![]() |
![]() |
![]() Friday, December 20, 2002 The Corporation for Enterprise Development has released the latest edition of its controversial Development Report Card for the States. Go The report card is controversial, because of both the framework it employs and the measures it uses. Traditional state economic development programs that are based on a recruitment strategy do not generally do well. The CFED report uses 71 criteria ranging from air quality to unemployment rates. So, for example, Arkansas' economic development chief calls the CFED ""a Washington think tank... made up of a bunch of pipe-smokers and dreamers." Read more. What we have here is a failure to communicate. The CFED report points in the right direction...but it is not communicating effectively with state legislators who need the most help. No one can get their head around 71 indicators. The point of keeping score is to find the right metrics to drive performance. Fewer is better. These metrics need to be clearly linked to factors that drive success in the knowledge economy. And the rationale needs to be quickly and easily communicated. Concepts like "development capacity" are non-starters for most politicians. There's also an underlying tone in the CFED work: We can get some of these people to change if we shame them into it. This approach does not play well. My advice: use the CFED indicators but drop the grading. The point is to measure improvements and to set measurable goals. Then use these goals to guide legislators to a more productive pattern of state economic development investment. Judging from the reaction in Arkansas, CFED should rethink its approach. posted by Ed Morrison | |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||
![]() |