Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely appreciate the assistance of Mark Reffitt, Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth; Kenneth Darga, Michigan State Demographer; Darby Hiller-Freund, Northwestern Michigan College Director of Research and Effectiveness; Faye Backie, Associate Director of MSU Libraries; Hailey Mooney, MSU Data Librarian; Hui Hua Chua, MSU U.S. Documents Librarian; Sara Bowers, MSU Center for Community and Economic Development. We also thank Kassandra Ray-Smith, MSU Center for Community and Economic Development and Mary Taylor, MSU Outreach & Engagement.

This report was prepared by the Michigan State University Center for Community and Economic Development under award 06-86-05322 from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Copyright

© 2009 Michigan State University Board of Trustees, All Rights Reserved

Figures 1-5: Graham L. Pierce, the Michigan State University Board of Trustees, and Phizzy at the English language Wikipedia, the copyright holders of this work, have published or hereby publishes it under the following license: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. The full text of the license is available at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html and http://knowledgeplanning.org/fdl-1.2.txt

Table of Contents

1. Background
2. Introduction
3. I. Regional Characteristics
4. II. Talent
5. High School Performance
6. Higher Education Attainment
7. III. Innovation Capacity
8. Patents
9. Venture Capital
10. High-Tech Sector
11. IV. Knowledge Sector Jobs
12. ICT Jobs
13. Health Care Jobs
14. V. Digital Economy
15. High-Speed Internet Access
16. Wireless Hotspots
17. VI. Globalization
18. Air Travel Passengers
19. H-1B Visas
20. Exports
21. Foreign Trade Zones
22. Imports
23. VII. Economic Dynamism
24. Job Turnover Rates
25. Certified Business Parks
26. VIII. Conclusion
27. Bibliography
28. Appendix A
29. Appendix B
30. Appendix C
31. Appendix D

List of Figures

1. Northern Michigan and Eastern UP Project Regions
2. Public Universities and Community Colleges in Michigan
3. Airports in Michigan
4. Foreign Trade Zones in Michigan
5. Ports of Entry in Michigan

Background

In October 2008, the Michigan State University Center for Community and Economic Development (CCED) initiated a project with the support of the U.S. Economic Development Administration to develop innovative economic development strategies with three Northern Michigan regional planning partners-the Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission (EUPRPDC), Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG), and Northwest Michigan Council of Governments (NWMCOG). The three regional planning agencies cover 21 counties, 18 in Michigan's northern Lower Peninsula and three in the Eastern Upper Peninsula:

• Northwest Michigan Council of Governments, including Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Manistee, Missaukee, and Wexford counties.
• Northeast Michigan Council of Governments, including Alcona, Alpena, Cheboygan, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego, and Presque Isle counties.
• Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission, including Chippewa, Luce, and Mackinac counties.

The goal of the project is to create new knowledge-based jobs and businesses in the regions by competing more successfully in the global knowledge economy. By understanding the dynamics and demands of global knowledge economy forces, regional leaders can better align their regional investment priorities with those demands.

The three regional planning agency partners are also designated economic development districts (EDDs) by the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA). Each partner is participating in assessing their current regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies (CEDS), and developing and implementing collaborative learning (co-learning) plans.

A Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy is a continuous planning process that is designed to promote sustainable economic development and opportunities. This strategy is used to analyze local conditions and identify problems and opportunities so that the goals and visions of the community can be met. A successful CEDS process is logical and leads to high-skill job creation. Each CEDS is unique to its region, so criteria and performance measures will be different for each one.

In order to prepare a CEDS, a committee of community stakeholders is formed to oversee the CEDS process and ensure that a broad range of viewpoints are represented. The committee adopts a work plan describing each task and oversees timely implementation.

The CEDS must describe the background of the region, including a demographic profile, major economic sectors and their employment, income, and revenues as well as other factors affecting economic performance. Economic strengths and weaknesses must be addressed as well as external trends and forces affecting economic development.

Visions, goals, and objectives provide a focus for the region's development for the next 10 to 20 years and respond to challenges and problems. They serve as a framework for future decision-making and prioritizing regional actions.

Finally, the CEDS contains an evaluation of the planning process and what can be done better. It documents the steps in the process and community participation.

After EDA approval of the CEDS, EDA-funded planning grantees are required to document their progress in the implementation of their economic development activities. The CEDS can be adjusted to accommodate new opportunities or problems, and changes must be documented in annual reports. A new, updated, or revised CEDS is required every five years, or sooner, if deemed necessary by the EDA due to changed circumstances. The document must be available to the public.

