The document describes a two-phase mixed methods study that identified characteristics of effective community and economic development strategies. Phase 1 involved interviews with experts that identified 8 key factors: network structures, asset-based frameworks, iterative planning/implementation, inclusion of short-term goals, decentralized implementation, metrics for learning, high trust among participants, and readiness for change. Phase 2 surveyed strategy participants and found positive correlations between reported effectiveness and the presence of the 8 factors, supporting network structures, asset-based approaches, iterative processes, and other characteristics as indicators of effective strategies. The study provides insight into distinguishing effective versus ineffective development initiatives.

1. Strategic Doing
Getting From Here to There:
Eight Characteristics of Effective
Community & Economic Development Strategy
Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D.
Purdue Center for Regional Development
Purdue Extension Economic & Community Development

2. Norfork, Arkansas (1910s)
2

3. Norfork, Arkansas (Today)
3

4. Problem Statement
• Literature gap regarding factors contributing to
effective economic development strategy-making
processes (Kwon, Berry, & Feiock, 2009).
• Civic leaders face daunting tasks of developing
and implementing growth strategies (Markey,
2010).
• Very little research-based information to guide
decisions about effective strategy-making
processes.
4

5. Purpose & Design
Purpose of the Study
This two-phase sequential mixed method study developed
and tested a grounded theory of strategy-making
effectiveness in the context of economic and community
development.
Research Design
Phase 1: Qualitative exploration of the variables associated
with effective economic & community development strategy
making as identified by a panel of experts.
Phase 2: Quantitative test of the relationships between the
newly identified variables and reported effectiveness among
participants in strategy-making initiatives.
5

6. Phase 1 Research Questions
RQ1-Qualitative: What were the factors that contribute to
effective strategy making in the context of local economic &
community development?
RQ2-Quantitative: Among individuals who have participated
in local economic & community development strategymaking initiatives, was there an association between
reported effectiveness of the initiatives and the factors
identified in the qualitative phase?
6

7. Literature Review
•
•
7
Conducted as part of the grounded theory data
collection process (McGhee, Marland, and Atkinson,
2007).
Conducted to provide contextualization (Dunne, 2011)
and orientation to the phenomenon (Pozzebon, Petrini,
de Mellow, and Garreau, 2011).

8. Literature Review
Evolution of economic development
1. Institutionalization
2. Locus of control
3. Complexity
Strategic planning & strategy making in economic
development
1. Early models
2. Evolving models
3. Emerging models
Contributing theories
1.Strategy formation
2.Collaborative governance
3.Social innovation
8

9. Evolution of Economic & Community
Development
Institutionalization
• Pre-institutional (Pre- WW2)
• Institutional (1950-1990)
• Multi-Institutional (1990 to today)
Locus of Control
• Control in the hands of the ―elite‖ (Perrucci & Pilisuk,
1970).
• Most economic & community development issues are
―Type 3 Public Problems‖ and control is shared by a group
of ―nonexperts‖ (Heifitz and Sinder, 1988).
9

10. Complexity
Hierarchy of Complex Systems
Social Organizations – economics, education,
politics
Individual Human – language capacity,
knowledge accumulation, design and use of tools
Animal – mobility, information processing
Plants – viability
Open Systems – matter, energy
Cybernetics – computers
Clockworks – engines
Frameworks – buildings, cells
Boulding, K. (1956). General systems theory—the skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197-208.
10

11. Strategy in Economic & Community
Development
Early Models
• Late 1980s/Early 1990s first economic development strategic plans
(Blackerby & Blackerby, 1995)
• Borrowed from industry models (Blair,2004)
Evolving Models
• Recognition that corporate models are less effective (Bryson and Roering,
1987).
• U.S. Economic Development Administration’s CEDS; Cooperative Extension
Service’s Take Charge (Hein, Cole, & Ayres, 1990); Asset-Based Community
Development, (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1996; Community Capitals, Flora,
1992)
Emerging Models
• Effectiveness of strategic planning in business questioned (Mintzberg, 1994).
• Effectiveness of strategic planning in economic & community development
questioned ( Blair, 2004; Robichau, 2010; Morrison, 2012)
• Organic Strategic Planning (McNamara, 2010, Open Source Economic
11 Development (Merkel, 2010), Strategic Doing (Hutcheson, 2008; Hutcheson &

12. Early, Evolving, and Emerging
Models Informing Strategy in E&CD
12

13. Contributing Theories
13

14. Contingent Lines of Inquiry
• Organizational Structure (hierarchy, network, etc.)
• Framework (asset-based, deficit-based)
• Processes (planning and Implementation separate and
distinct, planning and implementation integrated and
iterative, etc.)
• Timeframe (focused on longer-term goals, focused on
shorter-term goals, etc.)
• Implementation (tasks centralized with one organization,
tasked disseminated among multiple organizations)
14

15. Phase 1: Panel of Experts
• Population of scholars and practitioners who design
curricula for and/or teach strategy to economic and
community development professionals (IEDC, OU/EDI,
university faculty that teach the ―basic‖ course, university
faculty that developed SET curricula
• Sample: N=12
• Semi-structured interviews (IRB-approved, anonymity)
• Verbatim transcripts, data spiral analysis with three levels
of coding: open, axial, selective using qualitative analysis
software
• 56 single-spaced pages/over 31,000 words of data, 336
coded excerpts
15

16. Phase 1 Findings: Organizational
Structure
• 31 coded excerpts
• One of the most robust discussion items
• Two dominant structures: (1) hierarchical and (2)
network
• Components of both structures are needed
• Network is a key factor in effective strategies

