Archive for February, 2003

Plastic Elasticity

Friday, February 28th, 2003

By Pete Julius

For many years, the plastics industry has shown up near the top of just about every new and expanded analysis that we conducted.  Then the industry seemed to all but disappear.  The chart below provides a four-year insight into the number of new and expanded facility announcements within the plastics industry.  In 1999, a total of 520 new and expanded facility announcements were made across the country.  Then came a sharp decline, and by the end of 2001 there were only 284.  By the end of 2002 however, that trend began to reverse, with 46 new and expanded facility announcements. 

Source: Conway Data Scoreboard

It’s easy to speculate about several factors that might have contributed to the industry’s dramatic decline.  Economic hardships, the burst of the technology bubble, a rapid decrease in capital expenditures, or companies moving their manufacturing facilities overseas could all play a part.  In fact, it’s harder to see why the industry seems to be making a comeback.

Two things must be emphasized.  First, this is only a one-year upswing.  It appears as though the plastics industry is in the process of making a significant comeback, but there are still too many existing variables that could stunt this increase in new and expanded facility announcements.  Those variables include a shaky economy, the threat of war with Iraq, the continuing threat of terrorism, and lingering ripple effects of the accounting scandals.  Supplier linkage relationships or any other inter-industry activity that may increase or decrease could also affect plastics. 

Second, this is only one measure.  Other statistics must be considered, such as growth and emerging trends.  However, new and expanded facility announcements are a powerful indicator.  Through our research, companies relocate or expand because of significant changes within an organization.  These changes can be summed up in new and expanded announcements.  They provide strong indicators of activity but neither detail nor causes.  However, this chart includes a very intriguing statistic.         

As the chart indicates, 46 more new and expanded announcements were made in 2002 than in 2001. The intriguing detail is in the vast difference between the number of new announcements and expanded announcements for the same time period–39 expanded facility announcements in 2002, but only 7 new facility announcements.  This indicates that plastics companies are more inclined to expand and stay in their current surroundings, as opposed to establishing a new facility in a different location.  So what does this mean to economic development organizations? It suggests that organizations should focus their efforts on retaining current plastics companies, as opposed to attracting them to their community.

2002 New and Expanded Facility Announcements

Friday, February 28th, 2003

By Jeff Vedders

A total of 6,645 new and expanded facility announcements were made in 2002 in the U.S.  This compares with 9,679 announcements in 2001 and 11,602 announcements in 2000.  There was a 31% drop in activity from 2001 to 2002, and a 43% drop in activity from 2000 to 2002. 

Of the 6,645 announcements reported for 2002, 3,297 were new facility announcements while 3,348 were expanded facility announcements.  All announcements represent an investment of $1 million, 50 employees, or 20,000 sq. ft. 

Source: Whittaker Associates, Inc. and Conway Data Scoreboard

2002 Top New Facility Announcements Analysis.  The table below shows that most of the top industries dropped off significantly in activity from 2001 to 2002.  The building and developing category (spec buildings) leads all categories with a decline of over 78%.  Fabricated metal product manufacturing leads all manufacturers with a decline of nearly 50%. 

Although the new activity environment is mostly grim, a few categories remain not only active, but vibrant from 2001 to 2002.  The wholesale trade, durable goods category (warehousing and distribution of consumer products) leads all new announcements with an increase in activity of over 70%.  One other notable increase is the number of new primary metal manufacturing announcements from 2001 to 2002.

2002 New Announcements 2001 New Announcements Percentage Change NAICS Code NAICS Description
272 157 73.25% 421 Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods
245 1,111 -77.95% 233 Building, Developing, Etc.
200 258 -22.48% 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
186 359 -48.19% 541 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
142 176 -19.32% 325 Chemical Manufacturing
130 165 -21.21% 311 Food Manufacturing
122 204 -40.20% 721 Accommodations
109 104 4.81% 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
109 152 -28.29% 333 Machinery Manufacturing
104 196 -46.94% 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
97 133 -27.07% 422 Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods
91 181 -49.72% 332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
82 129 -36.43% 493 Warehousing and Storage
69 55 25.45% 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
63 65 -3.08% 321 Wood Product Manufacturing
63 52 21.15% 531 Real Estate
                           55 67 -17.91% 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
53 65 -18.46% 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing

Source: Whittaker Associates, Inc. and Conway Data Scoreboard

2002 Top Expanded Facility Announcements Analysis.  Expanded facility announcements also dropped significantly in activity for most of the top industries from 2001 to 2002.  Professional, scientific and technical services centers (includes computer services, engineering services, etc.) and computer and electronic product manufacturing lead all categories with drop offs of 58% and 51% respectively.  Categories showing a significant increase include administrative and support services with almost a 106% increase, and wholesale trade, durable goods (warehousing and distribution of consumer products) with an increase of 31%.

