11

An Overview of State Science and Technology Strategic Planning

State Science and Technology Institute

This Issue Brief 1) presents an overview of states' science and technology strategic plans and the process by which they were developed; 2) examines the extent to which the plans explicitly address the needs of distressed areas: and, 3) describes science and technology strategic planning activities in Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont.

Summary of Findings

• Thirteen states adopted statewide science and technology strategic plans between 1991 and 1995. During this same time, twenty-nine states adopted overall economic development strategies, some of which addressed the science and technology base in the state or the needs of particular technology-based industries.
• The strategies, with a few exceptions, did not explicitly address the needs of distressed areas or consider the way implementation of the strategy would benefit these areas. If the strategy was targeted, it was targeted to specific technologies or industries rather than to geographic areas or population groups.
• The states varied greatly in their approach to strategic planning. Several states have established strategic planning organizations that prepare, update, and monitor implementation of the state's strategic plan over time. In others, a strategic plan was developed to respond to an economic crisis or the election of a new administration and may or may not have led to an ongoing planning effort.
• A number of plans reviewed did not include an implementation plan or assign responsibility for action. However, a number of recently developed plans assigned responsibility for action items and established timelines and outcome measures. Many plans included recommendations that must be carried out by entities over which the organization that developed the plan has no authority.
• Public outreachthrough focus groups, regional conferences, and workshopswas critical to the states in developing their strategic plans. Outreach activities were used to gather information, to develop consensus, and to build support for the plans. Regional hearings or workshops were used to ensure that the views of all areas of the state were reflected in the strategies.
• Business and industry representatives played a key role in developing states' strategic plans. Many states appointed industry task forces to identify key issues and suggest ways in which the state might encourage further growth of a particular industry segment. It was also a common practice to appoint an advisory council with representatives from both the public and private sectors to oversee development of the plan.

Introduction

States often adopt strategic plans to guide their economic development investments. Comprehensive economic development plans include recommendations for expanding trade, meeting workforce needs, building transportation and infrastructure, and creating regulatory and taxing policies that support economic growth. Increasingly, state economic development strategies include recommendations for improving the state research and development base and supporting technology-based companies. In some cases, technology is viewed as such an important contributor to economic growth that a strategic plan is developed which focuses solely on science and technology issues.

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration funded the State Science and Technology Institute to identify best practices in state science and technology strategic planning, with a specific focus on how states are using their science and technology resources to benefit distressed areas. The project was undertaken to investigate the extent to which the states consider the potential impact their technology-based development plans will have on all geographical areas of the state.

The initial tasks of the project were to identify states that had undertaken a strategic planning process between 1991 and 1995, to identify the plans that focused specifically on science and technology, to determine the extent to which the plans explicitly addressed the needs of distressed areas, and to prepare an overview of state science and technology planning. This Issue Brief summarizes the project's findings to date. Additional tasks to be conducted include developing recommendations on the role that state science and technology initiatives can play in revitalizing distressed urban and rural areas and analyzing the factors that lead to the development of effective state science and technology strategic plans. The final report will highlight the strategies that address the needs of distressed areas.

This Issue Brief presents:

• Findings regarding the status of state science and technology strategic planning across the country.
• An overview of state science and technology strategic planning based on a review of the strategies developed during this time period.
• A review of the status of state science and technology strategic planning as a mechanism for addressing the needs of distressed areas.
• A description of activities to be undertaken during the remaining months of the project.

The Status of State Science and Technology Strategic Planning

States undertake strategic planning processes for a number of reasons. State development policies often are initiated in response to a crisis. Economic restructuring, a recession, or downsizing within a key industry such as defense, can cause a state to examine its economy and develop policies to promote future economic growth. The election of a new Governor or new legislative leadership can provide an opportunity to examine and evaluate existing state policies and programs. In a handful of states, strategic planning is an ongoing process with plans updated every five years or so.

Twenty-nine states adopted economic development strategies between 1991 and 1995. Thirteen states adopted dedicated science and technology strategic plans during this same time. Seven of these thirteen states prepared both a general economic development strategy and a science and technology strategic plan. Two statesAlaska and Connecticutconducted an analysis of the state's technology base as a first step in developing a technology strategy, and Kansas conducted such an analysis as a first step in revising its technology strategy. New Jersey developed vision 2020 to initiate the state's science and technology strategic planning effort.

Economic Development Strategic Plans

Some of the economic development strategic plans addressed the science and technology base in the state or the needs of particular technology-based industries, but the recommendations were usually general. This is not surprising, given the broad range of public investments and policy that must be taken into account in developing an economic development strategy. In addition to technology, the plans addressed tax and regulatory policy, transportation, infrastructure, education, natural resources, and environmental issues. Several of the strategies, including Arizona's, South Carolina's, Vermont's, and Virginia's, called for the development of state science and technology strategic plans. Both Arizona's and North Dakota's economic development plans addressed technology issues.

