives; validate
w/stakeholders
Share 1st-draft “slotting exercise” & market analysis with consultant team
for feedback
* M = Meeting | D = Deliverable
WM = work primarily by Metros | WBR = work primarily by Brookings/RWV
Anticipated project work plan & timeline
(cont’d)
ACTIVITY/MILESTONE
TYPE*
TARGET DATE
M
SeptemberOctober [coincide
w/kick-off?]
WM
10/31/11
M
Week of 12/5/11
WM
[Ideas will begin to
surface & be
explored during
development of
the SO]
Complete/submit 1st draft of LI
D
3/12/12
All-teams meeting/learning session #2
M
Week of 4/16/12
Complete/submit 2nd draft of LI, integrated w/SO (full MBP)
D
5/28/12
Make final refinements to MBP (SO + LI) & develop prospectus
WM
June-July 2012
Complete/submit final draft of MBP (SO + LI) & prospectus
WM
7/30/12
M
October 2012
Two-day, on-site working session
Complete/submit 1st draft of Strategic Overview (SO)
All-teams meeting/learning session #1
Begin developing Lead Initiative (LI), including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rationale/business case
Very detailed market analysis
Products/programs/services
Operational plan (staffing, facilities/equipment, org structure, etc.)
Revenues and costs (start-up & ongoing)
Performance metrics & targets
MBP event
* M = Meeting | D = Deliverable
WM = work primarily by Metros | WBR = work primarily by Brookings/RWV
DISCUSSION
Metro Business Planning: Getting Started
Summer 2011