Southwest Michigan Regional Prosperity Initiative March 25, 2014 Meeting Notes Welcome and Introductions Introductions of Committee members and guests were made. Rebecca Harvey was introduced as selected Prosperity Plan author. A seating chart for the meeting was presented. Comments by guest attendees were requested to be presented through appointed Committee members. Mileage Reimbursement Forms were distributed to Committee members. The method for submittal was explained. It was noted that two reimbursement payments would be made during the project.

Review Backbone Work Since Last Meeting It was explained that the term ‘backbone’ is being used in reference to the ‘planning team’ or ‘core group’ charged with serving the Committee and completing the prep work/background material for meetings. Specifically, SWMPC (John Egelhaaf, Executive Director), SMPC (Lee Adams, Executive Director), the Plan Author (Rebecca Harvey), and the Project Facilitator (Peter Dams). It was noted that the following work has been accomplished since the March 6, 2014 meeting:     

Continue to work in coordination with Northeast and Northwest Regions on the development of a website. Identified/solidified an opportunity with Michigan Center for Shared Solutions for the ‘scoping work’ in the development of a dashboard. Obtained ‘guidelines’ for the development of the Prosperity Plan from Mark Wyckoff, Senior Associate Director, Land Policy Institute. Retained/engaged Rebecca Harvey, Plan Author. Refined the project timeline.

Where Are We Going and How Are We Going to Get There? Working Definitions: Definitions for the terms ‘prosperity’, ‘regional prosperity plan’, and ‘strategic assets’ developed by the Land Institute Policy were presented. General discussion ensued wherein it was determined that there was value in having understood definitions of these terms but that the definitions themselves required further consideration.

1|Page

Southwest Michigan Regional Prosperity Initiative March 25, 2014 Meeting Notes From Vision to Impact: The overall planning process proposed for the development of the plan was reviewed. The following elements were detailed in a flow chart: Shared Vision (developed after a review of assets); Goals; Strategies; Action Items; and, Regional Impact. This procedural structure will also serve as the structure of the Plan. Deliverables: The required ‘deliverables’ were reviewed: Regional Prosperity Plan; a website (which will serve as an accessible repository of the regional data and documents gathered); and, a performance dashboard that will serve as a tool to note progress on annual goals and regional impacts. Timeline: A review of the proposed timeline was provided. The following elements were highlighted:     

SWMPC is already receiving and reviewing partner plans. Missing plans will be identified and contacts made to allow for submission of plans prior to the April 11 meeting. All identified partner goals will be clustered into themes for initial discussion on April 11 and final discussion on May 2. The process envisioned for the SWOT Analysis scheduled for the July 1 meeting was reviewed. The draft goals/strategies will be developed from the identified assets and the results of the SWOT Analysis. The first draft of the Plan will be available for review at the September 4 meeting.

Dialogue: The following questions/comments were provided by Committee members: Support was expressed for the proposed process/timeline. It is important to ensure that the roles/voices of the sectors are heard and reflected in both the process and the product (Prosperity Plan). This consideration will make for a stronger Plan. It was agreed that partner plans include input from many stakeholders and are considered representative of those voices. In the compilation of partner plans and the identification of goals, it is important to consider how the plans were developed and the source of the information contained within the plans. Goals should not just be ‘lifted’ from the plans.

2|Page

Southwest Michigan Regional Prosperity Initiative March 25, 2014 Meeting Notes Many of the sectors represented at the table are engaged in public/private collaboration and represent a different ‘sphere of influence’. It is important to the process to understand how/where the information was obtained that was used to support their plan goals (ie. the institution will seek to align their resources – talent, time, and money – with their end goals). Why are we developing this Prosperity Plan? Is this being done to serve as a basis to apply for grant dollars . . . or . . . are we motivated by an understanding that working together as a region will result in economic development which will then bring in tax dollars? The Committee agreed that there is value in working together as a region for efficiency and cost effectiveness. Further, it is understood that efforts to collaborate will result in an alignment of strategies and a targeted use of resources.

The Role of Data in Creating the Prosperity Plan How Can We Handle the Data Challenge? John Egelhaaf presented the following information for Committee consideration:     

Summary of data provided in March 6 presentation by George Erickcek, W.E. Upjohn Institute. There are several models available through which to process data. The data available could be too numerous/overwhelming to learn what is important to us. An efficient approach to the collection of data is proposed to include: request for member plans; cluster the available data in the plans – perhaps by sector; identify the gaps in the data; work with G. Erickcek to fill those gaps. This approach accepts that the data/goals contained within the member plan have been deemed important by that member organization.

The Committee expressed support for the proposed data collection method. It was agreed that the assembling of partner plans would be the quickest and most efficient way to begin to find points of consensus and propel us toward developing a common vision. How Can We Measure Ourselves? The following information was presented for Committee consideration:    

A dashboard is a required deliverable. The design of the dashboard is at our discretion. Examples of both static and interactive dashboards were presented and reviewed. $6,000-$10,000 has been budgeted for dashboard development.

3|Page

Southwest Michigan Regional Prosperity Initiative March 25, 2014 Meeting Notes 

Michigan Center for Shared Solutions has worked with Governor Snyder and other State agencies on dashboard development and is available to provide assistance in the scoping process for our dashboard.

Committee member comments noted the following:     

Dashboards tend to generate little interest or use. Concern was expressed that the required website (as a repository of data/information) may be a duplication of the dashboard effort. Incorporating links to partner plans and mutually beneficial resources on the dashboard will be more useful and limit any inherent redundancy. Keep it simple; don’t spend too much time or money on a dashboard. The real work at hand is collaboration . . . don’t get distracted with a complicated dashboard that is expensive and difficult to maintain.

Dialogue: Discussion ensued regarding what data is available; what data is important; how to use the data to measure success/progress; what data is relevant in goal setting. There was general agreement that there is a 2-3 year lag on data that is collected unless the data is collected in-house. Connection with direct sources will be advantageous.

Next Steps The next Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, April 11, 2014, 2:30 – 4:00. Committee members were reminded to forward their plans to John Egelhaaf, SWMPC.

Adjournment

4|Page