Implementation of the co-learning plans will provide regional planners and their stakeholders with new knowledge and greater capacity. This new knowledge and capacity, then, will serve as a platform for regional planners and stakeholders to create innovative regional economic development strategies to compete successfully in the global knowledge economy.

Regions

1. Northeast Michigan corresponds to the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG) region of eight counties in the Lower Peninsula: Alcona, Alpena, Cheboygan, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego, and Presque Isle.
2. Northwest Michigan corresponds to the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments (NWMCOG) region of ten counties in the Lower Peninsula: Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Manistee, Missaukee, and Wexford.
3. The Eastern Upper Peninsula corresponds to the Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission (EUPRPDC) region of three counties: Chippewa, Luce, and Mackinac.

Introduction

To assess and measure the progress of the three Northern Michigan regions in the knowledge economy, the Michigan State University Center for Community and Economic Development (CCED) project team and its three regional partners-the Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission (EUPRPDC), Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG), and Northwest Michigan Council of Governments (NWMCOG)-developed a set of 27 knowledge economy Indicators.

In collaboration with the three partners, the project team examined the MSU CCED's 2006 Michigan Knowledge Economy Index: A County-Level Assessment of Michigan's Knowledge Economy (LaMore, Melcher, Supanich-Goldner, & Wilkes, 2006) to commence development of this set of regional knowledge economy indicators. The 2006 CCED county assessment was based on the national 2002 State New Economy Index published by Robert D. Atkinson (2002) of the Progressive Policy Institute (now with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation [ITIF]). The project team also reviewed the current State New Economy Index, published in November, 2008 by the ITIF and Kauffman Foundation (Atkinson & Andes, 2008).

The principal objective of this collaborative process between MSU CCED and its three regional planning partners was to identify meaningful and useful knowledge economy strategies derived from reliable indicators for the three predominantly rural regions. The use of clear indicators can empower planners and stakeholders to understand current conditions, prioritize strategic actions, and track quantifiable changes associated with the transformation of economic development strategies from a traditional manufacturing-based model to one consistent with the dynamics of the global knowledge economy.

The 2006 CCED assessment consisted of 16 knowledge economy indicators in five categories-1) Knowledge Jobs, 2) Digital Economy, 3) Innovation Capacity, 4) Globalization, and 5) Economic Dynamism. The MSU CCED-regional partner team selected seven of those 16 indicators and added one new category-talent. The collaborative team also added five new measures to describe the regional context and 20 new indicators for a total of 32 measures.

This robust collaborative process between the MSU-based project team and the three regional partners was grounded in thorough research and analysis as well as feedback from state agency technical experts and business and economic leaders in the regions. The overarching goal is to provide a practical set of knowledge economy indicators that will assist regional planners and stakeholders in aligning their economic development strategies with the demands and requirements of the global knowledge economy.

The Current Lenses to the Emerging Knowledge Economy in Northern Michigan and the Easter UP

On balance, what the CCED-regional partner team has done is to create a new set of lenses through which economic development-related activity in the knowledge economy can be prioritized, tracked, measured, and assessed by the regional planning partners and their stakeholders.

This report consists of eight sections. In Section 1, the five measures that provide a demographic and overall economic context for the three regions are described. In Sections 2-7, the six knowledge economy categories and 27 indicators developed for this assessment are presented and discussed. Section 8 provides the conclusion of our regional assessment. The eight sections of the assessment, then, consist of the following:

1. Regional Context
2. Talent
3. Innovation Capacity
4. Knowledge Jobs
5. Digital Economy
6. Globalization
7. Economic Dynamism
8. Conclusion

In describing the 27 regional knowledge economy indicators, state, Great Lakes Midwest, and U.S. data provide a comparative context to illuminate what a particular measure means compared to state, regional (multi-state), or national performance levels. As most economic data is collected and aggregated at statewide or national levels, discerning any meaning from breakouts of regional (i.e., sub-state) data can be problematic. In many cases, generating primary data would have been preferable to using existing data sets, but such data collection was beyond the scope and resources of this project.