• Arizona's Strategic Plan for Economic Development included recommendations for initiatives in seven "foundation" areas with technology being one of the areas. Specific initiatives included improving K-12 math and science education, encouraging university research with economic development impact, strengthening the Governor's Council on Science and Technology, developing a statewide university-industry technology transfer strategy, and attracting and growing technology-based companies.
• The North Dakota Vision 2000 Report proposed eight major initiatives, including establishing a Commission on Science and Technology. North Dakota's Technology Transfer, Inc., was created to carry out the plan's technology recommendations.

Science and Technology Strategic Plans

The overriding goal of the thirteen science and technology strategic plans developed by the states between 1991 and 1995 was to create high-wage jobs in technology-based businesses in order to increase per capita income and improve citizens' standard of living. Strategies used to achieve this broad-based goal of state-wide economic growth included:

• Improving or capitalizing on the state's research base. The strategies recognized the importance of maintaining and strengthening the research and development capacity of the state's colleges and universities. The specific activities proposed depended on the current capacity of the research system within the state. In Tennessee, a state with fewer industrial research and development resources, the plan proposed activities designed to build a nationally competitive science and technology base. In North Carolina, known for its wealth of research institutions in Research Triangle Park, the strategy focused on ways to capitalize on the technology developed, while continuing to maintain and strengthen research and development capacity.
• Building the technical skills of the existing and future workforce. The states' plans acknowledged the availability of an educated, highly skilled workforce as a prerequisite for a technology-based economy. The strategies addressed the need for improved math and science education at the K-12 level and emphasized the importance of technical training. While the strategies articulated the need for skilled workers, they did not propose programs or activities to prepare disadvantaged, lesser skilled workers for technical jobs.
• Creating a climate supportive of entrepreneurs and technology-based businesses. State science and technology strategies typically focused on encouraging "home-grown" businesses by providing support to entrepreneurs and small technology-based firms rather than seeking to recruit technology firms to locate within the state. The strategies included recommendations on tax and regulatory policies and proposals for programs to provide financial and nonfinancial assistance to entrepreneurs and technology-based companies. Louisiana's strategy, for example, recommended that the state establish a financial stimulus package for technology-based businesses in Louisiana to establish, expand, and/or stabilize operations.
• Accelerating the commercialization and deployment of technology. States are increasingly trying to facilitate the incorporation of new technology into processes and products. Maryland's strategy, for example, included recommendations for exploiting the commercialization potential of technology developed by universities and federal laboratories located in the state.
• Investing in technology infrastructure. States have a long history of investing in physical infrastructure to support economic development. The states' science and technology strategic plans recognized that the infrastructure needed to support technology-based enterprises is changing rapidly. Most of the strategies addressed the need for an expanded and upgraded telecommunications infrastructure. The Maine Science and Technology Action Plan, for example, called for continued investment in the next generation of Internet through the University of Maine system and challenged every Maine community and every Maine business to establish its own World Wide Web page.

Addressing the Needs of Distressed Areas

The strategic plans reviewed by SSTI did not explicitly address the needs of distressed communities or areas, with a few exceptions. This was true of both the science and technology strategies and the overall economic development strategies. Even in economic development strategies that included a goal of promoting development of distressed areas, it often was not clear which initiatives would be dedicated to those areas in particular. Furthermore, to the extent that actions were identified, they seldom focused on technology. Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and South Carolina's strategies included a focus on distressed areas.

• A goal of Maine's economic development strategy was to shrink economic disparities within the state. While this goal was reflected in the state's science and technology plan, proposed activities to achieve the goal have not yet been developed.
• Massachusetts' Choosing to Compete: A Statewide Strategy for Job Creation and Economic Growth was premised on a commitment to maximize employment opportunities for citizens and areas in greatest need. The strategy called for targeting job creation incentives to economically distressed areas of the state; targeting technical and job training assistance; improving infrastructure and physical assets through targeted state capital spending; providing special assistance to minority-owned enterprises; and improving basic education at the preschool, primary, and secondary levels. The strategy also addressed the needs of distressed urban areas, rural and small city development, defense restructuring, and small business development.
• Revitalizing the state's urban areas is one of four objectives identified in New Jersey's Economic Master Plan. Strategies to achieve this objective include establishing a state-level Urban Council to facilitate public/private partnerships; working with local and neighborhood development organizations to attract private and public funding for revitalization activities and planning; establishing an enterprise loan marketing program; capitalizing the Urban Development Corporation and expanding its scope; and promoting workforce training and development.
• A stated goal of South Carolina's strategy was to "ensure that the benefits of increased wealth generation are realized across all regions of the state." Specific actions proposed included facilitating planning in each region, providing support for business development, and providing leadership training.

