04.03.2008 - TechColumbus shares interest in Benchmarking Central Ohio 2008 study

Benchmarking Report Ranks Central Ohio in Top Tier for Key Workforce Indicators Including Number of Persons of Prime Working Age

Thursday, April 3, 2008
By Jennifer Smith Richards

Results of a recent study benchmarking the Columbus metropolitan area in comparison with 15 other cities were presented Wednesday during a forum hosted by The Columbus Metropolitan Club. The study, commissioned by The Columbus Partnership and conducted by Community Research Partners, provides a snapshot of the region’s strengths and weaknesses as compared to both “peer communities” (those similar to Columbus) and “best-in-class communities” (those having characteristics other communities aspire to). Approximately 50 indicators were identified for benchmarking these characteristics as they relate to the population, economy and quality of life within the regions studied. And as would be expected, Columbus ranked very well in some areas and in need of improvement in others.
“The point of the benchmarking study is to help us identify our advantages and our weaknesses so that we can leverage our strengths while working to fix our challenges,” said Bob Milbourne, president and CEO of The Columbus Partnership.

There are a number of rankings (both positive and negative) of particular interest to the tech community. In terms of the workforce, Columbus ranks in the top tier in higher education enrollment (#4); persons of prime working age (#5) and new residents with a graduate degree (#3). Columbus enjoys a strong distribution of jobs with high concentrations of employment in government (#3); professional and business services (#4); retail trade (#4) and financial activities (#4). And Columbus ranked 4th in the number of Fortune 1,000 companies located here. However, the area ranked near the bottom (#13) in “births” of very small businesses (those with fewer than 20 employees) and dead last in the percent of very small businesses operating within the metro. As for indicators of personal prosperity and community well-being, again, there’s good news and bad news. Columbus ranked 3rd in terms of housing affordability and the gap between top and bottom income groups is smaller than in many metros studied (#5). But the city ranked 15th in terms of persons living below the poverty level.

So what is the takeaway of all this? Two economic development leaders, Mark Barbash, Ohio’s chief economic development officer, and Boyce Safford III, Columbus development director, who served as panelists during the forum, chose to focus on what is working within the region to encourage more of the same activity and results.

Barbash cites the importance of continuing to create an infrastructure in support of the entrepreneurial economy and small business development. He says many of the recent reorganization efforts within the statehouse, as well as tax reform efforts, have been aimed at supporting this infrastructure. Although it’s still too early to see many results from these efforts, Barbash says benefits of these actions will manifest in support of the entrepreneurial economy of the state.

He further believes that the interconnectivity between regions within Ohio will be a key economic driver. He says the connections between Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati can benefit all regions individually and the state as a whole.

Safford is also a proponent of interconnectivity and working together. He believes one of the best things Columbus has going for it is the accessibility and collaboration between the business, government and the social services communities. And he calls OSU “the big elephant” for which the city needs to create an entrepreneurial infrastructure so that the great ideas coming out of this knowledge base can be commercialized and turned into dollars.

Both stressed the importance of the continued support and collaboration between their respective departments and entities within the region such as TechColumbus, Scitech and the business incubator which are helping pave the way for the region’s innovation economy.

They further emphasized that even though the scores in some key indicators were lower than other regions, great progress has been made and both the city and the state are committed to continuing to drive progress.

This is the second year for the benchmarking project and Bobbie Garber, executive director of Community Research Partners who led the study, cautions that with only two data points, no particular trends should be drawn from the report. However it’s a good place to begin looking at the metropolitan region in terms of its potential.

To read the 2008 benchmarking report go here.