17. Phase 1 Findings - Frameworks
• 43 coded excerpts
• The most robust discussion item
• Two dominant structures: (1) asset-based and (2)
deficit-based
• Unanimous agreement that asset-based frameworks
lead to more effective strategy initiatives

18. Phase 1 Findings - Processes
• 26 coded excerpts
• Two dominant processes discussed: (1) sequential, in
which planning is followed by implementation and (2)
iterative, where planning and implementation are
integrated
• Near unanimous agreement that iterative processes
leads to more effective strategy initiatives
• Factor in which interviewees thinking has evolved

19. Phase 1 Findings - Implementation
• 19 coded excerpts
• Two dominant structures: (1) centralized and (2)
dispersed
• Near unanimous agreement that dispersed
implementation is a characteristic of effective strategy
initiatives

20. Phase 1 Findings - Timeframes
• 18 coded excerpts
• Two dominant structures: (1) shorter-term early wins
and (2) longer-term goals
• 14 coded as ―early wins‖ and 4 as ―longer-term‖
• Factor in which interviewees thinking has evolved
• Early wins were always seen by a majority as a
characteristic of effective strategy initiatives
• Longer-term goals seen by a minority as a
characteristic of effective strategy initiatives

21. Phase 1 Findings – Social Capital
• Emergent factor
• 17 coded excerpts
• Two dominant social capital characteristics emerged: (1)
trust and (2) readiness for change
• Trust seen especially important when new partners were
working together
• Readiness for change was difficult to access
• High levels of trust and readiness for change were
viewed as characteristics of effective strategies

22. Phase 1 Findings – Data & Metrics
• Emergent factor
• 14 coded excerpts
• Interviews pointed out two ways in which metrics can be
used: (1) accountability tool and (2) learning tool
• Metrics used specifically as a tool for learning was seen
as a characteristic of effective strategy initiatives

23. Phase 1 Findings: Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
23
Network organization structures
Asset-based Frameworks
Iterative planning/implementation process
Inclusion of shorter-term goals
Decentralized implementation
Metrics to learn what is working
High levels of trust among participants
Readiness for change in community

24. Phase 1 Findings: Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
24
Network organization structures
Asset-based Frameworks
Iterative planning/implementation process
Inclusion of shorter-term goals
Decentralized implementation
Metrics to learn what is working
High levels of trust among participants
Readiness for change in community

25. Phase 1 Findings: Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
25
Network organization structures
Asset-based Frameworks
Iterative planning/implementation process
Inclusion of shorter-term goals
Decentralized implementation
Metrics to learn what is working
High levels of trust among participants
Readiness for change in community
Independent
Variables

26. Phase 1 Findings: Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Network organization structures
Asset-based Frameworks
Iterative planning/implementation process
Inclusion of shorter-term goals
Decentralized implementation
Metrics to learn what is working
High levels of trust among participants
Readiness for change in community
Dependent Variable = Effectiveness
26
Independent
Variables

27. Phase 2: Hypotheses
1. Network Organizational Structure
H0: There is no correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and network organizational structure.
H1: There is a positive correlation between strategy initiative
effectiveness and network organizational structure.
Additional hypotheses were constructed for the other variables: (2) assetbased frameworks, (3) iterative-based processes, (4) shorter-term
timeframes, and (5) decentralized implementation, (6) high levels of trust,
(7) readiness for change, (8) metrics used to learn what it working
27

28. Phase 2: Survey of Participants
• Population of individuals who have participated in
economic & community development strategy initiatives
within the last few years
• Sample of 300 participants were randomly selected from
PCRD contact database (N=108). Assured that Indiana
was not over represented
• IRB-approved survey constructed using the factors
identified in phase 1, participants randomly assigned to
two contrasting groups: (1) those who would answer with
an ineffective strategy process in mind and (2) those who
would answer with an effective strategy in mind.
28

29. Instrument
29

30. Phase 2 Findings: The Means
Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.

31. Phase 2 Findings: Correlation
For the effective community
or economic development
strategy initiative you have in
mind how would you
describe its level of
effectiveness:
• Completely effective
• Significantly effective
• Somewhat effective
Completely
Effective
31
Significantly
Effective
Somewhat
Effective
For the ineffective community
or economic development
strategy initiative you have in
mind how would you describe
its level of ineffectiveness:
• Completely effective
• Significantly effective
• Somewhat effective
Significantly
Ineffective
Somewhat
Ineffective
Completely
Ineffective

32. Phase 2 Findings: Correlation
32

33. Summary
Effective
Strategy Initiatives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Have network organizational
structures
Are framed primarily around building
on the community’s (local or
regional) existing assets
Have planning and implementation
processes that are iterative
Includes short-term, easy-win goals
Decentralized responsibilities for
implementation among multiple
organization
Uses metrics to learn what is
working and to make adjustments
along the way
Have high levels of trust among
participants
Have communities that are ready to
change

34. Summary
Effective
Strategy Initiatives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Have network organizational
structures
Are framed primarily around building
on the community’s (local or
regional) existing assets
Have planning and implementation
processes that are iterative
Includes short-term, easy-win goals
Decentralized responsibilities for
implementation among multiple
organization
Uses metrics to learn what is
working and to make adjustments
along the way
Have high levels of trust among
participants
Have communities that are ready to
change
Ineffective Strategy
Initiatives
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Have hierarchical organizational
structures
Are framed primarily around
addressing the community’s (local
or regional) problems or deficits
Have planning and implementation
processes that are sequential
Includes only long-term,
transformational goals
Centralized responsibilities for
implementation with one
organization
Uses metrics primarily for
accountability
Have low levels of trust among
participants
Have communities that are not
ready for change