The primary intent underlying our data collection and analysis is to provide a topical and relevant set of lenses to understand where the regions currently stand in what we currently understand about the knowledge economy. In this respect, these knowledge economy indicators represent an initial economic development planning methodology that seeks to capture a very fast-moving target. The world of ubiquitous email, Google, Youtube, wireless communications, Blackberries, hybrid vehicles, and broadband access issues didn't even exist just 11 years ago. Google was founded September 7, 1998. Youtube started up in 2005. Over 21 million people now use BlackBerry smartphones on over 375 wireless networks in 140 countries around the world, according to Research in Motion (n.d.), the BlackBerry maker. Rapid change is the new routine. Innovation is the major economic imperative.

But we can't make progress in the knowledge economy if we don't know what indicators to use to assist in prioritizing strategies and measuring that progress. Put another way, we can't make progress if we don't know where we're going. The indicators identified in this report, then, represent an attempt to get our bearings in a stormy sea of economic changes. The sustainable recovery and reinvention of our regional economies must be informed by new learning and understanding of the transformation of the surging knowledge economy. Restarting our state economy depends on innovative regional economic development planning and strategies that will wisely allocate scarce resources and make smart investments in job-creating projects and sustainable economic growth.

From World War II until the final decades of the last century, Michigan and other industrial states in the U.S. enjoyed virtually unchallenged global leadership in its unparalleled manufacturing capacity and corresponding high income levels and quality of life that were the envy of the world. That position has been eroding. Michigan must now deeply commit itself to re-establishing its economic leadership based once again on ingenuity, innovation, and resilience that typified historic Michigan economic success stories like Ford, Olds, Chrysler, Dodge, Dow, and many others. These are the same qualities that made the state the Arsenal of Democracy in World War II. As that Arsenal, we equipped the Allied forces to defeat the threat of global totalitarianism.

This time we must equip ourselves to defeat the cancerous threat of a mind-set clinging to replicating economic models that clearly no longer produce the desired results. We must reject a catastrophic retreat to mind-sets that don't work. We must act boldly and pioneer innovative planning and economic development tools and methods to pursue advanced manufacturing in green technology and other knowledge-based sectors to create a truly sustainable and equitable economy. These indicators are intended to assist navigating those innovative paths.

Data Collection Methodology and Constraints

The collaborative team tackled significant methodological issues to identify useful and meaningful knowledge economy indicators: What are the characteristics of the knowledge economy in predominantly rural Northern Michigan? What are useful and accurate indicators in this context? What are meaningful measures in this context? What data sets are available to provide measurements of identified indicators? Are data sets readily accessible? Will those data sets be available in the future? What proxy measures are reasonable and acceptable when the desired primary data is inaccessible or absent? These are the major questions we addressed in deciding on which data sets to select as indicator measures.

A thorough Web-based literature review was conducted by the project team to identify knowledge economy indicators and measures that could be applied to Northern Michigan and Eastern Upper Peninsula regions. The project team also met with Kenneth Darga, the State Demographer, and Mark Reffitt, a state Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth (DELEG) labor market data analyst, to identify and evaluate available data sets that could serve as useful and meaningful measures.

Five teleconference meetings were held with the regional planner partners to review and discuss the results of the team's literature review, data collection, and discussions with external experts. NAICS (North American Industrial Classification System) code categories were thoroughly examined by the project team and partners to identify those codes that provide accurate indicators of knowledge jobs. Regional planners also consulted with local business leaders and experts to identify NAICS industry sectors that were relevant to their regions.

Constraints and limitations on regional data sets were encountered that constrict regional planners' efforts to develop their knowledge economies. These constraints can interfere with successful planning because they make it difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the results of economic development strategies.

For some potential indicators, no accurate data has been collected by any agency, or the project team lacked the resources (or authority) to collect or generate the data. For other indicators, data was available at the aggregate state level but not at regional or county levels. On the other hand, in some cases where local area datasets were generated, specific data was either suppressed by the data collection agency to protect privacy or riddled with unacceptably high margins of error. Data suppression and high error rates both result from thin population densities. For example, publicly available data on the number of full-time engineers in the NWMCOG region has a 29% margin of error for males (328 +/- 96) and a 77% margin of error for females (75 +/- 58).

Practically speaking, selection of accurate measures was restricted to the availability of data sets as the project lacked the resources to generate significant new primary data. The project team determined that some data sources previously used for knowledge economy indicators no longer existed. For example, the cyber-state.org Web site that had supplied data for measuring digital government had vanished. As data sets on "workforce education" and "management and professional jobs" are no longer available, these indicators were eliminated. These data sets were previously generated by U.S. Census Bureau "Long Forms" that have been replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS sampling technique precludes the generation of meaningful data from rural areas for the most part because the number of data points is far too small to rely on for accurate data.

We welcome your feedback

The project team welcomes feedback and suggestions for improving the indicators and measures described below. The rapid ongoing development and frequent disruptiveness of the knowledge economy creates a fluid and often difficult environment in which numerous questions can be raised about the meaningfulness of selected indicators and the accuracy of available measures. The project team could not answer all of these questions definitively and certainly cannot anticipate all of the future questions that will come up. We look forward to any feedback that can help create a better set of regional knowledge economy indicators to support the development of innovative regional economic strategies that help communities compete and succeed in the knowledge economy. Readers may visit our Web site (KnowledgePlanning.org) to provide direct feedback to our project team.

I. Regional Characteristics

Five types of data provide a demographic, physical, and economic context for understanding the knowledge economy Indicators developed for the three Northern Michigan regions, including:

1. population,
2. land area,
3. population density,
4. unemployment rates, and
5. per capita income.

Population (2008)

Land Area (Sq Mi, 2007)

Population Density (Population/Square Mile, 2008)

Unemployment Rates (2008)

Per Capita Personal Income (2007)

II. Talent

Talent: High School Performance

Public High School Graduation Rates (2007)

ACT Scores (2008)

Talent: Higher Education Attainment

Certificates Conferred in the Regions (2006)

College Degrees Conferred in the Regions (2006)

Student Enrollment by Region at Michigan Public Universities

Public Universities

1. Michigan Technological University, Houghton
2. Northern Michigan University, Marquette
3. Lake Superior State University, Sault Ste. Marie*
4. Ferris State University, Big Rapids
5. Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant
6. Saginaw Valley State University, University Center
7. Grand Valley State University, Allendale
8. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo
9. Michigan State University, East Lansing
10. University of Michigan-Flint
11. Oakland University, Rochester
12. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
13. Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti
14. University of Michigan-Dearborn
15. Wayne State University, Detroit

Community Colleges

16. Gogebic Community College, Ironwood
17. Bay De Noc Community College, Escanaba
18. Bay Mills Community College, Brimley*
19. North Central Michigan College, Petoskey*
20. Alpena Community College, Alpena*
21. Northwestern Michigan College, Traverse City*
22. Kirtland Community College, Roscommon*
23. West Shore Community College, Scottville
24. Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College, Mt. Pleasant
25. Mid Michigan Community College, Harrison
26. Delta College, University Center
27. Muskegon Community College, Muskegon
28. Grand Rapids Community College, Grand Rapids
29. Montcalm Community College, Sidney
30. Mott Community College, Flint
31. St. Clair Community College, Port Huron
32. Lansing Community College, Lansing
33. Lake Michigan College, Benton Harbor
34. Southwestern Michigan College, Dowagiac
35. Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Kalamazoo
36. Glen Oaks Community College, Centreville
37. Kellogg Community College, Battle Creek
38. Jackson Community College, Jackson
39. Washtenaw Community College, Ann Arbor
40. Schoolcraft College, Livonia
41. Oakland Community College, Bloomfield Hills
42. Macomb Community College, Warren
43. Henry Ford Community College, Dearborn
44. Wayne County Community College, Detroit
45. Monroe County Community College, Monroe

Other

46. University Center at Gaylord & Kirtland Community College M-TEC*

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate sites in regions.

III. Innovation Capacity

Innovation Capacity: Patents

Patents Issued (2007)

Innovation Capacity: Venture Capital

Venture Capital Firms (2008)

Innovation Capacity: High-Tech Sector

Defining the High-Tech Sector

IV. Knowledge Sector Jobs

Knowledge Sector Jobs: ICT Jobs

Defining Information & Communications Technology Jobs

Knowledge Sector Jobs: Health Care Jobs

Defining Health Care Jobs

V. Digital Economy

Digital Economy: High-Speed Internet Access

High-Speed Internet Access Providers (By ZIP Code, 2007)

Digital Economy: Wireless Hotspots

Wireless Hotspots (2008)

VI. Globalization

Globalization: Air Travel Passengers

Airport Enplanements (Domestic and International, 2007)

Primary Airports

1. Houghton County Memorial Airport, Hancock*
2. Sawyer International Airport, Gwinn*
3. Chippewa County International Airport, Sault Ste. Marie*
4. Pellston Regional Airport of Emmet County, Pellston
5. Charlevoix Municipal Airport
6. Cherry Capital Airport, Traverse City
7. MBS International Airport, Saginaw
8. Muskegon County Airport, Muskegon
9. Gerald R. Ford International Airport, Grand Rapids
10. Capital Region International Airport, Lansing
11. Bishop International Airport, Flint
12. Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport, Kalamazoo
13. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport

Commercial Service Airports

14. Gogebic-Iron County Airport, Ironwood*
15. Ford Airport, Iron Mountain*
16. Delta County Airport, Escanaba*
17. Alpena County Regional Airport, Alpena
18. Manistee County-Blacker Airport, Manistee

General Aviation Airports

19. Tulip City Airport, Holland
20. Oakland County International Airport, Pontiac
21. Willow Run Airport, Detroit

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate sites in regions.

Globalization: H-1B Visas

H-1B Visas Granted (2007)

Globalization: Exports

Exports to Canada (in millions of dollars, 2008)

Globalization: Foreign Trade Zones

Foreign Trade Zones (2009)

Foreign Trade Zones

1. Sault Ste. Marie*
2. Grand Rapids
3. Flint
4. Port Huron
5. Battle Creek
6. Detroit

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate sites in regions.

Globalization: Imports

Ports of Entry (2009)

Imports from Canada (in millions of dollars, 2008)

Ports of Entry in Upper Peninsula & Northern MI

1. Houghton Seaport
2. Marquette Seaport
3. Munising Seaport
4. Escanaba Seaport
5. Port Inland Seaport*
6. International Bridge, Sault Ste Marie*
7. Sault Ste. Marie Airport*
8. Chippewa County Int'l Airport*
9. Port Dolomite Seaport*
10. Detour Seaport*
11. Drummond Island Airport, Chippewa*
12. Mackinaw Island Seaport*
13. Cheboygan Seaport*
14. Rogers City Seaport*
15. Alpena Seaport*
16. Manistee Seaport*

Ports of Entry in Other Regions

17. Ludington Seaport
18. MBS Int'l Airport/James Clements Airport/Bishop Int'l Airport, Freeland
19. Muskegon Seaport
20. Grand Haven Seaport
21. Holland Seaport
22. Gerald R. Ford Int'l Airport, Grand Rapids
23. Capital Region Int'l Airport, Lansing
24. South Haven Seaport
25. W.K. Kellogg Int'l Airport, Kalamazoo
26. Oakland County Int'l Airport, Pontiac
27. St. Clair County Int'l Airport, Port Huron
28. Blue Water Bridge, Port Huron, Port Huron
29. Marine City Ferry Dock, Marine City
30. Algonac Ferry Dock
31. Coleman A Young Municipal Airport, Detroit
32. Willow Run Airport, Ypsilanti
33. McNamara Passenger Terminal, Detroit
34. North Passenger Terminal, Detroit
35. Fort Street Cargo Facility, Detroit
36. Service Port-Detroit
37. Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry, Detroit
38. Ambassador Bridge Passenger Facility, Detroit
39. Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, Detroit
40. Monroe Seaport

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate sites in regions.

VII. Economic Dynamism

Economic Dynamism: Job Turnover Rates

Job Turnover Rates

Economic Dynamism: Certified Business Parks

Certified Business Parks (2009)

VIII. Conclusion



Northern Michigan and Eastern Upper Peninsula Knowledge Economy Indicators
Category	Indicator
Talent	Public High School Graduation Rates ACT Composite Scores ACT Writing Scores Certificates Conferred in the Regions College Degrees Conferred in the Regions Undergrad Enrollment in MI Public Universities Grad/Prof Enrollment in MI Public Universities
Innovation Capacity	Patents Venture Capital Firms High-Tech Firms High-Tech Jobs Annual High-Tech Wages
Knowledge Sector Jobs	ICT Jobs Annual ICT Wages Health Care Jobs Annual Health Care Wages
Digital Economy	High-Speed Internet Access Providers Wireless Hotspots
Globalization	Airport Enplanements H-1B Visas Granted Exports Foreign Trade Zones Ports of Entry Imports
Economic Dynamism	Job Turnover Rates: All Industry Sectors Job Turnover Rates: Health Care Sector Certified Business Parks

The MSU Center for Community and Economic Development (CCED) project team and three regional planning agency partners-Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG), Northwest Michigan Council of Governments (NWMCOG), and the Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission (EUPRPDC)-sought to adopt a set of knowledge economy indicators to assist their stakeholders in understanding where these Northern Michigan and Eastern Upper Peninsula regions stand in the rapidly-evolving knowledge economy. The project team and partners started this six-month long process with an examination of the MSU CCED's 2006 Michigan Knowledge Economy Index: A County-Level Assessment of Michigan's Knowledge Economy (LaMore, Melcher, Supanich-Goldner, & Wilkes, 2006). It became immediately evident that a new set of knowledge economy indicators would have to be developed because of the regional focus of this project. Large regional data gaps for previously identified indicator measures were identified, as the preponderant majority of relevant public data is generated for use at the state or national levels.

After extensive review and analysis by the project team, partners, and external experts, 27 regional knowledge economy indicators were identified or developed in six categories: Talent, Innovation Capacity, Knowledge Sector Jobs, Digital Economy, Globalization, and Economic Dynamism. Five measures were also identified to provide the demographic and economic context of the three Northern Michigan regions. The indicators are designed to create a new set of lenses for this and future assessments and measurement of the regions' progress in the knowledge economy. Although some proxy indicators are distinctly less than ideal, the entire set of indicators in addition to the traditional common datasets used in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies process can provide regional leaders with valuable new insights to guide the creation of innovative economic development strategies and help communities succeed in the global knowledge economy of the 21st century.

Our Northern Michigan and Eastern Upper Peninsula regional assessment, then, is subject to the constraints of available relevant data and our current understanding of the knowledge economy. We do not pretend to know exactly how the knowledge economy will evolve in the future so these indicators will no doubt be supplemented and in some cases replaced by new indicators to better understand the future evolution of the global and Northern Michigan/Upper Peninsula knowledge economies.

While it is recognized that the knowledge economy is increasingly important to the future prosperity of Michigan and the Midwest, regional strategic planning focused on developing the knowledge economy has been limited. In developing CCED's 2006 Michigan Knowledge Economy Index (LaMore, Melcher, Supanich-Goldner, & Wilkes, 2006), it was found that neither predictors nor investments critical to the knowledge economy were identified in traditional regional and local economic planning.

This Regional Assessment is designed to leapfrog that error and help regional planners ramp up their Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies to create new knowledge economy jobs and businesses. This Assessment can be used by regional leaders to better prepare for high-value, innovative regional economic development in the 21st century global knowledge economy.

In spite of facing significant methodological barriers, the project team identified or developed 27 regional knowledge economy indicator measures that are readily obtained from available data sets. Planners throughout the state and Midwest can replicate this methodology and use these indicators to assess the performance of their regions in the knowledge economy. Instructions on retrieving specific data sets for these knowledge economy indicators are available on the project web site (KnowledgePlanning.org). Access to these instructions will enable planners, citizens, and leaders to obtain data and apply these knowledge economy indicators to their regions.

Major Findings of the Northern Michigan/Upper Peninsula Knowledge Economy Assessment

The three regions have substantial talent assets, as evidenced by several Talent indicators. The three regions compare extremely well with the average state public high school graduation rate and ACT scores (both composite and writing). In fact, Northeast Michigan's and Northwest Michigan's graduation rates are over 80%, exceeding the average state graduation rate by four and nine percentage points, respectively. Only 13 states have graduation rates of 80% or better. For ACT composite scores, Northwest Michigan exceeds the average state score by .7 (19.5 compared to 18.8), Northeast Michigan's score is identical to the average state score, and the Eastern UP is just .4 below the state average.

The three regions also perform well compared to the statewide average in public university undergraduate enrollments although they lag behind in graduate enrollments. Northeast Michigan exceeds the state and the other regions in certificates conferred. The Eastern Upper Peninsula, the only region of the three with a four-year public university, is also the only region that exceeds the state average in the number of college degrees conferred. The other two regions lag significantly behind the state average for this indicator.

This talent base is extremely important in the knowledge economy. Talent is needed to do the current and future work of local entrepreneurs, skilled workers, and visionary leaders in the Northern Michigan/Upper Peninsula knowledge economy. Talent and an ongoing willingness to learn are key to embracing mind-set change poised for competing successfully in the global knowledge economy.

All three regions are comparable to the state in the number of high-tech firms, but lag behind in the number of high-tech jobs and level of high-tech wages. The number of high-tech firms in the three regions is a strong positive indicator. Job creation and talent retention and attraction will be critical in improving this measure of the knowledge economy.

For the number of venture capital firms, Northwest Michigan is equal to the statewide average. Venture capital firms are not found in the other two regions. Creating and expanding capital networks and flow is needed.

For Digital Economy indicators, all three regions lag behind the state average in the number of high-speed Internet providers and lag significantly behind in the number of wireless hotspots. As broadband is the backbone of the knowledge economy, expanding high-speed Internet or broadband coverage is an objective the regions may want to consider. The regions' long-term economic vitality in the knowledge economy may be at stake.

Economic Dynamism indicators assess a region's ability to adapt to a changing economy. Both job turnover for all industry sectors and health care job turnover were higher in Northern Michigan than the state as a whole, indicating higher numbers of people are entering new jobs and leaving or losing existing jobs. This performance is likely a positive indicator of the regions' economic resilience and adaptability. All three regions lag behind the state in the number of certified business parks, a relatively weak proxy indicator.

All three regions lag behind the state in the number of information and communications technology (ICT) jobs as well as lagging behind in annual ICT wages. Northwest Michigan compares favorably with the state level of Health Care jobs and annual Health Care wages, but the other two regions trail Northwest Michigan and the state for this indicator.

Regional Collaborative Actions to Compete Successfully in the Global Knowledge Economy

The economic development challenge to Northern Michigan and the Eastern Upper Peninsula, as with any region in the country, demands a new foundation of collaborative partners-economic development agencies, local governments, all types of private companies, community colleges, school districts, work force development agencies, civic organizations, nonprofit agencies, and universities-to work in new and perhaps even uncomfortable ways. These new networking relationships ("swarms") and candid conversations are essential to creating dynamic new collaborative models.

The use of these knowledge economy indicators coupled with the ongoing project's innovative co-learning plans is intended to facilitate constructive dialogues, innovative new networking, and strategic planning to position the regions for success in the global knowledge economy. Bold leadership is required to reject traditional economic development models that clearly no longer work. The focus for the future must be on creating and implementing intelligent economic development strategies that will support innovation and risk-taking across the board through aggressive networking, vital collaboration, constant learning, and flexible adaptation.

Final Note

The project team welcomes your feedback and suggestions for improving the measures and indicators described in this regional assessment. Our intent is to provide the best possible information to assist our Northern Michigan and Eastern Upper Peninsula partners (and other similar regions) to align their economic development priorities to successfully compete in the global knowledge economy. The rapid ongoing evolution of the knowledge economy creates a shifting environment in which numerous new questions will arise that may challenge the meaningfulness of selected indicators and the accuracy or relevance of selected measures. The project team cannot anticipate these questions with any degree of certainty. We look forward, then, to any feedback that can help create a better set of regional knowledge economy indicators. We seek indicators and measures that will assist development of effective regional knowledge economy strategies. Finally, we invite readers outside of Northern Michigan and the Eastern UP to visit our Web site (KnowledgePlanning.org) where assistance is available to assist you in applying the indicators to other regions.

Bibliography

To view PDF documents, download Adobe Reader (Windows, Mac, Linux) or Foxit Reader (Windows, Linux).

Appendix A

Population of Northern Michigan and Eastern Upper Peninsula Counties, 2008

Region	County	Population
Northeast Michigan
	Alcona	11,556
	Alpena	29,520
	Cheboygan	26,354
	Crawford	14,463
	Montmorency	10,335
	Oscoda	8,836
	Otsego	23,808
	Presque Isle	13,650
	Total	138,522
Northwest Michigan
	Antrim	24,109
	Benzie	17,396
	Charlevoix	25,936
	Emmet	33,535
	Grand Traverse	86,071
	Kalkaska	17,066
	Leelanau	21,783
	Manistee	24,640
	Missaukee	15,001
	Wexford	31,673
	Total	297,210
Eastern Upper Peninsula
	Chippewa	38,971
	Luce	6,614
	Mackinac	10,624
	Total	56,209

Appendix B

Population of Northern Michigan and Eastern Upper Peninsula Cities and Villages, 2007

Region	City/Village	County	Population
Northeast Michigan
	Alpena	Alpena	10,4901
	Cheboygan	Cheboygan	5,027
	Gaylord	Otsego	3,664
	Grayling	Crawford	1,8502
	Harrisville	Alcona	4913
	Lincoln	Alcona	346
	Mackinaw City	Emmet, Cheboygan	8434
	Onaway	Presque Isle	917
	Rogers City	Presque Isle	3,081
Northwest Michigan
	Cadillac	Wexford	10,313
	Charlevoix	Charlevoix	2,6895
	Harbor Springs	Emmet	1,546
	Kalkaska	Kalkaska	2,1896
	Mancelona	Antrim	1,3697
	Manistee	Manistee	6,5178
	Petoskey	Emmet	6,017
	Traverse City	Grand Traverse	14,339
Eastern Upper Peninsula
	Newberry	Luce	1,553
	Sault Ste. Marie	Chippewa	14,005
	St. Ignace	Mackinac	2,3849

Footnoted cities and villages indicate adjacent townships of the same name with their respective populations below.

