Copyright 2014 – Scott HutchesonThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

Effective Strategy Making in Economic & Community Development

Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D.

Mid-Continent Regional Science Association 46th Annual Conference

St. Louis, M) – May 27-29, 2015

Strategy3

Strategy = the employment of battles to win the war. - General Carl von Clausewitz

6

Better understand he nature of collaborationIdentify what stage your collaborations are inConsider ways to move a collaborations to the next level

Research Question

Why are some economic & community development strategies effective and others…not so much?

Answering the Question

A grounded theory exploration using a sequential mixed method

approach beginning with a qualitative phase in which semi-

structured interviews were conducted with a purposively

sampled panel of experts resulting in data that was open coded using

the data spiral analysis method followed by a quasi-experimental quantitative phase in which two

contrasted groups of purposefully sampled, randomly assigned participants were surveyed,

resulting in data that was analyzed using Spearman’s rho to determine

correlation coefficients.

1. Literature review2. Interviews3. Surveys

Better understand he nature of collaborationIdentify what stage your collaborations are inConsider ways to move a collaborations to the next level

Problem Statement

• Literature gap regarding factors contributing to effective strategy in the context of economic & community development (Kwon, Berry, & Feiock, 2009).

• Civic leaders face daunting tasks of developing and implementing economic & community development strategies (Markey, 2010).

• Very little research-based information to guide decisions about effective strategy-development processes in the context of economic & community development.

• Evolution of dealing with economic & community development • Institutionalization• Locus of control• Increasing complexity

• Tools for managing economic & community development • Early tools• Evolving tools• Emerging tools

• Contributing theories• Strategy formation• Collaborative governance• Social innovation

Insights from the Literature

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).

Better understand he nature of collaborationIdentify what stage your collaborations are inConsider ways to move a collaborations to the next level

Evolution of How We Deal with

ECD Issues

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).

Dealing with the Complexity

12

Early Models• Borrowed from industry models (Blair,2004) • 1960s in universities, schools, municipalities (Hamilton, 2007)• Late 1980s/Early 1990s first economic development strategic plans

(Blackerby & Blackerby, 1995)

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

Development (Merkel, 2010), Strategic Doing (Hutcheson, 2008; Hutcheson & Morrison, 2012; Walzer & Cordes, 2012)

Contributing Theories

•Social Innovation•Strategy Formation•Collaborative Governance

13

Social Innovation

Social innovations… • are best designed and implemented in networks• emerge from heterogeneousness (diversity)• are framed using existing assets• are products of co-creation• are the result of collective action• should have decentralized implementation•when implemented should focus on tangible results

Bland, Bruk, Kim, and Lee (2010); Bouchard (2012); Mulgan, Ali, Tucker and Sanders (2007); Neumeier (2012); Oliveira and Breda-Vazquez (2012)

Strategy Formation

Strategies… • are formed intuitively• are iterative•must be designed to account for unanticipated variables•must take into account contextual values, assumptions,

beliefs, and expectations•must be flexible• should be designed collaboratively• and best developed as an intra-organizational activity

Feser, 2012; Johanson, 2009; Lindblom, 1959; Mintzberg, 1978; Parnell, 2008; Rindova, Dalpiaz, and Ravasi, 2011; Sminia, 2012; Tapinos, Dyson, and Meadows, 2011

Collaborative Governance

Collaborative governance…• takes advantage of network structures• connects existing assets• focuses first on small wins• Requires decision making to be made by consensus•works when there is trust among participants• is efficient• involves successful management of both internal and external

stakeholders

Ansell and Gash, 2008; Chiclana et al., 2013; Clarke, Huxley, Mountford, 2010; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh, 2012; Gibson, 2011; Johnston, Hicks, Nan, and Auer, 2011; Kwon, Berry, and Feiock, 2009; Merkle , 2010; Olberding, 2009;

Ospina and Saz-Carranza, 2010; Pammer, 1998; Poister, 2010

Better understand he nature of collaborationIdentify what stage your collaborations are inConsider ways to move a collaborations to the next level

These Things Matter

•Organizational Structure (i.e., hierarchy, network)• Framework & Orientation (i.e., asset-based, deficit-based, efficiency-based)•Processes (i.e., relationship between planning and implementation)• Timeframe (i.e., timeline for goals) • Implementation (i.e., centralized, decentralized)•Metrics (i.e., accountability, feedback

Insights from the Panel of Experts

The Qualitative Data• Population of scholars and practitioners who design curricula, teach, and/or practice strategy development for addressing economic development, community development issues• 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

Themes from the Interviews

19

1. Toward network organization structures, away from hierarchical structures

2. Toward asset-based frameworks, away from deficit-based frameworks

3. Toward iterative planning/implementation processes, away from sequential processes

4. Toward a progressive series of shorter-term goals, away from longer-term transformational goals

5. Toward decentralized implementation, away from centralized implementation

6. Toward using metrics to learn what is working, away from metrics used primarily for accountability

Variables

20

1. Network organization structures2. Asset-based frameworks3. Iterative planning/implementation process4. Inclusion of shorter-term goals5. Decentralized implementation6. Metrics to learn what is working

Independent Variables

Dependent Variable = Effectiveness

EffectivenessFor the effective strategy initiative you have in mind, how would you describe its level of effectiveness:

• Completely effective• Significantly effective• Somewhat effective

IneffectivenessFor the ineffective strategy initiative you have in mind, how would you describe its level of ineffectiveness:

• Somewhat ineffective• Significantly ineffective• Completely ineffective

Organizational Structure, etc.

Measuring the Variables

Hierarchical, with a clear top and bottom

Network, with a hub and spokes

Insights from Participants

The Quantitative Data• Population of individuals who have participated in

community-based strategy initiatives to address community change (economic development, community development, community health, etc.)

• Sample of 300 (plus those reached by use of snowball sample) participants were randomly selected from PCRD contact database (N=209). 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

Findings from the Surveys

23

Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.

Effective & Ineffective Strategy Initiatives – Mean Responses

- = ineffective | + = effective

Completely Effective

Completely Ineffective

Significantly Effective

Somewhat Effective

Somewhat Ineffective

Significantly Ineffective

Findings from the Survey

Effectiveness Continuum

Dep

ende

nt V

aria

bles

Correlation

Findings from the Surveys

25

Source: Scott Hutcheson, Distributed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.

Correlation Between Strategy Initiative Effectiveness and the Six Independent Variables

M = Moderate PositiveS = Strong Positive

Recipe for EFFECTIVE Strategies?

• Have a network organizational structure• Frame strategies primarily around building on existing assets • Have a planning and implementation processes that is iterative • Include short-term, easy-win goals• Decentralize responsibilities for implementation among multiple organization • Use metrics to learn what is working and to make adjustments along the way

Strategic Doing enables people to form action-oriented collaborations quickly, move them toward measurable outcomes, and make

adjustments along the way.

Scott Hutcheson, Ph.D.765-479-7704

hutcheson@purdue.eduwww.linkedin.com/in/scotthutcheson/

http://www.slideshare.net/jshutch/

For More Information & to Connect

Copyright 2014 – Scott HutchesonThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

Slides available