Getting from Here to There: Eight Characteristics of Effective Economic & Community Development Strategy

474 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
474
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Getting from Here to There: Eight Characteristics of Effective Economic & Community Development Strategy

  1. 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. 2. Norfork, Arkansas (1910s) 2
  3. 3. Norfork, Arkansas (Today) 3
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. Early, Evolving, and Emerging Models Informing Strategy in E&CD 12
  13. 13. Contributing Theories 13
  14. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29. Instrument 29
  30. 30. Phase 2 Findings: The Means Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
  31. 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. 32. Phase 2 Findings: Correlation 32
  33. 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. 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

×