1. Alpena township: 9,534.
2. Grayling township: 7,021
3. Harrisville township: 1,376.
4. Mackinaw township: 568.
5. Charlevoix township: 1,682.
6. Kalkaska township: 4,893.
7. Mancelona township: 4,419.
8. Manistee township: 4,026.
9. St. Ignace township: 945.

Appendix C

Great Lakes Angel Firms

Name	City	State
Akron ARCH Angels (Akron Regional Change Angels)	Akron	OH
Ann Arbor Angels	Ann Arbor	MI
Aurora Angels	Petoskey	MI
Badger Agvest	Wausau	WI
Bio Angels	Chicago	IL
Blue Water Angels	Midland	MI
Bluestem Ventures	Springfield	IL
Capital Community Angels	Lansing	MI
Central Minnesota Growth & Transition Fund LLC	Willmar	MN
Central Wisconsin Business Angels	Plover	WI
Chippewa Valley Angel Investors Network	Chippewa Valley	WI
Core Network	Toledo	OH
Cornerstone Angels	Northbrook	IL
DaneVest Capital	Middleton	WI
First Angels	Kalamazoo	MI
Grand Angels	Grand Rapids	MI
Great Lakes Angels	Rochester	MI
Heartland Angels	Skokie	IL
Highland Park Angel Group	Northbrook	IL
Hyde Park Angel Network	Chicago	IL
Indiana Seed Fund	Indianapolis	IN
Irish Angels	Notre Dame	IN
Lake Superior Angel Network	Superior	WI
Lakes Ventures II	Alexandria	MN
Main Street Venture Partners	Fort Wayne	IN
Marquette University Golden Angels Network	Milwaukee	WI
NEW Capital Fund	Appleton	WI
North Coast Angel Fund	Cleveland	OH
North Star Fund	Grand Rapids	MN
Ohio TechAngels	Columbus	OH
Origin Investment Group	La Crosse	WI
Phenomenelle Angels	Madison	WI
Prairie Capital II	Worthington	MN
Queen City Angels	Cincinnati	OH
RAIN Source Capital	St. Paul	MN
River Valley Capital	Montevideo	MN
Rocket Ventures	Toledo	OH
Silicon Pastures	Milwaukee	WI
Sofia Angel Fund	Minneapolis	MN
South Metro Investors	Burnsville	MN
St. Cloud RAIN Fund	St. Cloud	MN
Stateline Angels	Rockford	IL
Successful Entrepreneur Investors Angel Group	Milwaukee	WI
Traverse Angels	Traverse City	MI
Twin Cities Angels	Minneapolis	MN
Two Rivers Angel Investment Network	Mankato	MN
Wellspring Investor Alliance	Mankato	MN
Wisconsin Investment Partners	Madison	WI

Appendix D

Two-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes

Code	Description
11	Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
21	Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
22	Utilities
23	Construction
31-33	Manufacturing
42	Wholesale Trade
44-45	Retail Trade
48-49	Transportation and Warehousing
51	Information
52	Finance and Insurance
53	Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55	Management of Companies and Enterprises
56	Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services
61	Educational Services
62	Health Care and Social Assistance
71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
72	Accommodation and Food Services
81	Other Services (except Public Administration)
92	Public Administration

Definitions

1. Northeast Michigan corresponds to the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG) region of eight counties in the Lower Peninsula: Alcona, Alpena, Cheboygan, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego, and Presque Isle.
2. Northwest Michigan corresponds to the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments (NWMCOG) region of ten counties in the Lower Peninsula: Antrim, Benzie, Charlevoix, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Manistee, Missaukee, and Wexford.
3. The Eastern Upper Peninsula corresponds to the Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission (EUPRPDC) region of three counties: Chippewa, Luce, and Mackinac.
4. The total corresponds to the sum of the three regions.
5. Midwest is defined as the EDA Chicago Region: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin