Monitoring and Measuring Performance
Several reports document Utah’s economic development performance and activities. Like many states, Utah tends to measure new jobs, new investment, and state revenues generated. Utah is not alone in this approach, but changing times require new metrics. The Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness white paper, Redefining Economic Development Performance Indicators for a Field in Transition (2017), found that, “State economic development leaders have embraced the need to report program outcomes to demonstrate the impact of their efforts but seek better indicators to measure those outcomes.” This reflects the transition from a recession-driven emphasis on job creation (the focus in the early 2010s) to a renewed focus on wealth generation and asset building among communities (reflecting 10 years of economic growth in most states). Identifying the right metrics to supplement the basic jobs and investment tallies has remained a challenge. Utah has the chance to revamp both its metrics and its reporting processes to align with the priorities identified in this strategic plan as well as those articulated by the Legislature. New metrics should convey the quality of jobs and investment in addition to quantity of activity. Additionally, they should capture the effects on residents, communities and new aspects of business vitality. The monitoring and measurement options laid out here (and in Initiative D) are intended to spark a conversation that leads toward consensus building rather than dictate the actual metrics to be used. A key concept throughout the strategic plan is “return on objective” as a complement to a “return on investment” that may focus on returns to the state treasury. “Return on objective” captures the idea that a program or initiative must accomplish a statutory purpose. This purpose is not necessarily related to the fiscal benefit that might be derived to the state from the investment. Instead, it may be a societal benefit that the Legislature has clearly articulated. While this idea is easily described, it is often difficult to implement because so the statutes guiding the creation of so many programs do not include clear purpose statements. For many programs, at their inception, legislators and administrators might have a clear purpose in mind for the program (even if that purpose is not delineated in the legislation). However, as legislative and administrative leaders change over time and programs persist, programs that do not clearly articulate and document those purpose statements in their statute become more difficult to manage because the purpose may be lost, difficult to discern, or has shifted over time. This lack of documentation can lead to conflict as program implementors remember the purpose differently from legislators or seek to achieve returns on investment that may not line up with the purpose as understood by legislators. Given the importance of legislative input, this section should serve as the beginning of an iterative process with Utah’s elected leaders — not a final statement.
33
Utah GOED | 60 East South Temple, Suite 300 | Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 | (801) 538-8680 | business.utah.gov