2002 Expanded Announcements 2001 Expanded Announcements Percentage Change NAICS Code NAICS Description
364 410 -11.22% 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
219 238 -7.98% 311 Food Manufacturing
218 177 23.16% 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
207 234 -11.54% 325 Chemical Manufacturing
177 280 -36.79% 332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
176 266 -33.83% 333 Machinery Manufacturing
162 123 31.71% 421 Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods
150 353 -57.51% 541 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
129 143 -9.79% 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
99 133 -25.56% 322 Paper Manufacturing
98 200 -51.00% 334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
86 120 -28.33% 422 Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods
77 86 -10.47% 323 Printing and Related Support Activities
74 36 105.56% 561 Administrative and Support Services
73 90 -18.89% 321 Wood Product Manufacturing
73 78 -6.41% 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
73 82 -10.98% 335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Mfg
71 61 16.39% 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
59 71 -16.90% 337 Furniture and Related Products Manufacturing

Source: Whittaker Associates, Inc. and Conway Data Scoreboard

Data Standardization for Site Selection

Friday, February 28th, 2003

By Jeff Finkle

A Task Force for Data Standardization.  Since 1996, the Site Selection Data Task Force has worked to develop a set of data standards to assist economic development professionals in their communication with site selections consultants and others interested in their community as a location for a new store, factory or headquarters.  The end product of the work of this Task Force is 1200 distinct data elements organized into 25 different spreadsheets.  The International Economic Development Council (IEDC), leading site selection consulting firms, and municipal and state development agencies collaborated to define the standards.

This January, the Industrial Asset Management Council gave its official endorsement to the data standards developed by the Task Force.  The support of this leading association of industrial asset management firms is crucial to nationwide adoption of these standards, which would facilitate and speed the task of economic development professionals in responding to the requests of site selection consultants. A set of generally accepted standards will also help communities make their case in a compelling and credible manner to consultants who have often done a significant amount of independent research through third-party sources and who may question the objectivity of the data they receive from communities. 

Bridging the Credibility Gap.  The idea for a task force to develop these standards came out of a panel discussion in Cincinnati, Ohio, at the national conference of the Council for Urban Economic Development that has since merged with the American Economic Development Council to form IEDC.  Leading site selection consultants, including Dennis Donovan of Wadley Donovan and Bob Ady, then with the Fantus Company, observed that much of the site information that they received from economic developers on the local, state and regional level was somewhat meaningless.  Overviews of demographic information were readily available from other sources, and communities’ marketing materials frequently excluded relevant data on the local economic climate.

Charlie Webb, Vice President of the Greater Cleveland Development Corporation, attended this panel discussion and has been involved from the outset in the effort to develop these standards.  He describes the key information these proposed standards would provide as “‘on the ground market info’ – such as a survey of the major industries and what their current wages and benefits are and information on which companies have moved in and out of the area.”  Economic development professionals had been reluctant to share much of this information with site selection consultants, particularly information on companies that had moved out of the region.  Their preference was to attempt to control the process and to present a view of the region that emphasized only its positive aspects. 

Shari Garmise, President of Garmise and Associates and an expert on data standardization, explains that this view had become outdated even before the development of the Task Force.  “Site selection consultants were doing a lot of work on research and background so control of the message was already gone.  Therefore, economic developers are much better off with the standards.”  Use of this data set will allow them to respond quickly to information requests made by site consultants who may be operating on a 30-45-day timeline rather than the traditional six months to a year.  Ron Starner, Director of Publications for Site Selection magazine, emphasizes that the standards help to “bridge the credibility gap.”  He uses the analogy of the development of standards for square footage.  It took years for the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) to promote national standards for the reporting of square footage.  This effort was ultimately successful and “greatly increased market efficiency which helped to drive up rates.”  Adoption of national standards for site selection could promote similar market efficiencies and greatly improve communication between community economic developers, site selection consultants and corporations.

Standards as Guidelines.  It is not necessary to complete all 25 spreadsheets of the data standards before they become a useful tool for economic developers.  In fact, opines George Harben, Director of Research for the Governor’s Office of Economic Development for the State of Carolina, the standards can seem “horribly user-unfriendly” and should be seen more as “guidelines.”  It is impossible to get every developer and community to agree on the exact definition of what makes up a labor force.  However, the standards are a “very interesting and valuable bibliography of the data elements that site selection consultants will most frequently request.” 

Beginning work on completing the data standards is a worthwhile activity even if a community does not have the resources to complete the entire questionnaire.  Assembling this data is an excellent training activity and familiarizes communities with the standard questions of site selection consultants as well as with the formats in which they often request this data.  IEDC and Conway Data, publishers of Site Selection magazine, have partnered to create DevelopmentAlliance.com, a website devoted to training economic developers on the use of these standards.  Information on how to start using the standards is freely available on this site and on the sites of the parent organizations.  

Towards Real National Standards.  Dennis Donovan added his site selection expertise to the work of the Task Force and is “pleased that there are national standards and would expend the time had I to do it again.”  However, he puts the focus on the work yet to be done.  “I am not satisfied by the rate of adoption among economic development agencies.”  The organizations that have developed the standards could “take a more proactive role in promoting and training.  This includes getting [organizations such as] the Corporate Real Estate Network to endorse the standards.”

Advocates of these standards are prioritizing the garnering of endorsements from major agencies, but understand that the acceptance of truly national standards will not happen overnight.  “This is a movement that is in its infancy,” says Ron Starner, “It will probably be take several years before we see widespread adoption.”  Even in the absence of national adoption of these standards, they remain an invaluable tool for communication between communities and corporations as the most extensive existing bibliography of the critical data elements for site selection.