Like the general economic development strategies, the science and technology plans did not discuss whether the state's science and technology activities would benefit distressed areas of the state. The strategies, by and large, were not targeted geographically or by population although several included recommendations for supporting technology-based development in rural areas. Most of these initiatives focused on linking rural areas to sources of technology and technical expertise by the use of advanced telecommunication.

In some instances, while the strategy did not specifically mention distressed areas, it is expected to positively impact such areas. Vermont, for example, is predominantly rural and lacks many of the resources needed to support economic development. Successful implementation of the state's science and technology policy is expected to increase the number of high-skill, high-wage jobs in the state. While initial activities focused on the University of Vermont, the state's only research institution, it is expected that spin-off companies will be located throughout the state.

To the extent that the science and technology strategies were targeted, they were usually targeted by industry or technology area. Arizona, California, Connecticut, Kansas, and South Carolina, among others, identified proposed activities to meet the needs of industry clusters.

Science and Technology Strategic Planning Processes

States varied in who initiated the strategic planning process, how the process was carried out, the amount of data collected and subsequent analysis performed, who was responsible for developing and implementing the strategy, and the extent to which the strategy contained outcome measures. In some states, the planning process took as long as two years. In others, a strategy was completed in a matter of months.

Initiating the Process

The strategic planning process has been initiated by state government as well as the private sector. In seven states, the science and technology strategic planing process was initiated at the requested of the Governor. For example, the Vermont Science and Technology Plan was prepared by the Vermont Technology Council in accordance with a Governor's Executive Order. In two states, Iowa and Maine, the strategic planning process was developed at the request of the legislature.

Strategies also were initiated by the agencies responsible for administering the state's science and technology programs. Colorado's technology transfer plan was initiated by the Colorado Advanced Technology Institute (CATI), Maryland's strategy was initiated by the Department of Economic and Employment Development, and Kansas' plan was developed by the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation. The Louisiana Department of Economic Development is required by legislation to produce a five-year strategic plan and annual operating plans. The Science and Technology Program Strategic Plan is a distinct part of the overall departmental plan.

In some cases, private sector organizations or business leaders spearheaded the strategic planning process. Connecticut Connects: An Assessment of the Economic Challenges for the State's Future was prepared by the Connecticut Economic Conference Board. The Board was established by statute in 1991 to provide economic advice to the Governor and state legislature and to hold regular conferences on the state's economy. The members of the board are appointed by the Governor and legislature.

Organizing for Action

Strategies can be developed by an existing organization, or state agency or a strategic planning committee can be appointed. In eight states the strategy was developed by the state's science and technology agency. In five states, the strategy was developed by a public-private council set up for the explicit purpose of developing a strategy. For example:

• Georgia's strategy was developed by the Governor's Advisory Council on Science and Technology Development. The Council, established in 1992, includes representatives of the business community, academic community, research and development community, and producers and consumers of technological resources.
• Illinois' Technology and Jobs Agenda was developed by the Illinois Coalition, a not-for-profit organization established in 1989 to strengthen Illinois' economy through science and technology. Its members include representatives from business, higher education, labor, and government.
• New Mexico's strategic plan was developed by the Governor's Science and Technology Advisory council. Represented on the Council are the Governor's Science Advisor, Economic Development Department, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, Lovelace Institute, the state's three research universities, and private businesses involved with technology commercialization.

Analyzing the Economy

The first step in developing a strategic plan usually is to conduct a baseline assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the state's economy and the state's research infrastructure. Most strategies included some analysis of key economic, demographic, labor, and industrial issues, although the extent of the analysis varied greatly. Some states also included a review of major global issues likely to impact future growth of the state's economy. California's strategy, while it is an overall economic development strategy rather than a science and technology strategy, provides a good example of the type of analysis needed to support the planning process.

• California's Economic Strategy Panel was created by the governor to "develop an overall economic vision and strategy to guide public policy toward a prosperous 21st Century." The Panel undertook an extensive analysis of California's economy using both detailed economic data and data collected by means of direct interviews with industrial representatives. The Panel examined regional patterns of employment and business at the local level by three- and four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SSIC) codes between 1991 and 1994. In addition, the Panel examined the organization of selected industry clusters and the factors which had facilitated their growth and expansion.

The clusters were examined in regard to the:

• Components that made up the cluster, including key producers/exporters, suppliers, human resources, investors, institutions, such as government, education, research laboratories and associations, and infrastructure
• Size and growth of the cluster
• Evolution of the cluster
• Relationships and networks
• Markets
• Opportunities
• Requirements for future growth.

Based on its analysis, the Panel concluded that California was growing a new economic base which was substantially different from the economic base of its past. The strategy proposed public policies designed to meet the competitive requirements of the knowledge-based industries which were emerging.

Getting Input

In addition to analyzing trends in the economy, states used a variety of mechanisms to obtain input for the strategic plan, including surveys, focus groups, interviews, and public hearings. Both Colorado and North Carolina used multiple techniques to reach a broad cross-section of citizens.

• In preparing Colorado's plan, the Colorado Advanced Technology Institute (CATI) commissioned eight background studies and conducted surveys of Colorado businesses and economic development and technology transfer organizations. A planning forum was held to present and discuss the results of the studies and surveys and to develop recommendations.
• The North Carolina Alliance for Competitive Technologies (NC ACTs), organized six task forces on particular issues of concern, held nine focus groups across that state to assess industry attitudes and practices, and conducted in-depth surveys of the state's manufacturing sector and technology delivery systems. NC ACTs also worked with the private sector to conduct industry specific studies.

Implementation

The strategies varied greatly in the level of detail on implementation. Some of the plans included recommendations for action but did not identify a party responsible for acting on the recommendations, a timeline for implementation, or any measures to plot progress on achieving the goals and objectives of the strategy. In some cases, an action plan was developed after the strategy had been adopted. For example, The Montana Science and Technology Policy Plan was released by the Montana Science and Technology Advisory council in 1991. A year later, the Council completed The Montana Science and Technology Action Agenda which included key actions, identified responsible parties, and established an implementation timeline.

Of the thirteen strategies examined, eight included an implementation plan, although they varied greatly in level of detail and specificity. Only three plans (Maine, Maryland, and North Carolina) included specific outcome measures. The outcome measures varied in level of specificity. Some plans identified data to be tracked (e.g., growth rate of technology-related businesses, new companies started, or industry support for universities' research and development). Others set quantitative goals, such as increasing the percentage of high-technology firms in the state by 50 percent and increasing employment in technology industries by 30 percent. Louisiana's strategy contained measurable objectives, such as executing at least 125 technology transfer agreements between the federal government and Louisiana private sector companies annually.

Determining the extent to which the recommendations in strategies developed several years ago have been implemented is difficult because many states established no mechanism for tracking implementation, and staff turnover has resulted in little institutional memory. For example, in three of the states that adopted strategies in 1992 and 1993 (Iowa, Maryland, and Montana), changes in administrations and the state's science and technology leadership made it difficult to determine how effectively the strategy was implemented, if at all. While the strategies may have influenced the state's investment in science and technology, those most involved in developing and implementing the strategy are no longer with state government.

• Iowa, which adopted a Technology Investment Strategy for Iowa in 1992, completely reorganized its science and technology effort in 1996. The Wallace Technology Transfer Foundation, established by the legislature in 1989 with responsibility for "formulating a long-range strategic plan to guide state investment in applied research, development, and commercial transfer of selected scientific and technological innovation and in the development of Iowa science infrastructure," no longer exists, and the state is reevaluating its science and technology initiatives.
• Maryland experienced a change in Governors, which has led the state to refocus and refine its development priorities. However, many of the implemented recommendations have survived, albeit at modest resource levels.
• The Montana Science and Technology Alliance, which was established by the legislature in 1985 and oversaw the development of the Science and Technology Policy and Plan and the Montana Science and Technology Action Agenda, was disbanded in June of this year. Efforts to fully implement the plan failed when the Governor, who was a key supporter of the initiative, left office and the state's fiscal condition made it difficult to provide sufficient funding.

For the strategies adopted in 1995, it is still too early to assess implementation even though the strategy may assign responsibility for monitoring implementation.

Conclusions

This initial review of state science and technology strategic planning found that:

• Thirteen states have adopted and implemented state science and technology strategic plans. Several states, including Pennsylvania, Nevada, West Virginia, and Wyoming, are in the process of developing strategies. Four states have undertaken initial planning activities as the first step in preparing full-fledged technology strategic plans.
• State economic development strategic plans, while addressing some technology issues, included few detailed strategies for promoting science and technology-based development.
• Neither state economic development nor science and technology strategic plans explicitly targeted economically distressed areas or disadvantaged populations. The actual impact of science and technology investments on such areas and populations cannot be determined based on a review of the plans.

In order to explore how states can promote technology-based development in distressed areas, the Institute and the National Governors' Association held a roundtable that brought together state and federal science and technology policymakers, economic development practitioners, and local officials to develop recommendations regarding the role state science and technology initiatives can play in revitalizing distressed urban and rural areas.

To gain greater understanding of the factors that lead to successful implementation of state science and technology strategic plans, the Institute will conduct in-depth interviews with practitioners and policymakers in six states. The data collected from the interviews, as well as the findings and recommendations from the roundtable, will be included in a final report.

Reprinted with permission from the report An Overview of State Science and Technology Strategic Planning, pp. 2­11, August 1997, Columbus, Ohio. This report was prepared under an award (Proj #99-07-13788) from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, and conclusions are those of the Institute and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration.